/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 246 Headlines AFNI INC: Court Orders Payment of Damages to Cingular Customers ASHLAND INC: Petition for Certiorari in Vietnamese Suit Pending ASHLAND INC: Unit Defends Agent Orange Personal Injuries Suits BIG LOTS: Customers' Privacy Lawsuits in California Dismissed CELLCOM ISRAEL: Lawsuit Returned for Further Consideration DUPONT CO: Iowa Judge Denies Certification Bid in Teflon Suits HEARST HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Inflated Distribution Numbers HTH CORP: Former Waiter Files Suit in Hawaii Alleging Tip Fraud JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "Krichman" MUELLER WATER: Claims in "Foundry Sand" Disposal Suit Proceed NYSE EURONEXT: Sea Carriers Voluntarily Dismisses Suit in Aug. OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Indiana Suit Over Norovirus Contamination PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Suit Settlement Pending in Calif. Court PETSMART INC: Settlement of Suits Over Pet Food Recalls Approved SUPERVISED LIFESTYLES: Still Faces $225M Suit by Former Patients SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Municipal Derivatives Lawsuit THIRD FEDERAL: Ohio Court Considers Appeal in "Greenspan" Case WAL-MART STORES: Reaches $54M Settlement in Minn. Workers' Suit WHOLE FOODS: Served with "Kottaras" Antitrust Complaint in Oct. WMG ACQUISITION: Defends Appeal on Junked Pricing Suit in N.Y. New Securities Fraud Cases KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing SOUTHWEST WATER: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing SOUTHWEST WATER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif. ********* AFNI INC: Court Orders Payment of Damages to Cingular Customers --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that Afni, Inc., a debt collection company, must pay damages to 7,000 Cingular Wireless customers in Wisconsin for illegally charging fees, Ryan J. Foley of BusinessWeek reports The Bloomington, Ill.-based company allegedly charged customers collection fees equaling 15 percent of the money they owed Cingular, which has since been bought by AT&T. The Seventh Circuit said that fee was not allowed under Wisconsin law or their cell phone contracts and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That decision by the Seventh Circuit upholds a ruling last year by U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wisconsin, who had awarded the customers $206,000 in damages, costs and attorneys fees, according BusinessWeek. With the recent ruling the plaintiffs' lawyers can ask for additional costs and fees related to the appeal, reports BusinessWeek. Customers who received debt collection letters from Afni filed suit in 2005, alleging the company's practice of charging collection fees of 15 percent of their original balance was illegal. Judge Callahan later granted the case class-action status, for all Wisconsin customers who received letters after July 7, 2004. The class consists of about 7,020 customers. The procedure for compensating them has not yet been approved, according to BusinessWeek. Judge Callahan ruled the company had no authority to impose collection fees since they were not authorized by the customers' cell phone contracts with Cingular. Wisconsin law only allows third-party debt collectors to charge fees, Callahan added, and not companies who "own" the debt such as Afni, which purchased delinquent accounts from Cingular. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled that Judge Callahan made the correct decision. The judges rejected the company's argument that its mistakes were unintentional, saying company officials did not take enough steps to comply with Wisconsin law. Allowing the company to win, the court wrote, "would essentially reward a business's ignorance of the law," BusinessWeek reported. ASHLAND INC: Petition for Certiorari in Vietnamese Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the rulings in a purported class-action lawsuit filed by several Vietnamese against Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, Inc., is pending with the U.S. Supreme Court. Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S. Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. In January 2004, Hercules was sued in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and several individuals who claim to represent between two and four million Vietnamese who allege that Agent Orange used by the United States during the Vietnam War caused them or their families to sustain personal injuries. That complaint alleges violations of international law and war crimes, as well as violations of the common law for products liability, negligence and international torts. On motion of the defendants, the District Court dismissed this lawsuit and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc. The plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the rulings of the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Ashland Inc. -- http://www.ashland.com/-- is a diversified, global chemical company, engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, distribution of chemicals and plastics, and provision of automotive lubricants, car-care products and quick-lube services. It operates in four segments: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies. Ashland Performance Materials is a manufacturer and supplier of specialty chemicals and customized services to the building and construction, transportation, metal casting, marine, and packaging and converting markets. Ashland Distribution distributes chemicals, plastics and composite raw materials. Valvoline is a marketer of packaged automotive lubricants, chemicals, appearance products, antifreeze and filters. Ashland Water Technologies supplies chemical and non- chemical water treatment solutions for industrial, municipal and commercial facilities. On Nov. 13, 2008, Ashland completed the acquisition of Hercules, Inc. ASHLAND INC: Unit Defends Agent Orange Personal Injuries Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland, Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits for various personal injuries brought by exposure to Agent Orange, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S. Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. In 1984, as part of a class action settlement, Hercules and other defendants settled the claims of persons who were in the U.S., New Zealand and Australian Armed Forces who alleged injury due to exposure to Agent Orange. Following that settlement, all claims for alleged injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange by persons who had served in the Armed Forces of those countries were treated as covered by that class action settlement. On June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case captioned "Dow Chemical Company, et al. v. Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al." where plaintiffs Stephenson and Isaacson (in separate but consolidated cases) alleged that they were injured from exposure to Agent Orange and that such injury did not manifest until after exhaustion of the settlement fund created through the 1984 class action settlement. As a result of that decision, the claims of persons who allege injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange and whose injuries first manifest themselves after exhaustion of the settlement fund created through the 1984 class action settlement may no longer be barred by the 1984 class action settlement and such persons may now be able to pursue claims against Hercules and the other former manufacturers of Agent Orange. Hercules is a defendant in approximately 31 lawsuits, including two purported class actions, where plaintiffs allege that exposure to Agent Orange caused them to sustain various personal injuries. On Feb. 9, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a series of rulings, which held that plaintiffs' claims against the defendant manufacturers of Agent Orange that were brought in the state courts are properly removable to federal court under the "federal officer removal statute" and that such claims are subject to dismissal by application of the "government contractor defense." The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims in all of the lawsuits that were before it at that time. The plaintiffs appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of these actions and also denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc. On Oct. 6, 2008, Plaintiffs in these actions filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the rulings of the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ashland Inc. -- http://www.ashland.com/-- is a diversified, global chemical company, engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, distribution of chemicals and plastics, and provision of automotive lubricants, car-care products and quick-lube services. It operates in four segments: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies. Ashland Performance Materials is a manufacturer and supplier of specialty chemicals and customized services to the building and construction, transportation, metal casting, marine, and packaging and converting markets. Ashland Distribution distributes chemicals, plastics and composite raw materials. Valvoline is a marketer of packaged automotive lubricants, chemicals, appearance products, antifreeze and filters. Ashland Water Technologies supplies chemical and non- chemical water treatment solutions for industrial, municipal and commercial facilities. On Nov. 13, 2008, Ashland completed the acquisition of Hercules, Inc. BIG LOTS: Customers' Privacy Lawsuits in California Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Two purported class-action lawsuits against Big Lots Inc. that were filed in California have been dismissed, Dow Jones Newswires reports. According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the suits alleged that the company violated California law by requesting certain customer information in connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to receive a refund to a credit card. The plaintiffs in the case sought statutory penalties, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief, the filing stated. The company said both cases were stayed pending the ruling of a California Court of Appeals in a similar case involving another retailer. The appellate court, Big Lots said, ruled in favor of the other retailer holding that the California law at issue doesn't apply to merchandise-return transactions. As a result of that ruling, Big Lots said it stipulated with the plaintiffs to the dismissal of the cases with prejudice, and the court entered the dismissals. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Lawsuit Returned for Further Consideration ---------------------------------------------------------- NETANYA, Israel, Dec. 10, 2008 -- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (the "Company") announced today that the Israeli Supreme Court partially accepted an appeal filed on March 2006 against the denial of a purported class-action lawsuit by the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa and referred the purported class action for further consideration in the District Court, in relation to certain issues determined by the Supreme Court. The purported class action was filed in September 2000 against the Company in the District Court by one of the Company's subscribers in connection with VAT charges in respect of insurance premiums and the provision of insurance services that were allegedly not provided in accordance with the law. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount of the claim is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 402 million. The Company is studying the decision and intends to vigorously defend its position. DUPONT CO: Iowa Judge Denies Certification Bid in Teflon Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronald E. Longstaff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa has denied class-action status for 23 lawsuits over DuPont Co.'s nonstick cookware coating Teflon, The News Journal reports. Consumers have alleged that DuPont made false claims about health risks connected with nonstick cookware, including "polymer fume fever," a flu-like condition linked to fumes from heated Teflon. The ruling means plaintiffs in separate statewide actions nationwide need to pursue their own lawsuits against the company, according to The News Journal. The News Journal reported that Judge Longstaff said in his ruling that plaintiffs had not adequately defined which consumers should be included in the class. HEARST HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Inflated Distribution Numbers -------------------------------------------------------------- Hearst Holdings, Inc., one of the owners of the Talking Phone Book, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the company destroyed thousands of phone books instead of delivering them in an effort to artificially inflate distribution numbers that determine the cost to place an ad, Eric Connor of Greenville News reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against Hearst, several subsidiaries, and a pair of Talking Phone Book employees. Jon Newlon, an attorney for Greenwood chiropractor William B. Gray III, said that the company devised a "deliberate plan to discard and destroy phone books" to mislead potential advertisers, according Greenville News. The complaint alleges that beginning in 2005, representatives of the Talking Phone Book solicited Mr. Gray to become an advertiser and represented distribution numbers that exceed the numbers of phone book competitors. However, the complaint alleges thousands of phone books were stored in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood counties with no intention to distribute them and then were later dumped at recycling centers or in one case on private property in Greenville County in October 2007, reports Greenville News. According to the complaint, "Defendants are knowingly having phone books warehoused on crates still covered in cellophane, left there for months without ever being distributed, and then carried to waste centers for disposal or even dumped on public or private land." Greenville News reported that the company recently filed a motion that sought for the dismissal of the complaint. Judge Ross Anderson is currently considering that request. In its motion to dismiss the complaint, Hearst argues that Mr. Gray signed a contract with the company even as he claims he believed the company was engaging in fraud. The defendants argue in the motion that there is still time to distribute the number of books promised for this year because this year's contract has yet to end. HTH CORP: Former Waiter Files Suit in Hawaii Alleging Tip Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Gurrobat, who worked as a Waikiki banquet waiter for nearly eighteen years filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the owners of the Pagoda and Pacific Beach hotels, claiming he and other employees did not receive one hundred percent of tips added to the bills of customers, Andrew Pereira of Khon2 reports. Attorney Scott Saiki, Esq., filed the lawsuit against HTH Corp., the company that owns and operates the two properties, in Honolulu First Circuit Court. Mr. Saiki told Khon2 that his client hopes to gain class-action status with his complaint. He also said, "In this situation we have at least three dozen employees, former and current employees, who have potential claims like Raymond's." Under a Hawaii law passed eight years ago all tipped employees are entitled to all gratuities charged to customers unless the bill specifies a portion of the tips will go to someone else, according to Khon2. JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "Krichman" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a petition by JPMorgan Chase & Co. that sought for the dismissal of the purported class-action suit, "Krichman et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:2006-cv-15305," which alleges violations under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law. The suit was filed on Dec. 19, 2006 by two former JPMorgan Chase brokers, Alan Krichman, who worked at the bank as a financial adviser from July 2004 to September 2005, and James Howell, who worked in a similar role from August 2002 to April 2003, according to Martha Graybow of Reuters. The former financial advisers claim that their compensation was awarded on a commission basis and that they were wrongly denied pay for time worked beyond a 40-hour work week. In their lawsuit, they also contend that when customers challenged transactions executed by the brokers, the bank improperly deducted the losses from the workers' commissions. Reuters reported that the plaintiffs are seeking compensation for unpaid overtime wages and for the deductions from the commissions they say they deserve. Their lawsuit seeks class- action status on behalf of other employees at the New York-based bank. In a written decision dated Dec. 8, 2008, denied a petition by JPMorgan to dismiss the lawsuit. He said the plaintiffs could bring claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law. The