/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 44 Headlines CASH STORE: To Set Up Settlement Fund for Ontario Litigation LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Court Panel Transfers W.Va. Suit to Wisconsin MAPLE LEAF: Contaminated Food Victim Opposes CDN$27M Settlement MASCO CORP: Ga. Judge Certifies Class in Price-Fixing Lawsuit MICHAEL BIANCO: Several Ex-Employees Receive Settlement Checks OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" in Calif. PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Nix Claims in Neurontin Suit REYNOLDS AMERICAN: March 3 Oral Argument Set for "Brown" Action REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Turner Case as of Feb. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Howard Case as of Feb. SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Lawnmower Horsepower TREMONT GROUP: HBSS Firm Files Amended Complaint to Wash. Suit YOU WALK: Calif. Homeowners File Suit Over Foreclosure Services YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in Fresno, Calif. YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in California YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Baskall" Suit Mull Settlement Options YUM! BRANDS: "Archila" Suit v. KFC Pending in Calif. State Court YUM! BRANDS: Cross Motions in "Moeller" Suit Due in Summer 2009 New Securities Fraud Cases DEUTSCHE BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ING GROEP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ********* CASH STORE: To Set Up Settlement Fund for Ontario Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Cash Store Financial Services Inc. will set up a fund to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in Ontario regarding the fees and interest it charged customers, The Victoria Times Colonist reports. The Edmonton-based payday loan provider said the fund will include CDN$1.5 million in cash and CDN$1.5 million in credit vouchers, reports The Victoria Times Colonist. In a news release, the company said, "The settlement fund will be used to make payments to all customers of The Cash Store and Instaloans, outside of Alberta and British Columbia, who obtained and repaid a payday loan in full." The vouchers can be used to pay new or existing brokerage fees on payday loans from Cash Store or Instaloan offices, according to the company. The vouchers have no expiry date and are transferable, according to The Victoria Times Colonist report. The Canadian Press previously reported that Cash Store Financial Services received court approval to settle a class-action lawsuit over its allegedly excessive charges for payday loans (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 13, 2008). According to the Edmonton-based financial company, which operates more than 410 branches across Canada, the 2004 lawsuit filed in Ontario concerns brokerage fees and interest charged to customers of The Cash Store and Instaloans. LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Court Panel Transfers W.Va. Suit to Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred a newly filed class-action lawsuit over lawnmowers from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to a federal court in Wisconsin, Steve Korris of The West Virginia Record reports. On Feb. 5, 2009, the panel added the West Virginia suit to 42 similar suits before Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to The West Virginia Record report. In general, the lawsuits allege that manufacturers and retailers overstated the horsepower of lawnmower engines, The West Virginia Record reports. The West Virginia suit, captioned, "Lilly v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00010," seeks damages from Sears, Roebuck and Co., Deere & Company, Tecumseh Products Company, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Kohler Co., Platinum Equity, LLC and Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc. The West Virginia Record reported that attorney Kristofer Cormany, Esq. filed the suit on Jan. 6, on behalf of John F. Lilly of Charleston. Six Minnesota lawyers and one from Pennsylvania later added their names to the suit. Mr. Lilly bought a Yard Machines mower at K-Mart in Charleston for $158.99 in 2001, according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The West Virginia Record. "Plaintiff and members of the proposed class paid more for their lawnmowers than they would have paid absent Defendants' unlawful conduct," Mr. Cormany wrote. MAPLE LEAF: Contaminated Food Victim Opposes CDN$27M Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- VANCOUVER / BRITISH COLUMBIA / NEWS RELEASE -- (Marketwire - March 2, 2009) - Arlene Laughren is the proposed representative plaintiff in a class action commenced in Vancouver against Maple Leaf foods by the law firm, Collette Parsons. Ms. Laughren suffered brain damage after consuming Maple Leaf food products contaminated by the Listeria bacteria during July 2008. The proposed class Ms. Laughren seeks to represent includes all British Columbia residents affected by Maple Leaf food products contaminated with the Listeria bacteria, as well as non-residents who were affected by the contaminated food and wish to opt in to the British Columbia class action. Similar class actions were commenced across Canada including two other actions in British Columbia. A consortium of law firms acting in all of the class actions in Canada, excluding Ms. Laughren's action, has tentatively negotiated a maximum $27 million settlement with Maple Leaf Foods. Between March 5, 2009 and March 20, 2009 approval of the maximum $27 million settlement is being sought in the courts of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, by the consortium on behalf of all persons affected by the Maple Leaf Listeria outbreak. The application in Ontario seeks to include the claims of residents of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario. If approved in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, the settlement would dispose of the claims of everyone affected by contaminated Maple Leaf food products for $25 million with an additional $2 million to be contributed if the $25 million is not adequate to satisfy the claims of all the victims. If approved, Maple Leaf Foods will not have to contribute any further funds to pay for the injuries caused by the Listeria outbreak. Today is the deadline for filing an objection to the proposed settlement application in Ontario and Ms. Laughren is filing an objection to the proposed settlement, and the inclusion of BC residents in the Ontario class action, because she is unaware of data supporting the contention that the proposed pool of money will be adequate to compensate all class members injured by the contaminated food. "I am objecting to the settlement because no information has been provided to allow people injured by the contaminated food to determine whether the proposed settlement is large enough to compensate the thousands of victims affected across Canada," explained Ms. Laughren. Ms. Laughren's lawyer, Guy Collette, stated, "The proposed settlement agreement provides that any damages paid by Maple Leaf Foods to claimants who opt out of the class action will reduce the proposed $27 million class action settlement by an equivalent amount. Therefore, individuals injured by Maple Leaf's contaminated products may only receive full compensation if they opt out of the proposed class settlement." MASCO CORP: Ga. Judge Certifies Class in Price-Fixing Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julie E. Carnes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has green-lighted a national class- action lawsuit that accuses Masco Corp. -- one of the country's largest home insulation installers -- of price fixing, Urvaksh Karkaria of the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports. On Feb. 9, 2009, Judge Carnes granted the lawsuit "class certification," meaning it will represent 377 independent insulation installers who are suing Masco. No trial date has been set, according to the Atlanta Business Chronicle report. In general, the suit contends that the Michigan-based fiberglass insulation contractor Masco Corp. violated antitrust laws by conspiring with fiberglass insulation manufacturers to fix prices from 1999 through 2003, hurting competing independent contractors, reports the Atlanta Business Chronicle. Masco allegedly conspired with manufacturers to maintain prices for independent insulation contractors above prices charged to Masco. Evidence suggests a difference in prices of least 12 percent to 15 percent, according to court documents, obtained by the Atlanta Business Chronicle. The Detroit Free Press previously reported that Judge Carnes denied a motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported class-action suit (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2009). MICHAEL BIANCO: Several Ex-Employees Receive Settlement Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- More than 750 former employees of Michael Bianco, Inc. who had been denied overtime pay or were docked wages have received settlement checks, WPRI reports. The checks ranged from $20 to $6,000, depending on how much overtime the workers earned. The money is part of a settlement reached last November 2008, according to the WPRI report. Brian R. Ballou of The Boston Globe previously reported that Michael Bianco, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts entitled, "Chach et al v. Bianco et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-10915" by agreeing to pay current and former workers $850,000 in overtime (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2008). The suit, which generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the for the District of Massachusetts on May 15, 2007. It names as defendants: -- Michael Bianco, Inc.; -- Front Line Defense, Inc.; -- Francesco Insolia; -- Marguerite Insolia; -- Suzanne Thompson; and -- Gloria Melo. Named as plaintiffs in the suit are: -- Flor Chach; -- Elsy Hernandez; -- Digna Mendoza; -- Pedro Pacheco; -- Carlos Simaj-Morente; and -- Gilberto Vieira. The plaintiffs are charging that the company set up a fake corporation, Front Line Defense Inc., to avoid paying overtime wages. Employees said they were required to clock out at 5 p.m. After working a full day shift at Michael Bianco and then clock back in at 5:30 p.m. for Front Line. They received checks from both companies, to make it appear they had not exceeded 40 hours a week, reports The Boston Globe. According to Audrey Richardson, senior attorney for Greater Boston Legal Services, which has represented many of the workers, "Most of the time, the workers were doing the same work on the same machine as they did during the day. Workers who clocked the most hours will receive up to $8,000 in back overtime pay. The six employees who brought the lawsuit will receive an additional $2,000 above the back pay they are entitled to, compensation for coalescing the group of workers, Ms. Richardson told The Boston Globe. The suit is "Chach et al v. Bianco et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv- 10915," filed in the U.S. District Court for the for the District of Massachusetts. Representing the plaintiff are: Audrey R. Richardson, Esq. (Arichardson@gbls.org) Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 617-603-1662 Fax: 617-371-1222 Philip J. Gordon, Esq. (pgordon@gordonllp.com) Gordon Law Group 585 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-536-1800 Fax: 617-536-1802 - and - Christa C. von der Luft, Esq. (cvonderluft@nutter.com) Nutter, McClennen & Fish World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210 Phone: 617-439-2627 Fax: 617-310-9627 Representing the defendants is: Diane M. Saunders, Esq. (dsaunders@morganbrown.com) Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP 200 State Street 11th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-523-6666 Fax: 617-367-3125 OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit styled, "Sean Lane et al. v. Facebook Inc. et al., Case No. C08 