/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120910.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 179 Headlines AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Join Mediation of Los Angeles Case BIRMINGHAM AL: Pepper Spray Suit Obtains Class Action Status BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Approval of Ex-Server's Suit Settlement BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Okay of Ex-Manager's Suit Settlement CABOT CREAMERY: Sued in Calif. Over False Claims on Greek Yogurt CITIGROUP: Sued for Misleading Euro Note Investors COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits COMMONWEALTH BANK: Class Action Trial May Face Delay COVENTRY HEALTH: Being Sold to Aetna for Too Little, Suit Claims COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland DELTEK INC: Being Sold to Thoma Bravo for Too Little, Suit Says FACEBOOK: NC Retirement Systems' Lead-Plaintiff Status Questioned FELTEX CARPETS: Appeals Court Reserves Decision on Defense Costs FOREVER 21: Faces Class Action Over "Penny-Pinching Scheme" FORTUNE INDUSTRIES: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed GOOGLE INC: Subpoena Issued as Part of Class Action HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation LA FITNESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gym Membership Class Action LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Suit Dismissed in July MF GLOBAL: Trustee Files New Motion on General Estate Claims NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes Seek Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit NEW YORK: To Set Aside $735 Million for Settlements NUANCE COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Voice-Recognition Software PHARMACIA CORP: Faces Suit for Carcinogenic Airborne PCBs SANDISK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit Over SD Cards Pending SANDISK CORP: Appeal in "Ritz" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending SANDISK CORP: Continues to Defend Flash Memory-Related Suits SANDISK CORP: Flash Memory Antitrust Suit Dismissed in May SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Wage Suit Sheds Light on Work Conditions SOUTHWEST GUARANTEED: Denies Members' Benefit Claims, Suit Says T-MOBILE: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal TYSON FOODS: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Bids in "Weissman" Suit TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma UNITED STATES: Lobbyists File Class Action v. State Secretary UNITED STATES: Cherokee Farmers Get Settlement Payments WELLS FARGO: Ex-Employee's Suit May Clear Way for Class Action ********* AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Join Mediation of Los Angeles Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company disclosed in its August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it participated in another mediation session in July 2012 of a consolidated action alleging improper sales practices. In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and similar claims. The Company is currently a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims. The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking class action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by the Company; however, no class has yet been certified. The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S. Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean and George Miller. The allegations generally attack the suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65. The plaintiffs seek rescission and injunctive relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class members under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq. As previously reported, the Company participated in mediation sessions with plaintiffs' counsel in 2011 and the first quarter of 2012. In July 2012, the Company participated in another mediation session where potential settlement terms continued to be discussed. However, due to (i) the fact no class has been certified (ii) the lack of specificity as to legal theories put forth by the plaintiffs, (iii) the lack of specificity of the remedies sought, and (iv) the lack of any basis on which to compute estimated compensatory and/or punitive damages, the Company generally cannot predict what the outcome of the pending purported class action lawsuit will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will be, or an estimate and/or range of possible loss related to the pending purported class action lawsuit. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the pending purported class action lawsuit, there can be no assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, or results of operations. American Equity Investment Life Holding Company -- http://www.american-equity.com/-- through its subsidiaries, underwrites fixed annuity and life insurance products in the United States and the District of Columbia. Its annuity products include fixed index annuities and fixed rate annuities, as well as single premium immediate annuities. Its life insurance products comprise traditional ordinary and term, universal life, and other interest-sensitive life insurance products. The Company was founded in 1995 and is based in West Des Moines, Iowa. BIRMINGHAM AL: Pepper Spray Suit Obtains Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Kent Faulk, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that a federal judge has granted class action status to a lawsuit challenging the Birmingham Police Department's use of pepper spray in schools. U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon granted a request by attorneys for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had filed the lawsuit in 2010 with eight named students who were hit by pepper spray, to certify a class consisting of all current and future high school students of Birmingham City Schools for the lawsuit. The questions being answered on behalf of that entire group is whether the police department's policy in the use of pepper spray in schools and the training provided to the school resource officers are "constitutionally defective," according to the judge's order. Attorneys for the police department did not respond to e-mail requests for comment. Jude Kallon, who issued the order on Aug. 31, has previously dismissed the Birmingham Board of Education and superintendent from the lawsuit. He has not ruled on requests by an assistant principal and the police officers to dismiss all remaining claims against them as well. John Carroll, dean of the Cumberland School of Law, said that granting a request for class action status, does not mean a judge won't later rule in favor of the defendants in a case. But what ever ruling the judge makes in the case would apply to the entire class, he said. Having the lawsuit become a class action case was good news to the Southern Poverty Law Center. "This definitely elevates things to a different level," said Ebony Howard, attorney with the center. "This is no longer eight kids challenging the (pepper spray) policy . . . This order is saying that every high school student in Birmingham has standing," she said. "We definitely feel that it is a positive sign," Ms. Howard said. The center filed the lawsuit in late 2010 claiming police officers working at the schools have used pepper spray for what are really just behavioral problems that don't pose a threat to the officers. The center has stated in court documents that since 2006, more than 100 school children in Birmingham have been pepper sprayed, although more recently center officials put that number at 200. The lawsuit seeks a policy on pepper spray use in schools and specialized training for police who service as school resource officers. The police department has a general policy for its officers on use of chemical spray, but has no specific policy regarding use of the spray in schools, according to court documents. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Approval of Ex-Server's Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by a former server, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2012. On February 4, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno, California, on behalf of himself and other current and former servers working in the Company's California restaurants. The complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay wages for on-call time in violation of the California Labor Code, unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, and associated penalties for failure to pay wages in a timely manner. The complaint sought unspecified damages, a constructive trust, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On August 14, 2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which two other former team members joined the action as plaintiffs. The Company answered the operative complaint denying the allegations. The parties reached a settlement in principle of this action in September 2011, and the settlement agreement was fully executed in May 2012. The parties are currently seeking court approval of the settlement. The terms of this settlement are not considered by the Company to be material to its consolidated financial position. The Company recognized a legal settlement expense and related liability in the third quarter of fiscal 2011 for this matter. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Okay of Ex-Manager's Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of restaurant managers in California, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2012. On August 25, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, on behalf of himself and other current and former restaurant managers in California. The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Company's California kitchen managers were misclassified as exempt from overtime and other California wage- and-hour requirements. It alleged causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages in a timely manner, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll records, penalties associated with these claims, and failure to reimburse class members for business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code and unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2010, on the Company's motion, the Court ordered the venue of the case transferred to Orange County. The Company responded to the third amended complaint, the operative complaint, denying the allegations. The parties reached a settlement in principle of this action in July 2011, which was executed fully in February 2012. The parties are currently seeking court approval of the settlement. The terms of this settlement are not considered by the Company to be material to its consolidated financial position. The Company recognized a legal settlement expense and related liability in the second quarter of fiscal 2011 for this matter. CABOT CREAMERY: Sued in Calif. Over False Claims on Greek Yogurt ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims the Cabot Creamery Co-op and Agri-Mark sell Greek yogurt that's not made the authentic Greek way. A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. Cabot Creamery Cooperative, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04591 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/GreekYogurt.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 E-mail: scott@bursor.com CITIGROUP: Sued for Misleading Euro Note Investors -------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup used misrepresentations to sell billions of dollars of euro notes, whose value plummeted during the financial crisis, a United Kingdom-based pension company claims in a federal class action. Rentokil-Initial Pension Scheme sued Citigroup and four of its top officers -- Sanford Weill, Charles Prince, Robert Rubin and Vikram Pandit -- on behalf everyone who bought euro notes from Citigroup between Oct. 12, 2005 and Feb. 25, 2009. Citigroup peddled the euro notes with prospectuses that underestimated the bank's exposure to toxic mortgage-backed securities, and falsely claimed to be "well capitalized," the pension fund claims. The lawsuit does not allege securities fraud. It seeks damages under the United Kingdom's Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or FSMA. "Section 90 of the FMSA is a strict liability statute," the complaint states. "Plaintiff specifically disclaims any allegations of fraud or reckless wrongdoing." Citigroup has been sued several times on claims that it misled investors about collateralized debt obligations tied to the U.S. housing market. In one complaint, the SEC claimed that Citigroup sold $1 billion in mortgage-backed CDOs, which its trader called "a collection of dogsh!t," while secretly shorting the securities. Regulators let the bank settle for $285 million without admitting wrongdoing. The U.K.-based pension demands about $9 billion in damages for Citigroup's alleged misrepresentations of its financial health. "As investors learned in early 2009 that Citigroup was essentially insolvent, the Euro Notes lost approximately $9 billion in value, or approximately 30 percent," the complaint states. The class seeks compensatory damages. Rentokil-Initial Pension Scheme is represented by: Samuel Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Collective Brands, Inc. disclosed in its August 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 1, 2012, among Collective Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), WBG-PSS Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), WBG-PSS Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), and, solely for the purposes of Sections 6.5, 6.8, 6.9 (other than 6.9(e)), 6.13, 6.14(a), 6.17 and Article IX), Wolverine World Wide, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Wolverine"), providing for the merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into the Company. On July 19, 2012 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), five lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the following parties: the Company, its directors and certain of its former and current executive officers, and Wolverine, Parent and Merger Sub. Four of the five lawsuits also named Blum Capital Partners and Golden Gate Capital as defendants. On June 13, 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion to consolidate all five Delaware actions under the caption In re Collective Brands, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7498-VCG. The Delaware plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Class Complaint on June 15, 2012. A previously pending stockholder derivative lawsuit filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas (Israni v. Rubel, et al., case no. 12C297) was amended on May 2, 2012, to include a putative class action alleging certain direct claims relating to the Merger Agreement and naming the Company, its directors and certain of its former and current executive officers, Blum, Golden Gate and Wolverine (but neither Parent nor Merger Sub) as defendants. On June 21, 2012, the parties to the Israni case filed an agreed motion to stay those proceedings pending final resolution of the Delaware litigation, and the Kansas court granted that motion on July 5, 2012. On August 3, 2012, the Company executed a memorandum of understanding with the Delaware and Kansas plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the consolidated Delaware litigation. The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk of the consolidated Delaware action delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement and memorialized in a memorandum of understanding between the parties, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary conditions, including Court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders. After the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal made by stockholders of the Company in accordance with Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders of the Company prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Delaware Chancery Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor. The Company or its successor shall pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Delaware Chancery Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Delaware Chancery Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding would be null and void. COMMONWEALTH BANK: Class Action Trial May Face Delay ---------------------------------------------------- Trading Room reports that a trial relating to the collapse of Storm Financial could blow out to five months if parties can't agree on a number of important facts, a court has heard. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is pursuing action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), Macquarie and Bank of Queensland in the Federal Court in Brisbane, seeking compensation and orders it hopes will improve the standard of banks. The trial, which is due to start this week, relates to the collapse of Storm Financial in 2008. Clients -- many of whom were small investors -- lost approximately $3.6 billion when the Townsville-based financial services company folded. Many are involved in a class action against the banks, and the CBA has lodged a counter-claim against at least one investor. ASIC alleges the three banks committed numerous breaches through their involvement with the operation, including unconscionable conduct and operation of an unregistered managed investment scheme. The banks deny the allegations. Lawyers for ASIC on Sept. 4 told the court they had been engaged in intense negotiations with the banks to agree on a number of issues which would substantially shorten the three-month trial. They proposed all parties meet last week to reach an agreement, but warned that if the process failed there was a possibility the trial may not finish until March. Justice John Reeves is expected to rule on this later on Tuesday. Several Storm Financial investors were in the court on Sept. 4 for the hearing. COVENTRY HEALTH: Being Sold to Aetna for Too Little, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Coventry Health Care is selling itself too cheaply to Aetna through an unfair process, in a cash and stock deal worth $7.3 billion, shareholders say in a class action in Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 7826 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/Aetna.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. McEvilly, III, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: jmcevilly@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Shane T. Rowley, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com srowley@faruqilaw.com - and - Denis F. Sheils, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: dsheils@kohnswift.com COVENTRY HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and several of its current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to provide complete and accurate information about the Company's financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public statements. Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in the same court and were consolidated on December 9, 2009. An amended consolidated complaint has been filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to Certify the Court's March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both of those motions were denied. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the consolidated lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities class action against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and three of its current and former officers in the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel. By agreement, the four shareholders submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel. In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint. The purported class period is February 9, 2007, to October 22, 2008. The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that the Company's public statements contained false, misleading and incomplete information regarding the Company's profitability, particularly with respect to the profit margins for its Medicare Private-Fee-For-Service products. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to that part of the court's March 31, 2011 Order which denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion for reconsideration was denied, but the court did rule that the class period was further restricted to April 25, 2008, to June 18, 2008. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. DELTEK INC: Being Sold to Thoma Bravo for Too Little, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Deltek is selling itself too cheaply to Thoma Bravo, for $13 a share or $1.1 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Bushansky v. Deltek, Inc., et al., Case No. 7827 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST BIELLI & WALLEN, LLC 901 North Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 E-mail: rernst@oebwlegal.com - and - Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. Julia J. Sun, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com jsun@weisslurie.com FACEBOOK: NC Retirement Systems' Lead-Plaintiff Status Questioned ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Daily Tar Heel reports that controversy is roiling over North Carolina Retirement Systems' role as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against Facebook and Morgan Stanley. Critics of the system's status as lead plaintiff argue that there is a potential conflict of interest between it and Facebook. The conflict is due, they argue, to the financial and personal relationship between Erskine Bowles and N.C. State Treasurer Janet Cowell. Using the relationship between Ms. Cowell and Mr. Bowles as a justification for calling for the system to step down as lead plaintiff is overblown. The community should direct its attention to the real issues addressed by the lawsuit. Erskine Bowles is a board member of both Facebook and Morgan Stanley, the investment bank that handled the Facebook initial public offering. Ms. Cowell is a board member and sole trustee of the retirement system. A fundraiser hosted at the Mr. Bowles' household for Ms. Cowell's campaign for State Treasurer on June 22 of last year is held up as an example of the close ties between Ms. Cowell and Mr. Bowles. Opponents of the retirement system as the lead plaintiff argue that Ms. Cowell might not fairly represent the interests of the group of plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit, given her ties with Bowles. However, if there was a conflict of interest, why would Ms. Cowell lead a lawsuit against someone with whom she has close ties? Especially since it could cause Ms. Bowles potential financial losses. Also, the investment firm for which Ms. Bowles is a senior adviser, Carousel Capital, was not directly involved in the system's purchase of Facebook stock. Instead, Sands Capital Management made the purchase. The focus on the Bowles-Cowell relationship is misplaced. If the lawsuit is eventually thrown out by the judge, it should not be for this reason. The retirement system is leading the suit against Facebook and the investment banks who handled the IPO after North Carolina lost more than $4 million since Facebook's public offering. Other firms in the class action lawsuit had a $3 million!)_in_Facebook_lead_counsel_spat/ combined loss, which is much less than the system's loss. In class action lawsuits, the lead plaintiff is traditionally the party that has lost the most money, justifying the retirement system's bid for lead plaintiff. Since the offering on May 18, Facebook's share price has almost halved from $38 to less than $18. Rather than focusing on the Bowles-Cowell connection, it's much more important to look at where the buck stops in this financial decision. This conflict of interest debate is a distraction from the real issue of the lawsuit. Focus should instead be on the shady dealings between Morgan Stanley, Facebook and other investment banks that potentially led to the losses. The class-action lawsuit is legitimate and the community should not call for the system to step down as lead plaintiff. Ms. Cowell representing the state's retirement system in leading the lawsuit against Facebook should challenge claims of a conflict of interest, rather than raise suspicions. Since the system lost the most money, it ought to be the one leading the class action lawsuit. FELTEX CARPETS: Appeals Court Reserves Decision on Defense Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- BusinessDesk.co.nz reports that the Court of Appeal has reserved its decision in the fight to free up director indemnity insurance to cover the cost of defending claims in the Bridgecorp receivership and Feltex Carpets class action. The former Bridgecorp directors Peter Steigrad, Bruce Davidson and Gary Urwin were appealing a ruling in the High Court last year that blocked access to their $20 million directors' and officers' liability (D&O) policy to cover their defense costs. They were joined by the former Feltex board and its insurer Chartis New Zealand who sought a declaration in December on whether their D&O cover could be used for defense costs after the Bridgecorp ruling. Counsel for the Bridgecorp receiver, Murray Tingey, told Justices Mark O'Regan, Terence Arnold and Rhys Harrison in Wellington the structure of the Bridgecorp D&O policy meant defense costs ranked behind a potential claim on liability and couldn't be drawn on. Mr. Tingey argued the full amount should come to the receivers. By pooling the policy's limit, rather than divvying up how much could be allocated to defense costs and how much to liability, secured creditors had priority. "When those directors came to claim their costs, the liability limit was exhausted by the charge, so the insurer can say we're not going to pay this," Mr. Tingey said. "They chose to take a policy with composite (pooling) -- the reason they may have done that was for the benefit of the company, but that's just what the bargain is." The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision in the fight to free up director indemnity insurance to cover the cost of defending claims in the Bridgecorp receivership and Feltex Carpets class action. The former Bridgecorp directors Peter Steigrad, Bruce Davidson and Gary Urwin were appealing a ruling in the High Court last year that blocked access to their $20 million directors' and officers' liability (D&O) policy to cover their defense costs. They were joined by the former Feltex board and its insurer Chartis New Zealand who sought a declaration in December on whether their D&O cover could be used for defense costs after the Bridgecorp ruling. Counsel for the Bridgecorp receiver, Murray Tingey, told Justices Mark O'Regan, Terence Arnold and Rhys Harrison in Wellington the structure of the Bridgecorp D&O policy meant defense costs ranked behind a potential claim on liability and couldn't be drawn on. Mr. Tingey argued the full amount should come to the receivers. By pooling the policy's limit, rather than divvying up how much could be allocated to defense costs and how much to liability, secured creditors had priority. "When those directors came to claim their costs, the liability limit was exhausted by the charge, so the insurer can say we're not going to pay this," Mr. Tingey said. "They chose to take a policy with composite (pooling) -- the reason they may have done that was for the benefit of the company, but that's just what the bargain is." Michael Ring QC, counsel for Chartis, told the court the Bridgecorp directors joined the board "on the faith of the promises" that they would be covered by liability insurance, and that the receivers' position "pulls up the rope ladder and says 'hang on, you're going to have to pay the defense costs yourself'." Mr. Ring said "defense costs cover are fundamental" to the policy contract, with the cover designed to either prevent legal liability, or minimize it, with anything left over to go to a claimant. A claim couldn't be made on the policy until it was quantified, which could only happen after any defense, he said. That would have to lead to defense costs being met by the policy. Austin Forbes QC, counsel for former Feltex shareholder Eric Houghton, who's leading the class suit against the carpet maker, said defense costs advanced by an insurer were conditional, and was only one of four elements that were covered by Feltex's policy to protect against securities claim. Alan Galbraith QC, counsel for the former Feltex directors, said the obligation between the insurer and the insured party would be breached if defense costs couldn't be claimed, and would "increase exposure of the insurer" and "change the contract entitlements for the insured." FOREVER 21: Faces Class Action