/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090107.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 4 Headlines APPLE COMPUTER: iTunes Music & iPods Sales Tie-Up Suit Pending APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Bader" Suit Remains Pending APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Birdsong" Complaint Pending APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Vogel" Suit Remains Pending APPLE INC: April 20 Certification Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit APPLE INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in "Gordon" Suit APPLE INC: iPod Nano Screen Scratching Suits Pending in Ontario APPLE INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Branning" Lawsuit APPLE INC: "Vogel" Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Still Stayed CIT GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York Court DEERE & CO: Iowa Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Litigation HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Delaware LEVITT CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida MEDSTAFF INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Petray" Lawsuit NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas SOURCEFIRE INC: Md. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit TARGET CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Immunity Supplement" Products UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in California NetZero Lawsuit Approved VCG HOLDING: Still Faces Suit in Minn. Over Employment Practices WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case WILLIS GROUP: Settles 2001 Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ********* APPLE COMPUTER: iTunes Music & iPods Sales Tie-Up Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., accusing the company of illegally tying iTunes music and iPods sales remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Charoensak Litigation The plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc." -- formerly "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc." -- on Jan. 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. It seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The company, on Feb. 10, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which motion was subsequently denied by the court in part and granted in part. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005, which the company answered. On May 8, 2006, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for "Slattery." In August 2006, the court dismissed "Slattery" without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs. On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Tucker Case The plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as a purported class-action suit on July 21, 2006, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief. On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which request was denied by the Court. On Jan. 11, 2007, the company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses. Consolidation of Cases On March 20, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007. On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). On July 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on Oct. 17, 2008, the Company filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion. The class certification hearing is set for Dec. 15, 2008. The company did not disclose further updates regarding the class certification hearing in its Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05- cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael David Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group, P.C. 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 Fax: 310-442-7756 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com) The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-625-4342 - and - John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 Representing the company is: Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. (cnmitchell@jonesday.com) Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-875-5712 Fax: 415-875-5700 APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Bader" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment by the Santa Clara County Superior Court that completely dismissed a purported class- action suit entitled, "Bader v. Anderson, et al.," filed against Apple, Inc., remains pending. On May 19, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed the purported shareholder derivative action with the Santa Clara County Superior Court, naming as defendants Apple, each of its then current executive officers, and certain members of its board of directors. The suit is asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, material misstatements and omissions and violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition). The lead plaintiff alleged that the company's March 14, 2005 proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc. Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005. The lead plaintiff, who brought the suit also on the company's behalf, made no demand on the Board of Directors, stating that any demand is excused. The lead plaintiff also sought injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the company. On July 27, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims, adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her directly as an individual shareholder. On Jan. 10, 2006, the Court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the amended complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2006, and the company filed another demurrer. After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers and with leave to amend as to the directors. On July 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy statement. In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third amended complaint included a claim that the company violated the terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an option grant to the company's chief executive officer in January 2000. The company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint. On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court sustained the company's demurrer with leave to amend. On May 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint, which the court sustained, without leave to amend, on Oct. 12, 2007. On Oct. 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. On Nov. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2008). No further updates regarding the appeal were disclosed in the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Birdsong" Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of the third amended complaint in a purported class-action suit entitled, "Birdsong v. Apple Inc.," is pending. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted, with prejudice, a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in a purported class action suit against Apple, Inc., which alleges that defects in the company's iPod products cause hearing loss to users. The action, entitled, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.," specifically alleges that the company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong Action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. It asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed on Jan. 31, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006. The Birdsong Action was transferred to the U.S. District Court with the Northern District of California, and the Patterson Action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in "Birdsong," dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in "Patterson." After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub- class. On March 1, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which motion was heard on June 4, 2007. On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court granted this request, with leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2008, which the company again sought to have dismissed. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2008). On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. A similar complaint, "Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Feb. 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-02280-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com) Neblett, Beard & Arsenault P.O. Box 1190, 2220 Bonaventure Court Alexandria, LA 71309 Phone: 318-487-9874 Fax: 318-561-2591 - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com) Bohrer Law Firm 8712 Jefferson Hwy., Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-925-5297 Fax: 225-231-7000 Representing the company is: James Alfred Lico, Esq. (Jlico@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-439-1400 Fax: 415-439-1500 APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Vogel" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 05208-JF," continue to appeal the dismissal of their case, which named Apple Computer, Inc., as a defendant. The purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 24, 2006. It was brought against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors, alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants' profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements. On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, as well as state law. The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants, on June 8, 2007, filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Subsequently, on Nov. 14, 2007, the Court issued an order dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case. On Dec. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint. On Jan. 23, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiffs' motion was heard on March 21, 2008. On May 14, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The court entered judgment dismissing the case on June 12, 2008. On June 17, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). No further updates regarding the appeal were reported by the company in its Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 05208-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com - and - Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq. (mthomas@gelaw.com) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-622-7000 Representing the defendants is: David Malcolm Furbush, Esq. (dfurbush@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650-473-2600 Fax: 650-473-2601 APPLE INC: April 20 Certification Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An April 20, 2009 hearing has been set for a purported class action lawsuit entitled, "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. CV 07 6507," which was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc. The suit, filed on Dec. 31, 2007, accuses the company of making digitally recorded music sold through its online stores inoperable with operating systems other than iPods, and of making iPods unable to play music downloaded through competitors' Web sites (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008). Named plaintiff Stacie Somers brought the action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons or entities in the U.S., that, during the class period, purchased an Apple iPod, or who purchased audio or video content from Apple's Music Store, from Dec. 31, 2203 through the conclusion of the trial of this matter. Ms. Somers wants the court to rule on whether: (a) the definition of the relevant markets; (b) Apple's market power within these markets; (c) Apple monopolized and continues to monopolize the relevant markets; (d) Apple attempted to monopolize and continues to attempt to monopolize the relevant markets; (e) the contractual conditions Apple imposes upon its customers are unconscionable; (f) whether Apple's conduct caused damage to the plaintiff which prices paid by the classes are higher than the and members of the classes, including the degree to prices that would be paid in a market free from tying, monopolization, and other illegal conduct; and (g) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain ongoing and future violations of the law. The plaintiff asks that the court declare, adjudge and decree that: -- the action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims for damages and other monetary relief, and declaring plaintiff as representatives of the class and her counsel as counsel for the classes; -- the conduct alleged constitutes unlawful tying, monopolization, and attempted monopolization in violation of Cartwright Act, California common law, and sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act; -- the conduct alleged is in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and appropriate injunctive relief be granted pursuant to this law; -- the plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages, penalties and other monetary relief provided by applicable law, including treble damages; -- the plaintiff and the classes recover their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest; -- the company is permanently restrained and enjoined from continuing the alleged unfair and anti-competitive activities; -- all funds acquired from Apple's unfair business practices, including disgorgement of revenues and profits require full restitution; -- the plaintiff and the class are awarded expenses and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent provided by law; and -- the plaintiff and the classes are granted such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable, and proper by the court. On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing for April 20, 2009, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. CV 07 6507," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Alreen Haegguist, Esq. Haegguist Law Group 501 West Broadway, Suite A-276 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-955-8218 Fax: 