03845," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with 7 other defendants, was sued by Sean Lane, and 17 other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California' Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by Facebook, Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The plaintiffs and defendants, including the company, have stipulated to an extension in the time for answering the complaint, while the parties engage in a mediation of the dispute. The company has not responded to the Complaint. The company has notified Facebook, Inc. of its indemnification obligations under the contract by which the company obtained and deployed Facebook Beacon. The company intends to defend this action and pursue with Facebook its indemnification rights under the Facebook Beacon agreement, according to its Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Representing the plaintiffs is: Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com) KamberEdelson, LLC 2757 Leonis Blvd. Vernon, CA 90058-2304 Phone: 323-585-8696 PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Nix Claims in Neurontin Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Several end-payor plaintiffs, including Smithfield Foods, Inc., have voluntarily dismissed all claims against Pfizer, Inc. in a consolidated class-action suit that accused the pharmaceutical company of engaging in an anti-competitive scheme to delay generic competition for the epilepsy drug Neurontin, Law360 reports. On Feb. 26 and 27, 2009, Smithfield and four individual consumer plaintiffs lodged stipulations of voluntary dismissal in litigation that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the Law360 report. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: March 3 Oral Argument Set for "Brown" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- A March 3, 2009 oral argument is scheduled for the plaintiffs' petition for review of the order decertifying the class in the suit styled in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., according to Reynolds American, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County, California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class composed of residents of California who smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. The action was seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under California Business and Professions Code � 17200 et seq. and � 17500 et seq. Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants violated � 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition. The court, however, refused to certify the class under the California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims. On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to decertify the class. On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's order decertifying the class. On Nov. 1, 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the California Supreme Court was granted. Briefing is complete. Oral argument is scheduled for March 3, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Turner Case as of Feb. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed against a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., styled Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., remains pending in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois. In the Turner case filed in February 2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on Nov. 14, 2001. On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied on July 11, 2003. On Oct. 17, 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request. On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price. The Price case is a seminal "lights" class-action involving RJR Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal and remanded the case to the circuit court. There is currently no activity in the case, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Howard Case as of Feb. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed against an affiliate of Reynolds American, Inc., styled Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., remains pending in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois. In the "Howard" case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on Dec. 18, 2001. On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case. The Price case is a seminal "lights" class-action involving R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order on Aug. 19, 2005. There is currently no activity in the case, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Lawnmower Horsepower ---------------------------------------------------------------- Twelve prominent lawnmower manufacturers, including Sears, Roebuck and Co., face a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses them of conspiring and overstating the horsepower in their products so they could charge consumers higher prices, Kelly Holleran of The Madison County Record reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 18, 2009 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, under case number 09-L-0085 by Rhonda Lemay of Belleville, who claims the companies sold lawnmowers that contained identical motors, but some were marked with a higher horsepower and cost more than others. In April 2003, Ms. Lemay bought a White Outdoor lawnmower manufactured by MTD from Jones Brothers in Belleville, according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Madison County Record. Ms. Lemay is represented by JoDee Favre, Esq., of Belleville, and Vincent J. Esades, Esq., Renae D. Steiner, Esq., and Scott W. Carlson, Esq., of Heins, Mills and Olson in Minneapolis, Brian M. Sund, Esq., Joshua G. Hauble, Esq., and Jackson D. Bigham, Esq., of Morrison, Fenske and Sund in Minnetonka, Minn., and William H. London, Esq., and Douglas A. Millen, Esq., of Freed, Kanner, London and Millen in Bannockburn, according to The Madison County Record report. According to the complaint, "Throughout the Class Period (January 1, 1994 through the present), Defendants have knowingly misrepresented the horsepower of Defendants' lawn mowers and lawn mower engines through statements and representations made and disseminated to the public in Defendants' advertising." It further states, "In fact, the true horsepower of Defendants' engines is significantly less than the horsepower represented by Defendants," reports The Madison County Record. In order to charge the higher prices for less horsepower, the companies communicated and agreed to conceal their misrepresentations, the complaint alleges. In the four-count suit, Ms. Lemay is asking the court to certify the case as a class action and prohibit the defending companies from engaging in similar conduct, reports The Madison County Record. The Madison County Record reported that she is also asking the court to enjoin the companies from misrepresenting to the public any power rating regarding engines or lawn mowers and to order the defending companies to disgorge to class members all money they unjustly received through their unlawful conduct. Ms. Lemay is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems just, according to The Madison County Record. TREMONT GROUP: HBSS Firm Files Amended Complaint to Wash. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE, March 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (www.hbsslawsecurities.com/tremont) filed an amended class-action complaint last week against Tremont Group Holdings (Tremont) with an expanded list of defendants including the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ('BNY') and BNY Alternative Investment Services claiming the groups failed to properly manage the Rye Broad Market Funds, and had it done so, would have uncovered the massive Ponzi scheme to which all capital was invested. The amended complaint expands on the allegations of the firm's original complaint filed in December 2008. The complaint claims BNY provided professional fund administration to certain Rye Broad Market Funds for which BNY allegedly accepted substantial fees for administrative tasks. The lawsuit claims BNY failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the fund investments, which would have helped the fund avoid unnecessary risks. The extended defendant list also includes Robert Schulman, Tremont's chairman emeritus, Jim Mitchell the former president and CEO of Rye Investment Management, John Murphy chairman, CEO and director at OppenheimerFunds, Inc. and Select Spectrum Partners LLC. The lawsuit claims that Tremont and other affiliated entities failed to perform proper due diligence and failed to vet, monitor, oversee, and safeguard Plaintiffs' investments, before handing all of it over to Bernard Madoff. As a result, Tremont clients lost a total of $3.3 billion in assets, $3.1 billion from the Rye Funds. HBSS represents investors and groups that used Tremont to invest capital. The firm continues to examine other feeder funds that turned capital investments over to Tremont and Madoff. The amended complaint also includes an expanded list of claims against defendants including: breach of fiduciary duty by investment managers, breach of fiduciary duty by auditor (KPMG), breach of fiduciary duty by administrator defendants and unjust enrichment. For more information, contact: Reed Kathrein Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (510) 725-3000 e-mail: madoff@hbsslaw.com Web site: www.hbsslawsecurities.com/tremont YOU WALK: Calif. Homeowners File Suit Over Foreclosure Services -------------------------------------------------------------- CAPISTRANO BEACH, Calif., February 23, 2009 -� The Law Offices of Benjamin L. Meeker, APC announced today that it represents the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed against You Walk Away, LLC, a "foreclosure consultant" company located in Carlsbad, California. According to the complaint filed in San Diego County Superior Court on February 13, 2009, You Walk Away peddles foreclosure consulting "services" and "protection kits" through which it entices desperate homeowners into paying an upfront fee of $995 for an essentially worthless service. "We believe that You Walk Away's conduct falls within that described by the California Attorney General's Office as the 'Foreclosure For a Fee Scam'" says attorney Benjamin Meeker. As described by the California Attorney General's Office, foreclosure consultants who perpetrate this scam advertise to homeowners that they can provide "advice" on staying in their home until they are evicted. "As its business name illustrates, the plaintiffs allege that You Walk Away entices homeowners into believing that simply walking away from a foreclosed home has few, if any, consequences, while charging hefty fees for its products" Mr. Meeker explained. YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in Fresno, Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," is pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On June 16, 2008, the "Leyva" lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and the company was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The case was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination. This case is very similar to the "Medlock" case; accordingly, on July 3, 2008, Taco Bell filed a notice of related case. The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Aug. 20, 2008. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in Los Angeles on Jan. 23, 2009. Plaintiff did not oppose removal, and the parties stipulated to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock" case is pending. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," is pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and the company was filed in Orange County Superior Court. The case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage and unfair business practices. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Dec. 5, 2008. Plaintiffs did not oppose removal and agreed to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock" case is pending. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which was denied on Jan. 20, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Baskall" Suit Mull Settlement Options -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Baskall v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," plan to continue to explore potential settlement options, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Dec. 21, 2007, the lawsuit against KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. was filed in San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs"), Assistant Unit Managers ("AUMs")and Shift Supervisors who worked at KFC's California restaurants since Dec. 21, 2003. The lawsuit alleges violations of California's wage and hour and unfair competition laws, including denial of sufficient meal and rest periods, improperly itemized pay stubs, and delays in issuing final paychecks, and seeks unspecified amounts in damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. A first amended complaint was filed on Feb. 5, 2008. KFC answered the amended complaint on March 21, 2008. The parties participated in mediation on Feb. 10, 2009, without reaching resolution, but plan to continue to explore potential settlement options. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: "Archila" Suit v. KFC Pending in Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- YUM! Brands, Inc.'s KFC concept continues to face a putative class-action suit styled, "Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," in California state court. On Oct. 14, 2008, the class-action suit was filed in California state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and waiting time penalties. KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 7, 2009. No court deadlines have yet been set, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Cross Motions in "Moeller" Suit Due in Summer 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cross motions for summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. are scheduled to be filed in late summer 2009. Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc. On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in the class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug.4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California (the "California Restaurants") accessible to the class. The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the "CDPA"). They have requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The District Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages. The parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this action. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, without reaching resolution. A new trial court judge was assigned on April 4, 2008. The court ordered supplemental discovery and heard Taco Bell's motion for partial summary judgment regarding statute of limitations on Nov. 5, 2008, which was denied. Cross motions for summary judgment regarding ADA issues, and cross motions for summary judgment regarding state law issues, are scheduled to be filed in late summer, 2009. Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potential architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access laws, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. New Securities Fraud Cases DEUTSCHE BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- March 02, 2009: 06:55 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired the 6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII ("6.375% Securities") (NYSE: DUA) and/or the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X ("7.35% Securities") (NYSE: DCE) (collectively, the "Securities") pursuant or traceable to registration statements and prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration Statements") issued in connection with the October 2006 and November 2007 offerings, respectively, of the Securities (the "Offerings"). The Complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG ("DB" or the "Company"), certain of its subsidiaries, officers, directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Registration Statements were materially false because they omitted the following: -- DB failed to properly record provisions for credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline insurers; -- The Company's internal controls were inadequate; -- DB's internal risk management systems were inadequate to limit DB's exposure to credit trading, equity derivatives, and proprietary equity trading; and -- DB would have to raise an additional EUR10 billion by selling equity in the Company to the German government. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com ING GROEP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- SAN FRANCISCO, Mar 02, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP (http://www.girardgibbs.com/ing.asp)has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of 7.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities of ING Groep N.V. "ING"). It charges global financial services company ING and certain of its affiliates, officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The class action, entitled, "Hathorn v. ING Groep N.V., et al, 09-cv-1820," is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that ING consummated the offerings pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectuses. Specifically, ING sold shares of 7.375% Securities for proceeds of over $1.45 billion in the September 2007 offering. The registration statement and prospectuses incorporated ING's financial results for 2005/2006 and 2007 through September. After ING completed the offerings, the company announced EUR 2 billion in impairment charges associated with its exposure to bad loans, mortgage-related securities and other "pressurized" assets, causing the prices of the securities issued in the offerings to decline. For more information, contact: Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/ing.asp ********* 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 * * *