/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 35 Headlines ACXIOM CORP: Court Mediation on Florida DPPA Lawsuit Ongoing DEVRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Daghlian" Appeal GT SOLAR: Amended Consolidated "Braun" Complaint Pending in N.H. GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Securities Suit Remanded to N.H. State Court HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending HILLENBRAND INC: July 2009 Trial Set for "Clayton" Suit v. Unit HILLENBRAND INC: No Ruling Yet on "Pioneer Valley" Certification HILLENBRAND INC: Ruling on FCA Class Certification Bid Pending INTEGRATED DEVICE: To Seek Extension of SRAM Claims Tolling Deal INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Faces Merged Lawsuit Over Vishay Offer INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Securities Fraud Suit Set for Mediation PLEASANT CARE: Calif. Bankruptcy Court Finalizes Suit Settlement PROPERTY I.D.: Calif. Court Give Final OK to $39.3M Settlement RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Mo. Court Hears Motions in Odors Suit RENT-A-CENTER INC: Reaches Settlement in W.V. Consumer Lawsuit SEQUATCHIE MOUNTAIN: Faces $13.5M Consumer Fraud Suit in Tenn. TYSON FOODS: Kansas Court Certifies Class in Workers' Lawsuit WAL-MART STORES: Court Rules Larger Panel to Review "Dukes" Case New Securities Fraud Cases RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Suit Filing ********* ACXIOM CORP: Court Mediation on Florida DPPA Lawsuit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Mediation in a purported class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers, alleging violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, is being conducted under the purview of the Court. The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed with the state court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used driver's license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees. To date, a class has not been certified. Acxiom has made an informal offer to settle the case and has accrued $4.0 million for the offer of settlement and possible expenses associated with the notice and claims administration process. The parties have agreed to stay the proceedings while mediation is conducted under the purview of the Court (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2008). No further updates were reported by the company in its Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Jose E. Martinez, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com) Aronovitz Trial Lawyers 150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-372-2772 Fax: 305-375-0243 Mark S. Fistos, Esq. James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Phone: 850-325-2680 Fax: 850-325-2681 Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq. (lgoodman@devinegoodman.com) Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-374-8200 Fax: 305-374-8208 - and - James Kellogg Green, Esq. (jameskgreen@bellsouth.net) 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-659-2029 Fax: 561-655-1357 DEVRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Daghlian" Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- DeVry Inc. and DeVry University Inc. await a ruling on their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's decisions in the suit, "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW." Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University campus, filed a lawsuit over the defendants' alleged violations of state education laws. Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the putative class action suit in the California state district court for the County of Los Angeles. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Mr. Daghlian alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students did not comply with California state statutes including a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified statement to prospective students concerning the transferability of credits. On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an order certifying a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was filed. In October 2007, at DeVry's request, the Court entered a Summary Judgment and dismissed all of Mr. Daghlian's class claims under the UCL, on the grounds that the statutory provisions of the California Education Code underlying Mr. Daghlian's claims unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state regionally accredited universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also entered judgment in DeVry's favor on Mr. Daghlian's individual claim under the California Education Code. Mr. DeVry had contended that the California Education Code compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. In addition, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule and granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary judgment directed to Mr. Daghlian's remaining individual claims under the UCL and False Advertising Law. On Jan. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. DeVry filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on Jan. 2, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael D. Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. (jlspielberg@jlslp.com) Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-392-8801 Representing the defendants is: Van T. Lam, Esq. Reed Smith 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Phone: 213-457-8000 GT SOLAR: Amended Consolidated "Braun" Complaint Pending in N.H. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The amended consolidated complaint in the federal class-action suit captioned, "Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class- action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others, including certain investors in the company. On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the federal class actions into a single action captioned, "Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al." The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the consolidated matter on Oct. 29, 2008. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Dec. 22, 2008. The defendants are scheduled to respond to the amended consolidated complaint on or before Feb. 5, 2009. The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act. The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and Prospectus for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the company's business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's customers, JYT Corporation, one of the company's competitors, and certain of the company's products, including its DSS furnaces. Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper. The suit is "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N. Laplante, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com) Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green 1000 Elm St. P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 Phone: 603-668-0300 - and - Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. (mblauner@shulaw.com) Shapiro Haber & Urmy 53 State St, 13th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-439-3939 Representing the defendants are: W. Daniel Deane, Esq. (ddeane@nixonpeabody.com) Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm St, 14th Flr Manchester, NH 03101-2031 Phone: 603-628-4047 - and - William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-526-6000 GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Securities Suit Remanded to N.H. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The putative securities class-action suit captioned, "Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," is ongoing in the New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District. On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class-action suit was filed in New Hampshire State Court, under the caption, "Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," against the company, certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering. The Company removed the state class action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008. The state class-action suit was consolidated with the federal class actions on Nov. 25, 2008. On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal Court granted the plantiff's motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court. The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act. The state class-action complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the company's business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's customers, JYT Corporation, one of the company's competitors, and certain of the company's products, including its DSS furnaces. Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the State Court should deem just and proper, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry. The company's products and solutions are used for production of solar grade polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers, production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules. GT Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design and integration know-how with its equipment. The company offers its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are to customers outside the United States. Effective Jan. 1, 2006, GT Solar Holdings, LLC acquired the Company. HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remains pending. Kim Litigation On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed by Cheolan Kim against the company and certain of its officers, seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007. The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about the company's financial condition and business prospects. It also contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the company's merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Goldman, Sachs & Co. was entered, there would not have been a merger deal, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the class period. The plaintiffs alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class significant losses. On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which extends the class period through Jan. 11, 2008. It contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, the company also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to disclose "significant problems" relating to its personal navigation device "sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008. The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on Jan. 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. Boca Raton Litigation On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan filed a purported class-action suit against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Consolidation On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the matter, "Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al.," and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as "In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR)." That same day, the Court ordered the administrative closing of Boca Raton Litigation. Also on that same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C., to serve as Lead Counsel. On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of "Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al." with "In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation." On May 2, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class- action complaint. The consolidated complaint, which extends the class period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding the company's financial condition in fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008. In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclosure material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the company's capital expenditures. The consolidated complaint also alleges that when the company's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of the company's stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2008). On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008 The suit is "In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-01757-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard W. Roberts, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com) Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Representing the defendants is: Thomas F. Cullen, Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com) Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-2105 Phone: 202-879-3939 HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the matter, "Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 02212-RWR," which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, remains pending. On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman International Industries Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as injunctive relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present, the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in company stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings." The suit further claims that, during the Class Period, the defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse facts regarding the company and its businesses and prospects. The plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's Participants." On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of the case with "In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation" (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2008). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on Aug. 