Over "Penny-Pinching Scheme" ----------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Adams, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that Forever 21 has been known for its legal battles -- even its own employees have filed suit against the mass retailer. And while we're not fazed by any more copyright infringement debacles from the fast-fashion empire, we're a little amused by their latest lawsuit. Carolyn Kellman, a Florida-based lawyer touted as a "fashionista" by the Miami Herald in 2007, has filed a class action suit against Forever 21, citing breach of contract, unfair and deceptive practices and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Ms. Kellman paid $14.46 for a pair of black shorts at Forever 21 on May 12, but was only credited $14.45 ("'exactly $0.01 less") upon returning them on May 30. Ms. Kellman had a similar experience on July 13 when she returned a $11.57 skirt to Forever 21 only to receive $11.56 in return. Now Ms. Kellman's alleging that the store is involved in a mass penny-pinching scheme and she has the receipts to prove it. This type of case isn't rare though -- Chipotle was recently slammed for rounding up their checks in a similar manner. While we still can't wrap our heads around why a woman who was photographed in Christian Louboutin heels holding a Balenciaga bag in the Miami Herald is one to count pennies, the most astounding part of this is how Ms. Kellman was able to file a class action lawsuit in the first place. The threshold for civil actions in her court district is $15,000 -- meaning, she had to find enough people to join the case so that she could cite 1.5 million pennies in damages (that's 750,000 customers since 2007, in case you were wondering). The suit encompasses anyone in the last five years who claims they were charged one cent more or refunded one cent less than they should have been by Forever 21. "It might not be a lot of money, but nonetheless it's a violation," Kevin Love, Ms. Kellman's attorney who filed the complaint, said. FORTUNE INDUSTRIES: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Fortune Industries, Inc. on Sept. 4 disclosed that a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice had been filed with the Superior Court of Indiana, Marion County Circuit in a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Mark Haagen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tena Mayberry, Carter M. Fortune, Paul J. Hayes, David A. Berry, Richard F. Suja, Fortune Industries, Inc., CEP, Inc., and CEP Merger Sub, Inc. filed in April 2012. The case was voluntarily dismissed prior to the Defendants filing an answer. Because the action was dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiff is precluded from bringing another action on this claim. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel received any payment in connection with the dismissal. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with a proposed management- led buyout of the Company, and that the Company aided and abetted the Directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that the proposed transaction involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, self-dealing and unreasonable deal protection devices. Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice following a motion to dismiss being filed by the Defendants. "We are pleased at Plaintiff's decision to dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice," said Tena Mayberry, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We have maintained since the lawsuit was filed that it was without merit, and we look forward to proceeding with our planned management-led buyout of the company. As always, our focus remains on providing superior customer service to our clients and providing long-term value to our shareholders." Fortune Industries, Inc., is a professional employer organization (PEO) focused on small and medium-sized business clients in 47 states, providing human resource consulting and management, employee assessment, training, payroll services, and benefits administration. The company has three divisions operating as licensed PEOs: Century II, Inc., located in Brentwood, TN; Employer Solutions Group, Inc., located in Loveland, CO, Provo, UT, Phoenix and Tucson, AZ; and Professional Staff Management, Inc., located in Indianapolis, and Richmond, IN. GOOGLE INC: Subpoena Issued as Part of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Teddy Schleifer, writing for The Daily Princetonian, reports that University President Shirley Tilghman has been ordered to turn over all her correspondence with top executives at Google, where she serves on the board of directors, as part of a subpoena signed by a New Jersey judge last month. The subpoena was issued as part of a class action lawsuit that alleges inappropriate action by Google's top executives, including Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt '76, and seeks correspondence from all members of the company's board. The subpoena, first reported by The Times of Trenton on Sept. 2, came after attorneys representing the Brockton Retirement Board, a pension fund in the town of Brockton, Mass., that holds shares of Google, filed a lawsuit to prevent the company from going through with a planned restructuring of its stocks. The Retirement Board claims that the stock split would marginalize minority investors like itself while empowering executives like Schmidt and Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The Retirement Board alleges that the split was created to serve the interest of the company's leadership and not the shareholders as a whole. Ms. Tilghman is not being targeted specifically, the Retirement Board's attorney told the Times, and the group does not suspect the University or its president has acted inappropriately. The entire Google board has been asked to hand over documents that may reflect why the leadership chose to split the stock. In addition to the documents, Ms. Tilghman has also been directed to disclose donations and contribution pledges she or the University made to charities and other foundations affiliated with Google leadership. Ms. Tilghman first joined the Google Board of Directors in 2005, at the encouragement of the University Board of Trustees. Ms. Tilghman now treks out to Silicon Valley four times a year for Google board meetings, where she sits alongside Stanford President John Hennessy and earns over $500,000 a year. It is common for university presidents to serve on corporate boards, though it occasionally presents potential conflicts of interest. Ms. Tilghman has said that she recuses herself from Google-related decisions at the University, instead delegating the decision making to University Provost Christopher Eisgruber '83. This year, all undergraduate student e-mail will be switched to Gmail as part of a suite of Google applications offered to students, the closest recent interaction between the University and the technology giant. Mr. Schmidt served on the University Board of Trustees from 2004 to 2008 and now sits on the board of trustees at the nearby Institute of Advanced Study. He last returned to campus on May 10, when he spoke in McCosh Hall about the future of technology. HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that more than a dozen banks and their subsidiaries artificially manipulated the London interbank offered rate (Libor) to give the appearance of financial stability, a class of derivative traders claims. The suit is Courtyard at Amwell II; Greenwich Commons II v. Bank of America; Barclays; HSBC Holdings. LA FITNESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gym Membership Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Wolf Law Firm, LLC disclosed that on Sept. 4, 2012, Senior Judge William H. Walls of the United States District Court in Newark issued an order denying L.A. Fitness's motion to dismiss Martina, et al. v. L.A. Fitness, a putative class action lawsuit charging that the company's cancellation policies are designed to induce gym members to pay dues for additional months after notifying the company of their wish to cancel their memberships. The lawsuit alleges that L.A. Fitness violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, by adopting a cancellation policy that requires gym members to cancel services at least 30 days prior to the next billing cycle, does not permit in-person or telephone cancellations, and requires prepayment of the last months' membership. Judge Walls ruled that the L.A. Fitness's policies alleged in the complaint could constitute "unconscionable commercial practices" prohibited by the Consumer Fraud Act, noting that "[t]he cancellation policy contains an extra month's cost that may catch many consumers off guard at the end of their membership." Judge Walls also noted that L.A. Fitness's policies of accepting cancellations only by mail "fall[s] short of good faith: members cannot terminate membership by phone, online, or even in person at the very location where they joined . . . In this day and age, narrowly restricting the mode of cancellation in such a manner suggests an intent to place barriers in the process." The lawsuit was filed in February by the Wolf Law Firm, LLC of North Brunswick on behalf of the plaintiff, Sophia Martina and all other New Jersey consumers who have been subject to L.A. Fitness' cancellation policies. The complaint asserts that those polices violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Truth in Consumer Contract, Notice and Warranty Act, and seeks monetary damages under those statutes for all effected New Jersey consumers. The complaint also seeks an injunction that would prohibit L.A. Fitness from continuing its unlawful cancellation fee policies in New Jersey. LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Suit Dismissed in July ------------------------------------------------- Logitech International S.A. obtained court approval of its motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit originally filed in New York, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against Logitech International S.A. and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares between October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011. The complaint relates to Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011, that its results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants. The action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 28, 2011. The California Court appointed a lead plaintiff on October 27, 2011. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 9, 2012, which expanded the alleged class period to between October 28, 2010, and September 22, 2011. On July 13, 2012, the California Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. The Company believes the lawsuit and claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. However, there can be no assurances that its defenses will be successful, or that any judgment or settlement in any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. The Company is presently unable to estimate the effects of these claims and legal proceedings on its results of operations, cash flows or financial position. MF GLOBAL: Trustee Files New Motion on General Estate Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel P. Collins, writing for FuturesMag.com, reports that the trustee for MF Global Inc. filed a motion of support for its Aug. 15 agreement to cooperate and assign claims to class action plaintiffs. The claims stem from a civil action against directors and officers of MF Global. The new motion is in response to objections by the Chapter 11 trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., the Creditor's Committee of MFGH and former officers, directors and employees of MFGI. Louis Freeh, trustee for MFGH, in his objection called on the court to reject the motion and assign the general estate claims to the Chapter 11 trustee (Freeh) as a creditor representative. John Witmeyer, attorney in the Sapere action against former MF Global executives (not part of class), filed a reply to Mr. Freeh's objection. In it Sapere argues that customer priority rules dictate that former customers of MFGI be made whole before claims of general creditors are considered. The reply states, "Because of the priority scheme provided to public customers (under the Commodity Exchange Act), the Chapter 11 Trustee is not an appropriate person to be assigned MFGI's general estate causes of action." The Chapter 11 objection seemed to dispute customer priority rules. It stated, "Notwithstanding the fact that the SIPA Trustee owes fiduciary duties to both customers and creditors equally, the Motion is quite clear that the only intended beneficiaries of the Motion and the Agreement are MFGI's customers." The new MFGI motion states: "The Agreement reflects a creative approach to streamlining claims against possible defendants, while maximizing recovery from a limited fund of assets, consisting in large measure of dwindling insurance policies." NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes Seek Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that former college athletes seek certification of their class action that claims the NCAA duped them into signing away their rights to profit from their own images in video games and other materials. In a 2009 class action , former UCLA basketball star Edward O'Bannon claimed the National Collegiate Athletic Association forced students to sign the misleading "Form 08-3a" if they wanted to play NCAA sports. The form "commercially exploits former student athletes" by giving the NCAA the right to profit from their images without compensation, long after the athletes have left school, according to the complaint. The athletes said the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Co. violated federal antitrust laws and conspired to restrain trade by fixing their compensation at $0. The plaintiffs seek certification of two classes: a "declaratory and injunctive relief" class of NCAA basketball or football players whose images were used after they stopped playing college sports; and an "antitrust damages" class of athletes whose images have been licensed or sold. The antitrust damages plaintiffs want the NCAA to disclose revenue data from its members for calculation of damages. The NCAA claims that information is privileged and not relevant. During negotiations with the NCAA, the antitrust plaintiffs agreed to restrict the time period, from July 2005 until the final judgment. In their recent motion to certify the class, the athletes said: "It is undisputed that the NCAA and its member schools have agreed not to pay, and do not pay, current or former student-athletes in Division I football or basketball for the use of their names, images and likenesses in connection with television broadcasts of games and videogames." Representing the athletes, Michael Lehmann, with Hausfeld LLP of San Francisco, wrote that the athletes have proved that their claims meet the criteria for certification. Mr. Lehmann cited a dissenting opinion in a 7th Circuit case involving NCAA contracts as evidence that college sports "have become big businesses." "Despite the nonprofit status of NCAA member schools, the transactions those schools make with premier athletes -- full scholarships in exchange for athletic services -- are not noncommercial, since schools can make millions of dollars as a result of these transactions. Indeed, this is likely one reason that some schools are willing to pay their football coaches up to $5 million a year rather than invest that money into educational resources," Judge Joel Flaum wrote in the 1993 dissent. Mr. Lehmann wrote for the plaintiffs that the NCAA could have compensated athletes in other ways "such as withholding payment until after graduation or paying student-athletes compensation in the form of increased living costs." Suing as a class is the most efficient way of litigating the athletes' claims, Mr. Lehmann claims: "If proposed class members had to proceed with separate actions, this litigation would be unwieldy and unmanageable." Mr. Lehmann also asked that his firm, with offices in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, be appointed class counsel. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is scheduled to rule on the motion on March 7, 2013. A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion by Antitrust Plaintiffs for Class Certification and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof in In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-01967 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/NCAAClass.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Jon T. King, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com jking@hausfeldllp.com abailey@hausfeldllp.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com NEW YORK: To Set Aside $735 Million for Settlements --------------------------------------------------- Henry Goldman, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that New York City plans to spend $735 million this year on settlements or awards in lawsuits claiming negligence, police abuse and property damage, the most in its history and almost six times what Los Angeles pays on a per capita basis. The cost of legal claims is forecast to rise to $815 million by 2016, more than the city pays to run the Parks and Recreation Department, according to budget documents. Among the incidents triggering payments are malpractice in public hospitals, police beatings, improper arrests, collisions with fire trucks and potholes causing accidents. The increase in litigation payouts may put pressure on Mayor Michael Bloomberg as he weighs job and service cuts to close a $3.5 billion deficit in a $72 billion budget next year. The gap widened by $1 billion last month when a court struck down a plan to sell 2,000 new taxi medallions. "It's a huge problem for the city and trial lawyers will say it's only justice, but it's also a matter of some people considering a case before a New York jury the same as winning the lottery," said E.J. McMahon, a research fellow for the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy. The institute calls for changes to contingency fees for plaintiffs' lawyers and advocates a so-called loser pays system for legal costs. One reason New York's legal payouts are rising, according to the Law Department, is that unlike California, Illinois and Pennsylvania, the state has no laws that cap damages or limit liability in suits against municipal governments. The city's claims forecast for this year includes litigation arising from personal injury, property damage and contract disputes. Raymond Orlando, a spokesman for the budget office, said the estimate is based on experience that takes into account the potential for large payouts from lawsuits originating years ago. "These expenses are quite volatile from year to year," Mr. Orlando said. New York spent $664 million on claims in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2011, the most recent year for which data are available, according to the Law Department. Claims alleging personal injury accounted for $565 million, including $119 million for