judge, however, threw out one of the plaintiffs' claims for damages from alleged breach of their employment contract, Reuters reported. The denied a petition by JPMorgan Chase & Co. that sought for the dismissal of the purported class-action suit, The suit is "Krichman et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:2006-cv-15305," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: John Halebian, Esq. (jhalebian@lshllp.com) Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212)608-1900 Fax: (212) 719-4677 Representing the defendants is: Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. (sshaulson@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 101 Park Avenue 37th Floor New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212)-309-6718 Fax: (212)-309-6273 MUELLER WATER: Claims in "Foundry Sand" Disposal Suit Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Claims of nuisance, wantonness, and negligence in a purported civil class-action lawsuit in relation to the disposal of toxic "foundry sand" by Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe subsidiary are moving forward. The suit was originally filed on April 8, 2005, in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the Class Action Fairness Act. The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court on Dec. 15, 2006. The case was filed against U.S. Pipe and other foundries in the Anniston, Alabama area alleging state law tort claims (negligence, failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and outrage) arising from creation and disposal of "foundry sand" alleged to contain harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for real and personal property damage and for other unspecified personal injury. On June 4, 2007, a motion to dismiss the case was granted to U.S. Pipe and certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence, failure to warn, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. The remainder of the complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. On July 6, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's former 10th Street facility and no longer alleges personal injury claims. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007. U.S. Pipe and the other defendants have again moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. On Sept. 24, 2008, the court issued an order on the motion, dismissing the claims for trespass and permitting the plaintiffs to move forward with their claims of nuisance, wantonness, and negligence, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Atlanta, Georgia-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. -- http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- is a manufacturer of a range of water infrastructure and flow control products for use in water distribution networks and treatment facilities. It acts as a distributor, especially in Canada, for products that are manufactured by other companies. Its product portfolio includes engineered valves, hydrants, pipe fittings and ductile iron pipe, which are used by municipalities, as well as the commercial and residential construction, oil and gas, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection industries. It manages its business Mueller Water operates through three business segments: Mueller Co, U.S. Pipe and Anvil. Through Mueller Co., it sells its hydrants and valves and other water and wastewater infrastructure and gas distribution products. Through U.S. Pipe, it sells ductile iron pipe and related products. Through Anvil, it sells its pipe fittings and couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and related products. NYSE EURONEXT: Sea Carriers Voluntarily Dismisses Suit in Aug. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sea Carriers Corp. and Sea Carriers, LP I., on Aug. 20, 2008, voluntarily dismissed the class-action lawsuit styled, "Sea Carriers, LP I et al v. NYSE Euronext, Case No. 1:07-cv-04658- RWS," without prejudice. The plaintiffs notified the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the case is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendants Bank of America Corporation, NYSE Euronext, Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, LaBranche & Co., Inc., Susquehanna International Group Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, LP, Jeffries Execution Services, Inc., LaBranche & Co., LLC, Van Der Moolen Specialists USA LLC. The class-action complaint asserted violations of federal antitrust and securities laws and common law in connection with the placing of market orders through NYSE's SuperDOT order routing system, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 26, 2008. NYSE Euronext -- http://www.nyse.com-- operates a liquid exchange group. The Company's family of exchanges, located in six countries, include the New York Stock Exchange, a cash equities market; Euronext, a cash equities market; Liffe, an European derivatives exchange; NYSE Liffe, the Company's U.S. futures business, and NYSE Arca Options, an U.S. options trading platform. NYSE Euronext offers an array of financial products and services for issuers, investors and financial institutions in cash equities, options, futures and derivatives, exchange traded funds (ETFs), bonds, market data, and commercial technology solutions. NYSE Euronext is home to approximately 4,600 listed issues. In October 2008, the Company announced that it has completed its acquisition of the American Stock Exchange (Amex). OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Indiana Suit Over Norovirus Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Olive Garden Restaurant, a Darden Restaurants, Inc. flagship chain, has reached a $387,000 settlement for a lawsuit filed in the Marion County