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02212-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard W. Roberts presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: John Bucher Isbister, Esq. (jisbister@tydingslaw.com) Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP 100 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202-1062 Phone: 410-752-9714 Fax: 410-727-5460 Representing the defendants are: Thomas F. Cullen, Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com) Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-2105 Phone: 202-879-3939 HILLENBRAND INC: July 2009 Trial Set for "Clayton" Suit v. Unit --------------------------------------------------------------- The trial in the putative class-action suit styled, "Garry Clayton v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc." is set to commence during the week of July 13, 2009, according to Hillenbrand, Inc.'s Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Aug. 17, 2007, a lawsuit styled, "Vertie Staples v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc.," was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. As amended, the case is a putative class action on behalf of the plaintiff and all others who purchased a Monoseal(R), Monogard(R) or gasketed caskets manufactured by Batesville from a licensed funeral home located in Arkansas from Jan. 1, 1989 to Aug. 31, 2002. The complaint alleges that the warranties on which the claims are predicated date from 1989 to 2002. The plaintiff claims that Monoseal(R), Monogard(R) or gasketed caskets were marketed as completely resistant to the entrance of air and water when they allegedly were not completely resistant. The plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for fraud, constructive fraud and breach of express and implied warranties. On Jan. 9, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added another putative class plaintiff, restated the pending claims, and added a claim for unjust enrichment. The claims of the original plaintiff were subsequently dismissed by the Court and the case is now styled, "Garry Clayton v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc." In order to establish federal jurisdiction over the claims under the Class Action Fairness Act, the plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million. The action is still in the class certification stage. Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com/-- is the parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiary, Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville Casket). Through Batesville Casket, the company is engaged in the North American death care industry where it manufactures, distributes and sells funeral service products to funeral directors who operate funeral homes. The company's products consist primarily of burial and cremation caskets, but also include containers and urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and other personalization and memorialization products and services, including creating and hosting websites for funeral homes. It primarily manufactures and distributes products in the United States. It also had two manufacturing facilities in Mexico and distribution facilities in Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. HILLENBRAND INC: No Ruling Yet on "Pioneer Valley" Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has yet to rule on the motion for class certification in Pioneer Valley Casket Co.'s lawsuit against Hillenbrand, Inc.'s subsidiary, Batesville Casket Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket store and Internet retailer, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Batesville, Hill-Rom, Service Corporation International ("SCI"), Alderwoods Group, Inc. ("Alderwoods"), and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. ("Stewart") in California District Court on behalf of the class of "independent casket distributors," alleging violations of state and federal antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws based on essentially the same factual allegations as in the consumer cases. Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the alleged market for caskets. The Pioneer Valley complaint was also transferred to the Southern District of Texas but was not consolidated with the FCA Action. On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a current or former "independent casket distributor." Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to monopolize, and violations of state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive practices laws. On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint. The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class of all independent casket distributors in the United States who are or were in business at any time from July 8, 2001 to the present, excluding those that: (1) are affiliated in any way with any funeral home; (2) manufacture caskets; or (3) are defendants in the current action, their directors, officers, agents, employees, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates. A class certification hearing in the Pioneer Valley Action was held in early December 2006. While the decision was pending on the class certification motion, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of class certification. On Nov. 24, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who conducted the class certification hearings recommended that the plaintiffs' motions for class certification in both cases be denied. The plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation with the District Judge. If the District Judge accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denies class certification, plaintiffs may petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal. It is anticipated that new deadlines, including a trial date, will not be set until sometime after the Court has ruled on the motions for class certification. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2 million before trebling on behalf of the purported class of independent casket resellers they seek to represent. Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long- standing policy of selling Batesville(R) caskets only to licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial the plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for periods between their reports and the time of trial. In antitrust actions such as the Pioneer Valley Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against any or all of the co-defendants, who have no statutory contribution rights against each other. The company and Hill-Rom have entered into a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential liabilities associated with this litigation between Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com/-- is the parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiary, Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville Casket). Through Batesville Casket, the company is engaged in the North American death care industry where it manufactures, distributes and sells funeral service products to funeral directors who operate funeral homes. The company's products consist primarily of burial and cremation caskets, but also include containers and urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and other personalization and memorialization products and services, including creating and hosting websites for funeral homes. It primarily manufactures and distributes products in the United States. It also had two manufacturing facilities in Mexico and distribution facilities in Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. HILLENBRAND INC: Ruling on FCA Class Certification Bid Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas' ruling on the motion for class certification in Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc.'s lawsuit against Hillenbrand, Inc.'s subsidiary, Batesville Casket Company, Inc. and Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., remains pending. On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. ("FCA") and several individual consumers filed a purported class-action antitrust lawsuit ("FCA Action") against three national funeral home businesses, Service Corporation International ("SCI"), Alderwoods Group, Inc. ("Alderwoods"), and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. ("Stewart"), together with Hill- om Holdings, Inc. and the company's subsidiary Batesville Casket Company, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to suppress competition in an alleged market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott of so-called "independent casket discounters," that is, third- party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed funeral homes; a campaign of disparagement against these independent casket discounters; and concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in violation of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to, its longstanding policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville, the other defendants and others to exclude "independent casket discounters" and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than competitive prices for caskets. The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors, York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators, but did not name them as defendants. The FCA Action also alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the sale of caskets in the United States. After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class- action lawsuits on behalf of consumers were filed based on essentially the same factual allegations and alleging violations of federal antitrust law and/or related state law claims. All of these actions have either been dismissed or consolidated with the FCA Action. Batesville, Hill-Rom and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more convenient forum. In response, the court in California permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston, Texas). On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing substantially the same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint. On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint. The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that includes all United States consumers who purchased Batesville caskets from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of limitations. A class certification hearing in the FCA Action was held in early December 2006. While the decision was pending on the class certification motions, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of class certification. On Nov. 24, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who conducted the class certification hearings recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification be denied. The plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation with the District Judge. If the District Judge accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denies class certification, plaintiffs may petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal. It is anticipated that new deadlines, including a trial date, will not be set until sometime after the Court has ruled on the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they seek to represent. Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long-standing policy of selling Batesville(R) caskets only to licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial the plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for periods between their reports and the time of trial. In antitrust actions such as the FCA Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against any or all of the co- defendants, who have no statutory contribution rights against each other. The company and Hill-Rom have entered into a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential liabilities associated with this litigation between Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com/-- is the parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiary, Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville Casket). Through Batesville Casket, the company is engaged in the North American death care industry where it manufactures, distributes and sells funeral service products to funeral directors who operate funeral homes. The company's products consist primarily of burial and cremation caskets, but also include containers and urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and other personalization and memorialization products and services, including creating and hosting websites for funeral homes. It primarily manufactures and distributes products in the United States. It also had two manufacturing facilities in Mexico and distribution facilities in Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. INTEGRATED DEVICE: To Seek Extension of SRAM Claims Tolling Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Device Technology, Inc. intends to pursue a further extension of the tolling agreement regarding potential claims by the indirect and direct purchaser plaintiffs against the company. On Oct. 24, 2006, the Company was served with a civil antitrust complaint filed by Reclaim Center, Inc., as plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and 37 other entities on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) products. The Complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants conspired to raise the prices of SRAM, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and several other states' antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes. Shortly thereafter, a number of other plaintiffs filed similar complaints. Given the similarity of the complaints, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to a single judge in the Northern District of California and consolidated the cases for pretrial proceedings in February 2007. The consolidated cases are captioned, "In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation." (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007). In August 2007, direct purchasers of SRAM and indirect purchasers of SRAM filed separate Consolidated Amended Complaints. The company was not named as a defendant in either complaint. Pursuant to tolling agreements with the indirect and direct purchaser plaintiffs, the statute of limitations was tolled until Jan. 10, 2009 as to potential claims against the company. The company intends to pursue a further extension of the tolling agreement, according to its Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 28, 2008. Integrated Device Technology, Inc. -- http://www.idt.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductor solutions for the advanced communications and computing industries. The company operates in three business segments: Networking, Timing and Memory Interface, and Standard Products and Other. The Networking segment includes network search engines (NSEs), switching solutions, integrated communications processors, flow-control management (FCM) devices, first-in/first out (FIFOs), and multi-ports. The Timing and Memory Interface segment includes clock management, dual in-line memory modules (DIMM) support and other timing solution products. The Standard Products and Other segment include high-speed static random access memory (SRAM), military applications, digital logic products, telecommunications and video products. On July 31, 2006, the company acquired the PC Audio business from SigmaTel, Inc. INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Faces Merged Lawsuit Over Vishay Offer --------------------------------------------------------------- International Rectifier Corp. faces a consolidated amended purported class-action complaint filed after the company's disclosure that Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., had made an unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the company for $21.22 per share in cash. On Aug. 15, 2008, the first purported class-action complaint, captioned "Hui Zhao v. International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396461," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint names as defendants the company and all current directors and alleges that the Vishay proposal is unfair and that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. It seeks to enjoin the defendants from agreeing to the Vishay proposal or, alternatively, to rescind a merger with Vishay if it were ultimately consummated, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On Aug. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint, captioned "United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396490," was filed in the same court. This complaint names the same defendants and alleges that the Vishay proposal is unfair and that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by failing to properly value the Company and by failing to maximize its value through steps such as the solicitation of alternate offers. The action likewise seeks to enjoin defendants from agreeing to the Vishay proposal and a declaration that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008). According to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities an Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008, five other substantively identical complaints seeking the same relief were filed in the same court and, on Oct. 3, 2008, were consolidated under the caption of the lead case. On Oct. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of investors based on the theory that the board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay proposal. International Rectifier Corp. -- http://www.irf.com/-- designs, manufactures and markets power management semiconductors. Its products include power metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs), high-voltage analog and mixed signal integrated circuits, low-voltage analog and mixed signal integrated circuits, digital integrated circuits, radiation- resistant (RAD-Hard) power MOSFETs, insulated gate bipolar transistors, high reliability DC-DC converters, PowerStage modules, and DC-DC converter type applications. The company's semiconductors are found in a variety of applications, such as automotive applications, networking, industrial motors, display, consumer electronics, servers, personal computers, game stations, household appliances, aerospace and defense, and telecommunications. IR operates in seven segments: Enterprise Power (EP), Power Management Devices (PMD), PS, Energy-Saving Products (ESP), Aerospace and Defense (A&D), Intellectual Property (IP) and Transition Services (TS). INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Securities Fraud Suit Set for Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against International Rectifier Corp. has been referred by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for mediation. Following the company's disclosure on April 9, 2007, that its Audit Committee was conducting an internal investigation into certain revenue recognition matters, a series of putative class- action lawsuits was filed against International Rectifier Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Edward R. Koller filed the first complaint on April 17, 2007, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of IR stock from Oct. 27, 2005, through April 9, 2007. The complaint named as defendants IR and certain of its present and former officers and directors and alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act based upon revenue recognition errors at the company's Japan subsidiary. On July 22, 2007, the court consolidated all of the securities actions under the caption, "In re International Rectifier Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) C.D. Cal.)," and appointed Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund and General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, as co-lead plaintiffs. The Co-Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on Jan. 14, 2008, which purported to extend the Original Class Period by nearly two years, from July 31, 2003, to Aug. 29, 2007, and added claims based upon the company's disclosures that certain former officers improperly allocated operating expenses as restructuring charges, improperly assigned tax liability from higher to lower tax jurisdictions and improperly accounted for tax benefits associated with the granting of stock options. The lawsuit also named as defendants several of the company's former officers, but did not name any of its past or present directors except Eric Lidow and Alex Lidow, who were officers as well. The company filed a motion to dismiss these claims on March 6, 2008, on the grounds that Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter as to IR; failed to plead scienter as to the company; failed to plead loss causation as to certain of those disclosures; failed to plead an underlying violation of Section 10(b), which is a predicate for a claim under Section 20(a); and improperly expanded the class period without adequate notice. The Co- Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion. On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, on the ground that the Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead detailed facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of defendants' scienter. The court has permitted Co-Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before Oct. 17, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008). On Oct. 17, 2008, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SACC"). The SACC purports to extend the class period from July 31, 2003 to Feb. 11, 2008, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of matters recently disclosed by the company in connection with the restatement of certain prior period financial statements, and names as defendants the company and certain of its former officers and directors. The SACC does not name as defendants any of the Company's current officers or directors. The SACC seeks unspecified damages from all defendants. On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the SACC on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts raising a strong inference that the individuals who spoke on the company's behalf during the putative class period knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the company's financial statements were inaccurate. Similar motions to dismiss were filed that same day on behalf of the individual defendants. The company also filed an alternative motion to strike allegations purporting to extend the putative class period to a date earlier than April 29, 2005 or to a date later than May 11, 2007 on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to plead loss causation as to disclosures issued during that time period. On Dec. 31, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for control person liability and granting, in its entirety, defendant Robert Grant's motion to dismiss. These dismissals were with prejudice. The District Court denied the company's motion to dismiss the securities fraud count and denied in their entirety motions to dismiss brought by defendants Alex Lidow, McGee and Eric Lidow. On Jan. 7, 2009, the Court issued orders referring the matter for mediation, setting Sept. 1, 2009 as the last day for a settlement conference and Jan. 12, 2010 as the first day of trial, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities an Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "In re International Rectifier Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge John F. Walter, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. (jbai@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-433-3200 - and - Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-785-0800 Representing the defendants are: Jacob I. Kiani, Esq. (jkiani@sheppardmullin.com) Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP 333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Phone: 213-620-1780 - and - Jason DeBretteville, Esq. (debrettevillej@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303-3308 Phone: 650-461-5682 PLEASANT CARE: Calif. Bankruptcy Court Finalizes Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Feb. 17, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Morris Polich & Purdy LLP represented a class of several hundred former employees of the now defunct Pleasant Care nursing home chain, after their health insurance coverage was retroactively terminated and earned vacation pay withheld. In February 2007, the Pleasant Care companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During the reorganization, the Pleasant Care facilities remained open, and their employees continued to work under the belief that they were still covered by Pleasant Care's self-funded health insurance plan. After a couple of months, however, Pleasant Care stopped funding the plan, and the employees were billed directly for medical services they thought were covered. Some had bills of more than $10,000, and the bankruptcy court set a bar date for all administrative claims that was due to expire before many of the workers received their bills. Morris Polich & Purdy took the case only 11 days before the bar date. Considering that the defendants were already in bankruptcy, "it was a big risk," says David Vendler, a partner with the firm. However, Vendler states, "the workers badly needed help, or a real injustice was going to be done." Because the case was in bankruptcy court, Morris Polich & Purdy partnered with Richard Baum, a bankruptcy attorney in Los Angeles. "The first thing to do was to extend the bar date and get a notice to the class that they could understand," Baum stated. Bankruptcy Judge Ellen Carroll agreed that the bar date had to be moved back, and, in what Baum says may be a first, the new notice of administrative claim bar date was rewritten in plain English, then translated into Tagalog, as many of the affected workers were from the Philippines. The bankruptcy court initially declined to allow the claimants to be treated as a class. After this ruling, Vendler and Baum decided that filing a separate action in the District Court was their best alternative. After several rounds of procedural wrangling over venue, which plaintiffs eventually won, the defendants agreed to settle the claims on a class basis, and this settlement was finally approved by the bankruptcy court. Under the terms of the settlement, the employees will receive approximately 65% of their claims, a greater percentage than all of the other administrative claimants. Vendler is particularly proud of the result. "Very few firms in Los Angeles would take a class action case on contingency against a set of defendants already in bankruptcy court," Vendler states, "but this was a case where we simply could not stand idly by and watch people face potential bankruptcy, just because they committed the crime of going to work every day." Ultimately, the defendants did the right thing in settling the case. For more details, contact: David Vendler, Esq. Morris Polich & Purdy LLP Phone: (213) 417-5100 Web site: http://www.mpplaw.com/ PROPERTY I.D.: Calif. Court Give Final OK to $39.3M Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave final approval to a $39.3 million settlement in a class- action lawsuit that alleged real estate brokers received kickbacks for referring clients to Property I.D. Corp., a company that produces natural hazard disclosure reports, Matt Carter of Inman News reports. The original complaint, captioned, "Berger v. Property ID Corp., et al., Case No. 05-5373," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 25, 2005, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2009). The suit, as amended later, was filed by Mark Berger against Cendant, Century 21, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, and related entities, among other defendants, who are parties to joint venture agreements with Property I.D. Corp., which markets and sells natural hazard disclosure reports in the State of California. The complaint names additional defendants, including certain Realogy subsidiaries and several Prudential Real Estate companies, which also had joint venture relationships with Property I.D. The complaint, as amended to date, alleges, among other things, violations of RESPA, which restricts direct or indirect payments from real estate settlement service providers for the referral of business to other providers, and further alleged unlawful business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. Mr. Berger alleges that the joint ventures are sham arrangements that unlawfully receive payments or referral fees in exchange for business. The defendants have responded that they do not consider natural hazard disclosure reports to be settlement services and accordingly, the provision of such services is not within the purview of RESPA. In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which request was granted by the Court on April 28, 2008. Classes were certified against the Realogy defendants and the Pickford defendants, but not against the Silver Oak defendants or the RE/MAX defendants as the plaintiffs had no class representative for those joint ventures. Mediation was held on Aug. 14, 2007, Oct. 23-24, 2007, April 4, 2008, and May 9, 2008. At the mediation hearing on May 9, 2008, the company and the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the matter as it relates to claims against the company and its subsidiaries. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company anticipates, based on its current assumptions, that the aggregate amount it will pay in the settlement (including attorneys' fees and costs of claims administration) will be $4 million (the amount of the company's reserve at March 31, 2008). The settlement is subject to execution of a written settlement agreement, court certification of a class and court approval. By order dated May 21, 2008, the Court stayed the case and directed that a motion to approve the settlement be filed by July 21, 2008. By Order dated July 24, 2008, the Court extended the deadline to file a motion to approve the settlement to Aug. 4, 2008. The motion for preliminary approval was filed on Aug. 4, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008). On Aug. 28, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement of this action as it relates to claims against the company and its subsidiaries. The settlement provides for the reimbursement of the amounts paid to purchase a Property I.D. natural hazard disclosure report where the consumer was represented by an agent of a Realogy broker or franchisee in the transaction. Under the terms of the settlement, the company paid $4 million in September 2008 to fund attorneys' fees and costs of claims administration. The company anticipates, based on its current assumptions including the expected redemption rate by class members, that it will have no further payment obligation under the settlement as insurance proceeds are anticipated to fund the balance of obligations under the settlement agreement. Mailed notice has been issued to the class and publicized notice will occur by Oct. 29, 2008. A fairness hearing is scheduled for Jan. 26, 2009, at which the court will decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The suit is "Mark Berger v. Property ID Corp. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05373-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge George H. King, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Caryn Becker, Esq. (cbecker@lchb.com) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Embarcadero Ctr W, 275 Battery St, 30th Fl San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415-956-1000 - and - Jenna Whitman, Esq. (jwhitman@lchb.com) Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-956-1000 Representing the defendants is: Michael C. Baum, Esq. (mbaum@rpab.com) Resch Polster Alpert & Berger 9200 Sunset Boulevard, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90069 Phone: 310-277-8300 RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Mo. Court Hears Motions in Odors Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Jasper County Circuit Court at Joplin recently heard motions in a purported class-action suit against Renewable Environmental Solutions, which is alleging that odors from its Carthage, Missouri plant are a nuisance and that the company has been negligent, Susan Redden of the Joplin Globe reports. John Hacker of The Carthage Press previously reported that the RES plant takes waste turkey parts and other agricultural waste and turns it into a fuel oil using what it calls a thermal conversion process (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008). The plant has been cited by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources several times since it opened in April 2003, and was forced to shut down for a time by the state in 2005, according to The Carthage Press. The suit was filed with the Jasper County Circuit Court by Cynthia Sundy on June 5, 2007. Ms. Sundy -- represented by Ron Jones, Esq. of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles -- seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney fees (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2007). Ms. Sundy the odor from RES "has injured area residents and property owners by diminishing their right to enjoy their property and diminished their property values." She asked that that the case be declared as a class action, and that the class include about half the city of Carthage. The filing noted that there are potentially 6,375 people in 2,406 households in the area affected by the odor from RES. According to The Carthage Press, in July 2007, the Jasper County Circuit Court granted an RES motion to send the case to federal court, but in October 2007, the federal court sent the case back to Jasper County at the request of Ms. Sundy's attorneys. The Carthage Press reports that RES filed a motion to dismiss the case in November 2007, but no decision on that motion was listed in the court records on the Internet. Representing the plaintiffs are: Rhon Jones, Esq. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-2343 or (800) 898-2034 Fax: (334) 954-7555 e-mail: rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com RENT-A-CENTER INC: Reaches Settlement in W.V. Consumer Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, Inc., settled a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of violating West Virginia consumer protection law, the Huntington Herald Dispatch reports. A federal judge approved the settlement earlier this month and more than 61,000 customers have been notified, according to the Huntington Herald Dispatch report. The lawsuit alleged that Rent-A-Center's prices exceeded those permitted by West Virginia law. The suit was filed by Jimmy and Michelle Hardwick of Huntingotn and Yvette Spencer Parks of Charleston, according to a release from attorneys in the case, reports the Huntington Herald Dispatch. Under the settlement, Rent-A-Center will refund a percentage of the amounts paid by eligible customers who submit paperwork to a third-party administrator. The Huntington Herald Dispatch reported that Rent-A-Center also agreed to reduce the number of payments needed to obtain ownership for all active rental agreements in the state as of Sept. 8, 2009. SEQUATCHIE MOUNTAIN: Faces $13.5M Consumer Fraud Suit in Tenn. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sequatchie Mountain, LLC, one of the developers of Sequatchie Pointe, a Marion County mountain top project, faces a purported $13.5 million class-action lawsuit in Tennessee that were filed by clients who say they were misled when they purchased property in the development, Brett King of the Jasper Journal reports. Others defendants in the case include Joe J. Detweiler, J.J. Detweiler Enterprises, Inc., Bradley L. Watson, Dan Graber, and John Barrack, according to the Jasper Journal. Jasper attorney Bill Killian, Esq., along with Chattanooga attorney Valerie Epstein, Esq., filed the class-action suit in Marion County Chancery Court on Jan. 28, 2009. Mr. Killian told the Jasper Journal that the class-action suit represents about six to eight people from Florida and Mississippi who bought property in the development. He explains, "They put $20,000 on a down payment and they show up and for closing and they couldn't close." According to the lawsuit, "The Plaintiffs entered into various purchase agreements, installment land contracts, land contrives, contracts for the purchase of land, deed and other transactions with the Defendants, for the purchase of certain real estate in Marion County." "After entering into the contracts, the Plaintiffs learned, at varying times and through various means that Sequatchie Pointe was not, in fact, a development under county and state law as required," states the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by the Jasper Journal. The suit further states, "This 'development' did not have the required final approval of the Marion County Planning Commission, the Marion County Road Superintendent, the Marion County Health Department, and other regulatory agencies." "Furthermore, the 'development' does not now, nor did it ever, have water service. In fact, a contract for the provision of water to this development has been executed by the owners of said development, but no action has been taken by them to fulfill their obligations under the contracts," according to the suit. The Jasper Journal reported that the suit also alleges the defendants target elderly who were not from the area. It states, "The Defendants wrongfully targeted out of state elderly persons. Specifically holding home 'parties' in Land O' Lakes, Fla. and offering a 'mini vacation' as an incentive. Defendants failed to mention that no water, no roads and no final approval had been granted to the 'development' in violation of the Tennessee Elder Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 13-3-101 et seq." The lawsuit goes on the say the lots were overpriced, pointing out, "The fraudulent misrepresentation of the price of the lots purchased by the Plaintiffs caused the Plaintiffs to grossly overpay for said lots, based upon the actual fair market value of lots, not in an approved development." Finally, the suit states, "The Plaintiffs possess no other legitimate or feasible way to secure their losses, other than a lien lis pendens on the Defendants' real property, currently owned by the Defendants in the 'development,'" reports the Jasper Journal. TYSON FOODS: Kansas Court Certifies Class in Workers' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for District of Kansas granted class- action status to a lawsuit, which claims that thousands of Kansas meatpacking workers were denied overtime and other compensation by Tyson Foods, Inc., Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports. In a ruling issued on Feb. 12, 2009, Judge John Lungstrum granted the workers' request for class certification, setting the stage for a possible trial involving millions of dollars in alleged back pay, according to The Kansas City Star report. The Kansas City Star reported that Judge Lungstrum's decision had two components. He conditionally certified the federal claims as a so-called collective action, which is similar to a class-action except that the potential plaintiffs not named in the lawsuit are asked whether they want to opt into the lawsuit. And he certified the state law claims as a class-action. On May 15, 2006, a lawsuit, "Adelina Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. About 262 current and former hourly employees of Tyson Food's beef slaughter facility in Holcomb (Finney County), Kansas filed the suit seeking class-action status (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007). The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated employees, claiming defendants failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and Kansas law. Three plaintiffs also have asserted claims under state law for breach of contract, quantum meruit and violation of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, K.S.A. Section 44-312. They seek to act as class representatives for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all current and former hourly employees who worked at the plant in the preceding five years who were allegedly not paid for all time worked. In particular, the suit alleges employees should be paid for the time it takes to change into protective work uniforms and safety equipment worn by employees, and walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. The plaintiffs are seeking back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Approximately 700 persons have filed consents to join the case (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006). WAL-MART STORES: Court Rules Larger Panel to Review "Dukes" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recently ruled that a larger panel of judges will reconsider whether a gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. should be certified as a class-action suit, Steve Painter of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports. With recent decision the case now will go before a panel likely consisting of the chief judge and 10 others picked at random from the 27-member court, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Case Background The purported class-action suit, captioned, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees in all of the company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the U.S. The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training, and job assignments. It seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs. The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6 million present and former female associates. The company believes that the district court's ruling is incorrect. On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review of the ruling. On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's certification order. On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court. On Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion. As a result, Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot. Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8, 2008. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates retail stores in various formats around the world. The company earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices, while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual respect, integrity and diversity. Wal-Mart's operations comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club and International. Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008), and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com. Its Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the United States and the segment's online retail operations, samsclub.com. Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's net sales during fiscal 2008. New Securities Fraud Cases RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- February 17, 2009: 07:13 PM ET � Marketwire -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIGL) ("Rigel" or the "Fund") between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges that Rigel and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. On December 13, 2007, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about a clinical trial (the "Study") of a new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The Study involved 189 patients in the U.S. and Mexico. In response to the announcement of the summary result of the study, Rigel's common stock price more than tripled in one day, from $8 per share to $25.95. Then, on October 27, 2008, Rigel presented the full results of the Study at a meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and on an investor conference call. Those results contained adverse information omitted from the Company's December 13, 2007 statements. The disclosure of the Study's results caused Rigel's stock price to plunge 38% in a single day from $14.41 to $8.84. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose the following: -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients, which may have contributed disproportionately to the overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses; -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk, the mechanism that caused the increase was not well understood and the increase in blood pressure could be a stumbling block for some pharmaceuticals companies that were considering licensing the drug; and -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced increased in liver enzymes compared to patients taking the placebo. 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 ********* 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 2009. 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 * * *