619-342-7878 Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. (helenz@zeldeslaw.com) Law Office of Helen Zeldes 249 S. Highway 101, #370 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Phone: 858-523-1713 Fax: 858-523-1783 - and - Steven A. Skalet, Esq. (sskalet@findjustice.com) Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbrinskin@findjustice.com) Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-822-5100 Fax: 202-822-4997 APPLE INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in "Gordon" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the suit, "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.," await final court approval for the settlement, according to Apple Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The company has agreed, without admitting fault, to settle the class-action lawsuit alleging that power adapters sold with certain Power PC-based iBook and PowerBook notebooks were defective in that they could dangerously fray, sparks and prematurely fail to work, Katie Marsal writes for the Apple Insider. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claimed that the Adapter sold with the Subject Computers is defective in that it "dangerously frays, sparks and prematurely fails to work," and that Apple engaged in misrepresentations regarding the Adapter. The suit is filed on behalf of all United States residents who purchased in the United States, for their own use and not for resale, an Apple PowerBook or iBook computer. According to Apple Inside, the settlement reached by the company offers to provide a cash payment to customers who purchased certain model Apple PowerBook or iBook computers, had their power adapter fail within the first three years following the initial retail purchase, and then purchased a replacement adapter. The settlement covers the purchase of a Replacement Adapter due to failure of the Adapter sold with the Subject Computer within the first three years following the initial retail purchase of the Subject Computer, and before May 31, 2009. The amount of the cash payment will vary depending on when the Adapter included with or sold for the Subject Computer failed. Customers that meet the criteria of a class member and who wish to file a claim must print, complete, sign and mail the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked by Feb. 11, 2009, for Replacement Adapters purchased on or before Oct. 14, 2008. For filing a claim for a Replacement Adapter purchased after October 14, class members must print, complete, sign and mail the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked within 120 days of the adapter failure OR by May 31, 2009, whichever date is earlier. Deadline to file for exclusion is on Dec. 1, 2008. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Dec. 15, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2008). The suit is "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv- 05358-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Class counsel is: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street - 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Defense counsel is: Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq. Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 APPLE INC: iPod Nano Screen Scratching Suits Pending in Ontario --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to face several purported class-action lawsuits in Ontario, Canada over its iPod Nano products. In general, the suits allege that the company's iPod Nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable. Two similar complaints, "Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc.," and "Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on Oct. 27, 2005, and Nov. 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization to institute class actions on behalf of iPod Nano purchasers in Quebec. The Royer-Brennan case was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the Carpentier case. Two similar complaints, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc.," and "Apple Computer, Inc.," were filed in Ontario, Canada, on Jan. 9, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod Nano purchasers in Canada. Apple Canada and Apple Computer, Inc., have served Notices of Intent to Defend (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). The parties have reached a settlement of the Quebec cases, and have received final court approval of the settlement, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Branning" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., continues to face a purported class action suit, which alleges that the company violated California's trade laws. The plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action suit styled, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," before the San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005. The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor warranties. The plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song Beverly Act. They requested unspecified damages and other relief. On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a claim for false advertising. On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2005. The plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the opening of the Apple Retail stores. The plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006, on 16 of 17 causes of action. The plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 21, 2006. On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. On Nov. 30, 2007, it filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the court denied. The plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19, 2008, and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1. The company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 18, 2008. The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing on the purported consumer class for Oct. 17, 2008. The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim based upon the statute of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2008, and a Seventh Amended Complaint on Aug. 22, 2008, adding three new reseller plaintiffs. On Sept. 22, 2008, the Company filed its answer to the consumer- elated claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses, and also filed a demurrer to the new reseller claims. The Company has filed motions for summary adjudication of two named plaintiffs' claims, which were heard on Oct. 14, 2008. The Court requested further briefing on the motions for summary adjudication. On Aug. 