Circuit in Indiana which claimed several hundred people who ate at an Olive Garden restaurant in Castleton became sick with norovirus, contracted from three contaminated employees. The Indianapolis Star reported that in November 2008, the company reached a settlement n which it agreed to pay $387,000 split among 168 claimants, including about 30 children, plus $315,000 in attorney's fees. According to the plaintiffs' attorney the payments varied by person based on the number of days each was ill, verified medical expenses and lost wages. Previously, Indystar.com's Susan Guyett reported that a restaurant in Indianapolis, Indiana has been hit with a lawsuit filed on behalf of about 50 customers, who got sick after eating at the restaurant (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2007). The suit against Olive Garden was filed in Marion Circuit Court., and was certified as a class-action suit in May 29, 2007. It seeks compensation for those people who got sick within 72 hours after eating at the restaurant last year between Dec. 9, 2006 and Dec. 15, 2006. The plaintiff attorney Patrick A. Elward said about 600 people were affected. He added the plaintiffs would be able to recover medical costs or other expenses. Each person would be compensated with respect to the type of illness he suffered. Plaintiffs counsel: Patrick A. Elward, Esq. (pelward@binghammchale.com) Bingham McHale LLP 10 West Market Street, 2700 Market Tower Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-4900 Phone: (317) 968-5374 Telecopier: (317) 236-9907 Web Site: http://www.binghammchale.com PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Suit Settlement Pending in Calif. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the "Enabnit" labor-related class-action suit against PetSmart, Inc., is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in California State Court, on behalf of putative classes of current and former California employees. The first suit, "Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 3, 2006," wherein the plaintiff is a former dog groomer, alleges claims on behalf of other non-exempt hourly workers as to whether the employees received their required meal and rest breaks. The second suit, "Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 12, 2006," seeks principally to represent employees providing pet grooming services, for alleged meal and rest period violations, and to represent a class of employees whose paychecks were allegedly not compliant with the California Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the California Labor Code, restitution, attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle both of these matters for an amount that will not be material to our consolidated financial statements and has been accrued for. The Sorenson settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on Aug. 5, 2008, while the Enabnit settlement has been submitted for preliminary approval, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2008. PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North America. The Company has identified a group of pet owners that the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets and consider their pets family members. PETSMART INC: Settlement of Suits Over Pet Food Recalls Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- A comprehensive settlement of several purported class-action lawsuits arising from the pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers beginning in March 2007, received final court approval during the fourth quarter of 2008, according to PetSmart, Inc.'s Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2008. The named plaintiffs have sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the respective jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The cases in which the company is a defendant are: -- "Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL," (filed 3/23/07); -- "Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN," (filed 4/9/07); -- "Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA," (filed 4/23/07); -- "Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA," (filed 4/10/07); -- "Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL," (filed 4/23/07); -- "Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO," (filed 4/11/07); -- "McBain v. Menu Foods, et al.," Judicial Centre of Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07); -- "Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al.," Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07); -- "Esau v. Menu Foods, et al.," Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07); -- "Ewasew v. MenuFoods, et al.," Supreme Court of British Colombia (filed 3/23/07 ); -- "Silva v. Menu foods, et al.," Canada Province of Manitoba (filed 3/30/07); -- "Powell v. Menu Foods, et al.," Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 3/28/07); By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl, Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi- district litigation, under the caption, "In re Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867." The Canadian cases have not been consolidated. On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the matter, "In re: Pet food Product Liability Litigation," and the Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for court approval. Preliminary court approval was received from the U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian courts as of July 8, 2008. On Oct. 14, 2008, the U.S. court gave final approval of the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final approval on Nov. 3, 2008. With respect to "Blaszkowski v. Mars Inc., et al.," on Sept. 12, 2008, the court dismissed with prejudice all of the