police misconduct and civil-rights violations. New York's 70-year-old mayor is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP. Law Department officials say the office has been able to contain costs, partly through early identification of cases the city should settle. New York's ability to persuade the state Legislature to enact a 2003 law making adjacent property owners responsible for maintaining public sidewalks saved about $40 million a year in slip-and-fall cases, said Kate Ahlers, the department's spokeswoman. New York's payouts dwarf those of other large U.S. cities. Los Angeles, with a population of 3.9 million, paid $54 million for claims in 2011, or about $14 per capita. New York's per capita cost, based upon a population of 8.2 million, is $81. Comparing New York's settlement payments to other cities "is an apples-to-oranges undertaking because of the breadth of agencies and functions covered in New York City's tort payouts and the differences in other states' tort laws," Ms. Ahlers said. The city of Los Angeles, for example, isn't legally responsible for operations under the control of Los Angeles County, which runs local jails and maintains roads, she said in an e-mail. "New York City is a self-insured mega-metropolis with a population of more than 8 million people under a single umbrella for the purposes of tort liability," she said. Unlike most cities, New York has its own system of 11 public hospitals, which generate malpractice claims of more than $130 million a year. Schools in other cities are controlled by independent districts; not so in New York City, where the mayor runs the schools, she said. NUANCE COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Voice-Recognition Software ---------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Fry's sells a $250 Nuance Communication voice-recognition software package that doesn't work, a man claims in a class action. Michael Nathan sued Fry's Electronics and Nuance Communications in Superior Court. He claims that Nuance advertises, falsely, that its Dragon Naturally Speaking software can recognize speech with 99 percent accuracy. Mr. Nathan says he bought the software for $249.99 at Fry's because he does a lot of typing and online research for his job. He says Fry's employees told him he could return the software for a full refund within 30 days if it didn't work. He claims he proceeded to spend "more than two week at 3-5 hours per day reading materials and articles to Dragon Software to recognize plaintiff's speech and accent, [to] no avail." Fed up, he says, he returned the software to Fry's, which refused to refund his money, because, a store supervisor told him, "it was against the law to accept open software." Mr. Nathan seeks restitution class damages and punitive damages for breach of warranty, false advertising, fraudulent inducement, breach contract, unfair competition, and consumer law violations. The rather vituperative, 36-page complaint claims, inter alia, that "Fry's likes people to buy its products, but they hate customers." He is represented Motaz Gerges of Sherman Oaks. PHARMACIA CORP: Faces Suit for Carcinogenic Airborne PCBs --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Lexington, on behalf of all Massachusetts school districts, claims Monsanto/Pharmacia, exclusive U.S. maker of PCBs from 1935-78, contaminated schools with carcinogenic airborne PCBs, in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-11645 (D. Mass.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/ToxicSchools.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Grant, Esq. Esther L. Klisura, Esq. SHER LEFF, LLP 450 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 348-8300 E-mail: jgrant@sherleff.com eklisura@sherleff.com - and - Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443 Telephone: (845) 331-7514 E-mail: kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com SANDISK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit Over SD Cards Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their antitrust class action lawsuit relating to Secure Digital ("SD") cards remains pending, according to SanDisk Corporation's Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD- 3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. Plaintiffs allege the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC. On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and on February 21, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Company disclosed that it received two demand letters dated March 30, 2011, and one demand letter dated February 13, 2012, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A Section 9 ("93A Demand Letters"). The letters gave notice of intention to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the Defendants do not tender a settlement. These letters generally repeat the allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD-3C and Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al. and against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic defendants, and Toshiba defendants in Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al. On April 21, 2011, the Company responded to the March 30, 2011 letters detailing their deficiencies. On March 21, 2012, the Company responded to the February 13, 2012 letter similarly detailing its deficiencies. SANDISK CORP: Appeal in "Ritz" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- SanDisk Corporation's appeal in the antitrust class action lawsuit commenced by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC remains pending, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. In addition, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of its Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. The Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz's allegations of wrongdoing. On September 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit"). On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. The briefing on appeal has been completed. The Federal Circuit has not set a date for oral argument. SANDISK CORP: Continues to Defend Flash Memory-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ SanDisk Corporation continues to defend consumer class action lawsuits relating to flash memory, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. The Company and numerous other companies have been sued in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California in purported consumer class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the pricing of flash memory, and concealment thereof, in violation of state and federal laws. The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of classes of purchasers of flash memory. The lawsuits seek restitution, injunction and damages, including treble damages, in an unspecified amount. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and investigations. The cost of discovery and defense in these actions as well as the final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and expense and may harm the Company's business, financial condition and operating results. SANDISK CORP: Flash Memory Antitrust Suit Dismissed in May ---------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated case captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation was dismissed in May 2012, according to SanDisk Corporation's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), in eight purported class action complaints. On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in a purported class action captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs and disgorgement of profits. The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. On March 31, 2010, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion, and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to substitute certain class representatives. On April 5, 2011, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the class certification decision and on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") to request permission to appeal that decision. On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied that petition. On July 12, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied on August 24, 2011. In May 2012, following a settlement with individual indirect purchasers, the case against the Company was dismissed with prejudice. SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Wage Suit Sheds Light on Work Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------- Kari Lydersen, writing for Working In These Times, reports that a motion for sanctions filed August 23 in a workers' class action lawsuit against southern California Wal-Mart warehouses sheds more light on this structure and alleges that defendant Schneider Logistics failed to provide legally mandated evidence to avoid culpability for workers' wages and working conditions. Last October, workers affiliated with the group Warehouse Workers United filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. district court in California alleging labor law violations at Mira Loma warehouses operated solely for Wal-Mart stores. The lawsuit names Schneider Logistics Inc. (SLI) and its subsidiary Schneider Logistics Transloading and Distribution (STLD) along with the companies Impact and Premier, which hired people to staff the warehouses. Schneider took over operation of the warehouses in 2006. The initial complaint said: Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to recover the wages that defendants stole -- and are continuing to steal -- from them in violation of federal and California law. Plaintiffs also seek redress for other consequences of defendants' unlawful conspiracy, including defendants' wrongful scheme to hide and then cover up the extent of their wrongdoing by failing to keep mandatory payroll records, falsifying records of hours worked and compensation owed, and concealing, denying and/or misrepresenting to the workers the amount of their earnings and on what basis these earnings were calculated. A key question is whether Schneider or STLD directly employed -- and is therefore responsible for the working conditions of -- the plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Everardo Carrillo. The plaintiffs allege that Schneider is their "joint employer" along with the other defendants. Schneider Logistics initially argued that it had "no connection with or responsibility for the operation, oversight, or supervision" of the workers at the Mira Loma warehouses, as quoted in the recent motion. It notes that Schneider Logistics Secretary-Treasurer Amy Schilling signed a sworn declaration saying the company had "no business or contractual relationship" with co-defendants Impact and Premier. And the motion alleges that Schneider sought to continue this image by failing to turn over documents during the discovery process that would have indicated otherwise. In April, Schneider attorneys responded to a discovery request without actually looking for the requested documents, according to the motion. In other words, they allegedly were either sloppy or intentionally avoided turning over evidence to which the plaintiffs have a legal right. This became clear when documents turned over by Impact and Premier included highly relevant Schneider documents which Schneider attorneys had specifically said did not exist. The motion notes: Schneider has now produced thousands of documents it previously claimed did not exist, including over 12,100 pages of personnel files it maintained for the Impact and Premier class members (whom it claims not to jointly employ), and the workplace rules and training requirements it imposed on all class members. The plaintiffs say the new documents show that "Schneider's top managers knowingly made material false statements" to the court, including claims that the warehouse employees are not subject to Schneider employment policies and that Schneider does not keep personnel files on them or set productivity quotas. The documents showed that Ms. Schilling herself signed contracts with Premier and Impact, on behalf of STLD and "its affiliates." Meanwhile, Ms. Schilling is also vice president and controller of Schneider National, the parent company of the other Schneider groups, which actually negotiated the contracts with Impact and Premier. Once it was clear that Schneider did indeed have contracts with Impact and Premier, General Manager Vince Redgrave told the court that the contracts gave Schneider no say over work terms or conditions. The court ordered that Schneider actually produce the contracts, and when it did, as the motion says, "they proved the exact opposite of what Vince Redgrave had testified." The federal district judge, Christina Snyder, wrote in a preliminary injunction ruling that the "contracts dictate nearly every material term of plaintiffs' employment including how Impact and PWV (Premier) must conduct pre-employment screening and new employment training." The documents also showed that, contrary to Mr. Redgrave's previous testimony, Schneider did set specific productivity quotas for the warehouse workers and in fact complained to Premier when the rate of cases unloaded per hour dropped. Schneider officials also talked about how to remedy Impact's "low productivity levels." Warehouse worker groups have long argued that unrealistic and escalating productivity quotas are among the things that lead to high chronic and acute injury rates in warehouses. In July, Warehouse Workers United filed a complaint with California's Occupational Safety and Health Administration office. The recent motion also alleges that Schneider or its attorneys did not order employees to preserve e-mails relevant to the case, as is standard required legal procedure. It says the company has an automatic delete e-mail function for e-mails from the Mira Loma warehouses, meaning e-mails are deleted automatically after a short period of time, and employees also have "absolute discretion" over whether to save or delete e-mails. The motion says Schneider was slow to issue a memo instating a "litigation hold" -- meaning employees should preserve relevant communications. And it alleges even after such a memo was issued, Schneider never enforced it. The motion also alleges that Schneider destroyed and denied the existence of security camera footage that would aid the plaintiffs' case. The motion demands that Schneider turn over video footage and also a log of any video that has been destroyed since October 2011. The motion asks that the court make note of Schneider's alleged misconduct, tell Schneider that further misconduct will result in sanctions, and provide relevant attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs. It notes that the court could also decide to inform a jury of Schneider's false statements and other discovery violations, and asks that the court establish a "rebuttal presumption" that Schneider is indeed a "joint employer" of the plaintiffs. Overall, the lawsuit is part of WWU's and individual workers' ongoing campaign to improve conditions in warehouses and shed light on the complicated employment structure that allows major companies like Wal-Mart to benefit from the low-paid, dangerous work of a largely temporary workforce. SOUTHWEST GUARANTEED: Denies Members' Benefit Claims, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Sonnenschein as trustee of the James R. McDonald Trust, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Southwest Guaranteed Home Equity Program, Case No. 2012-CH-33502 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 4, 2012) arises from the alleged systemic wrongful denial of statutory guarantees and benefits for members of the Defendant, and its failure to perform statutory requirements of behalf of those members. Although she followed all requirements set forth in the Defendant's guidelines, Ms. Sonnenschein alleges that the Defendant wrongfully denied her claims for guarantees and benefits in connection with her intent to sell her parent's trust-owned home. She contends that these denials and failure were due to the Defendant's failure to follow its own guidelines. Ms. Sonnenschein is a resident of Naperville, Illinois. The Defendant is a quasi-municipal program based in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick M. Hincks, Esq. Michael A. Faccenda, Esq. SULLIVAN HINCKS & CONWAY 120 West 22nd Street, Suite 100 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Telephone: (630) 573-5021 E-mail: pathincks@shlawfirm.com michaelfaccenda@shlawfirm.com T-MOBILE: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Tremoglie, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld a federal district court's rejection of a class action request in a case against T-Mobile. The plaintiffs filed a proposed class action asserting, among other things, that T-Mobile unlawfully reactivated their lost or stolen phones without their permission. The case had been appealed from the U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama. The plaintiffs also asserted state law claims of conversion, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. They alleged that they had reported to T-Mobile that their cell phones had been lost or stolen, and the phones that were brought to T-Mobile were activated. According to the opinion issued Aug. 22 by the 11th Circuit, "The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on five grounds. The first ground was that the plaintiffs had not satisfied their preliminary burden of establishing that their proposed class was clearly ascertainable. Here, the court reasoned, in part, that the plaintiffs had 'made no effort to separate out those putative class members who may very well be barred from pursuing class claims due to the existence of valid arbitration agreements or class action waivers that potentially prohibit such litigation.'" The plaintiffs had claimed that that the district made a mistake by concluding that T-Mobile did not waive its right to assert arbitration and class-action waiver defenses, and therefore the court abused its discretion in denying class certification. The 11th Circuit rejected this argument, replying that the plaintiffs do not adequately explain this. Ultimately, the 11th Circuit judges ruled that "we may assume that the district court was wrong about T-Mobile not waiving its arbitration and class-action waiver defenses, and wrong about whether the class was ascertainable and numerous, and wrong about the non-uniformity of conversion law in the fifty states, and wrong about a class action not being the superior method for adjudicating the case." Judge Edward Earl Carnes authored the opinion. The judges said that even if they considered all of those assumptions, the denial of class certification would still not be considered eligible as a reason to reverse the district court. TYSON FOODS: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Bids in "Weissman" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its motions for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit involving its plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company has one pending wage and hour action involving its Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin (Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Jefferson County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010). The plaintiffs allege that employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and the associated time it takes to walk to and from their workstations post-donning and pre- doffing of protective and sanitary clothing. Six named plaintiffs seek to act as state law class representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a state law class of all hourly employees who have worked at the Jefferson plant from October 20, 2008, to the present. The Company has filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, or, in the alternative, to limit the claims made for non-compensable clothes changing activities, the hearing for which was set for August 13, 2012. The parties attended pre-trial mediation on May 30, 2012; however, the parties were unable to resolve the claims. The trial date has not been set. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein company and a food production company with recognized brand names in the food industry. The Company produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R. Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, by three property owners on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake O' the Cherokees. Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc. also are defendants. The plaintiffs allege the defendants' operations diminished the water quality in the lake thereby interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. While the District Court certified a class, on October 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma reversed, holding the plaintiffs' claims were not suitable for disposition as a class action. This decision was upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the District Court with instructions that the matter proceed only on behalf of the three named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $10,000. The Company and the other defendants have denied liability and asserted various defenses. The defendants have requested a trial date, but the court has not yet scheduled the matter for trial. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein company and a food production company with recognized brand names in the food industry. The Company produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. UNITED STATES: Lobbyists File Class Action v. State Secretary ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Cassidy, writing for BostonHerald.com, reports that a half- dozen advocacy groups filed a class-action lawsuit against Secretary of State William Galvin on Sept. 4, alleging his office overstepped its bounds by requiring lobbyists to report every communication they have with a lawmaker about a bill. Lobbyists have to file disclosure reports twice a year with the state. The suit claims that for the first time, Mr. Galvin's office asked them to submit lists of the legislators the lobbyists either spoke to or corresponded with and the bills they discussed. The unexpected request came after the reporting cycle had ended, meaning lobbyists had to recall months-old conversations or even brief exchanges they may have had with lawmakers, and sign the document under the pains and penalties of perjury, said Pam Wilmot of Common Cause. "It would be completely impossible," said Ms. Wilmot, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed in Suffolk Superior Court. "At the end of the session, I talked to 50 legislators a day." The suit claims Mr. Galvin's office is trying to enforce a provision of the state's lobbying disclosure law that simply doesn't exist. "It is overreaching his authority to redefine the statute in such a novel manner that's clearly contrary to what was intended," said Ms. Wilmot. Mr. Galvin spokesman Brian McNiff had no comment on the lawsuit. Plaintiffs named in the suit include Wilmot of Common Cause, Robert Gibbons of AirtStrategies, Ann Lambert of the ACLU, Lael Chester of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Richard Lord of Associated Industries of Massachusetts and Susan Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation. UNITED STATES: Cherokee Farmers Get Settlement Payments ------------------------------------------------------- Cherokeephoenix.org reports that hundreds of Cherokee farmers received individual settlement payments of $50,000 during the week of Aug. 27 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the Keepseagle Settlement, which alleged that between 1981 and 1999 the USDA failed to provide technical assistance and, in some cases, denied or charged higher interest rates to Native Americans for farm loans. "This is something we have diligently worked on for 15 years," Principal Chief Bill John Baker said. "It was based on the federal government not fulfilling their promises to Cherokee farmers. For years (Tribal) Councilor Joe Byrd and I repeatedly brought up the issue in Washington D.C., and they finally recognized the problem and fixed it. These funds will provide much-needed assistance to Cherokee farmers and ranchers and have a major economic impact on the Cherokee Nation." Mr. Baker said he reached out to Cherokee County banks and financial institutions to allow recipients to cash or deposit their settlement checks. He said there has been some alarm at so many recipients walking into banks with checks for such large sums of money. "I hope all of our local banks recognize these checks are legitimate and work with our farmers to process their funds," he said. More than thousand Native American farmers in northeast Oklahoma filed suit against the USDA, more than anywhere else in the country, according to Alicia Seyler, an Oklahoma tribal representative who assisted with USDA loans through the Intertribal Agricultural Council. The $760 million Keepseagle v. Vilsack suit was settled in 2010. Those who received checks in August were part of the Track A claims. Claimants with outstanding USDA loans will be notified at the end of October whether some or all of the debt will be relieved. More severe claims, Track B, will be notified by mail by Oct. 30. The deadline to file a claim was Dec. 27, 2011. WELLS FARGO: Ex-Employee's Suit May Clear Way for Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Epstein, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that Richard Eggers, a call center worker fired in July for putting a cardboard cutout of a dime in a laundry machine 49 years ago, has filed state and federal civil rights complaints against Wells Fargo, the firm that did his criminal background check, and federal banking regulators. Mr. Eggers, 68, of Des Moines, filed the complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, according to attorney Leonard Bates, who is representing him for the Newkirk Law Firm. The complaints clear the way for a possible class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of low-level bank employees like Mr. Eggers who have been fired this year under tightened regulations meant to deter the kind of high-level excesses that helped precipitate the global financial crisis, Mr. Bates said. "We have to exhaust our administrative remedies under the law, and that's why we've filed these complaints," he said. The complaints allege discrimination on the basis of age, sex and disability. They are directed against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, First Advantage, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and the board of directors of the Federal Reserve. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission and EEOC typically decide whether complaints merit investigation a few months after receiving them. They then can dismiss them or launch an investigation of their own, which can result in a lawsuit or settlement against the defendant years later. "We're not going to wait that long," Mr. Bates said. Wells Fargo employed Mr. Eggers as a call center employee for seven years before a criminal background check by First Advantage determined the Vietnam veteran had a prior arrest for fraud. Court documents indicate he was actually arrested and convicted of "operating a coin changing machine by false means." Mr. Eggers was fired in July because of the conviction. Wells Fargo maintains that it had no choice but to let him and others go under the tighter regulations, which include $1 million-a-day fines. The rules also preclude anyone who has spent a day in jail for a transactional crime from qualifying for the FDIC's automatic waiver process. Mr. Eggers spent two days in jail in 1963 after his arrest. The regulations are unfair to older workers because it was more common for people to be jailed for minor crime decades ago, Mr. Bates said. They also disproportionately punish members of minority groups, who are more likely to have been raised in poor communities where they engaged in criminal activity to meet basic needs, he said. One of the other employees Wells Fargo fired was Yolanda Quesada, a 58-year-old Milwaukee woman who was convicted of shoplifting clothes for work 40 years ago. The complaints contain language that's typically reserved for class-action lawsuits. "This complaint is intended to place Wells Fargo, First Advantage, and the FDIC on notice of class-wide intentional and unintentional forms of systemic discrimination affecting protected classes of applicants and employees who are adversely affected by the above- mentioned background check policy," the document filed with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission said. ********* 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 * * *