/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 186 Headlines ALABAMA: State Prisons Sued for Segregating HIV-Positive Inmates ALABAMA: Beverage Board Sued Over Cities' Alcohol Sale Taxes APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over Royalty Payments BEIJING BENZ: Mercedes-Benz C-Class Drivers Mull Class Action CHURCH & DWIGHT: Defends Class Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant COMMONWEALTH BANK: Resolves ASIC Dispute Over Storm Collapse CREDO PETROLEUM: Inks Class Action Settlement Agreement CUT FRUIT: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit Products With Cantaloupe CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Lauriello" Suit CVS CAREMARK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law Violation Suits DISNEY: Judge Refuses to Approve ADA Class Action Settlement EXPEDIA INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing EXPRESS SCRIPTS: All Medco Merger-Related Suits Now Dismissed EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Irwin" Suit EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Supreme Court Decision in "Beeman" Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "North Port" Suit Dismissal Bids Pending INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Suits Over Containerboard Products INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Over Bogalusa Incident KUEHNE & NAGEL: To Settle Antitrust Class Action for $28 Million LEGGETT & PLATT: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suits Remain Pending LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lacks Cash to Cover Class Action Costs MARQUEE STAFFING: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action MERCK & CO: Awaits Rulings in Vytorin Securities Litigation MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits MERCK & CO: Discovery in Vioxx Securities Litigation Ongoing MERCK & CO: Discovery Proceeding in Suits Over Fosamax Product MERCK & CO: Faces Suits by Health Insurers Over Coupon Programs MERCK & CO: Hearing on Vytorin ERISA Suit Settlement on Sept. 25 MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Prisoner Discrimination POLK COUNTY, FL: Jail Faces Class Action Over Pepper Spray Use SERENADE FOODS: Recalls 2,250 Lbs. of Crunchy Chicken Strips SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Defrauds SpeedyPC Pro Consumers, Suit Says SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal in "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Okay of Tennessee Suit Settlement SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend FCRA Violations Suit SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Discrimination Class Suit Dismissed in May SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Two Wage and Hour Suits Pending in Calif. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: In Mediation With "Ridderbush" Suit Parties SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Still Pending in Arizona SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Suit Remains Pending in Washington SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Garza" Suit TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From Privacy Suit Deals Dismissed in May TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From "White" Class Suit Deal Pending TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Virginia Public Records Suit TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate OFAC Alert Info UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action UNIVERSITY CREAMERY: Recalls Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt Products UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Faces Discrimination Class Action VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ********* ALABAMA: State Prisons Sued for Segregating HIV-Positive Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simon McCormack, writing for Huffington Post, reports that Alabama state prisons unnecessarily and cruelly keep inmates with HIV segregated from the rest of the population, according to a class- action lawsuit that was set to go to trial on Sept. 17. "It's an HIV ghetto," according to a blog post by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is bringing the suit. The ACLU writes: The Alabama Department of Corrections automatically excludes all prisoners with HIV from a host of rehabilitative and vocational programs that ADOC offers to all prisoners who don't have HIV -- including trade schools, work release jobs, residential drug- treatment programs for prisoners struggling with substance abuse, and programs for prisoners suffering from serious mental illness. Prisoners with HIV are even barred from the faith-based dormitory and the dormitory for seniors. Prisoners with HIV are also required to wear white armbands at all times, according to the ACLU. A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Corrections did not respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post, but according to the Birmingham News, the state claims the policy was put in place for financial and safety reasons. Prison officials said the current system allows the inmates to be treated by specialists, and the care would be too pricy to dole out if it were provided to everyone. In its editorial, the Birmingham News dismisses that argument, since "all prisons already provide medical care; dispensing HIV medications isn't going to add to the bill." As for the claim that HIV-positive inmates are kept out of rehabilitative programs, the Birmingham News alleges that in recent years, the state has made it so that affected inmates can take part in education and religious programs and "in theory, get work-release jobs." Rehabilitative and educational programs have been shown to reduce recidivism. Prison officials also say the policy helps guard against the spread of HIV. But Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, told HuffPost that justification doesn't hold water. She notes that, while many states instituted segregation policies when HIV and AIDS first emerged, medical evidence on how the disease is spread have made separating inmates an ineffective and unnecessary step. Currently, only Alabama and South Carolina separate prisoners based on their HIV status. "The absolute most important thing which has made transmission plummet in prisons is the use of the new anti-retroviral therapies," Ms. Winter said. "Medical care providers are now allowed to start treatment as soon as someone tests positive for HIV. When that happens, in the vast majority of cases, the virus drops to an undetected level." Ms. Winter notes that both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care both do not condone HIV prisoner segregation. Ms. Winter also notes that HIV-positive prisoners in Alabama come in contact with other inmates outside of their living quarters and in jails, among other locales. "The only point of the system is to keep prisoners out of scores of incredibly important rehabilitative and vocational programs because they have HIV," Ms. Winter said. "It's a sham." ALABAMA: Beverage Board Sued Over Cities' Alcohol Sale Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Bullard, writing for The Cullman Times, reports that four residents of Cullman County have filed a class action lawsuit against Hanceville, the Alabama Beverage Control Board and 26 other Alabama cities and towns, alleging their recent transformation into 'wet' municipalities is invalid, and that the taxes they collect on the sale of alcohol are illegal and have caused harm to the plaintiffs. In spirit, the suit represents an effort to overturn the state legislature's approval of a law two years ago that opened the way for smaller Alabama cities and towns to conduct wet/dry referenda. The suit claims that the legislature violated the Alabama Constitution when it passed a bill amending an older statute that had previously allowed only cities with populations of 7,000 or more the same privilege. That bill, HB 175, amended the Alabama Municipal Option law of 1984. Controversial at the time of its 2009 passage, HB 175 was vetoed by then-governor Bob Riley, a move that was subsequently overturned by the legislature. The four plaintiffs -- Jeremy Eddleman, David Holmes, Jason Hunt and Gregory Shedd -- recently filed the lawsuit in Montgomery County circuit court. The plaintiffs are all residents of Cullman County; Hunt and Shedd reside in the City of Cullman. Local attorney Todd McLeroy, along with Huntsville-based attorneys Morris, King & Hodge and the Glasscox law firm in Birmingham, are representing the plaintiffs. In order for the plaintiffs to claim they were harmed by paying allegedly invalid taxes on alcoholic beverages, the four made alcohol purchases in each of the cities and towns named as defendants in the lawsuit. In Hanceville, the allegedly injurious purchase was made by Mr. Holmes. The suit indicates he also bought alcohol in Sulligent and Sumiton, two other towns where voters have recently approved legal alcohol sales under provisions established with the passage of HB 175. Hanceville Mayor Kenneth Nail called the suit 'frivolous' on Sept. 12, saying the complainants don't have a vested interest in each of the cities and towns they're suing, and should let the will of the people in each municipality prevail over their personal agendas. "The people here voted, and it's absolutely frivolous to have four people who don't live in Hanceville filing a lawsuit -- one that puts a hardship on small towns to spend money that they don't have defending themselves -- over something that's none of their business," Mr. Nail said on Sept. 12. "We're wet now; the residents of Hanceville made that decision, and this lawsuit is an insult to our residents. It's disgusting." Mr. McLeroy declined to comment on Sept. 12 on how the four plaintiffs came together to recognize and act upon their alleged injuries at the defendants' actions. He emphasized the lawsuit is, in spirit, aimed at overturning HB 175 -- a product of what he described as 'bumbling legislation' -- in favor of new legislation unencumbered by legal inconsistencies. "Yes, we filed this lawsuit, but if we hadn't filed it -- believe me, someone else would have," said Mr. McLeroy. "The reason we filed this lawsuit has nothing to do with the towns. It's not the towns' fault; it's the legislature's fault: they passed a bill that is unconstitutional. "They can fix it; they can go back and pass it correctly and allow these municipalities to hold their referenda again. We're not trying to hurt these towns -- in fact, you notice that the state ABC board is named as a defendant -- but the towns are the victims of bumbling legislation." The suit recounts in detail the history of HB 175's movement through the regular session of the 2009 legislature. It alleges the bill illegally was amended to address more than one statutory subject; it further claims the bill assumed the force of a local act, without its proponents offering the required public notice, when it excluded Blount, Clay and Randolph counties from its enforcement. "The way the legislature changed the law was wrong," Mr. McLeroy said. "They took a bill that had to do with club licenses in Shelby County, and they tacked on this municipal option amendment, which has two subject matters -- a violation of the constitution. Governor Riley actually vetoed the bill on that basis. "The law is also unconstitutional because it exempts three counties from operating under it, which makes it a local bill. And local bills have to be advertised in the counties that are affected, which, without question, never happened in this case." The suit asks that the court deliver an injunction halting the defendant municipalities from issuing liquor licenses. It also seeks a preliminary injunction that would stop the cities and towns from collecting taxes on alcohol sales until the case has been decided. It asks the defendants to bear the cost of attorneys' fees. Because the number of plaintiffs under the class action could easily exceed the few whose names are listed in the lawsuit, attorneys also are asking the court to recognize the four plaintiffs as class representatives. APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over Royalty Payments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Corporation continues to defend itself from two class action lawsuits related to oil and gas royalties, 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. Two potential class action lawsuits are pending in respect of oil and gas royalties paid by the Company: Foster v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. CIV-10-0573-HE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Joyce Holder Trust v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv- 03872, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. There has not yet been class certification in these cases. Plaintiffs in the Foster case have asserted recently that they may seek damages of approximately $100 million. No facts have been introduced that would support that amount or any lesser amount. No specific dollar amount has been claimed in either case. Apache says it intends to vigorously defend against these claims. BEIJING BENZ: Mercedes-Benz C-Class Drivers Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Ye, writing for Global Times, reports that some Mercedes- Benz C-Class drivers plan to file a class action lawsuit against Beijing Benz Automotive Co for potential health problems caused by the smell in cars. "Designated persons are collecting information about the affected drivers and will bring a class action suit over quality problems of C-Class cars to the court after detailed discussion with lawyers," said a Benz driver surnamed Chen who declined to tell his full name, a member of an online right protection group on QQ, which had 395 members from all over the country by press time. "My Benz C200 has a strange smell ever since I bought it, making me too uncomfortable to drive," said a Benz driver surnamed Yuan who bought a car from Suzhou Lei Shing Auto Services, an authorized Benz retailer in East China's Jiangsu Province, on April 29. During a test on June 21, the Jiangsu-based Detection Technology Co found that Yuan's car contained 0.404 milligrams of formaldehyde, a cancer-causing chemical, per cubic meter, over three times higher than the national standard, Yuan said. "Many people around me have encountered the same quality problems which are unacceptable because of the health risks. But until now I have not received any constructive solutions from either Beijing Benz or Lei Shing," Yuan told the Global Times on Sept. 13. Lei Shing's gate has been blocked by drivers for more than a week now, he said. Beijing Benz Automotive Co, a joint venture founded by Beijing Automotive Group, Daimler AG and Daimler Northeast Asia Ltd, could not be reached for comment. Liu Tangshan, an after-sales service manager at Lei Shing, revealed to the Global Times on Sept. 13 that Lei Shing was summoned by Wuzhong District People's Court in Suzhou over the smell in Benz cars which could cause health problems. "We have actively reacted to this allegation and will obey the court's decisions," Liu told the Global Times on Sept. 13. "Beijing Benz is jointly responsible for the cars its retailers sell. The drivers can either sue Beijing Benz or the retailers for the quality problems in the cars," Wang Xu, a lawyer from Beijing-based Lantern Law Firm, told the Global Times on Sept. 13. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Defends Class Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant --------------------------------------------------------------- Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful advertising, marketing and sales of ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant, 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 has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant. Specifically, on March 9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and breach of implied warranty. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company uses a marketing and advertising campaign that is centered around the claim that the ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant is a "natural" product that contains "natural" ingredients and provides "natural" protection. The complaint alleges the advertising and marketing campaign is false and misleading because the product contains artificial and synthetic ingredients. Among other things, the complaint seeks an order certifying the case as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class. The complaint also seeks restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the Company as a result of the alleged misconduct; compensatory, actual, statutory and other unspecified damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and the purported class; up to treble damages for alleged violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; punitive damages for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; an order requiring the Company to immediately cease its alleged wrongful conduct; an order enjoining the Company from continuing the conduct and acts identified in the Complaint; an order requiring the Company to engage in a corrective notice campaign; an order requiring the Company to pay to Plaintiffs and all members of the purported class the amounts paid for ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant; statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the allegations asserted in the Complaint. While an adverse outcome in this matter is reasonably possible, at this initial stage of the litigation it is not possible to estimate the amount of any damages or determine the impact of any equitable relief that may be granted. COMMONWEALTH BANK: Resolves ASIC Dispute Over Storm Collapse ------------------------------------------------------------ The Australian Associated Press reports that the Commonwealth Bank has reached a resolution with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) over the collapse of Storm Financial. But the bank will continue to defend a separate class action before the Federal Court in Brisbane. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) says the agreement will make an additional AUD136 million available to many of its customers who invested through Storm Financial, including those who took part in the group's resolution scheme. "The total of the payments already provided to customers, together with the additional funds to be made available through this agreement, will be in the vicinity of AUD270 million," the bank said in a statement. ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft said 2,400 investors would get back 55 per cent of what they lost. "It was always my view that it needed to be above 50 per cent," he told reporters in Sydney. "The outcome is 55 per cent of loss, which I think is a fair outcome. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Mr. Medcraft said there was always a reasonable chance of court action being unsuccessful. "Many of these investors are elderly, and this has placed an enormous amount of strain on those investors," he said. "Rather than spending years in the court system through appeals etcetera, frankly I think the CBA has taken a very wise move in doing the right thing." Mr. Medcraft said the Sept. 17 class action trial in the Federal Court in Brisbane would go ahead. "Monday's trial will proceed against Macquarie Bank, the Bank of Queensland and Storm, and in respect of this settlement we will lodge a settlement with the court on Monday with the basis of not continuing to proceed in our action against the Commonwealth Bank," he said. CREDO PETROLEUM: Inks Class Action Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Wright, writing for Denver Business Journal, reports that Credo Petroleum Corp., an oil and gas company based in Denver, announced on Sept. 14 it has signed an agreement to settle a shareholder class-action lawsuit over a planned acquisition by Forestar Group Inc., based in Austin, Texas. Forestar said in June it was planning to buy Credo for $146 million in cash. But an investor in Credo then filed the lawsuit in a Delaware court in an effort to block the proposed takeover at $14.50 per share. The plaintiff alleged that the company directors breached their fiduciary duties by trying to sell the company at an unfair price and without considering other offers. Credo agreed to a settlement in the case, it said, to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The company denies all claims in the lawsuit and any breach of fiduciary duty, as alleged. The settlement provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement, which the court then would have to approve. A special meeting of Credo stockholders is scheduled for Sept. 25. CUT FRUIT: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit Products With Cantaloupe ----------------------------------------------------------- Cut Fruit Express, Inc. of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota is voluntarily recalling, out of an abundance of caution, packaged fruit products containing cantaloupes, distributed through September 5, 2012, with certain Use-by Dates, since they contain cantaloupe which have been recalled by supplier DFI Marketing Inc., due to potential contamination with Salmonella. No illnesses have been reported specific to the Cut Fruit Express Products that are the subject of this voluntary, precautionary recall. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella may experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The voluntary recall extends only to the products with certain Use-by Dates and sold in the following states: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin No other Cut Fruit Express products are included in the recall. Consumers who may have purchased the affected product are advised not to eat any of the affected product, immediately dispose of the product or return the product to the place of purchase for credit. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 651-438-8834. Retailers should check their inventories and store shelves to confirm that none of the products are present or available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories. Cut Fruit Express, Inc. has earned an outstanding safety record and has taken immediate precautionary measures to protect public health by issuing this voluntary recall. Cut Fruit Express service representatives have already contacted all customers impacted and are in the process of confirming that the recalled products are not in the stream of commerce. CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Lauriello" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Caremark Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class certification in the lawsuit initiated by John Lauriello, 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. Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. A hearing was held in May 2012 on class certification and adequacy issues, but the court has not yet issued a ruling on these matters. CVS CAREMARK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their securities class action lawsuit originally filed in Rhode Island, according to CVS Caremark Corporation's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against directors and officers of the corporation. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed pending the outcome of this appeal of the securities class action. CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law Violation Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that CVS Caremark Corporation has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case. In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision which vacated the order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of the Bellevue case. Plaintiffs in the Bellevue case dismissed their lawsuit in federal court and determined not to seek arbitration and are again pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeals of the district court ruling compelling arbitration. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust 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. DISNEY: Judge Refuses to Approve ADA Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that for the second time, a California judge on Sept. 14 declined to approve a class action settlement requiring Disney to make its theme parks more accessible to the visually impaired, saying a release of damages claims needs to be worded more narrowly. U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee gave attorneys for Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US Inc. and visually impaired park users three more weeks to come up with language that protects class members' due process rights. EXPEDIA INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that hotel operators and travel Web sites conspired to fix the price for room reservations, a class says in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, echoing the claims of the past month. A copy of the Complaint in Wittenberg v. Expedia, Inc. et al., Case No. 12-cv-04754 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/14/expedia.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Ruthanne Gordon, Esq. Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq. Candice J. Enders, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: rgordon@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net cenders@bm.net EXPRESS SCRIPTS: All Medco Merger-Related Suits Now Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- All cases arising from the merger with Medco Health Solutions, Inc. are now dismissed, Express Scripts Holding Company 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. On July 20, 2011, Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") entered into a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with Medco Health Solutions, Inc. ("Medco"), which was amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on November 7, 2011, providing for the combination of ESI and Medco under a new holding company named Aristotle Holding, Inc. The transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the "Merger") were consummated on April 2, 2012. Aristotle Holding, Inc. was renamed Express Scripts Holding Company (the "Company" or "Express Scripts") concurrently with the consummation of the Merger. For financial reporting and accounting purposes, ESI was the acquirer of Medco. Several lawsuits were filed by stockholders of Medco challenging the Merger following the announcement on July 21, 2011, that ESI and Medco had entered into a definitive merger agreement. The complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco and/or various members of Medco's board of directors as well as ESI and certain of its subsidiaries that are party to the merger agreement. Twenty-two complaints were filed in three different venues: the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey. The plaintiffs in the purported class action complaints generally alleged, among other things, that (i) the members of Medco's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Medco and its stockholders by authorizing the proposed merger and (ii) ESI and three of its subsidiaries -- Plato Merger Sub, Inc., the Company (then Aristotle Holding, Inc.) and Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc. -- aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Medco and its directors. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger transaction on the agreed-upon terms, and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and disbursements of the action. A class was certified in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The cases filed in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey were stayed on August 26, 2011. On November 7, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed upon the terms of settlement, and plaintiffs agreed to withdraw applications for preliminary injunction of the acquisition and stay all further litigation pending court approval of the settlement. The terms of the settlement are reflected in the Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, which was included as Exhibit 2.1 to ESI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 8, 2011. On April 18, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the settlement and dismissed the cases before it. On May 30, 2012, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed the cases before it with prejudice. On June 12, 2012, the cases pending before the Superior Court of New Jersey were dismissed by consent of parties. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Irwin" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company is awaiting a court decision on a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit styled Irwin v. WellPoint Health Networks, 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. On March 25, 2003, plaintiff in Irwin v. WellPoint Health Networks, et al. (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) filed a complaint in California state court against WellPoint Health Networks and certain related entities, including one of the acquired NextRX subsidiaries (collectively "WellPoint"), the Company's predecessor, Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI"), and other pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") alleging his right to sue under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). ESI was dismissed in 2008, but WellPoint remains a defendant. This case purported to be a class action against the PBM defendants on behalf of self- funded, non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 health plans and individuals with no prescription drug benefits that have purchased drugs at retail rates. On May 6, 2004, WellPoint invoked an arbitration clause and the case against WellPoint was stayed and sent to arbitration. On February 24, 2006, plaintiff served an arbitration demand against WellPoint alleging that numerous WellPoint business practices violated the UCL and making claims on behalf of California residents who paid taxes, California residents who were beneficiaries of non-ERISA health plans, and California residents who obtained prescription benefits from non-ERISA health plans. On October 11, 2006, WellPoint filed its response to the arbitration demand. No further activity occurred until July 16, 2012, when WellPoint filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's arbitration demand for failure to prosecute the case for over nine years. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Supreme Court Decision in "Beeman" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company is awaiting a supreme court ruling in connection with an appellate court's request for an authoritative decision in the class action lawsuit filed by Jerry Beeman, 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. On December 12, 2002, a complaint was filed against Express Scripts and NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC and several other pharmacy benefit management companies, captioned Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (Case No.021327, United States District Court for the Central District of California). The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a putative class action, alleges rights to sue as a private attorney general under California law. The complaint alleges that the Company, and the other defendants, failed to comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide the Company's California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices. On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. On June 2, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and remanded the case to the district court. The district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on California state first amendment constitutionality grounds is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the outcome of the appeal. On July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 16, 2011, defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc for the Ninth Circuit's reconsideration of its ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss, which was granted on October 31, 2011. On June 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit certified the first amendment issue for the Supreme Court of California's review and requested an authoritative decision on the question of California constitutional law. The Supreme Court of California accepted the Ninth Circuit's request on July 18, 2012, and the Company awaits the Court's ruling. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "North Port" Suit Dismissal Bids Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss an amended complaint in the class action lawsuit initiated by North Port Firefighters' Pension against a subsidiary of International Paper Company 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. Temple-Inland Inc. is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group, Temple-Inland's former financial services business which was spun off by Temple- Inland in 2007, during the period December 12, 2007, through August 24, 2009. Temple-Inland distributed the stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders on December 28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial Group was an independent, publicly held company. The action is pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who acquired Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class period. Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders after it was an independent, publicly held company, the action repeats many of the same allegations of fact made in the lawsuit captioned Tepper v. Temple-Inland Inc. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes the claims made against Temple-Inland in the North Port lawsuit are without merit, and it intends to defend them vigorously. The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, and thus, the Company believes it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred. Each of the individual defendants in both the Tepper litigation and the North Port litigation has requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-Inland and has asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-Inland. The Company is advancing costs of defense which have been expensed as incurred and believes that all or part of these costs and any potential damages awarded against the individual defendants and covered by any Temple-Inland indemnity would be covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors and officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a reservation of rights letter. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Suits Over Containerboard Products --------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company continues to defend itself and its subsidiary against class action lawsuits brought by purchasers of its containerboard products, 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 September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland Inc., were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period August 2005 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee, alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action. However, because both actions are in the preliminary stages, the Company is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Over Bogalusa Incident -------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company is facing a class action lawsuit over a fish kill incident at its subsidiary's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill, 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 August 2011, the Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill of a Temple- Inland Inc. subsidiary received predictive test results indicating that Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from the wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded after an upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reports of a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident). Temple-Inland, a Company subsidiary, promptly initiated a full mill shut down, notified the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of the situation and took corrective actions to restore the water quality of the river. On September 2, 2011, Bogalusa mill operations were restarted upon receiving approval from the LDEQ. The LDEQ, the Mississippi DEQ, and other regulatory agencies in those states have each given a notice of intent to levy penalties and recover restitution damages resulting from the Bogalusa Incident. To date, the Company have settled for a total of approximately $1 million the known claims of various Mississippi regulatory agencies and the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Department (LDWF). However, the settlement with the LDWF for restitution damages related to the Bogalusa Incident is being challenged in the state district court for Washington Parish, Louisiana, in a lawsuit brought by the district attorney for Washington Parish. Temple-Inland Inc. (or its affiliates) is a defendant in 17 civil lawsuits in Louisiana related to the Bogalusa Incident. One case is the LDWF lawsuit filed by the district attorney for Washington Parish. Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana state court and have been removed and consolidated in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in that court styled McGehee v. TIN Inc. (filed September 20, 2011). On August 2, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit related to the Bogalusa Incident was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of certain Mississippi property owners. Additional lawsuits may be filed in connection with the Bogalusa Incident following the date of this report. At this preliminary stage, the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss and other effects from these pending proceedings. However, the Company believes many of the claims are without merit, and it is defending them vigorously. KUEHNE & NAGEL: To Settle Antitrust Class Action for $28 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dow Jones Newswires reports that Swiss logistics company Kuehne & Nagel International AG on Sept. 14 said it will pay $28 million to settle an antitrust law suit in the U.S. MAIN FACTS: - Kuehne & Nagel has entered into an agreement to settle a US class action lawsuit alleging anticompetitive practices in relation to certain surcharges for freight forwarding services - The US based class action lawsuit sought civil damages for conduct previously investigated by the US Department of Justice. - The class action settlement, which is subject to US court approval, provides that Kuehne + Nagel will pay an amount of $28 million, and in addition, assign proceeds itself receives from a pending class action against airlines. The payment will be effected from a provision built for this purpose. - Karl Gernandt, Chairman of Kuehne + Nagel International AG said: "With this settlement we will be able to finally conclude the painful litigation in the United States related to past antitrust allegations -- already in November 2011 the respective United States District Court approved the plea agreement between Kuehne + Nagel and the US Department of Justice." LEGGETT & PLATT: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suits Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated continues to face antitrust class action lawsuits commenced by purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the U.S. and 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. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging that competitors of the Company's carpet underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws. A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, the Company has been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 (although the underlying lawsuits do not name the Company as a defendant); and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011; and (c) 29 individual direct purchaser cases, (i) one filed March 22, 2011, (ii) another amended August 24, 2011, to remove class allegations, (iii) one amended August 25, 2011, to name the Company as a defendant, (iv) three others filed October 31, 2011, (v) one filed November 4, 2011, (vi) three filed December 6, 19 and 30, respectively, (vii) one filed January 27, 2012, (viii) five filed March 19, 2012, (ix) one amended March 30, 2012, to name the Company as a defendant, (x) one filed April 27, 2012, (xi) three filed April 30, 2012, (xii) two filed May 11, 2012, (xiii) one filed May 17, 2012, (xiv) four filed May 25, 2012, and (xv) one filed June 12, 2012. All of the pending U.S. cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD- 02196. In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May 6, 2011, the Company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. The Company has been named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 15 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100 million, punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The Company is not yet required to file its defenses in the Canadian actions. In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-06-00524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add the Company and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case. On June 22, 2012, the Company was also made party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated - Polyurethane Foam Class Action." The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the Company violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon its alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. The Company has not yet filed its response to this action. The Company denies all of the allegations in all of these actions and will vigorously defend itself. This contingency is subject to many uncertainties. Therefore, based on the information available to date, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any. Based in Carthage, Missouri, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is a manufacturer of components for residential furniture and bedding, power foundations, carpet underlay, components for office furniture, drawn steel wire, automotive seat support and lumbar systems, and bedding industry machinery. LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lacks Cash to Cover Class Action Costs ---------------------------------------------------------- Ted Griggs, writing for The Advocate, reports that Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. may have to borrow $100 million through bonds to cover the cost of Hurricane Isaac claims and proposed settlements for two class-action lawsuits the insurer's board of directors approved on Sept. 13. Citizens must keep at least $125 million in cash on hand -- enough to cover the cost of one hurricane and the cost of purchasing reinsurance to protect itself from excessive claims, Citizens Chief Financial Officer Steve Cottrell told board members. However, Citizens expects to pay out an estimated $50 million to $75 million to cover 15,000 to 17,000 Isaac-related insurance claims and potentially $21 million and $40 million for the two proposed lawsuit settlements. That means Citizens could be spending between an estimated $111 million and $136 million total. There's also a chance the settlements could be rejected at the levels offered. If nothing is done to solve the problem as estimated, Citizens will run out of cash in early 2013 after paying the Isaac claims and the legal settlements, Mr. Cottrell said. "We're at least $100 million short," Mr. Cottrell said. The board did not vote to borrow any money on Sept. 13. However, the board did vote to take a technical step that preserves Citizens' right to issue more bonds. In other action, the Citizens board approved a proposal to increase commercial property insurance rates by an average of 56.9 percent statewide. Citizens has 5,687 commercial policies and 75 percent of them are wind-and-hail-only coverage, which covers hurricane damage. Almost all of those policies are in the New Orleans area and coastal parishes, according to Citizens. The increase includes the cost for enough reinsurance to cover the damage caused by a 1-in-100-year storm and a risk component, Mr. Cottrell said. All of the major insurance companies carry at least that much reinsurance, he said. Citizens now buys the level of reinsurance that covers a 40-year event because it hasn't had the money for the higher coverage level, Mr. Cottrell said. If Citizens bought enough reinsurance for a 100-year-storm, the chance that the company would have to issue an assessment on insurers in the state would drop to less than 1 percent. Even with the 56.9 percent increase, Citizens' wind-only policies will cost less than the amount private insurers charge for that portion of the coverage, Mr. Cottrell said. As for the two lawsuits Citizens proposed settling, one is known as the Orill class-action lawsuit, a dispute over late payment of hurricane Katrina and Rita claims. Citizens is offering to pay $1,000 per claim, less attorney's fees and expenses, and is setting aside $21 million. The other case is the second phase of what is called the Oubre class-action lawsuit, a dispute over the length of time it took Citizens to begin the claims process for hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Citizens is offering $4,500 per claim and $900,000 to cover administrative and court costs, and is setting aside $40 million, Citizens Chief Executive Officer Richard Robertson said. Citizens was forced to pay close to $105 million -- roughly $12 million of that legal interest -- in a judgment in the first phase of the Oubre lawsuit. That class included 18,573 policyholders. The board also listened to a proposal for Citizens' staff to take over the management of claims and payments and to issue all policies by 2014. The move could conservatively save $7 million a year, Citizens Chief Operating Officer Vijay Ramachandran said, and possibly up to $10 million. The savings include the cost to add 18 to 22 staff positions, according to the proposal. Citizens would handle around 40 percent of its non-catastrophe claims in-house. Citizens now contracts with two private companies to handle all of the claims and policies issued, and those companies would continue to handle claims from hurricanes. Mr. Cottrell presented two long-term options for covering the $100 million shortfall that Citizens faces: Issuing more bond debt. In 2006, Citizens issued $978 million in bonds to cover Hurricane Katrina claims, paying on it over time through assessments that Citizens placed on other insurers in the state. The insurers passed the cost on to property owners throughout the state, but the Legislature is allowing a tax credit that many homeowners fail to claim each year. Under its bond agreements, Citizens has the right to borrow more money if the Katrina claims exceeded the original amount, Mr. Cottrell said. The actual cost for Katrina claims has been around $340 million higher than the original estimate. However, under the bond agreements, Citizens can only borrow the money to recover the expenses over the last 60 days, which include the $105 million Oubre payment. After expenses, Citizens would clear $100 million to $101 million, Mr. Cottrell said. This option would require Citizens to continue collecting an assessment from property owners for three extra years, until 2029, Mr. Cottrell said. But the assessment amount in those three years would be less than 1 percent of the premiums property owners paid (0.86 percent in 2027, 0.83 percent in 2028 and 0.80 percent in 2029.) Next year, the average homeowner will pay $54, a 3.74 percent assessment, to cover the bond payments. At current prices, the average homeowner's assessment would be less than $15 a year during the three extra years. The major advantage to this approach is that property owners would get a tax credit for the assessment, said board member Sen. Dan "Blade" Morrish, R-Jennings. Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said the bond debt gives Citizens the opportunity to spread the payment among all Louisiana taxpayers rather than limiting it to property insurance policyholders. Declare a 2012 deficit and collect a regular assessment, which can be up to 10 percent of property premiums, from the insurance industry. Citizens could raise up to $200 million within 30 days under this option, Mr. Cottrell said. Mr. Donelon said the major disadvantage for this option is that insurance companies can pass the assessment along to policyholders, something 99 percent of them did after the Katrina bonds assessment. The board will take the matter up again at its November meeting. By then, Mr. Donelon said the insurer should have a better idea of its Isaac claims, and Citizens will also know if it needs to cover the damage from another hurricane. MARQUEE STAFFING: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego labor lawyers Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Marquee Staffing on September 6, 2012, alleging that the company required their employees to work off the clock while donning and doffing their work uniforms. Lawson, et al. v. Marquee Staffing, Case No. 37-2012-00103717-CU- OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The class action Complaint alleges that Marquee required the employees to wear company provided uniforms, which consisted of a cloth apron, hair nets, and latex gloves. Marquee also allegedly required the employees to change into their uniforms upon arriving at work and change back into their regular clothes before leaving work. The complaint further alleges that Marquee never paid the employees for the time spent donning and doffing their uniforms or for the time spent walking to and from the dressing area and time clock station. Managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norm Blumenthal states, "the time spent putting on and taking off company provided uniforms and safety gear at the start and end of work is compensable work time." Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law firm that represents California employees with wage and hour claims against their current or former employer. If you are seeking to collect unpaid wages, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik for a free confidential consultation by calling (866) 771- 7099. MERCK & CO: Awaits Rulings in Vytorin Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is awaiting court decisions on motions for class certification and summary judgment pending in the federal securities lawsuit captioned In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation, 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 July 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its global restructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") that was initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacy Merck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses. This Merger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the cost structure of the combined company. As part of this latest phase, the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the time of the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Company worldwide. In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court which has been consolidated in the District of New Jersey with another federal securities lawsuit under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in October 2008 and named as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Merck delayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made false and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that once the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales of Vytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer. In December 2008, Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In September 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. In June 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further amend the consolidated complaint, which was granted on February 7, 2012. On February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which defendants answered on February 23, 2012. In February 2012, the parties completed briefing on lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion is now pending before the court. On March 1, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. That motion is now fully briefed and pending before the court. There is a similar consolidated, putative class action securities lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred Hassan, under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation. The amended consolidated complaint was filed in September 2008 and names as defendants Schering-Plough; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors; and underwriters who participated in an August 2007 public offering of Schering- Plough's common and preferred stock. In December 2008, Schering- Plough and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In September 2009, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss. In February 2012, the parties completed briefing on lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion is now pending before the court. On March 1, 2012, the Schering-Plough defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and the underwriter defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Those motions are now fully briefed and pending before the court. Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend remaining lawsuits arising from the use or purchase of its Vioxx product, 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 September 30, 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx, its arthritis and acute pain medication, from the market worldwide. Merck is a defendant in approximately 100 federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or use of Vioxx. Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. There is one U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuit currently scheduled for trial in 2012. Merck has previously disclosed the outcomes of several Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits that were tried prior to 2012. All post-trial appeals have been resolved. There are pending in various U.S. courts putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss. In the Vioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain. In June 2010, Merck moved to strike the class claims or for judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, which includes the 30 cases, and briefing on that motion was completed in September 2010. The Vioxx MDL court heard oral argument on Merck's motion in October 2010 and took it under advisement. In 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The Vioxx MDL court issued an order in April 2012 enjoining the Missouri plaintiffs from offering any evidence that does not sufficiently exclude damages attributable to claims already settled through the prior personal injury and third-party payor settlements and from executing any judgment obtained through admission of such evidence. The Missouri plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has set an expedited briefing schedule on plaintiffs' appeal. Trial has been rescheduled for November 1, 2012, in light of the appeal. In Indiana, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana. That case has been dormant for several years. In April 2010, a Kentucky state court denied Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The trial court subsequently entered an amended class certification order in January 2011. Merck appealed that order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals and, on February 10, 2012, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's amended class certification order and denied certification. The plaintiff has petitioned the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' order. Merck opposed the petition, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has not yet ruled. Merck has also been named as a defendant in several lawsuits brought by, or on behalf of, government entities. Six of these lawsuits are being brought by state Attorneys General and one has been brought on behalf of a county. All of these actions except for an action brought by the Kentucky Attorney General are in the Vioxx MDL proceeding. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx. These lawsuits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. Judge Fallon remanded the Kentucky case to state court on January 3, 2012. Merck's petition to appeal that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied. The lawsuit brought by the county is a putative class action filed by Santa Clara County, California on behalf of all similarly situated California counties. Merck moved for judgment on the pleadings in the case brought by Santa Clara County in September 2011. The court granted Merck's motion on March 20, 2012, but gave the county leave to file an amended complaint. Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. MERCK & CO: Discovery in Vioxx Securities Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is currently proceeding in the consolidated securities litigation related to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Vioxx product, 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 addition to the liability lawsuits over the Company's Vioxx product, various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery is currently proceeding in accordance with the court's scheduling order. As previously disclosed, several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits. Also in October 2011, a new individual securities lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey by several foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. On January 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on March 26, 2012. On August 1, 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full. By stipulation and order, defendants are not required to respond to the complaints in the remaining individual securities lawsuits until on or about September 15, 2012. Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. MERCK & CO: Discovery Proceeding in Suits Over Fosamax Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in product liability lawsuits relating to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Fosamax product, 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. Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of June 30, 2012, approximately 3,615 cases, which include approximately 4,175 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,200 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 2,415 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax. Cases Alleging ONJ and Other Jaw Related Injuries In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax ONJ MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a result of the JPML order, approximately 950 of the cases are before Judge Keenan. In the first Fosamax ONJ MDL trial, Boles v. Merck, the Fosamax ONJ MDL court declared a mistrial because the eight person jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The Boles case was retried in June 2010 and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $8 million. Merck filed post-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. In October 2010, the court denied Merck's post-trial motions but sua sponte ordered a remittitur reducing the verdict to $1.5 million. Plaintiff rejected the remittitur ordered by the court and requested a new trial on damages, which is scheduled to take place on September 18, 2012. Merck intends to appeal the verdict in Boles after the new trial on damages has concluded. Three other cases have been tried to verdict in the Fosamax ONJ MDL. Defense verdicts in favor of Merck were returned in each of those three cases. In February 2011, Judge Keenan ordered that there will be two further bellwether trials conducted in the Fosamax ONJ MDL. Spano v. Merck and Jellema v. Merck were selected by the court to be tried in 2012, but each case was dismissed by the plaintiffs. On March 28, 2012, the court selected Scheinberg v. Merck as the next case to be tried and set the trial date for January 14, 2013. Outside the Fosamax ONJ MDL, in Florida, Carballo v. Merck has been set for trial on October 15, 2012, and Anderson v. Merck has been set for trial on January 14, 2013. In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the Atlantic County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of the Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tort designation and centralized management before one judge in New Jersey. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising out of the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental and jaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seeking medical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralized management purposes before Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic County Superior Court. As of June 30, 2012, approximately 240 ONJ cases were pending against Merck in Atlantic County, New Jersey. In July 2009, Judge Higbee entered a Case Management Order (and various amendments thereto) setting forth a schedule that contemplates completing fact and expert discovery in an initial group of cases to be reviewed for trial. In February 2011, the jury in Rosenberg v. Merck, the first trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding, returned a verdict in Merck's favor. In April 2012, the jury in Sessner v. Merck, the second case tried in New Jersey, also returned a verdict in Merck's favor. In California, the parties are reviewing the claims of two plaintiffs in the Carrie Smith, et al. v. Merck case and the claims in Pedrojetti v. Merck. The cases of one or more of these plaintiffs are expected to be tried in 2013. Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax ONJ MDL litigation, the New Jersey coordinated proceeding, and the remaining jurisdictions where Fosamax cases are pending. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Cases Alleging Femur Fractures In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL"). As a result of the JPML order, approximately 510 cases were pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of June 30, 2012. A Case Management Order has been entered that requires the parties to review 40 cases (later reduced to 33 cases) with a fact discovery deadline of July 31, 2012, and an expert discovery deadline of November 28, 2012. Judge Joel Pisano has selected four cases to be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and has set an April 8, 2013 trial date for the first bellwether case. As of June 30, 2012, approximately 1,535 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Higbee in Atlantic County Superior Court. The parties have selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed or advised that they will dismiss seven of the cases that were selected and discovery in the remaining cases is continuing. Judge Higbee has set March 4, 2013, as the date for the first trial of the New Jersey state Femur Fracture cases. As of June 30, 2012, approximately 350 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in California state court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge Steven Perk is now presiding over the coordinated proceedings. No scheduling order has yet been entered. Additionally, there are nine Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. A trial date has been set for August 12, 2013, for the Barnes case pending in Alabama state court. Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. MERCK & CO: Faces Suits by Health Insurers Over Coupon Programs --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. is facing class action lawsuits brought by health insurers allegedly injured by its coupon programs, 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. Since March 2012, a number of private health plans have filed separate putative class action lawsuits against the Company alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured health insurers by reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts, thereby allegedly causing beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise would have purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement costs. The actions, which were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Southern District of Illinois, seek damages and injunctive relief barring the Company from issuing coupons that would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide classes of health insurers. Similar actions relating to manufacturer coupon programs have been filed against several other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal courts. The Company says it intends to defend against these lawsuits. Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. MERCK & CO: Hearing on Vytorin ERISA Suit Settlement on Sept. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hearing on final approval of Merck & Co., Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated lawsuit brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 over its Vytorin product is scheduled for September 25, 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. In July 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its global restructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") that was initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacy Merck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses. This Merger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the cost structure of the combined company. As part of this latest phase, the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the time of the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Company worldwide. In April 2008, a member of a Merck ERISA plan filed a putative class action lawsuit against Merck and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Since that time, there have been other similar ERISA lawsuits filed against Merck in the District of New Jersey, and all of those lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin ERISA Litigation. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in February 2009, and names as defendants Merck and various current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. The plaintiffs allege that the ERISA plans' investment in Merck stock was imprudent because Merck's earnings were dependent on the commercial success of its cholesterol drug Vytorin, and defendants knew or should have known that the results of a scientific study would cause the medical community to turn to less expensive drugs for cholesterol management. On May 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement, conditional certification of a settlement class, approval of the class notice, and scheduling of a final fairness hearing. The court granted that motion on June 22, 2012, and scheduled a hearing on final approval of the settlement for September 25, 2012. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Merck's insurers have paid $10.4 million into a settlement fund which (after enumerated costs, fees, and awards are withdrawn) will be allocated to members of the settlement class according to a plan of allocation to be approved by the court. The settlement agreement provides that, in exchange for such consideration, the plaintiffs and settlement class members will issue broad releases with prejudice. There was a similar consolidated, putative class action ERISA lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a member of a Schering-Plough ERISA plan against Schering-Plough and certain of its then-current and former officers and directors, alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, bearing the caption In re Schering-Plough Corp. ENHANCE ERISA Litigation. The consolidated amended complaint was filed in October 2009 and named as defendants Schering-Plough, various then-current and former members of Schering-Plough's Board of Directors and then- current and former members of committees of Schering-Plough's Board of Directors. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an executed class action settlement agreement and preliminary approval order. The court signed the preliminary approval order on February 16, 2012, and held a final fairness hearing on May 30, 2012. On May 31, 2012, the court issued an opinion, order, and final judgment. Among other things, the final judgment dismissed this action with prejudice, provided releases to the defendants, and approved the settlement agreement pursuant to which Merck's insurers have paid $12.25 million into a settlement fund. Discovery in the lawsuits referred to in this section (collectively, the "ENHANCE Litigation") has concluded. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the ENHANCE Litigation and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to the ENHANCE Litigation. Unfavorable outcomes resulting from the ENHANCE Litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity and results of operations. Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the Pharmaceutical segment. MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Prisoner Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Robin O'Day, writing for KPAX News, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana has filed a class action lawsuit against Missoula County over discriminatory treatment of female and juvenile prisoners. A handful of female and juvenile prisoners at the Missoula County Detention Center say they are not getting fresh air, sunlight or any outdoor time, causing them physical and emotional distress. The A.C.L.U. filed the class action lawsuit on Sept. 12, stating that the plaintiffs are not getting adequate time outside and as a result are experiencing anxiety, depression, along with hair loss and skin problems. The A.C.L.U. says this has been an on-going issue since the jail was built in 1999, while the Missoula County Sheriff's Department says each inmate has access to fresh air. "Many people who are in that jail, the females and juveniles are for long periods of time, never see the light of day and the women have actually been known to actually try and stand in a square of sunlight inside the gym that shines in from one of the upper windows just to get sunlight," says A.C.L.U. Cooperating Attorney, Greg Munro. "When people are arrested or incarcerated they are unhappy and sometimes we see the results of that. Certainly again, we want respect people's civil rights of course and we'll be doing everything we can, if there's a problem, to address it," Missoula County Sheriff's Department Public Information Officer Jason Johnson said. Mr. Munro says the County has up to 20 days to respond to the lawsuit, but they may request an extension on that deadline. The Missoula County Sheriff's Office says they will hire outside counsel to handle the case. POLK COUNTY, FL: Jail Faces Class Action Over Pepper Spray Use -------------------------------------------------------------- Elvia Malagon, writing for The Ledger, reports that a Polk County jail official told a federal judge on Sept. 13 that a detention deputy improperly used pepper spray on the ground around a holding cage where a juvenile inmate was placed, which is cited by a civil rights group trying to halt the use of the spray. But Capt. Kim Marcum, who is in charge of the central county jail, defended the use of pepper spray at the facility and said in the majority of the cases, using the spray was appropriate and prevented injuries to inmates and deputies. "Any of the deputies, their goal is to try (not to use pepper spray) . . . but the nature is that they (juveniles) are not always going to comply," she said. "Our responsibility is to maintain order." Ms. Marcum's testimony came in the fourth day of a five-day hearing on a request by a civil rights group to temporarily halt some practices involving juveniles housed at the jail, such as the use of pepper spray. The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal class-action civil rights lawsuit, alleging mistreatment of juvenile inmates. The hearing was scheduled to end on Sept. 13. U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo hasn't said when he will rule on the SLPC's request for an injunction. Ms. Marcum told Judge Pizzo that the jail doesn't have a perfect record and she cited a fight among teens that led to her reviewing video. She said she found that a deputy was not doing rounds properly and further investigation resulted in two detention deputies being disciplined. The episode led to a new protocol in which a lieutenant reviews video footage at random to ensure rounds are being completed properly. Since the SPLC filed the federal civil rights lawsuit, deputies also added blinds to rooms and frosted windows in the visitation area to prevent adults from seeing juveniles. SERENADE FOODS: Recalls 2,250 Lbs. of Crunchy Chicken Strips ------------------------------------------------------------ Serenade Foods, Inc., a Milford, Indiana establishment, is recalling approximately 2,250 pounds of crunchy chicken strip products that may contain foreign materials, fragments of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following products are subject to recall: * 7.5-lb cases containing 30-oz. cartons of "Milford Valley Farms Crunchy Chicken Strips" The cartons bear the establishment number "P-2375" inside the USDA mark of inspection and the UPC code 0-73981-32286-7. The products have a use by date of January 17, 2014. The products were packaged on January 17, 2012, and shipped to a distributor in Lakeland, Florida for further distribution. A picture of the recalled products' label is available at: http://is.gd/4czQn1 The Company alerted FSIS of the problem after receiving two consumer complaints. FSIS and the firm have received no reports of injury or illnesses associated with consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at restaurants) to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact Janelle Deatsman, Communications Manager, at 1-866-873-7589. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888- MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Defrauds SpeedyPC Pro Consumers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Bastion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SpeedyPC Software, a British Columbia company, Case No. 3:12-cv-04730 (N.D. Calif., September 11, 2012) accuses SpeedyPC of defrauding consumers through the deceptive design and sale of its SpeedyPC Pro software. SpeedyPC develops software that it claims will increase the speed, performance, and stability of a consumer's personal computer, protect against privacy risks, and remove harmful system errors, Ms. Bastion asserts. She alleges that SpeedyPC Pro does not perform any credible diagnostic testing on the consumer's computer, and instead, it invariably and ominously reports that the consumer's PC needs repair and is at risk of harmful errors, privacy risks, and other computer problems, regardless of the real condition of the computer. Ms. Bastion is a citizen of the state of California. SpeedyPC is a company organized under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, and is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia. SpeedyPC is a "utility" software company that develops computer security and optimization software products. 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 Facsimile: (949) 459-2123 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Chandler R. Givens, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cgivens@edelson.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal in "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael Sanders against Swift Transportation Company and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"): Michael Sanders individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint. The putative class involves both owner- operators and driver employees alleging differing claims against Swift and IEL. Many of the claims alleged by both the putative class of owner-operators and the putative class of employee drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer Complaint with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell Complaint as it relates to employee drivers. As alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes owner-operators of Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. As alleged in the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statements upon separation from employment, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Sanders Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner- operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell Complaint. These separate owner-operator claims allege that the Company failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly compensate for waiting times. The separate employee driver claims allege that the Company failed to reimburse business expenses and coerced driver employees to patronize the employer. The Sanders Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint. Upon the Company's motion, the Sanders Complaint has been transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 17, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's case and granting Swift's motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the January 17, 2012 order. 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. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Okay of Tennessee Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit brought by former students of its Tennessee driving academy, 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 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145- STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western Division. The putative class involves former students of the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against the Company for the suspension of their Commercial Driver Licenses, or CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of Safety, or TDOS, having released a general statement questioning the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of Tennessee. The Company has filed an answer to the Ham Complaint. The Company has also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner of the TDOS, or the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by the court. On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively: Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen Complaint. Both putative class action complaints involve former students of the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against the Company, the TDOS, and the state motor vehicle agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by the relevant state department of motor vehicles. The potential suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee. The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as alleged in the Ham Complaint. The only notable difference among the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not. The Company denies the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend its position. The McAlarnen Complaint has been dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages. The Company has filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint. The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by the court. On May 29, 2009, the Company was served with two additional class action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint. The two matters are Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on May 22, 2009, in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint. While the Ham Complaint, the Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state court. As with all of these related complaints, the Company has filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint. The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such publications. The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by the court. The portion of the Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been dismissed as a result of a settlement agreement reached between the approximately 138 Lott class members and the Commissioner granting the class members 90 days to retake the test for their CDL. The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and discovery is ongoing. On July 1, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western division entered an order of court granting class certification of the consolidated matters. The Company believes that the court committed reversible error in granting class certification and on July 15, 2011, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the class certification determination. In November 2011 and February 2012, the Company engaged in voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter and mitigate costs and risks of ongoing litigation. On June 14, 2012, the parties submitted to the court a petition for approval of a settlement agreement in resolution of the entire matter. Subject to preliminary and final approval of the settlement by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Swift has agreed to make certain payments to qualifying class members on a claims made basis which will be within a dollar range of $2 million to $2.5 million and Swift will also agree to relinquish any legal claims to amounts owed by class members for unpaid academy tuition. The cost of settlement to Swift, including cash payments, related costs and charge offs, is not expected to result in any additional material charges or financial impact to the Company. Although Swift will relinquish its legal rights to amounts owed to it by class members for unpaid academy tuition, such amounts were fully reserved for in prior periods in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and thus no additional charges will be recorded for the relinquishment of such unpaid tuition receivables in connection with the settlement. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend FCRA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 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 August 8, 2011, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, case number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or the Daniel Complaint. Plaintiffs sought employment with Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC ("Swift Arizona") and that entity has answered the complaint. The putative class includes individuals throughout the United States who sought employment with Swift Arizona and about whom Swift Arizona procured a criminal background report for employment purposes during the application process. The complaint alleges Swift Arizona violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Among the allegations are that the Company did not make adequate disclosures or obtain authorizations for applicants; ii) did not issue pre-adverse action notices for in-person applicants who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person under Swift Arizona's hiring policies; and iii) did not issue adverse action notifications to applicants who were not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the person from under Swift Arizona's hiring policies. In October 2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filed by Swift Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which Swift Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied a partial motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answer addressing the remaining allegations. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Discrimination Class Suit Dismissed in May ---------------------------------------------------------------- A discrimination class action lawsuit filed by Steve C. Bluford against Swift Transportation Company was dismissed in May 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 October 3, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Steve C. Bluford on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Steve C. Bluford v Swift v. Transportation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, case number 1- 11CV-06932, or the Bluford Complaint. The putative class includes all African American employee drivers who worked from the Illinois terminal during the two year statutory period alleging that the Company failed to treat similarly situated African American employees in the same manner as Caucasian employees. The named plaintiff, Steve Bluford, previously filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint raising the same allegations which was dismissed by the EEOC as having no merit. On May 16, 2012, the Court granted Swift's motion to dismiss the class, but any class member retains their rights to pursue individual claims if they so elect. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Two Wage and Hour Suits Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company is facing two wage and hour class action lawsuit 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 March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell Complaint. On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that it failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint is currently subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernadino, or the Rudsell Complaint. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: In Mediation With "Ridderbush" Suit Parties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company 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 engaged in a voluntary mediation session with the parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Glen Ridderbush. On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV- 01827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand. On July 11, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the Ridderbush Complaint. The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to federal court on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028. Both putative classes include employees alleging that candidates for employment within the four year statutory period in California and within the three year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid the state mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase. On July 17, 2012, the Company engaged in a voluntary mediation session with the parties involved in the Ridderbush Complaint in an attempt to resolve the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigate legal expense. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as the merits of this matter should the class be certified. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Still Pending in Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation Company and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"): John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that the Company misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon the Company's motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On June 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The Court also denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court's order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff filed another request for interlocutory appeal. On December 9, 2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutory appeal. 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. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against any arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Suit Remains Pending in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation Company: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or the Slack Compliant. The Slack Compliant was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-11438-0. The putative class includes all current and former Washington State-based employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they were not properly paid for meal and rest periods. The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. 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. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Garza" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit commenced by Leonel Garza, 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 January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV07-0472. The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with the Company for a three month period under a one year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. During the month of April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. The Company says it intends to continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From Privacy Suit Deals Dismissed in May ----------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from TransUnion Corp.'s settlements of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action were dismissed in May 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. The Company is a defendant in sixteen purported class actions that arose from activities of its Performance Data Division that was discontinued over 10 years ago. Fifteen of these purported class actions alleging violations of federal law were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) and are known as In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350. These matters are referred to as the "Privacy Litigation." A companion class action alleging violation of Louisiana state law was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union LLC, case No. 02-18553, Civil District, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana), the "Louisiana Action." The Privacy Litigation, which began in 2000, was the result of the Company's sale of information, including names and addresses of individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes. The Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") challenged the Company's target marketing practice in 1992, which challenge resulted in a final decision rendered in 1999 holding that certain target marketing lists that the Company sold were consumer reports as defined in the FCRA, and were sold for purposes not permitted under the FCRA. Following that decision, the fifteen purported class actions were filed, alleging that each target marketing list was sold in willful violation of the FCRA and seeking statutory damages. A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action was approved on September 17, 2008 (the "Settlement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement the Company paid $75.0 million into a fund for the benefit of class members on July 7, 2008, and the Company provided approximately 100,000 individuals with free credit monitoring services. All class members released their procedural rights to pursue the claims alleged in these matters through the pending, or any new, class action. However, all class members (other than the named plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action) did retain their right to bring a separate, individual claim against the Company for the violations alleged in these matters provided these claims were asserted on or before September 16, 2010 (the "PSCs"). The Settlement provides that any money remaining in the fund after payment of notice costs, class counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used to satisfy any such PSCs, with remaining funds distributed on a pro-rata basis to class members who elected to receive a potential cash payment in the Settlement as part of the consideration to release their procedural rights. The Company has been advised that there are approximately 100,000 PSCs seeking payment from the Settlement fund. Through court monitored mediation with counsel representing the class members and the PSCs claimants, the Company has entered into agreements to settle substantially all of these PSCs for payments from the Settlement fund to bring this matter to conclusion. The Court, on May 25, 2011, and September 8, 2011, rejected all objections made by class counsel to the settlements entered into with respect to the PSCs, and confirmed and approved these settlements as being in accordance with the Settlement. Class counsel in the Settlement appealed these rulings by the Court seeking to obtain either additional attorney fees from counsel to the PSCs claimants or a return of attorney fees received by counsel to the PSCs claimants to the Settlement fund. On May 22, 2012, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals summarily dismissed these appeals, confirming the actions of the Court. The Company believes the amount in the Settlement fund is sufficient to meet all demands asserted either by any settling or non-settling PSCs. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data and information management services to companies and individual consumers. TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From "White" Class Suit Deal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals challenging the approval of TransUnion Corp.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit over reporting of consumer debt obligations 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 a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California), plaintiffs sought class action status against Equifax, Experian and the Company in connection with the reporting of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. The claims allege that each national consumer reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company has agreed to a settlement of this matter. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved an agreement whereby the Company and the other industry defendants voluntarily changed certain operational practices. These changes require the Company to update certain delinquent records when the Company learns, through the collection of public records, that the consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice changes did not have a material adverse impact on the Company's operations or those of its customers. In 2009, the Company also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount has been, or will be, paid into a settlement fund that will be used to pay the class counsel's attorney fees, all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. The Company's share of this settlement is fully covered by insurance. Final approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred on July 15, 2011. Certain objectors to this monetary settlement have appealed the decision of the Court. The Company expects these appeals to be consolidated and resolved sometime in 2013. If the monetary settlement is not upheld the Company expects to vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what it believes are valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. Although the Company believes it has valid defenses and has not violated any law, and although it has additional insurance coverage available with respect to this matter, the ultimate outcome of this matter is not certain. However, the Company does not believe any final resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data and information management services to companies and individual consumers. TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Virginia Public Records Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action captioned Donna K. Soutter v. Trans Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, was filed in 2010 and alleges that TransUnion Corp. fails to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect to the collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release, dismissal or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state court system. The Company, like its competitors, contract with a third-party vendor to collect public records on a timely basis. The plaintiff alleges that the diligence used to gather and report satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and that the established intervals between trips to the various state courthouses to gather this information is too infrequent. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter as it believes it has acted in a lawful manner. 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. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data and information management services to companies and individual consumers. TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate OFAC Alert Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that credit reporting agency TransUnion frightens innocent customers into believing the Treasury Department considers them a "match or possible match to some suspected criminal" on a terrorist watch list, a class action claims. Named plaintiff Brian Larson sued TransUnion in Superior Court. He claims the consumer reporting agency violates the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by "willingly failing to provide consumers with complete and truthful" Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) alert information it sells to third parties. OFAC alerts supposedly advise financing companies if a credit applicant is a terrorist, money launderer, drug trafficker or other enemy of the United States. Mr. Larson claims TransUnion breaks state law by refusing to allow consumers to see, dispute and correct inaccurate or incomplete OFAC alert information before it sells the report. Under California law, consumers have the right to dispute inaccurate information in their credit files. The credit reporting agency must correct incorrect information within 30 days. Mr. Larson says he got a copy of his TransUnion credit report in October 2011. After disclosing the usual information found on a credit report, and beneath the heading, "End of Credit Report," he says, he saw "Additional Information." "'The following disclosure of information is provided as a courtesy to you. This information is not part of your TransUnion credit report, but may be provided when TransUnion receives an inquiry about you from an authorized party. This additional information can include special messages, possible OFAC name matches, income verification and inquiry analysis information. Any of the previously listed information that pertains to you will be listed below,'" the complaint states. It continues: "TransUnion continues to intentionally misrepresent to consumers, such as plaintiff, that OFAC alerts are not actually part of their reports or files. This practice is also in contravention to the clear statutory requirements of the CCRAA. "Because defendant states that OFAC alerts are 'additional information' provided only as a 'courtesy,' consumers such as plaintiff are misguided into believing that they cannot dispute, and have corrected, inaccurate OFAC information that defendant alone is attributing to them. "Worse, plaintiff's file with defendant does not actually disclose the OFAC alert that defendant has determined matches with plaintiff. The file states: "'Possible OFAC Match "'The OFAC database contains a list of individuals and entities that are prohibited by the U.S. Department of Treasury from doing business in or with the United States. Financial institutions are required to check customers' names against the OFAC Database, and if a potential name match is found, to verify whether their potential customer is the person on the OFAC Database. For this reason, some financial institutions may ask for your date of birth, or they may ask to see a copy of a government-issued form of identification, such as a driver's license, Social Security card, passport or birth certificate. Some financial institutions will search names against this database themselves, or they may ask another company, such as TransUnion, to do so on their behalf. We want you to know that this information may be provided to such authorized parties. "'As a courtesy to you, we also want to make sure you are aware that the name that appears on your TransUnion credit file is considered a potential match to information listed on the United States Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) Database. "'The OFAC record that is considered a potential match to the name on your credit file is: [Intentionally left blank].'" Mr. Larson says his credit report directed him to a Treasury Department Web site for more information about the OFAC database. He says TransUnion told him he is not merely a "possible match," but an actual "match" to the OFAC list. Since the incomplete OFAC list information is part of his credit file, Mr. Larson says, his file is "not a complete and proper file disclosure" as required by California law and the federal Credit Reporting Act. He claims that TransUnion's violations include "a. TransUnion falsely represented that the OFAC information was not part of plaintiff s credit report; b. The OFAC information was not included in the consumer's file but was instead set forth separately in a different disclosure labeled 'Additional Information;' c. TransUnion represented that plaintiff 'is considered a potential match to information listed on' the OFAC Database (emphasis in original), but did not disclose the OFAC record considered a potential match that it would sell to a third party." But Mr. Larson says he "is neither a match to the OFAC list, nor a possible match, nor does any other entity or person 'consider' plaintiff to be a potential match." He claims TransUnion is misleading him and others about what information it reports to third parties, and is uncertain if TransUnion is reporting that he is on the watch list. "Further, plaintiff was deprived of all information in his file, to which he is entitled, and the opportunity to dispute and correct the inaccurate OFAC alert that defendant inaccurately associated with him on his report," Mr. Larson says in his complaint. TransUnion is no stranger to such complaints. Courthouse News reported in 2008 that TransUnion, a credit union and mortgage company, denied Thomas Hassan Kubbany a mortgage "on the basis of erroneous information . . . (in his) credit report indicating that . . . he was or might be a son of Saddam Hussein of Iraq." Mr. Kubbany claimed the "match" with a name on a list provided by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control was solely because of his middle name, and that the defendants failed to timely respond to his attorney's demand the "match" be deleted. A copy of the Complaint in Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 12-524131 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/14/OFACAlert.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq. Carol M. Brewer, Esq. ANDERSON OGILVIE & BREWER, LLP 600 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 651-1952 E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com - and - John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action (12-cv-4801), filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Ubiquiti between October 14, 2011 and August 9, 2012, inclusive, and/or who acquired shares of Ubiquiti common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its October 14, 2011 initial public offering ("IPO"). This class action seeks to recover damages caused by Ubiquiti's violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of the 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Ubiquiti securities during the Class Period, you have until November 6, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. Ubiquiti 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 Air Technologies. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operation. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) the true magnitude of the risks the Company faced from counterfeit goods in connection with the Company's products including the popular and profitable AirMax; (ii) the widespread nature and extent of the counterfeit operations and the impact the counterfeit activities would have on the Company's future operating results; (iii) the increased risks to the Company's operations due to its unique business model, whereby it relied exclusively upon distributors to sell its products to end customers; (iv) that the Company lacked the proper internal controls to prevent its product designs from being stolen and replicated; and (v) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On or about October 14, 2011, Ubiquiti filed its Prospectus for the IPO, in which approximately 7.038 million shares of Ubiquiti common stock were sold to the public at $15 per share, raising $105.6 million in gross proceeds for the Company and the selling shareholders. On May 1, 2012, the Company announced disappointing third quarter fiscal year 2012 financial results. Ubiquity also acknowledged that one of its distributors, Kozumi USA Corp., had stolen source codes and proprietary designs for the Company's popular and profitable AirMax line of products, and was engaged in a scheme to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Ubiquiti products in emerging markets like South America. As a result, Ubiquiti shares plummeted $6.10 per share, or more than 17%, to close at $28.90 per share on May 2, 2012. On August 9, 2012, Ubiquiti announced its fourth quarter fiscal 2012 financial results and disappointing guidance for the first quarter of fiscal 2013. Ubiquiti admitted that the distribution of the unauthorized copies of its communication gear was more widespread than previously disclosed and would have a detrimental impact on the Company's future results. As a result, Ubiquiti shares declined $6.30 per share or nearly 42%, to close at $8.71 per share on August 10, 2012. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm that specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. It has with in New York, Chicago and San Diego. UNIVERSITY CREAMERY: Recalls Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Erring on the side of caution and safety for the consuming public, the University Creamery at Penn State is voluntarily recalling all ice cream and frozen yogurt made between May 16, 2012, and August 11, 2012, because of isolated incidents involving reports of small plastic foreign objects in the product. The recalled ice cream was manufactured and sold from the Berkey Creamery on the University Park campus of Penn State and also was available for purchase on the Internet from the Creamery's Web site. In mid-August, University police began a criminal investigation into several isolated incidents involving reports of small foreign objects in ice cream manufactured by the University Creamery on the University Park campus. The Creamery has received three reports of consumers finding small plastic pieces in the ice cream, specifically, three small pieces of plastic less than 21 mm (about .82 inches) in size. While the reports have only related to half-gallon containers, the Creamery is extending the recall to cover all ice cream and frozen yogurt in all container sizes made during the time period. Ice cream subject to the recall will bear a BEST IF USED BY date on the label falling on or between February 10, 2013, and August 11, 2013. Consumers who have purchased ice cream covered by this recall are urged to not eat the ice cream and to return any product subject to the recall to the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers with questions may contact the Creamery at 1-855-677-0464 (toll-free). No illnesses or injuries have been reported in connection with this situation. Anyone that believes they may have ingested an object should immediately consult a healthcare professional. "The safety of the public is our No. 1 concern," said Tom Palchak, Creamery manager. "Although by all accounts these appear to be isolated incidents, they are troubling to say the least. We have a longstanding reputation for safety at the Creamery and a product that consumers trust. We are erring on the side of caution with this recall and in taking the actions we are taking to prevent any recurrence." An independent investigation of the reports of foreign objects conducted for the Creamery, while not conclusive, suggests that the objects did not enter the ice cream during the manufacturing process. The Creamery has extended the recall to cover not only the dates when the ice cream was made that were subject to the reports, but to also include all ice cream made during a buffer period after the last known production date, up to the point when the Creamery instituted enhanced security measures to protect against the chances of undetected objects being placed in the ice cream. These measures include limiting access to production and packaging areas, increased surveillance systems, purchase of an X- ray device and metal detectors, and notification of ingredient suppliers. In the near future, the Creamery also will move to a tamper-resistant packaging solution. This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Faces Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Lori Pilger, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a Nebraska man turned away from a handicapped parking spot when he tried to take his family to Morrill Hall on a home football game day in 2010 has sued the University of Nebraska. In the lawsuit filed on Sept. 13, Richard Norton Jr. alleges the Board of Regents violated federal law when it put hoods on two handicapped meters in front of the museum to let football tailgaters or donors park there. His attorney, Kathleen Neery, said they intend to pursue class- action status. "If it happened to Rick Norton, it happened to someone else," she said. A copy of the lawsuit was obtained too late in the day on Sept. 13 to get a response from university officials. Ms. Neery said that on Oct. 30, 2010, Mr. Norton and his family went to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to see an exhibit at Morrill Hall. Mr. Norton, who lives south of Lincoln, has a neurological and orthopedic disability. That day, when he tried to park in a designated handicapped parking spot in front of the museum, Ms. Neery said, he was verbally harassed and ridiculed by a university employee and ultimately not allowed to park there. Ms. Neery said the employee told him the spots were being held for donors. Mr. Norton was told to park in an area at least two blocks east of Morrill Hall, where an employee tried to charge him $15. Ms. Neery said eventually he was allowed to park free of charge but was told his car would be towed if he returned "even one minute late" of the two hours he said they would be at Morrill Hall. After he walked from the parking area to the museum, Ms. Neery said, he experienced extreme pain in his legs and feet and had to seek medical attention. A month later, Mr. Norton filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education. This May, Ms. Neery said, the office concluded that the university had not complied with the Rehab Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it blocked off the dedicated accessible parking spaces. She said the university acknowledged the violations and deficiencies with handicapped parking in front of Morrill Hall and promised to address the issue before Sept. 1, this year's first home game. But Ms. Neery said they failed to do so. "The university is clearly not taking these law violations seriously," she said. "And if it takes this lawsuit to get the university to comply with federal law and show the proper respect to disabled people, so be it." The ADA doesn't have an exception clause for home football games, Ms. Neery said. VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Grattan, writing for Austin Business Journal, reports that Delaware-based Rigrodsky & Long P.A. has filed a lawsuit alleging that Austin-based Valence Technology Inc. misled shareholders about the condition of the company's finances and business prospects. The class-action suit is filed on behalf of all people who bought Valence stock between Aug. 3, 2011 and July 12, 2012. The suit contends that Valence knew, but concealed, that the company's chairman of the board and investor Carl Berg would no longer fund the company to support its debt, that Valence would not raise capital by selling equity and that as a result, the company was headed for bankruptcy. As a result, the company's stock traded at inflated prices during the class period, Rigrodsky & Long said in the statement. Valence recently secured a $10 million line of credit from GemCap Lending I LLC. The company expects to file a restructuring plan by the end of the year. ********* 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 * * *