retailer defendants, including the Company. PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North America. The Company has identified a group of pet owners that the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets and consider their pets family members. SUPERVISED LIFESTYLES: Still Faces $225M Suit by Former Patients ---------------------------------------------------------------- Supervised LifeStyles, Inc., also known as SLS, is still facing a purported $225 million federal class-action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey residents and former patients who alleged that they were physically and emotionally abused while patients of SLS, Terence Corcoran of The Journal News reports. In September 2008, the federal judge in the case fined SLS $35,000 for trying to scare former patients away from participating in the lawsuit. Previously, Terence Corcoran of The Journal News reported that two former residents of a private-mental health facility filed a class action against the companies that run the facility (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007). Nicholas J. Romano and Deborah A. Morgan of New Jersey, both in their early 20s, brought the suit on their behalf and several unnamed patients. It was filed in federal court in White Plains, New York, Case No: 7:07-cv-02034-SCR under Judge Stephen C. Robinson. The defendants named in the suit are: - SLS Residential Inc.; - SLS Health; - SLS Wellness; - Supervised Lifestyles Inc.; - Chairmen Alfred Bergman and Joseph Santoro; and - a psychologist and other SLS employees. The suit alleges that: 1) residents suffer emotional and physical abuse from staff members; 2) SLS violated the patients' rights under the American with Disabilities Act; 3) SLS staff routinely restrained clients and kept them from making and receiving phone calls so they won't get the chance to complain to their families; and 4) SLS staff would search patients, inspect their rooms and packages sent to them. Contrary to SLS's advertisement that says it provides mentally- ill patients compassionate and effective treatment, staff members would taunt, ridicule, humiliate and sometimes assault the residents, the suit says. The suit further says that the lead plaintiffs' families pay more than $200,000 for "treatment that was harmful and exploitative." The suit seeks $75 million in compensatory damages, $150 million in punitive damages and an injunction that would prohibit SLS from further violating patients' rights. The suit is "Romano v. Morgan et al., Case No. 7:07-cv-02034- SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Stephen C. Robinson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael Howard Sussman, Esq. (sussman1@frontiernet.net) Sussman Law Offices 40 Park Place P.O. Box 1005 Goshen, NY 10924 Phone: 845-294-3991 Fax: 845-294-1623 Representing the defendants is: Margaret Joann Babb, Esq. (mbabb@proskauer.com) Proskauer Rose LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202)-416-5828 Fax: (202)-416-6899 SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Municipal Derivatives Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Syncora Holdings, Ltd. continues to face a purported class- action lawsuit styled, "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank N.A. et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 13, 2008, the class-action lawsuit was commenced in New York, on behalf of all state, local and municipal government entities that purchased municipal derivatives from the Company or the other defendants in the period from Jan. 1, 1992 through Dec. 31, 2006. The complaint names 36 providers and brokers of municipal derivatives, including the company, as defendants. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of, and to rig bids and allocate customers and market for, municipal derivatives. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 26, 2008. Syncora Holdings Ltd. -- www.syncora.com -- is a Bermuda- domiciled holding company whose common shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: SCA). Syncora Holdings Ltd. Was formerly known as Security Capital Assurance Ltd. THIRD FEDERAL: Ohio Court Considers Appeal in "Greenspan" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet decided on the appeal filed by Third Federal Savings & Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC, TFS Financial Corp.'s mutual holding company, from the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals on Gary Greenspan's lawsuit. On June 13, 2006, Dr. Greenspan filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Third Federal, captioned, "Gary A. Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan, Case No. CV 06 593882" in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Ohio residents in connection with mortgage loans that the Company provided to the plaintiff and the putative class members. The plaintiff alleges that the Company: -- impermissibly charged a "document preparation fee" that included the cost of preparing legal documents in connection with the mortgages; and -- should disgorge the document preparation fee because the document preparation constituted the practice of law and was performed by Company employees who are not licensed to practice law in Ohio. The plaintiff sought to certify a class of individuals who were charged such a fee "anytime after June 13, 2001." The Company answered the plaintiff's complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. On June 25, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint as to claims arising before Sept. 15, 2004, the date that the relevant statute was amended to expressly give the Ohio Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over claims for the unauthorized practice of law. On Aug. 8, 2008, the Company appealed the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Although the parties have filed memoranda regarding jurisdiction, the Ohio Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept or deny this appeal, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Likewise, on Aug. 8, 2008, the Company filed a Complaint in Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court asking that the Court compel the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals to follow its own local rules, which require it to abide by a prior Eighth District panel decision absent an en banc hearing. Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Company has filed a Memorandum in Opposition. The Ohio Supreme Court has yet to rule on this matter. TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- is a federally chartered stock holding company, conducts its activities through its wholly owned subsidiaries. The line of business of the Company is retail consumer banking, mortgage lending, deposit gathering and other financial services. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC, and its federally chartered mutual holding company parent owns 71.82% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company. The Company's operating subsidiaries include Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland and Third Capital, Inc. WAL-MART STORES: Reaches $54M Settlement in Minn. Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. reached a tentative $54,000,000 settlement in a purported class-action suit in Minnesota that alleged the firm reduced workers' break times and let employees work off the clock, Matthew Lynch of Footwear News reports. The settlement -- announced by the company on Dec. 9, 2008 in a joint statement released with plaintiffs in the case -- could be shared by as many as 100,000 current and former hourly employees who worked at Minnesota Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs between Sept. 11, 1998, and Nov. 14, 2008. It will also include a substantial payment to the state of Minnesota, the parties said. The deal is still subject to approval from a trial court. Plaintiffs' attorney Justin Perl of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, told Footwear News, "We are satisfied with this settlement, gratified that these hourly workers will now be paid after seven years of litigation and happy that the State of Minnesota will receive the largest wage and hour civil penalty in its history." Footwear News reported that Nancy Braun, a former hourly worker, first filed the suit in 2001 and was later joined by other employees. Ms. Braun's initial complaint accused the retailer of not allowing for sufficient breaks and meal periods. In July, after a trial in Hastings, Minn., a district court judge ordered Wal-Mart to pay $6.5 million to workers in the class-action suit. Following that decision, the discounter could have faced a jury trial to determine civil penalties in the case -- as much as $2 billion -- had the two sides not reached a settlement, according to Footwear News. As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart will maintain electronic systems, surveys and notices to further its compliance with state wage and hour policies, the parties said. The court has scheduled a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement on Jan. 14, 2008, reports Footwear News. For more information, contact: Justin H. Perl, Esq. (Justin.Perl@maslon.com) Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140 Phone: 612-672-8372 WHOLE FOODS: Served with "Kottaras" Antitrust Complaint in Oct. --------------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Markets, Inc. was served with the complaint entitled, "Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.," on Oct. 27, 2008. According to the company's Nov. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, the putative class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks treble damages, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief. The action alleges that the acquisition and merger between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats violates various provisions of the federal antitrust laws. The suit is "Ekaterini Kottaras et al v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-01832," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Representing plaintiff is: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com) The Katriel Law Firm 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 625-4342 Fax: (202) 330-5593 WMG ACQUISITION: Defends Appeal on Junked Pricing Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp., intends to continue to defend against a consolidated class- action suit over the pricing of digital music downloads, including the appeal, according to its Nov. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Originally, more than 30 putative class actions concerning the pricing of digital music downloads have been filed. On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:2006-md-01780." The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. It seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages. All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. The Court heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008. On Oct. 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the company. On Nov. 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of the District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit. The suit is "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01780-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A. Preska, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com) Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. 