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the consumer class and on Oct. 10, 2008, the Company filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion. The class certification hearing is set for Dec. 19, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories, including the online sale of third-party audio and video products. APPLE INC: "Vogel" Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California remains stayed, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The purported class-action suit was filed on June 27, 2008, against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The allegations, which arise out of the company's past stock option practices, are similar to those in the suit filed in 2006 entitled, "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 05208- JF," which was dismissed on June 12, 2008. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). On July 22, 2008, the Court stayed this case pending the appeal in the action styled, "Vogel v. Jobs et al." The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:2008-cv-03123," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com - and - Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com) Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: 845-356-2570 Fax: 845-356-4335 CIT GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------ CIT Group, Inc., is facing a several purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On July 25, 2008 and Aug. 22, 2008, putative class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the period from April 18, 2007 to March 5, 2008. On Aug. 15, 2008, a putative class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the holder of CIT PrZ equity units against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and members of its Board of Directors. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the Company's registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC on October 17, 2007 through March 5, 2008. Each of the above lawsuits is premised upon allegations that the Company made false and misleading statements and or omissions about its financial condition by failing to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholder, its registration statement and prospectus, for private student loans related to a pilot training school, which, plaintiffs allege were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. CIT Group, Inc. -- http://www.cit.com-- is a global commercial finance company that provides financial products and advisory services to more than one million customers in over 50 countries across 30 industries. The products and services provided by CIT include corporate finance, trade finance, transportation finance, vendor finance, CIT bank and CIT insurance services. DEERE & CO: Iowa Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted class-action status to the lawsuit, "Brubaker et al v. Deere & Company, Plan Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the John Deere Health Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-00113," which had been brought against Deere & Co. by a group of company retirees, Jennifer DeWitt of Quad- City Times reports. In granting class-action status, Judge Charles Wolle ruled that the suit by the Flex Retirees Organization, or FRO, can proceed as a class-action case on two counts of the four-count complaint, according to the Quad-City Times report. Case Background Previously, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier reported that in September 2008, the Flex Retirees Organization filed a purported class- action lawsuit alleging that changes Deere made to their health, dental and vision insurance benefits violated promises the company made to 5,000 retired employees. Those changes went into effect Jan. 1, 2008. The group asked the court to order Deere to restore the benefits pending the outcome of the case (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2008). The named plaintiffs in the suit are retirees Dora Brubaker, of Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, of Dubuque, Iowa; and Michael Stohlmeyer, of East Moline, who also is a FRO leader. Although the suit names three individual retirees as the plaintiffs, the purported class-action suit represents "all those similarly situated," Daniel Bonnett, Esq., FRO's attorney, told Quad-City Times. The class includes former salaried and non-union wage Deere employees who retired on or after July 1, 1993, and were eligible to receive medical and health benefits. Also included are the retirees' eligible spouses and dependents. According to Des Moines Register, documents estimate that roughly 5,000 people who retired on or after July 1, 1993, have received lesser health care as a result of the 2008 changes. Quad-City Times notes that the suit asserts "Deere implemented radically inferior healthcare benefits and coverage in comparison to the benefits and coverage provided to plaintiffs while working." Among the changes the suit alleges are: -- significantly higher deductibles for both in- and out-of- network benefits as well as a significant increase in the maximum out-of-pocket expenses (co-payments); and -- elimination of any maximum on the amount of out-of-pocket expenses. "As a result, many providers including hospitals such as the Mayo Clinic are now prohibitively expensive and completely out of reach for Class members," the suit adds. It also says prescription drug benefits were dramatically reduced. Deere first announced the new health plan in September 2007, indicating that it would allow retirees to be more involved in their health care decisions, Quad-City Times recounts. Deere also said the new plan was designed to leverage changes made in the federal laws. The suit is "Brubaker et al v. Deere & Company, Plan Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the John Deere Health Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv- 00113," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Judge Charles R. Wolle, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Earl A. Payson, Esq. (eappc@aol.com) 1313 Harrison Street Davenport, IA 52803 Phone: 563-323-8054 Fax: 563-323-9112 Representing the defendants is: Frank B. Harty, Esq. (fharty@nyemaster.com) Hyemaster Goode West Hansell & O'brien PC 700 Walnut Street Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309-3899 Phone: 515-283-3170 Fax: 515-283-8045 HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Lines Inc. is facing a purported securities fraud class- action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the Charlotte Business Journal reports. The suit was filed on behalf of investors who bought the company's common stock from March 2, 2007, through April 25, 2008. It alleges Horizon Lines made "material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged price-fixing" in its shipping business in Puerto Rico and violated antitrust laws, according to the Charlotte Business Journal. As reported in the Jan 5, 2009 edition of the Class Action Reporter, notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon" or the "Company") (NYSE:HRZ), between March 2, 2007 and April 25, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Horizon and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Horizon is a container shipping and logistics company. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants misled investors as to Horizon's profitability and artificially inflated its stock price, by entering into improper price-fixing agreements with competitors, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including: -- that Horizon and its co-conspirators had engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by, among other things, fixing the prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to customers for Puerto Rico freight services; -- that the combination and conspiracy engaged in by Horizon and its co-conspirators had been an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- that Horizon's publicly reported revenue and earnings had been improperly inflated due to improper price- fixing activities during the Class Period; -- that, as a result of defendants' participation in price-fixing activities, Horizon's earnings reports and revenue guidance issued during the Class Period were false and misleading; -- that the Company knew that its anti-competitive behavior, if discovered, could possibly subject the Company to future regulatory scrutiny; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that the Company knew its financial results would be materially impacted if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive behavior. On April 17, 2008, Horizon shocked investors when the Company revealed it was the subject of an antitrust investigation being conducted by the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") Antitrust Division. On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.53 per share, or 19.36 percent, to close on April 17, 2008, at $14.70 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 25, 2008, Horizon further shocked investors when the Company reported Horizon's financial results for the 2008 fiscal first quarter ended March 23, 2008, and revised downward the Company's earnings guidance for the 2008 fiscal year. This news caused the Company's shares to decline $3.83 per share, or 23.10 percent, to close on April 25, 2008, at $11.25 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Subsequently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ issued a press release announcing that four shipping executives -- including three Horizon employees -- had agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a conspiracy, which continued as late as April 2008, to eliminate competition and raise prices for the movement of goods in the U.S. to Puerto Rico shipping lane, by agreeing not to compete for one another's customers, agreeing to rig bids submitted to government and commercial buyers, and agreeing to fix the prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to customers. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com LEVITT CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Levitt Corp. -- now known as Woodbridge Holdings Corp. -- is still facing a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under the caption "Dance v. Levitt Corp. et al., No. 08-CV- 60111-DLG." Robert D. Dance filed the purported class-action complaint against Levitt Corp. and certain of its officers and directors on Jan. 25, 2008, as a putative purchaser of the company's securities, asserting claims under the federal securities law and seeking damages. The securities lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities beginning on Jan. 31, 2007, and ending on Aug. 14, 2007. It alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning the company's financial results, prospects and condition. Woodbridge Holdings Corp. reported no development regarding the matter in its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al., No. 08-CV-60111- DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jay W. Eng, Esq. (jeng@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-835-9400 Fax: 561-835-0322 - and - Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. (pgeller@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 E Palmetto Park Road Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 Representing the defendants is: Richard Bryan Jackson, Esq. (rjackson@swmwas.com) Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson 150 W Flagler Street Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-789-3200 Fax: 305-789-3395 MEDSTAFF INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Petray" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MedStaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. filed a Motion to Decertify the class in a purported class- action suit against the company that was filed in the Superior Court of California in Riverside County. The suit, entitled "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.," was filed on Feb. 18, 2005, and relates to MedStaff corporate employees. It alleges violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties. The plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. They specifically allege that MedStaff: -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods and rest breaks; -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours worked; -- failed to compensate the employees for working overtime; and -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of time worked The plaintiffs ask the Court for: -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint; -- an order for full restitution of all monies MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their purported class; -- payment of interest; -- certain penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and -- an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by Sept. 5, 2006. Yet, on July 21, 2006, the company filed a motion seeking a stay of all proceedings until the conditionally certified collective action in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al.," has been either decertified or granted final certification. On Aug. 25, 2006, the court granted in part the company's stay motion. A joint stipulation was subsequently filed prohibiting the plaintiffs from moving for class certification prior to Oct. 25, 2006, in order to allow for the completion of pre-certification discovery and to allow for the completion of the opt-in period in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al." On Oct. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a certification motion. On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification. On Oct. 16, 2008, MedStaff, Inc. filed a Motion to Decertify the class, according to Cross Country's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of healthcare staffing services in the U.S. Its healthcare staffing business segment is comprised of travel and per diem nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as clinical research trials staffing. Cross Country's brands include Cross Country TravCorps and MedStaff. NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. and its Board of Directors continue to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that Northstar management breached its fiduciary duties by not properly considering two offers to buy the medical device company, The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports. On July 17, 2008, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the company's Board of Directors in the King County, Washington Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008). The lawsuit was filed by an alleged shareholder of the company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. It alleges, among other things, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with two alleged acquisition offers for the company. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs, but does not seek direct monetary damages from the company. Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. -- http://www.northstarneuro.com/ -- is a development stage medical device company. The company is focused on developing and commercializing neuromodulation therapies to restore function of life for people suffering from neurological diseases and disorders. Its Renova Cortical Stimulation System is designed to deliver targeted electrical stimulation to the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, in a process called cortical stimulation. RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas --------------------------------------------------------------- Reliant Energy, Inc., is a party to approximately 30 lawsuits, several of which are class-action suits, filed in state and federal courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. These lawsuits relate to the company's alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The suits also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties. The suits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and expenses. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Reliant Energy, Inc. -- http://www.reliant.com/-- provides electricity and energy services to retail and wholesale customers through two business segments. Retail energy provides electricity and energy services to more than 1.8 million retail electricity customers in Texas, including residential and small business customers and commercial, industrial and governmental or institutional customers. It also serves commercial, industrial and governmental or institutional customers in the PJM Market, which primarily covers Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. Wholesale energy provides electricity and energy services in energy markets in the U.S. through its ownership and operation of or contracting for power generation capacity. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 16,000 megawatts of power generation capacity. On Aug. 20, 2007, the company's Channelview, Texax, power-plant project, filed for bankruptcy. SOURCEFIRE INC: Md. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is considering a motion to grant class-action status to a consolidated securities fraud suit pending against Sourcefire, Inc. A putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit is captioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN." Since then, two other putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company and certain of its officers and directors and other parties making similar allegations. These two additional suits are: 1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc.. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01351-JFM," and 2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01425-WMN." In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors and other parties making similar allegations. The fourth suit is captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH." Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered on June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the company's initial public offering. The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with allegedly material misleading statements and omissions contained in the registration statement and prospectus. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and costs on behalf of a putative class. On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel. The court granted Ms. Amrhein's request. On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been asserted in one or more of the four original actions. On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part. In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order. On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, for the appointment of class representative and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for the class. The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before Jan. 9, 2009. On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an opportunity to conduct a mediation. The initial meeting with the mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008. The Court has not made a determination of whether a class can be certified, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com - and - Tydings & Rosenberg LLP 100 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone: 410-752-9700 Fax: 410-757-5460 e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com TARGET CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Immunity Supplement" Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Target Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in St. Clair County Circuit Court alleging that it engaged in unfair and deceptive practices designed to mislead the public when marketing its "Immunity Supplement" products, Kelly Holleran of the St. Clair Record reports. The suit was filed on Dec. 31, 2008 by Brian Buehlhorn. It alleges the retailer misled the public into believing Immunity Supplement products protects users from airborne viruses, is a form of immune system defense and decreases a person's likelihood of getting sick. Attorneys Paul M. Weiss, Esq., and George K. Lang, Esq., of Freed and Weiss of Chicago, Richard J. Burke, Esq. of Richard J. Burke in St. Louis and Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq., and Brian T. Kreisler, Esq. of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson in Belleville represent Mr. Buehlhorn and the putative class, report the St. Clair Record. According to the complaint, "Target's acts and omission constitute, inter alia: (1) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and (2) unjust enrichment." Mr. Buehlhorn claims Target's "unfair and deceptive" scheme has caused him and the class to incur substantial damages. He also alleges Target has benefited at the expense of its consumers, according to the St. Clair Record. The complaint states, "the profits and/or benefits obtained by Target through sales of immunity supplement are to the determent of Plaintiff and the class, and violate the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." The St. Clair Record reported that Mr. Buehlhorn is asking that the case be certified as a class-action and that the court award him and the class damages, attorneys' fees, costs of the suit and other relief the court deems just. For more details, contact: Paul M. Weiss, Esq. (paul@freedweiss.com) George K. Lang, Esq. (george@freedweiss.com) Freed and Weiss LLC 111 W. Washington Street Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312 220 0000 and 312 855 2628 Fax: 312 220 7777 - and - Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson, P.C. 5111 West Main Street Belleville, Illinois 62226 Phone: (618) 235-0020 or (618) 271-1600 Fax: (618) 235-8558 Web site: http://bphtlaw.com/ UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in California NetZero Lawsuit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative settlement in the consolidated consumer fraud class- action lawsuit filed against NetZero, a brand name of United Online, Inc. has been given final approval. On March 6, 2006, Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer class action lawsuit before the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero, claiming that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after they cancel their Internet access account. On July 27, 2006, Donald E. Ewart filed another purported consumer class action suit in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero containing substantially similar allegations as the "Piercy" case. The plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits denying the material allegations of the complaints. Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the actions as class representatives. Then, on March 16, 2007, Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger, and Peter Chrisler were substituted as purported class representatives. On May 25, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases under the caption, "Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461." On July 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class-action complaint at which time Peter Chrisler was also substituted as a purported class representative. A settlement agreement has been entered into by all parties in this case and was granted final approval by the court on Nov. 6, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a provider of consumer Internet and media services through a number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and MyPoints. VCG HOLDING: Still Faces Suit in Minn. Over Employment Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- VCG Holding Corp. and its Class Affairs unit are still facing a purported class-action suit in Minnesota over certain employment practices, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. An ex-employee filed the lawsuit in December 2007, following his termination from employment with Classic Affairs, a wholly owned subsidiary of the company. The plaintiff alleges that in connection with his employment, he was subject to certain employment practices which violated Minnesota law. The initial action and subsequent pleading assert that this matter is filed as a purported class-action lawsuit. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to name additional plaintiffs and later, to name Classic Affairs as a party defendant. The company and classic Affairs have answered this complaint denying all liability to the plaintiffs. The parties have engaged in written discovery, but no depositions have yet been taken in this case. The parties have attempted, via mediation, to resolve this case. That mediation was unsuccessful. The defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for mid January 2009. If that motion is unsuccessful, trial is now scheduled for May 2009. While this case has been pending since December 2007, no motion for class certification has been filed or granted by the Court. VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is engaged in owning and operating nightclubs that provide live adult entertainment, food and beverage services. The majority of the clubs operate under the branded names PT's, Diamond Cabaret and The Penthouse Club under non-exclusive licensing agreements. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company operated 18 adult entertainment nightclubs and one upscale dance club (collectively referred to as the Clubs). Three of the Clubs offer full service restaurants with fine dining. 16 Clubs serve alcoholic beverages. It owns International Entertainment Consultants, Inc., which provides management services to its nightclubs and, on a fee basis, to non-owned affiliated nightclubs. VCG Holding classifies its operations into two segments: the operations of the Clubs and the management of non-owned adult nightclubs. WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit against Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee, alleging gender discrimination. The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of present and former female employees alleging that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of trial. The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss. The suit was recently amended to include two additional plaintiffs. The parties are in the discovery phase of the litigation, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Settles 2001 Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. Settled a purported class-action suit alleging gender discrimination that was filed in New York back in 2001, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. In 2008, the company settled an action in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York commenced against the company in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of present and former female officer and officer equivalent employees alleging that the Company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The eventual class period in the settled suit was 1998 to the end of 2001. Although the Court had denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to grant nationwide discovery, it did certify a class of approximately 200 female officers and officer equivalent employees based in the company's offices in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The parties' settlement agreement provides for certain injunctive relief that the company agreed to provide as well as a monetary settlement, including the amount of attorney fees plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to receive, which was not material to the Company. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 21-22, 2009 14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute TBD, New York, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 May 18-19, 2009 5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST American Conference Institute TBD, Washington, District of Columbia Phone: 888-224-2480 July 9-10, 2009 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 July 9-10, 2009 INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Langham Hotel Boston, Massachusetts Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS ********* 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 * * *