/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120917.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 184 Headlines ADVANCE AUTO: Job Applicant Sues Over Background Check BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Radiation Suit BEST WESTERN: Accused of Recording/Intercepting Customers' Calls BEZEQ: Faces NIS154-Million Class Action in Israel BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Dahl" Suit Pending BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit BLUESTEM BRANDS: Recalls 4,700 Range Rider Ride-On Toy Cars BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Guzman" Class Suit BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Three Class Suits in California CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Unpaid Wages Class Suit CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Northera-Related Suit Pending in N. C. CROCS INC: Faces Class Action in California DEL MONTE: Sued Over Chinese-Made Chicken Jerky Dog Treats DOMUS HOLDINGS: Settlement in Suit vs. Cendant Approved in June EBAY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Alleged Search Delays FAMILY DOLLAR: Enters Into Preliminary Class Action Settlement GNC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Dietary Supplements HARRIS TEETER: Recalls Eight Products Sold in Seafood Dept. HEARST: Decision on Interns' Class Action Expected by 2013 INCO LTD: Ontario Judge Awards C$1.7MM in Costs Recovery INTELIUS.COM: December 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks Court OK of Citiline Action Settlement LAND O' LAKES: Judge Orders Extensive Billing Documentation LIVE NATION: Awaits Final OK of Canadian Consumer Suit Deals LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices Litigation Concluded LIVE NATION: Still Awaits Final OK of Ticketing Fees Suit Deal MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Upholds Dismissal of Race Bias Lawsuit METLIFE INC: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in Nevada Suit METLIFE INC: Court Dismissed in June GM Retirees' Suit vs. MLIC METLIFE INC: Defends "Westland" Securities Suit in New York METLIFE INC: Defends Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices METLIFE INC: Faces "Birmingham" Securities Suit in Alabama METLIFE INC: MTL Has Yet to File "Roberts" Suit Settlement Papers METLIFE INC: Suits Involving MLIC Remain Pending in Canada MOSAIC SALES: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action MUELLER SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Home Inspections NMI RETIREMENT: Retiree Amends Class Action Complaint PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Calif. Suit PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: "Primo" Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing in Oct. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Being Sold to TPG for Too Little, Suit Says PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Final Judgment in Texas Class Suit RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Sued for Selling Fraudulent Software STARBUCKS: Appeals $14.1-Mil. Class Action Damages Award STEC INC: Securities Suit in California State Court Still Stayed STEC INC: In Negotiations to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit THE PLAYERS: Unlawfully Withheld Employees' Gratuities, Suit Says UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action VISA: NRF to Oppose $7.25-Bil. Antitrust Class Action Settlement VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Raises Concerns on Damage Claims WELLS TIMBERLAND: Summary Judgment Bid in Securities Suit Pending ********* ADVANCE AUTO: Job Applicant Sues Over Background Check ------------------------------------------------------ Laurence Hammack, writing for The Roanoke Times, reports that a potential class action lawsuit accuses Advance Auto Parts of using background reports on prospective and current employees in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. John H. Stinson, who claims the Roanoke-based company denied him a job based on an inaccurate report showing he had a criminal record, made the allegations in a lawsuit filed on Sept. 11. Although employers often use such reports to screen the backgrounds of prospective employees, the lawsuit claims that Advance violated disclosure and authorization requirements. "By burying its disclosures within their online job application process, Advance willfully disregarded" laws that require a stand- alone form for applicants to authorize a background check, the lawsuit alleges. Shelly Whitaker, a spokeswoman for Advance, declined to comment, citing a company policy of not talking about pending litigation. Filed in U.S. District Court in Roanoke, the lawsuit states that thousands of other people had experiences similar to Mr. Stinson's and could join the lawsuit. The lawsuit asks a judge to certify the matter as a class action proceeding. Mr. Stinson applied for a job with Advance in September 2010 and has no memory of authorizing a background check, according to the lawsuit. "If Stinson authorized a consumer report, the written disclosure given to him by [Advance] was not clear and conspicuous or contained in a document that consisted solely of the disclosure," the lawsuit states. Advance reportedly hired Stinson subject to the report -- only to inform him about 10 days later that the job offer was being rescinded as a result of the background check. After obtaining a copy of the report from the consumer reporting agency that Advance relied on, Mr. Stinson discovered that it listed "many felony convictions for another person, a stranger, named Johnny Stinson," the lawsuit claims. Mr. Stinson said he tried to bring the mistake to Advance's attention to keep his newly offered job, to no avail. According to the lawsuit, Advance uses the same process on occasion with its existing employees. When Advance takes adverse action against people based on the reports, the lawsuit alleges, it typically does not provide the applicants or employees with a copy of the document -- another violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiffs in the case are entitled to up to $1,000 in damages for each alleged violation, plus punitive damages, the lawsuit alleges. Leonard Bennett, an attorney with Consumer Litigation Associates of Newport News who filed the lawsuit, declined to elaborate on the allegations. BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Radiation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Babcock & Wilcox Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In June 2011, approximately 18 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit styled as a "class action" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., B&W, Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. ("B&W PGG"), Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc. ("B&W TSG"), NOG-Erwin Holdings, Inc. and others relating to the operation of the NFS facility in Erwin, Tennessee. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages alleging personal injuries and property damage resulting primarily from alleged releases of radioactive materials as a result of operations at the facility. In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the original complaint increasing the number of plaintiffs to approximately 140, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on June 28, 2012. No ruling has yet been issued by the court. The Company says this matter is still in its early stages. No discovery has been conducted and no trial date has been set. The ultimate outcome of these proceedings is uncertain and an adverse ruling, should coverage not be available, could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flow. BEST WESTERN: Accused of Recording/Intercepting Customers' Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Latroya Simpson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Best Western International, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 12635543 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 20, 2012) arises out of the Defendants' policy and practice of recording and intercepting calls made to the telephone number 1-800-780-7234 without the consent of all parties. The number 1-800-780-7234 connects callers with central reservations for Best Western hotels, a hotel brand of the Company, Ms. Simpson says. She contends that the Defendants intentionally and surreptitiously record and intercept telephone calls made to the number without warning or disclosing to callers that they are doing so. Ms. Simpson is a resident of California. Best Western International is a corporation headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Company removed the lawsuit on September 7, 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. The Company argues that the removal is proper because a member of the class is a citizen of a state different from the Defendants. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv- 04672 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica. Grover, Esq. Carey G. Been, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com cbeen@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: Randall J. Sunshine, Esq. Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. David B. Farkas, Esq. LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE REGENSTREIF & TAYLOR LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 Telephone: (310) 500-3500 Facsimile: (310) 500-3501 E-mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com aagrusa@linerlaw.com dfarkas@linerlaw.com BEZEQ: Faces NIS154-Million Class Action in Israel -------------------------------------------------- On September 11, 2012, Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunication Corp., Ltd. received a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action, which was filed against the Company with the Tel-Aviv District Court. The plaintiff claims that the Company does not send call details with the phone bill as required by the directives of the Ministry of Communications and the Company's license. The aggregate amount sought by the claim is approximately NIS154 million. A similar allegation was made in another motion to certify as a class action filed against the Company with the Tel-Aviv District Court in April 2011. The Company is studying the claim and is unable, at the present stage, to evaluate the claim's likelihood of success. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Dahl" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The Blackstone Group L.P. and other defendants' motions for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit initiated by Kirk Dahl, et al., remain pending, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al.). The lawsuit alleges that, from mid-2003 through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. After the conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of public shareholders that tendered their shares in connection with 17 leveraged buyouts. The court has dismissed claims against Blackstone with respect to four of these transactions because Blackstone was released from any and all claims by the same shareholders in prior litigation. Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. The court has not yet established a schedule for determining whether to certify the shareholder class proposed by plaintiffs. Blackstone believes that the lawsuit is totally without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its June 2007 initial public offering, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering. These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint (Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman (Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G. Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James (Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of the IPO). The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose that (a) one private equity investment would be adversely affected by trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate principally because they overstated the value of the investments referred to in clause (1). In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were immaterial. Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors, the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory firm. In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if true, immaterial as a matter of law. The Second Circuit disagreed with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly" alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted material information concerning two of Blackstone funds' individual investments and inadequately disclosed information relating to market risks to their real estate investments. Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in plaintiffs' favor. The Second Circuit did not consider facts other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint. On June 28, 2011, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed their answer to the complaint and discovery commenced and is continuing in this action. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. Blackstone believes that all of the lawsuits are totally without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. BLUESTEM BRANDS: Recalls 4,700 Range Rider Ride-On Toy Cars ----------------------------------------------------------- About 4,700 Range Rider Ride-On Toy Cars were voluntarily recalled by Bluestem Brands, Inc., of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, owner of Fingerhut and Gettington, in cooperation with the CPSC. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery can overheat, smoke, melt and catch on fire, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. Bluestem has received nine reports of incidents in which batteries smoked or caught on fire and melted the battery's connections or scorched the plastic in the ride-on car. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves battery-powered Range Rider ride-on toy cars with an off-road vehicle body style and plastic tires. The ride- on cars were sold in pink and tan colors. The recalled Range Riders can be identified by their product code and model number. The model number is on the back of the seat of the ride-on toy car. The product code does not appear on the ride-on toy cars, but can be found on the product carton. The recalled models include: Model # Product Code Product ------- ------------ ------- 90407B NI374 Tan Range Rider 90407G NU640 Pink Range Rider Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12747.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Fingerhut catalogs and online at Fingerhut.com and Gettington.com from September 2010 through May 2012 for between $200 and $230. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ride-on toy cars and remove the battery and contact Bluestem for a full refund of the purchase price plus reimbursement for shipping and handling. The firm is directly contacting those who purchased the recalled ride-on toy cars. For more information, contact Bluestem toll-free at (866) 931-5417 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web sites at http://www.fingerhut.com/or http://www.gettington.com/and click on Product Recall. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Guzman" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Betty Guzman, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Eduction, Inc., et al, and alleges that the defendants engaged in misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative class period of March 1, 2005, through the present. In March 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011. In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. However, because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on the information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this action. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Three Class Suits in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is facing three class action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July 6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similar allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012. Finally, on July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company has not yet responded to these complaints and anticipates that, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of that law, and eventually a consolidated amended complaint will be filed. The Company is evaluating these complaints and intends to vigorously defend against them. However, because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss and accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with these actions. CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Unpaid Wages Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- On January 31, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Irma Garcia v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., was filed against the Company in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging various causes of action related to failure to make proper and timely payments to employees in California, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, unfair business practices, associated penalties pursuant to California law, and declaratory relief. While no prediction may be made as to the outcome of litigation, the Company intends to defend against this proceeding vigorously and therefore an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Founded in 1947 and headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts, Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. -- http://www.criver.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides research models and associated services, and outsourced preclinical services to accelerate the drug discovery and development process. The Company operates in two segments, Research Models and Services (RMS), and Preclinical Services (PCS). CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Northera-Related Suit Pending in N. C. ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its Northera product is pending against Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. During the first quarter of 2012, the Company was focused on preparations for the potential commercial launch of Northera(TM) (droxidopa) in the United States in anticipation of Food and Drug Administration approval. However, on March 28, 2012, the Company announced that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter, or a CRL, regarding its Northera New Drug Application, or NDA, filed in September 2011, for the treatment of symptomatic Neurogenic OH in patients with primary autonomic failure (PD, MSA and PAF), DBH deficiency and non-diabetic autonomic neuropathy. The CRL included a request by the FDA that the Company submit data from an additional positive study to support efficacy along with a recommendation that such a study be designed to demonstrate durability of effect over a 2- to 3-month period. Notably, the CRL did not identify any outstanding safety concerns. In addition, the FDA provided draft recommendations to several sections of the draft labeling submitted for Northera, including a preliminary recommendation to include a black box warning related to supine hypertension. However, the letter indicated that such a boxed warning could be reconsidered if suitable data demonstrating a lack of severe hypertension in a fully prone position were provided. Following the receipt of the CRL in March 2012 and the subsequent decline of the market price of the Company's common stock, two purported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012, and another purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the Company and certain of its executive officers. The complaints generally allege that, during differing class periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements related to the Company's development of Northera for the treatment of neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On May 4, 2012, an Order was entered consolidating these three lawsuits. Motions for appointment as lead plaintiff have been filed and briefed and those motions are currently pending before the court. Once a lead plaintiff has been appointed, the Company expects that a consolidated amended complaint will subsequently be filed. The Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit but are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. CROCS INC: Faces Class Action in California ------------------------------------------- Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that footwear manufacturer Crocs Inc. was hit with a proposed class action on Sept. 10 in California court alleging it violated consumer protection laws by recording customers' personal information during credit card transactions and passing that information along to third-party advertisers and marketers. In the suit, plaintiff Massis Hoonanian alleges that he bought merchandise from a Crocs store in Glendale, Calif., in June using a credit card and was asked by the sales clerk for personal information, including his phone number and e-mail address. DEL MONTE: Sued Over Chinese-Made Chicken Jerky Dog Treats ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher V. Langone, Individually, and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Del Monte Corporation, Milo's Kitchen LLC, Kroger Co. and King Soopers, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-04671 (N.D. Calif., September 6, 2012) alleges that the Plaintiff's dog became sick with vomiting, diarrhea and lack of appetite after eating Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats. The representation in Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky dog food packaging that it is "wholesome" is false because dog food containing Chinese chicken jerky is not wholesome and is unhealthy, Mr. Langone alleges. He asserts that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had issued warnings about dog illnesses after consuming chicken jerky dog treats, which were made in China. Mr. Langone is a citizen of New York. While in California between July 25 and July 29, 2012, he fed a number of Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky Dog Treats made by Del Monte to his dog, Maya. Maya became sick after eating the treats. Del Monte is a corporation based in California. Milo's Kitchen, also based in California, is owned and operated by Del Monte. Kroger Co. is a corporation based in Ohio. Kroger Co. owns King Soopers Inc. Kroger Co. supplied the Milo's Kitchen Chicken Jerky Dog Treat at a King Soopers Brand store to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Grenville Pridham, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GRENVILLE PRIDHAM 2522 Chambers Road, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 486-5144 E-mail: grenville@grenvillepridham.com DOMUS HOLDINGS: Settlement in Suit vs. Cendant Approved in June --------------------------------------------------------------- Domus Holdings Corp. received final approval in June 2012 of its settlement resolving a class action lawsuit initiated by Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. against Cendant Corporation, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Realogy Corporation, a Company subsidiary, is a global provider of real estate and relocation services. Realogy was incorporated in January 2006 to facilitate a plan by Cendant Corporation (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies -- one for each of Cendant's business units -- real estate services or Realogy, travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). On July 31, 2006, the separation ("Separation") from Cendant became effective. Domus Holdings is responsible for certain of Cendant's contingent and other corporate liabilities. In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative class action captioned Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. v. Cendant Corp. and Century 21 Real Estate Corporation (N.J. Super. Ct. L. Div., Morris County, New Jersey), against Cendant and Cendant's subsidiary, Century 21. The complaint alleged breach of certain provisions of the Real Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between Century 21 and the plaintiffs, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of certain express and implied fiduciary duties. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Cendant diverted money and resources from Century 21 franchisees and allotted them to NRT owned brokerages and otherwise improperly charged expenses to marketing funds. On August 17, 2010, the court certified a class consisting of Century 21 franchisees at any time between August 1, 1995, and April 17, 2002, whose franchise agreements contain New Jersey choice of law and venue provisions and who have not executed releases releasing the claim (unless the release was a provision of a franchise renewal agreement). On February 16, 2012, as a matter of litigation avoidance, the Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement and on June 4, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement involves both monetary and non-monetary consideration as well as contributions from insurance carriers. During the second quarter of 2012, the monetary consideration of the settlement was funded by the Company and the insurance carriers into an escrow account established to fund claims made by class participants. The non-monetary consideration includes, but is not limited to, waivers and modifications of certain fees and payments of incentive fees. The Company accrued the amount that would be payable beyond carrier contributions in its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2011. The full amount of this settlement was subsequently accrued during the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as the amounts were funded by the insurance carriers and final court approval during that quarter. EBAY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Alleged Search Delays ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that finding that eBay users injured by alleged search delays cannot prove damages, a federal judge dismissed their class action with prejudice. A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in In re: eBay Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-02198 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/ebay.pdf FAMILY DOLLAR: Enters Into Preliminary Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- CBS News reports that Family Dollar says it has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit from more than 1,700 New York store managers on overtime wages. The discount store operator said on Sept. 12 that the maximum payment it will make is $14 million, but that settlement terms are not final. A final settlement between the company and its employees still needs court approval. The process for getting that approval hasn't begun yet. The Matthews, N.C., company expects to take a charge in its fiscal fourth quarter, which ended in August, for costs related to the lawsuit. Family Dollar runs more than 7,400 stores throughout the U.S. GNC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Dietary Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------ Sokolove Law disclosed that GNC Corp. and USPLabs LLC face a potential class-action dangerous drug lawsuit filed by a California resident that alleged the companies sold unsafe dietary supplements containing DMAA (1,3-dimethylamylamine). Law 360 reports that the suit claims the companies manufactured, marketed, and sold dietary supplements like Jack3d that contained DMAA, which is linked to cardiac problems, nervous system disorders, and death. Though retailer GNC Corp. reports only one case of adverse side effect related to a DMAA containing product, its annual report discusses the concern that DMAA breaches the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, writes Law360. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), DMAA can constrict blood vessels and arteries, may cause heart attacks, strokes, and other life-threatening injuries. There have been 42 adverse events reported to the FDA over products containing DMAA. The FDA sent warning letters in April to 10 manufacturers and distributors of products containing DMAA stating that it is not eligible to be used as an active ingredient in dietary supplements. HARRIS TEETER: Recalls Eight Products Sold in Seafood Dept. ----------------------------------------------------------- Harris Teeter, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Harris Teeter Supermarkets Inc., is voluntarily recalling eight products sold in its service seafood department, as listed below, because they contain onions which may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious or life-threatening food borne illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it. Listeria bacteria are most commonly found in raw foods and symptoms may include fever, muscle aches, nausea or diarrhea. Harris Teeter is distributing this notification upon being informed by its manufacturer 3 Fish, Inc. that the crab and lobster products listed below contain onions that may be contaminated with Listeria. Harris Teeter is contacting customers who it has reason to believe purchased the products it is voluntarily recalling. Customers who may have purchased the products between September 3, 2012, and September 7, 2012, are asked to please return them to their local Harris Teeter for a full refund. Precautionary Voluntary Recall Product Description UPC ------------------- -------------- Crab Stuffed Flounder #0020822400000 Crab Stuffed Salmon #0020822500000 Crab Stuffed Tilapia #0020822600000 Maryland Style Crab Cakes, 4 oz #0020967400000 Deviled Stuffed Crab #0020966700000 The Charleston Crab Cake, 4 oz #0020966900000 Signature Lump Crab Cake, 4 oz #0020967000000 Signature Lobster Cake, 3 oz #0020967100000 Product quality and integrity are paramount to Harris Teeter. For additional questions, please contact Harris Teeter Customer Relations, toll-free at (800) 432-6111, Option 2 between 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. HEARST: Decision on Interns' Class Action Expected by 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Beaujon, writing for Poynter, reports that Diana Wang's lawsuit against Hearst has become a class-action lawsuit, and "may be decided as soon as early 2013," Kayleen Schaefer reports. Ms. Wang served as an unpaid intern for Harper's Bazaar, which Hearst owns. Her lawsuit asks for wages and damages for what she contends was really an unpaid job, and about 3,000 former Hearst interns are eligible to join; three others have already joined Ms. Wang. Ms. Wang Googled "intern lawsuit," Ms. Schaefer reports, and contacted Outten & Golden, the firm handling a lawsuit by two interns who worked on "Black Swan." Eriq Gardner reported last month those lawyers were seeking to make that suit a class-action one as well. Ms. Wang reportedly also sued jewelry company Fenton Fallon after an internship there. Outten & Golden attorney Rachel Bien is married to a friend of Mr. Beaujon (he found out she was involved in the suit through this article); Ms. Schaefer quotes her about the educational opportunities supposedly offered to people who work for free: "You wouldn't have an unpaid intern at a Duane Reade store, even if they were learning a lot about retail operations. But you have these pockets, in areas like media and film, where that's the way the industry has operated for a really long time." Fox Entertainment Group now pays interns $8 an hour, Mr. Gardner reported last month. Hearst tells Ms. Schaefer its internships, which are similar to those at many publications, are legal: Hearst maintains that the lawsuit is "without merit." In a statement to The Cut, Hearst vice-resident of corporate communications Paul Luthringer said the company's internship programs "are soundly within the law and offer young people an up- close view of the magazine business." To join Ms. Wang's lawsuit, the remaining 2,996 or so eligible former interns "will have to submit a one-page consent form, which we will be mailing to them and posting online," Ms. Bien tells Mr. Beaujon in an e-mail. INCO LTD: Ontario Judge Awards C$1.7MM in Costs Recovery -------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that an Ontario judge has awarded Inco. Ltd. -- which successfully appealed a C$36 million class action trial judgment in favor of 7,000 Port Colborne residents who claimed that emissions from Inco's refinery had negatively affected property values -- C$1.766 million in costs relating to the trial of the action. The award, which covers the period from the date of certification to the date of judgment after a 45-day trial, will not be encouraging to corporate defendants. Inco's disbursements alone were C$1.532 million plus GST & HST, and the award was a very significant reduction from the company C$5.34 million claim. Kirk Baert and Celeste Poltak of Koskie Minsky represented the class; Alan Lenczner of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin and Larry Lowenstein and Laura Fric of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt acted for Inco; and Scott Hutchison, Aaron Dantowitz and Justin Safayeni of Stockwoods were counsel for The Law Foundation of Ontario. INTELIUS.COM: December 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PAID TO SUBSCRIBE TO IDENTITY PROTECT THROUGH INTELIUS.COM OR A RELATED INTERNET SITE BEFORE AUGUST 21, 2012, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, AND YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, that a hearing will be held on December 6, 2012, at 9:00 am, before the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, in Courtroom 15106, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101-9906, for the purpose of determining whether the proposed partial settlement of the above-captioned litigation should be approved. The proposed settlement benefits members of the class who make valid claims by submitting a Claim Form through the Settlement Website, http://www.identityprotectsettlement.com Class member benefits consist of either a cash payment or a combination of cash and vouchers (good for purchases at intelius.com), depending on the date you purchased your Identity Protect subscription. The proposed Settlement Class is comprised of all persons residing in the United States who subscribed to Identity Protect from the first day the product was offered until August 21, 2012, except for consumers who were not charged, (e.g. who cancelled before seven days) or have already received a full refund (including charge back) of any Identity Protect charges. This partial settlement covers only those claims related to Intelius' marketing of Identity Protect subscriptions. Those claims related to Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Intelius' "post-transaction marketing" of certain membership programs offered by Third-Party Defendant Adaptive Marketing, LLC are not affected by this partial settlement. The hearing will determine whether the partial settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class, and whether the claims relating to Identity Protect described in the Settlement Agreement should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as against the Defendants. You are not required to take any action at this time. You may choose to make a claim. You may file written objections to the settlement and appear at the court hearing. You may choose to exclude yourself from the settlement but if you do so you cannot make a claim and cannot object to the settlement. If the settlement is approved and you do not exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue for the claims the settlement resolves, and you will be bound by the terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel intend to make a request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with this settlement at a point in the future. A copy of the full Notice of Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness Hearing is available at: http://www.identityprotectsettlement.com The Notice contains further information regarding the proposed partial settlement, the benefits available to Settlement Class Members and their rights under the Settlement Agreement, how to make a claim, object to the settlement or exclude yourself from the settlement. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks Court OK of Citiline Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- iStar Financial Inc. disclosed in its August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it and the plaintiffs to a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the Company intend to execute, and seek court approval of, a definitive settlement agreement resolving their dispute. In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. Both lawsuits were purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering ("Offering"). The two complaints were subsequently consolidated in a single proceeding (the "Citiline Action") and an amended consolidated complaint was filed that named as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who served as underwriters in the Offering. On June 4, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs' Court-appointed representatives in the Citiline Action to settle the litigation. Settlement payments will be primarily funded by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company will contribute $2.0 million to the settlement. The agreement in principle to settle the Citiline Action is subject to Court approval and a motion for preliminary Court approval is being prepared for filing. The parties to the Citiline Action intend to execute a definitive settlement agreement, including releases of liability in favor of the defendants. Assuming preliminary Court approval is obtained, notice of the settlement would then be mailed to class members and the Company anticipates that a final hearing would be held in the second half of 2012. Upon final Court approval of the settlement, the Citiline Action will be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and the settlement will be final. LAND O' LAKES: Judge Orders Extensive Billing Documentation ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a federal judge in Philadelphia has done what every judge in a class action should do: She required each law firm involved in a $25 million antitrust settlement to document exactly how much time they spent on the case, and how much they expect to be paid for their work. The results provide a revealing look at the economics of this sort of litigation, where normally only the lead law firms are identified in court. They also raise questions about whether the lawyers can compete vigorously on fees when so many firms are involved in the same case. Documents filed in connection with the Processed Egg Products case against Land O' Lakes and other egg producers show that 34 law firms were involved in the litigation, from big-name national outfits like Bernstein Leibhard and Susman Godfrey to local players like Levin, Fishbein Sedran & Berman, which identifies itself as a Philadelphia products-liability firm. The law firms collectively claim to have run up $11,001,332.40 worth of time on the case, including hours spent by associates and paralegals, as well as some $487,00 in expenses. They're only seeking $7.5 million in fees, however, which they portray as a relative bargain even though it represents 20% of the money they negotiated for their estimated 10,000 clients. The reports were first disclosed by AmLaw. Billing rates range from $1,100 an hour for Susman Godfrey name partner Steve Susman; to $950-$975 an hour for a gaggle of big- name partners like Stephen Neuwirth of Quinn Emmanuel and Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLC; to $350 an hour for associates with a few years of experience under their belts. Judge Gene Pratter ordered the extensive documentation of billing in the case because it is her job to ensure that class members, most of whom have no direct involvement in the case, aren't taken advantage of by their own lawyers. Judge Pratter ordered the firms to report on a wide variety of things, from hours, billing rates and years of experience for individual attorneys to expenses and the existence of any agreements among the firms on fees. It would be unseemly for law firms to collude on their billable rates in an antitrust case. Interestingly, however, the billable rates cluster around certain levels: $750-$950 for senior partners, $375-$450 for experienced associates, and $200-$300 for junior partners. While the legal industry might be as competitive and efficient as, say, the egg business, it's difficult to see how this many firms, linked together with a web of referral agreements, can actually compete on price so their clients get the best deal possible. Especially since the clients aren't actually bargaining for anything; the law firms themselves drive most consumer antitrust cases and only the judge -- and lawyers' own sense of ethics -- stand in the way of full-on collusion with each other and the defendant to strike a settlement that is lucrative for the lawyers and nobody else. The judge also asked the attorneys to explain how they controlled costs. "There was an understanding and agreements," they said in a filing posted on the AmLaw Web site, "that time and expenses in this case had to be reasonable and of the type typically compensated by courts in this District." They went on to say they held frequent conference calls to ensure work was performed in a manner as efficiently as possible, there were no more attorneys on calls than necessary, and most tasks were assigned to two firms instead of four. Designated Counsel are experienced class action attorneys with an understanding of how class action contingent litigations are to be managed in order to minimize or cap expenses and costs. Lavish and extravagant spending are not tolerated and will not be approved. According to the filings, Susman Godfrey spent $28,000 on travel on this case, while Bernstein Leibhard's tab ran to $22,000. As for the actual fee-referral arrangements among the firms, those remain murky. In response to the judge's request for that information, the lawyers said they were "private business arrangements" that contain "proprietary and confidential information." Those arrangements, "do not impact the amount that any class member may receive in this litigation," the lawyers said. "A class member will not receive less because an attorney has a referral obligation to another attorney." Well, maybe yes, maybe no. When 34 law firms, including most of the biggest players in consumer class actions like Seeger Weiss (163 hours at an average of $464 an hour); Lieff Cabraser (66.9 hours at $511); and Bernstein Leibhard (3,040 hours at $524) are all involved in the same case, how much real competition can there be on their hourly rates? LIVE NATION: Awaits Final OK of Canadian Consumer Suit Deals ------------------------------------------------------------ Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlements of consumer class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints were filed in various provinces of Canada against TNow Entertainment Group, Inc. ("TicketsNow"), Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc. All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and causes of action. Each plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February 2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow Web site at prices higher than face value. The plaintiffs characterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario's Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that Ticketmaster's and TicketsNow's service fees run afoul of anti-scalping laws. Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the class. In February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that would, if approved by the courts, resolve all of the resale market claims. The court approval process for the proposed settlement has been commenced, with pre-approvals having been afforded in all provinces in which the actions are pending. The process is expected to take several months, with final approval hearings in all provinces currently scheduled throughout the summer of 2012. As of June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the resale market claims of this matter, the full amount of which was funded by an escrow established in connection with Ticketmaster's 2008 acquisition of TicketsNow. While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to the primary market claims of this matter could be incurred by the Company in a future period, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this time. Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the validity of the claims and damages asserted against the Company. As a result, the Company is currently unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the primary market claims of this matter. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend all claims in all of the actions. LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices Litigation Concluded ------------------------------------------------------------ The litigation against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. alleging anti-competitive practices in the promotion of concerts has been concluded, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda Heerwagen in June 2002 in the United States District Court. The plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain concert ticket purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices for concert promotion services by the Company nationwide caused artificially high ticket prices. In August 2003, the District Court ruled in the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class certification motion and the plaintiff then dismissed her action. Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by different named plaintiffs in various United States District Courts throughout the country, making claims substantially similar to those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature, and the members of the putative classes was limited to individuals who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged. In March 2012, the District Court issued an Order granting the Company's Motions for Summary Judgment and also granting in part its Motion to Exclude Testimony. Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which did not have a material impact to the Company's results of operations. On June 21, 2012, the District Court entered an Order Granting the Joint Stipulation Regarding Decertification of Classes, and on that same day the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice of all actions, thereby concluding the litigation. LIVE NATION: Still Awaits Final OK of Ticketing Fees Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure to disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a profit component is unlawful. Ticketmaster is a subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. The complaint asserted a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's Web site disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009, which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted certification of a class on the first and second causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees. The class would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 to present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to Decertify Class. In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet that provided for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution of all claims therein. The settlement was memorialized in a long-form agreement in April 2011. In June 2011, after a hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement, the Court declined to approve the settlement reached by the parties in its then-current form. Litigation continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011 and subsequently entered into a long-form agreement. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the new settlement in September 2011. In October 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the new settlement. Ticketmaster has notified all class members of the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement was held in July 2012 and an order remains pending. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter, but agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted litigation. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. As of June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.5 million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be material. MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Upholds Dismissal of Race Bias Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Merrill Lynch & Co. won an appeal upholding a federal judge's dismissal of the second of two race-bias lawsuits filed against it by black financial advisers. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago on Sept. 11 affirmed U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman's decision last year to throw out the complaint filed against Merrill Lynch and Bank of America Corp. The Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender acquired the securities firm for $33 billion in 2009. The lead plaintiff in both cases, Nashville, Tennessee, stock broker George McReynolds, alleged the bank and firm devised a discriminatory retention bonus plan when the acquisition was made public in 2008. Mr. McReynolds first accused Merrill Lynch of discriminating against its African-American financial advisers in a 2005 federal court lawsuit that is pending in Chicago. "It is not enough to allege, as the complaint does, that the bonuses incorporated the past discriminatory effects of Merrill Lynch's underlying employment practices," U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "The disparate impact of those employment practices is the subject of the first lawsuit, and if proven, will be remedied there," Judge Sykes said. In the 2005 case, Mr. McReynolds claimed Merrill Lynch's past practices and procedures favored white financial advisers over their black counterparts, impairing their ability to earn comparable incomes. Class Action Judge Gettleman in 2010 denied a motion by Mr. McReynolds and 16 other advisers for certification of the case as a class action, or group lawsuit. That decision was reversed in February by a different panel of judges at the same U.S. appeals court that issued the Sept. 11 decision. Allowing class treatment would prevent courts from having to decide in individual trials whether the firm's practices were unlawful, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote for that unanimous three-judge panel. The bank is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of that decision, said Bill Halldin, a Merrill Lynch spokesman. In a phone interview, he said the firm was pleased with the Sept. 11 ruling. Advisers, Trainees In a July 13 order, Judge Gettleman certified a class of "all African-Americans employed by Merrill Lynch at any time since July 10, 2004, as financial advisers or financial adviser trainees" in the U.S. retail brokerage unit of the firm's Global Private Client division. No trial date has been set for that case, plaintiffs' lawyer Suzanne Bish said on Sept. 11 in a phone interview. The Sept. 11 decision came on an appeal filed after Judge Gettleman had denied the class certification request in the first McReynolds case and before the appellate reversal, she said. That later ruling lessened the significance of the second suit's dismissal. "We're thrilled that our plaintiffs will have the opportunity to recover those same retention bonuses," said Ms. Bish, an attorney at the Chicago law firm Stowell & Friedman Ltd. The cases are McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, 11-01957, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago), and McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 05- cv-06583, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). METLIFE INC: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in Nevada Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its subsidiary's motion for summary judgment in the consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Nevada, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The putative class action lawsuits, Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011), which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from use of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MLIC") of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance ("FEGLI") program. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that under the terms of the FEGLI policy, MLIC is required to make "immediate" payment of death benefits in "one sum." MLIC, plaintiff alleges, breached this duty by instead retaining the death benefits in its general investment account and sending beneficiaries a "book of drafts" known as the "TCA Money Market Option" as the only means by which funds can be accessed. As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing the accounts. In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the breach of contract claim, which the court has stayed. On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss. On May 4, 2012, MLIC moved for summary judgment. Various state regulators have also taken actions with respect to retained asset accounts. The Department of Financial Services issued a circular letter on March 29, 2012, stating that an insurer should only use a retained asset account when a policyholder or beneficiary affirmatively chooses to receive life insurance proceeds through such an account and providing for certain disclosures to a beneficiary, including that payment by a single check is an option. In connection with an ongoing market conduct exam, MLIC has entered into a consent order with the Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding MLIC's use of TCAs as a default option. The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters. METLIFE INC: Court Dismissed in June GM Retirees' Suit vs. MLIC --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by retired employees of General Motors was granted in June 2012, according to MetLife, Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011) was filed by 45 retired General Motors ("GM") employees against MLIC and the amended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") claims based upon GM's 2009 reduction of the employees' life insurance coverage under GM's ERISA-governed plan. The complaint includes a count seeking class action status. MLIC is the insurer of GM's group life insurance plan and administers claims under the plan. According to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a "written guarantee" that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of their lives. On June 26, 2012, the district court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint. METLIFE INC: Defends "Westland" Securities Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. is defending itself from a securities class action lawsuit commenced by the City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff in City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012) filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. In May 2012, plaintiff amended the complaint to add defendants including members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors and several other parties and to add claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Defends Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MetLife, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging improper sales practices, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters. METLIFE INC: Faces "Birmingham" Securities Suit in Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. is facing a securities class action lawsuit captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Alabama, filed July 5, 2012), according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: MTL Has Yet to File "Roberts" Suit Settlement Papers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary has yet to file the final terms of its settlement of the class action lawsuit styled Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007) was filed by a putative class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company ("MTL") and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company. Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged into MTL and no longer exists as a separate entity. These tenants claim that MTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges. In October 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an opinion denying MTL's motion to dismiss the complaint. MTL has reached a settlement in principle, subject to finalizing the settlement terms and court approval. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for this lawsuit. METLIFE INC: Suits Involving MLIC Remain Pending in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits involving MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary remain pending in Canada, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit captioned Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, October 2006), in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. MOSAIC SALES: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a sales company that demonstrates Microsoft video game products makes job applicants submit pictures of themselves and won't hire older candidates who do not "reflect the Kinect and Xbox image," a class action claims. Lead plaintiff Pam Boyer sued Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating Co., in St. Louis County Court. Microsoft is not a party to the complaint. Kinect is a motion-sending device used in Microsoft Xbox games. Pam Boyer says she was older than 40 when Mosaic hired her as a Microsoft product demonstrator in October 2010. She claims Mosaic rescinded its offer 3 days later, based on a picture of her she had to submit as part of the application process. "(B)ased on plaintiff's age, which is apparent from the photograph submitted with her application, Mosaic chastised the territory manager who hired plaintiff and decided that plaintiff could not be hired," the complaint states. Ms. Boyer claims Mosaic has a written, companywide policy that demonstrators must have a "'favorite camp counselor,' youthful . . . personality." She claims Mosaic provides written documents to territory managers stating that young women are "a perfect fit" for demonstrators, and that territory managers should hire "Generation Y" applicants, "which the information defined as individuals born between the late 1970s and early 1990s, because Mosaic told its territory manages that they would be 'hiring a lot of Gen Y,'" the complaint states. It continues: "In accordance with its written policies, Mosaic trained its territory managers to hire Kinect demonstrators who are 'young' and 'youthful' and not to hire Kinect demonstrators who are over 40 years old." Ms. Boyer seeks punitive damages for the class, for violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act. A copy of the Complaint in Boyer v. Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating Co., LLC, Case No. 12SL-CC03332 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/Mosaic.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Eli Karsh, Esq. LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH 230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13 E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com MUELLER SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Home Inspections ---------------------------------------------------------- CBS 12 reports that a South Florida woman has filed a class-action suit against a firm that does home inspections for Citizen Insurance. Stephanie Ritchie of Tequesta, a mother of two, is not happy with Citizens Insurance nor Mueller Services, a contractor that does home inspections for Citizens. In a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court, she and her attorney claim that Citizens and Mueller Services hatched a plan to deny her and many other customers a discount on their homeowners insurance premiums. Ms. Ritchie says, "There's a lot of elderly people that are on fixed incomes and people livin' paycheck to paycheck and this is wrong." She adds, "I don't want them to be able to get away with this!" The class-action suit seeks at least $5-million dollars in damages, and Smith & Vanture, the West Palm Beach law firm handling the case, says there could be many Citizens customers out there who could be entitled to money. Mueller Services did not return our calls seeking comment. Citizens declined comment, saying they are not a party to the suit. NMI RETIREMENT: Retiree Amends Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that one of two previously unnamed plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Gov. Benigno R. Fitial and the NMI Retirement Fund amended her complaint on Sept. 12 to name herself as a lone plaintiff in a class action suit. Betty Johnson named as defendants Gov. Fitial, Fund trustees Adelina C. Roberto and Nacrina Barcinas, former Fund administrator Richard S. Villagomez, Finance Secretary Larissa Larson, the CNMI government, Finance, the Fund, and the Fund board of trustees. Ms. Johnson is suing them for breach of contract, violation of the U.S. and CNMI constitutions, violation of due process, deprivation of rights, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Ms. Johnson asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to certify her lawsuit as a class action and appoint a federal equity receiver to manage the Fund. She also asked the court to issue a creditor's bill in equity. Ms. Johnson asked the court to order the Fund and the CNMI government to collect Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo's judgment, pay, or bring current all CNMI obligations to the Fund, and distribute appropriate retirement benefits. Attorneys Margery S. Bronster, Bruce L. Jorgensen, and Stephen C. Woodruff are counsel for Ms. Johnson. According to the lawyers, this class action arises out of the CNMI's breach of its contractual and constitutional obligations to provide government employees "membership in an employee retirement system" in which their accrued benefits "shall neither be diminished nor impaired." At the Sept. 12 hearing on the issue of Fund's trustee ad litem, the issue of federal equity receiver was also discussed. Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood directed the parties to file briefings about the issue. PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated Calif. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is awaiting a court decision in connection with its demurrer to certain plaintiffs' claims in a consolidated shareholder litigation pending in California, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On October 21, 2011, and October 24, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in two identical putative class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Young v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV509210 and Sandnas v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV509259). On April 4, 2012, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in another putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV512976). The Young, Sandnas and Oklahoma Firefighters Actions have since been consolidated as In re Pacific Biosciences of California Inc. S'holder Litig., Case No. CIV509210 (the "State Court Action"). The State Court Action is a putative class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") of common stock in October 2010. The plaintiffs in the State Court Action seek to allege on behalf of the putative class violations of several provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's August 16, 2010, registration statement (effective, as amended, on October 26, 2010). The plaintiffs in the State Court Action seek, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. Defendants in the State Court Action filed a motion to stay that lawsuit in deference to the Primo action pending in federal district court. On May 25, 2012, the Superior Court denied Defendants' motion to stay. Defendants in the State Court Action have filed a demurrer to certain of plaintiffs' claims. A hearing on Defendants' demurrer was scheduled for August 20, 2012. PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: "Primo" Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing in Oct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in California is presently scheduled for October 11, 2012, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Primo v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:11-CV-06599). On April 11, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in the Primo action, which added another plaintiff, Evan Powell. As amended, the complaint alleges violations of several provisions of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions in the Company's August 16, 2010 registration statement (effective, as amended, on October 26, 2010), and by the Company and/or its employees during the class period. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On April 6, 2012, Mr. Primo was appointed lead plaintiff in the action. Defendants in the Primo action have filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently scheduled for October 11, 2012. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Being Sold to TPG for Too Little, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Par Pharmaceutical Cos. are selling themselves too cheaply through an unfair process to TPG Capital, for $50 a share or $1.9 billion, shareholders claim in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Saratoga Advantage Trust Health & Biotechnology Portfolio v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 15992 in Case No. 33- av-00001 on September 19, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. Henry P. Wolf, Esq. The WOLF LAW FIRM LLC 1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net - and - Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Mark L. Knutson, Esq. William R. Restis, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101-3579 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Final Judgment in Texas Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ priceline.com Incorporated awaits the entry of a final judgment in a class action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse developments in the Company's pending or future cases and proceedings. For example, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other online travel companies that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The court has not yet entered a final judgment in that case. The Company says it intends to vigorously pursue an appeal of the judgment in that case, once it has been entered, on legal and factual grounds. RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Retail Properties of America, Inc. is facing a stockholder class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 26, 2012, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties when the Company listed its stock on the NYSE and made a concurrent equity offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. Based on its initial review of the complaint, the Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. While the resolution of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes, based on currently available information, that the final outcome will not have a material effect on the financial statements of the Company. Retail Properties of America, Inc. -- http://www.rpai.com-- is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust that owns and operates shopping centers across 35 states. The company is one of the largest owners and operators of shopping centers in the United States. SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Sued for Selling Fraudulent Software ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that SpeedyPC Software fraudulently induces people to buy fraudulent software that supposedly speeds up and protects computers, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Bastion v. SpeedyPC Software, Case No. 12-cv-04730 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/12/Bogus.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean P. Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Chandler R. Givens, Esq. E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cgivens@edelson.com STARBUCKS: Appeals $14.1-Mil. Class Action Damages Award -------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Journal reports that Starbucks and baristas served up arguments at the First Circuit on Sept. 11 about whether the Massachusetts Tips Law allows shift supervisors to split tips with baristas. Starbucks is appealing a damages award totaling $14.1 million for the plaintiffs and certification of their proposed class. STEC INC: Securities Suit in California State Court Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit pending in California state court remains stayed, according to STEC, Inc.'s August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 1, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company and several of its senior officers and directors in the Superior Court of Orange County, California. The complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of its senior officers and directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and further alleges claims against several of the Company's senior officers and directors for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint, which arises out of the same underlying factual allegations as the federal court class action, seeks compensatory damages and rescission or a rescissory measure of damages where applicable, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief the Court may deem just and proper. On August 4, 2011, the defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs moved to remand and on October 7, 2011, the Court entered an order remanding the case back to the Superior Court of Orange County, California. On November 16, 2011, the defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of the purported class action lawsuit pending in federal court. On November 16, 2011, the defendants also filed a general demurrer to the complaint. On February 17, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to stay and declined to rule on the defendants' general demurrer. The Company says no amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements for this matter. The Company believes that the contemplated settlement of the securities class action pending in California federal court would result in a release of the class claims asserted in this Superior Court action. STEC INC: In Negotiations to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEC, Inc. is currently in negotiations to settle a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in federal court, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. From November 6, 2009, through March 2, 2010, seven purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and several of its senior officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court consolidated the complaints and appointed Lead Plaintiffs. The Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead Plaintiff. The new Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint that the Court dismissed without prejudice. Thereafter, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the Company's common stock between June 16, 2009, and February 23, 2010. The second amended complaint alleges claims against the Company and several of its senior officers and directors for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and claims against several of its senior officers and directors for violations of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of its senior officers and directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and claims against several of the Company's senior officers and directors for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act. The second amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged actions and further seeks reasonable costs and expenses, rescission, counsel fees, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. The defendants filed motions to dismiss and on June 17, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the underwriters' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims without prejudice and denying the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims. The defendants answered the second amended complaint on July 15, 2011. On November 21, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On January 12, 2012, the plaintiff in a purported class action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California filed a motion for leave to intervene. The defendants opposed both of these motions. On March 7, 2012, the Court denied both motions without prejudice and stayed the action, other than discovery, to allow Lead Plaintiff to cure the issue that resulted in the order denying its motion for class certification. On March 23, 2012, Lead Plaintiff sought permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal from the order denying without prejudice its motion for class certification. The defendants opposed this request, which the Ninth Circuit denied on June 14, 2012. On June 19, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Lead Plaintiff's motion and certifying a class consisting of all persons and entities that, between June 16, 2009, and February 23, 2010, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of STEC, Inc., and were damaged thereby. The defendants subsequently sought permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal from the class certification order, and that request remains pending. On July 30, 2012, the parties to the federal class action attended a mediation to explore a potential settlement. During the July 30 mediation, the parties considered a settlement that would create a fund for the benefit of the settlement class, with no admission or concession of wrongdoing by the Company or any other defendants, in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the federal class action, including claims under both the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. Negotiations are ongoing, and in the event that the parties are able to reach an agreement in principle, the settlement would be subject to final documentation of the agreement, the execution of a stipulation of settlement, as well as preliminary and final approval by the Court. Given the settlement activity, the Company has revised its assessment of this loss contingency and estimates the range of probable loss for the federal class action to be between $34 million and $36 million. The Company has recorded a $35 million loss accrual in current accrued and other liabilities, which represents the Company's best estimate of the probable loss and is the mid-point of the estimated settlement range. The Company has also recorded a receivable of $20 million related to insurance claims receivable based on the estimated amount of probable insurance contribution from the Company's directors and officers insurance carriers for the settlement. The Company has recorded the estimated settlement loss and related estimated insurance recoveries in other (expense) income in the accompanying statement of operations resulting in a net charge of $15 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Upon final settlement, the Company says the actual loss incurred may vary from the loss recorded at June 30, 2012, and may be subject to future adjustment. THE PLAYERS: Unlawfully Withheld Employees' Gratuities, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Canella, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by The Players and John Martello individually v. The Players and/or other entities affiliated or controlled by The Players and John Martello, individually, Case No. 653128/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 6, 2012) is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law on behalf of those who furnished labor to the Defendants, including servers, bartenders, bussers, cooks and other non-exempt positions. The Plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit is brought to recover unpaid gratuities and other statutorily required compensation for work performed on behalf of Defendants by the Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withheld, and personally retained, portions of gratuities provided to employees. Joe Canella is a resident of New York, who is employed by the Defendants as a bartender and waiter since 2003. The Players is a New York corporation and is engaged in the restaurant and catering business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. Kara Belolfsky, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 111 Broadway, 14th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com kbelofsky@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey Brown, Esq. LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Facsimile: (516) 747-5024 E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven N. Bell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Robert J. Pera, John Ritchie, Perry Y. Chung, Christopher J. Crespi, Charles J. Fitzgerald, John L. Ocampo, Robert M. Van Buskirk, UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Pacific Crest Securities LLC and ThinkEquity LLC, Case No. 4:12-cv-04677 (N.D. Calif., September 7, 2012) is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Ubiquiti between October 14,2011, and August 9, 2012, inclusive. During the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices and financial results, Mr. Bell alleges. He contends that the Defendants failed to disclose negative trends in Ubiquiti's business, including widespread problems associated with counterfeit versions of its AirMax wireless gear being made available to the market. Mr. Bell is a shareholder of Ubiquiti. Based in San Jose, California, Ubiquiti designs, manufactures and sells broadband wireless solutions worldwide. The Company offers a portfolio of wireless networking products and solutions, including systems, high performance radios, antennas and management tools, designed for wireless networking and other applications in the unlicensed radio frequency ("RF") spectrum. The Company offers solutions that incorporate its RF technology, antenna design and firmware technologies, which it refers to as AirTechnologies. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Ubiquiti. UBS is a leading global investment banking and securities firm, and one of the largest global asset managers. Deutsche Bank is the U.S. investment banking and securities arm of Deutsche Bank AG. Deutsche Bank provides investment banking products and services. RJA is a financial investment advisory firm. Pacific Crest provides investment banking products and services. ThinkEquity provides institutional brokerage, investment banking, and asset management services to small and middle market public and privately held companies and individuals. These Defendants acted as underwriters for Ubiquiti's initial public offering, helping to draft and disseminate the offering documents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com katek@rgrdlaw.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 519 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Facsimile: (412) 471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP on Sept. 11 disclosed it has commenced a federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Valence Technology, Inc. shares between August 3, 2011 and July 12, 2012. Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003, inquiry@robbinsumeda.com or via the shareholder information form on the firm's Web site. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued material false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Valence was headed for bankruptcy, downplayed the severity of the Company's capital position, and misled investors about the Company's business health and future prospects by evading inquiries concerning Valence's liquidity and assuring the market of the Company's available alternatives for raising capital. Despite making positive statements, the Company did not have enough cash to meet its outstanding obligations. On July 12, 2012, Valence issued a press release disclosing to investors that the Company filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. When the true state of the Company's business health became public, Valence's shares lost approximately 92% of their value. After closing at $0.65 per share on July 13, 2012, shares of Valence Technology common stock closed on July 16, 2012 at just $0.05 per share. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Valence stock during the Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 12, 2012. To discuss your shareholder rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003, via e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com or via the shareholder information form. VISA: NRF to Oppose $7.25-Bil. Antitrust Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Retail Federation on Sept. 11 disclosed that its Board of Directors has authorized the Federation to go to court to block the proposed $7.25 billion settlement of a federal antitrust lawsuit over skyrocketing Visa and MasterCard credit card swipe fees that cost consumers hundreds of dollars a year. "The National Retail Federation categorically opposes the proposed settlement," NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said. "It does nothing to curb the anticompetitive behavior of Visa and MasterCard, and instead ensures that swipe fees paid by retailers and their customers will continue to rise while barring any future legal challenges. The proposal is a lose-lose-lose for merchants, consumers and competition. NRF will take any and all steps necessary to oppose the settlement as it is currently proposed and will work toward real reform of the swipe fee system." A resolution approved by the Board authorizes NRF to take steps including "intervention in pending actions" in order to reach a solution "equitable to the broad merchant community." NRF is exploring what form the legal action might take. NRF is not a party to the lawsuit, and U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson has not yet fully outlined how outside groups will be allowed to intervene, or if the case qualifies as a class action. Mr. Shay announced the Board's decision at the Annual Summit being held in Denver by NRF's Shop.org division. While swipe fees affect all merchants, online retailers are particularly impacted because most of their sales are paid for by plastic and the "card not present" rates Visa and MasterCard charge for online transactions can be a third higher than those paid by other merchants. Swipe fees are a hidden charge banks collect each time a Visa or MasterCard is swiped to pay for a purchase. Combined credit and debit card swipe fees tripled over the past decade to about $50 billion a year driving up prices an estimated $427 for the average household before debit swipe was capped by the Federal Reserve last year. Credit card swipe averages about 2 percent of each transaction, and amounts to about $30 billion a year, or $250 per household. Swipe fees are the second or third-highest expense for most retailers, behind employee salaries and health care benefits. While other trade associations representing big box retailers, convenience stores and grocers have spoken out against the settlement, NRF is the only trade association representing the full range of merchants who could be included in a class action. "A key question for the judge is whether this settlement is fair to the nation's retailers," Mr. Shay said. "From what we have heard, it unequivocally is not. NRF's membership reflects the vast majority of retailers from Main Street small businesses to some of the nation's best-known brands. Short of a company-by- company poll, a vote by the NRF Board is the clearest test of what merchants think." NRF is concerned by a number of provisions of the proposed settlement: NRF is particularly concerned by a provision barring all merchants including those that do not yet exist from ever again suing Visa and MasterCard over swipe fees. "We represent the nation's retailers and that means not just today's retailers but tomorrow's as well," Mr. Shay said. "It is our duty to foster an environment that is supportive of young, new entrepreneurs who will create the Walmarts and Amazons and Main Street shops of the future. We can't stand by and allow their rights to be stripped away before they've even had a chance to start their businesses." As the world's largest retail trade association and the voice of retail worldwide, NRF -- http://www.nrf.com-- represents retailers of all types and sizes, including chain restaurants and industry partners, from the United States and more than 45 countries abroad. Retailers operate more than 3.6 million U.S. establishments that support one in four U.S. jobs 42 million working Americans. Contributing $2.5 trillion to annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for the nation's economy. NRF's Retail Means Jobs campaign emphasizes the economic importance of retail and encourages policymakers to support a Jobs, Innovation and Consumer Value Agenda aimed at boosting economic growth and job creation. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Raises Concerns on Damage Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge on Sept. 11 raised concerns over damage claims from a "strange" jury verdict sheet in a stock inflation class action against Vivendi Universal SA, saying the shares at issue, created during a three-way corporate merger, did not exist during part of the class period. At a status conference on Sept. 11, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin said that the class period for shareholders who held inflated American depositary receipts for Vivendi Universal lists five weeks in which the receipts did not exist. WELLS TIMBERLAND: Summary Judgment Bid in Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Timberland REIT, Inc. and other defendants' motion for summary judgment in a putative class action styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation remains pending, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. ("Piedmont REIT") filed a putative class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, the Company's President and Director; Wells Capital, the owner of the Company's advisor; Wells Management Company, Inc. ("Wells Management"); certain affiliates of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. ("Wells REF"); the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of an internalization transaction by Piedmont REIT on April 16, 2007. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as amended. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT. On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization transaction. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain defenses to the second amended complaint. Since the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said it intends to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million plus prejudgment interest. On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September 20, 2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009. On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009. On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions of fact that must be determined at trial. On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate their subjective views, considerations, and observations during the trial of the case. On February 23, 2012, the Court granted several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by the plaintiff. The lawsuit has been removed from the Court's trial calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court. On March 20, 2012, the court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment. On April 5, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the court. Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this action. Although Wells REF believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and damages in these actions, Wells REF is unable at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate a range of damages, or how any liability and responsibility for damages might be allocated among the 17 defendants in the action, which includes 11 defendants not affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or Wells Management. The ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse impact on Wells REF's financial results, financial condition, or liquidity. ********* 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 * * *