2901 N. Central, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-274-1100 Fax: 602-274-1199 Monique Alonso, Esq. Gross & Belsky LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-544-0200 Fax: 415-544-0201 - and - Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com) Law Office of Brian Barry 1801 Ave. of The Stars, Suite 307 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-788-0831 Representing the defendant is: Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq. (ckronenberg@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 310-407-7557 New Securities Fraud Cases KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, GA, Dec 09, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all purchasers of KV Pharmaceutical Company ("KV" or the "Company") Class A Common Stock (NYSE: KV-A), Class B Common Stock (NYSE: KV-B) and 7% cumulative convertible Preferred Stock (Symbol: KVPHP or CUSIP: 482740305) who purchased the stock between February 15, 2008 and November 12, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges KV and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class Period, the Complaint alleges the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about KV's compliance with federal regulations concerning the manufacture and marketing of certain generic drug products as well as the Company's current and future financial prospects. The complaint alleges these misrepresentations caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially high prices. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (ormdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com SOUTHWEST WATER: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 09, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased the securities of Southwest Water Company ("Southwest Water" or the "Company") between May 10, 2005 and November 7, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Southwest Water and certain of its executive officers with violations of the federal security laws. On November 10, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that the Company's audit committee concluded that the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and for each quarters therein, as well as for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and would be restated to correct a number of errors related to: -- the establishment of the rate of depreciation of assets acquired by acquisition; and -- the accounting for revenues and related costs associated with the installation of water and sewer taps. Upon the release of the news, the Southwest Water's shares fell $2.97 per share, or 36%, to close on November 10, 2008 at $5.25 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com) Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 SOUTHWEST WATER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Dec. 9, 2008 -- Kirby McInerney LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Southwest Water Company ("SouthWest Water" or the "Company") between May 10, 2005 and November 7, 2008, inclusive, (Class Period). The Complaint charges SouthWest Water and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiffs claim that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects, caused SouthWest Water's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. SouthWest Water provides water, wastewater and public works services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that in regard to certain acquired assets, the Company was improperly applying a rate of depreciation for financial reporting purposes that did not consider the length of time the assets were in service prior to being acquired; -- that the Company was improperly capitalizing and depreciating costs associated with installing water and sewer taps in Texas and Mississippi but recognizing the related tap fee revenue when received, instead of expensing the costs as incurred and recognizing the related revenue in the period the tap was actually installed; -- that, as a result of the above, depreciation expense related to assets acquired by acquisition since 2000 had been understated on the Company's consolidated financial statements, expenses related to the installation of water and sewer taps in Texas and Mississippi had been understated, and certain assets and related depreciation were overstated; -- that as such, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- that as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 10, 2008, SouthWest Water shocked investors when it announced that the Company would be delaying the filing of its Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended September 30, 2008. The Company revealed that SouthWest Water's audit committee had concluded that the consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and for each of the quarters therein, as well as for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and would be restated to correct a number of errors related to: -- the establishment of the rate of depreciation of assets acquired by acquisition; and -- the accounting for revenues and related costs associated with the installation of water and sewer taps. The Company disclosed that it would correct the errors in its consolidated financial statements to bring them into alignment with its rate filings. On this news, shares of SouthWest Water declined $2.97 per share, more than 36%, to close on November 10, 2008, at $5.25 per share, on unusually heavy volume. For more information, contact: Francisco Loya Ira M. Press, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 888-529-4787 E-mail: floya@kmllp.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. 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 Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *