/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090305.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 45 Headlines AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Lawsuit in Oklahoma Over Netbook Data Plan AWP LITIGATION: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for $21M Agreement BAXTER INT'L: Faces Litigation Over Deaths From Heparin Drug BP PLC: Wash. Court Dismisses Unit From Suit Over 2006 Oil Spill CITY OF CHICAGO: Ill. Federal Judge Dismisses Protesters' Suit DOW CHEMICAL: Michigan High Court Hears Appeal in Dioxin Lawsuit KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Fla. Firm Files Lawsuit Over Chinese Drywall MICHAEL BAKER: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Litigation NORTH HUDSON: Board to Challenge Injunction in N.J. Litigation OCA INC: La. Court Grants Final Approval to $6.5M Settlement PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Judge OKs $20M Settlement in Securities Suit PIRELLI SPA: Seeks Dismissal of Marine Hose Litigation in Fla. PUBLISHING COS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Freelancers' Case QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Patents REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal to Amended Order in Scott Suit Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Mo. Lawsuits Over "Light Cigarettes" Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Schwab" Suit Ongoing in N.Y. District Court VISION AIRLINES: Denies Claims in Nevada Lawsuit Over Hazard Pay New Securities Fraud Cases NUTRACEA INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ********* AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Lawsuit in Oklahoma Over Netbook Data Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T Mobility, LLC, and RadioShack Corp. face a purported class- action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma over a 3G netbook data plan, Jeffrey Silva of RCR Wireless News reports. The suit captioned, "Parks v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 5:2009-cv-00212," was filed on Feb. 24, 2009 by Billie Parks, who had received a bill for more than $5,000 after purchasing a $100 netbook bundled with a two-year AT&T Mobility DataConnect service contract, reports RCR Wireless News. According to the lawsuit, "Although the customer service summary informed plaintiff and other consumers that their first bill might be higher than expected because of a $36 activation fee, one month's service billed in advance, and prorated charges and fees for the month when the customer signed up, neither plaintiff nor other consumers were informed, nor could they have reasonable discerned from the paper work that wireless Internet usage exceeding 5GB per month would result in astronomical charges running into the thousands of dollars." The class-action complaint brought by Ms. Parks, who is represented by the law firm of Thomas & Terrell, accuses AT&T Mobility and RadioShack of common law fraud and violation of state consumer protection acts in connection with allegedly false, misleading and inaccurate advertising of the netbook DataConnect plan, according to the RCR Wireless News report. The suit seeks: -- recovery of all sums paid for additional charges under the AT&T Mobility DataConnect plan; -- rescission of the RadioShack/AT&T Mobility DataConnect contracts; -- unspecified damages due to alleged harm to plaintiff's credit; -- a temporary and permanent injunction forbidding the enforcement of the additional charges provision of the AT&T Mobility DataConnect contract; -- attorney fees and costs; and -- class-action certification of the suit. The suit is "Parks v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 5:2009- cv-00212," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: J. David Terrell, Esq. (dave@tntlawyers.com) Thomas & Terrell PLLC 3501 NW 63rd St., Suite 301 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Phone: 405-286-6353 Fax: 405-286-6366 AWP LITIGATION: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for $21M Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOSTON, March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Important deadlines are approaching for class members of a proposed class action settlement related to the average wholesale prices of certain prescription drugs. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement in July 2008. In the lawsuit, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, No. 01-CV-12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456," plaintiffs claimed that drug manufacturers unlawfully inflated the published average wholesale price of certain drugs, increasing what certain consumers and others paid. The defendants deny any wrongdoing. Consumers who paid percentage co-payments or full payments for any of the covered drugs between January 1, 1991 and March 1, 2008 are eligible for money back. (A percentage co-payment varies with the cost of the drug; refunds are not available to those who paid flat co-payments.) Requests to be excluded from the Settlement and objections to the Settlement must be postmarked by March 16, 2009. Consumer Class Members must file claims by May 1, 2009. The Proposed Settlement includes approximately $21.8 million for payments to consumers who file valid claims. Qualifying consumers can get a minimum of $35 by certifying under oath that they paid percentage co-payments for the covered drugs. Or, with receipts or bills for percentage co-payments for the covered drugs, they can receive more money back. For some of the drugs, the payment is up to three times the amount of the co-payment. The approximately 200 covered drugs are used for the treatment of many medical conditions and are often, but not always, injected in a doctor's office or clinic. The drugs include those for treatment of cancer, HIV, asthma, allergies, infections, inflammation, pain, gastrointestinal, lung and blood issues, and other conditions. The Defendants, 11 drug manufacturers, deny any wrongdoing, and have stated that while they believe they have strong defenses to the claims asserted, they have entered into the Settlement as a reasonable way to resolve the litigation and avoid the further expense, burden, and inconvenience that would result if they continued to litigate. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 27, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. For detailed information, including a list of all the covered drugs and a claim form, call toll-free 1-877-465-8136, visit http://www.AWPTrack2Settlement.com/,or write: AWP Track 2 Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 951, Minneapolis, MN 55440- 0951. BAXTER INT'L: Faces Litigation Over Deaths From Heparin Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in St. Clair County Circuit Court that was filed by a group of people whose spouses have died from Heparin use, Kelly Holleran of The Madison County Record reports. Linda Chapman, whose deceased husband was given Heparin and died of its use, is among a group of 28 suing Baxter over its anticoagulant drug Heparin. She and other plaintiffs will be represented by John J. Driscoll, Esq. of St. Louis, by Christopher Cueto, Esq., of Belleville and by Robert L. Salim, Esq. of Nachitoches, La., according to The Madison County Record report. The plaintiffs generally allege that Baxter wrongfully allowed the Heparin to be placed on the market and that it breached its express warranties that Heparin had no dangerous side effects and that its ingredients were manufactured in a plant in accordance with FDA regulations, according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Madison County Record. According to the suit, Baxter represented to the plaintiffs and their doctors that Heparin was safe and of merchantable quality when the drug was not fit for its intended use. The suit further states, "The Defendants knew or should have known that it was foreseeable that users of their Heparin, such as Plaintiffs' Decedents, would suffer injury or death as a result of Defendants' failure to exercise ordinary care as described in the foregoing," The Madison County Record reported. In the six-count suit, Mrs. Chapman and the group of plaintiffs are seeking a judgment in excess of $300,000, plus costs and other relief deemed proper, reports The Madison County Record. BP PLC: Wash. Court Dismisses Unit From Suit Over 2006 Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed BP PLC unit BP America, Inc. from a proposed securities class-action lawsuit that accuses the oil giant of obfuscating data prior to a major 2006 pipeline spill that caused a drop in BP's stock price, Law360 reports. In an opinion issued on Feb. 27, 2009, claims against BP America and individual defendant Walter E. Massey were dropped, according to the Law360 report. CITY OF CHICAGO: Ill. Federal Judge Dismisses Protesters' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit against the City of Chicago over arrests at a 2003 anti- war protest near the city's Magnificent Mile, The Associated Press reports. In addition, Judge Kendall also dismissed a countersuit from the city that sought $1.5 million from the protesters for the cost of police services, according to The Associated Press report. The Associated Press reported that some 10,000 demonstrators flooded the plaza near the city's federal courthouse in March 2003, shortly after the Iraq war began. The protesters marched to Lake Shore Drive, blocking traffic. More than 500 people were detained. About 300 were charged with crimes. All the charges were dropped, reports The Associated Press. DOW CHEMICAL: Michigan High Court Hears Appeal in Dioxin Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Michigan Supreme Court has recently heard Dow Chemical Co.'s appeal of a lower court ruling in a purported class-action suit by landowners who say their property was contaminated by dioxin -- one of the most toxic chemicals known -- that allegedly came from the company's Midland plant, Eartha Jane Melzer of The Michigan Messenger reports. Previously, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld, in a divided opinion, class-action status for a suit filed against Dow Chemical Co. over dioxin contamination in the Tittabawassee River basin (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 28, 2008). The recently reformulated Michigan Supreme Court heard Dow's appeal of the cases class action status. Dow is arguing that the group should not be designated as a class because the individual properties have different levels of dioxin contamination, according to The Michigan Messenger report. Freeland couple Gary and Kathy Henry filed the suit in Saginaw County Circuit Court seeking recovery of the value of their home and property, which they believe has been made worthless by dioxin contamination. The couple soon was joined by hundreds of others who signed the suit. In October 2005, Saginaw Circuit Judge Leopold Borrello certified the class. He said that without joining all residents in one class in one suit, courts would be clogged by individual lawsuits. But Dow asked the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the ruling of Judge Borrello saying that residents claiming property damage because of historic dioxin releases from Dow Chemical Co. should be handled separately -- that each has its own issues with which to contend (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2005). Dow argued that each plaintiff should present and prove his or her case separately because each is contaminated with varied levels of dioxin, if at all, and therefore the impact on property value and the impact on property owners' use varies. In a ruling dated Jan. 24, 2008, Justice Karen M. Fort Hood wrote that the previous Circuit Court ruling did not err in allowing plaintiffs' class-action status. Justice Patrick M. Meter wrote that a class action is appropriate in regard to liability but that individual proceedings are best to determine damages. Justice Kirsten Frank Kelly dissented, noting some plaintiffs had no dioxin contamination on their properties. The class-action participants would include people who owned property as of Feb. 1, 2002, in the 100-year flood plain downstream from Dow's Midland plant, court records show. The covered area generally is bounded on the west and south by River and Stroebel, and the east and north by Midland, St. Andrews and Michigan, documents said. KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Fla. Firm Files Lawsuit Over Chinese Drywall ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Colson Hicks Eidson filed a purported class- action suit against manufacturers and installers of high-sulfur Chinese drywall linked to odor and metal corrosion in some new home construction, South Florida Business Journal reports. The suit targets builders Taylor Morrison, TOUSA Homes, and South Kendall Construction, along with Chinese manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin and several other manufacturing and distributing companies, reports the South Florida Business Journal. South Florida Business Journal reported that named plaintiffs include Karen Vickers, Jason Santiago and Felix Martinez of Homestead, and two other plaintiffs with homes in Cape Coral and Bonita Springs. The lawsuit, filed on March 2, 2009, alleges Knauf Tianjin, and its parent company, Knauf Gips, injured the plaintiffs with "negligent design and manufacturing of an unreasonably dangerous drywall," according to the South Florida Business Journal. MICHAEL BAKER: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- PITTSBURGH, March 03, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Michael Baker Corporation (NYSE Alternext US:BKR) announced that it has reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiffs in the previously disclosed class-action lawsuit against the Company. The settlement is subject to court approval after notice to the class members. The amount of the settlement, which the Company did not disclose, will be covered in full by the Company's insurance. Michael Baker Corp. -- http://www.mbakercorp.com/-- provides engineering and operations and maintenance services for its clients' most complex challenges worldwide. The firm's primary business areas are aviation, defense, environmental, facilities, geospatial, homeland security, municipal & civil, pipelines & utilities, transportation, water, and oil & gas. With more than 4,500 employees in over 50 offices across the United States and internationally, Baker is focused on creating value by delivering innovative and sustainable solutions for infrastructure and the environment. NORTH HUDSON: Board to Challenge Injunction in N.J. Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The executive board of the North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, with the backing of the mayors of Guttenberg, North Bergen, Union City, Weehawken and West New York, the towns that formed the regional department in 1998, will challenge a Feb. 18, 2008 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in a class-action lawsuit brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, FireFighting News.com reports. FireFighting News.com previously reported that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has allowed a discrimination suit against the North Hudson Regional Fire 38 Rescue service to proceed as a class-action case (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009). In a 33-page opinion, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise certified a class that could potentially be as large as 872 African- Americans from the three counties who passed a state administered exam for firefighters between 1999 and 2006, according to FireFighting News.com. FireFighting News.com reported that the same opinion also temporarily barred the agency from hiring firefighters until it expands its residency requirement to include all of Hudson, Essex and Union counties. Case Background Peter J. Sampson and Eric Hsu of NorthJersey.com previously reported that The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a purported racial discrimination class-action suit against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2009). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 10, 2007. Identified as plaintiffs in the case are: -- NAACP; -- Newark Branch, NAACP; -- New Jersey State Conference, NAACP; -- Katrina Hall; -- Keith Reeves; -- Lamara Wapples; and -- Altarik White. Generally, the suit alleges that the regional fire department, which is serving North Bergen and four other Hudson County municipalities, hasn't hired a single black firefighter since it was created nearly nine years ago (Class Action Reporter, April 19, 2007). It contends that that department's preference for recruiting and hiring employees who are residents of North Bergen, Union City, Weehawken, West New York, and Guttenberg discriminates against African-Americans. The suit pointed out that the five towns, which merged their departments in 1998, had a combined population of about 195,000 residents at the time of the 2000 census with less than 5 percent of which is African-American. According to the suit, the department is passing up qualified candidates simply because they don't live in the towns. Four of the plaintiffs, namely, Ms. Hall, Mr. Reeves, Ms. Wapples, and Mr. White, passed the state's firefighter exam and applied for entry-level positions with the department. However, according to the suit, because of the residency preference, the four individuals and other outsiders from predominately black municipalities such as Newark, East Orange, Irvington, Jersey City and Orange are denied opportunities. The suit pointed out that one black firefighter in 300-member department was hired by North Bergen before the merger. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring North Hudson Regional from discriminating against black candidates on the basis of race and directing it to implement a vigorous recruitment program designed to attract qualified minorities in proportion to the labor market. The suit is "The National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People (NAACP) et al. v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, Case No. 2:07-cv-01683-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David H. Ben-Asher, Esq. Rabner, Allcorn, Baumgartner & Ben-Asher 52 Upper Montclair Plaza, Montclair, NJ 07043 Phone: 973-744-4000 Web site: http://www.rabnerallcorn.com OCA INC: La. Court Grants Final Approval to $6.5M Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted final approval to the proposed $6,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re OCA Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 05-2165," Law360 reports. In an order issued on March 2, 2009, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted final approval to the proposed settlement, according to the Law360 report. The settlement covers all persons who purchased the publicly traded common stock or sold put options of OCA, Inc. during the period from May 18, 2004 through June 6, 2005, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008). This lawsuit alleges that press releases and SEC filings of OCA announcing financial results during the first three quarters of 2004 were false when issued because defendants knowingly or recklessly misstated, among other things, revenues and receivables, and accordingly, issued financial results not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. For more details, contact: OCA Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator P.O. Box 2002 Chanhassen MN 55317-2002 Phone: 1-866-233-0122 Web site: http://www.ocasecuritieslitigation.com Joel B. Strauss (jstrauss@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022 Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 - and - Paul R. Bessette, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701-3911 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701-3911 Phone: (512) 499-6250 Fax: (512) 499-6290 PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Judge OKs $20M Settlement in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York signed off on a second settlement worth about $20 million in stock in a securities fraud class-action lawsuit against bankrupt Italian dairy giant Parmalat SpA and its financial and accounting advisers, on top of a $50 million agreement approved a year and a half ago. The suit entitled, "In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-MD-1653 (LAK)," was filed against Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A., certain, former officers and directors of Parmalat, Parmalat's former lawyers, Parmalat's former auditors and their affiliates, and several financial institutions (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008). On Dec. 19, 2003, it was announced that a EUR4-billion ($4.8- million) Parmalat bank account did not exist, revealing an alleged fraudulent financial scheme between Parmalat, the giant international Italian dairy company, and several other companies. Parmalat investors sued in the U.S Court and claimed that the defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws through their fraudulent activities that concealed Parmalat's true financial condition and generated false and misleading financial statements. The alleged fraud resulted in the understatement of Parmalat's debt by nearly $10 billion and the overstatement of its net assets by more than $16 billion. When this alleged fraud was disclosed, Parmalat filed for bankruptcy, and the value of its stock and bonds dramatically declined. The lead plaintiffs in the matter are Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe Limited, Cattolica Partecipazioni, S.p.A., Capital & Finance Asset Management, Societe Moderne des Terrassements Parisiens and Solotrat. PIRELLI SPA: Seeks Dismissal of Marine Hose Litigation in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pirelli SpA and two employees of Manuli Rubber Industries SpA, all defendants in the multidistrict litigation that alleges price-fixing in the marine hose industry, are seeking to toss the accusations against them, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to allege any specific conduct in violation of the applicable antitrust statutes, Law360 reports. The three defendants moved for dismissal of the second amended consolidated class-action complaint in separate motions filed on March 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to the Law360 report. In general, the suit is accusing several companies in the rubber industry of "conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of Marine Hose" (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007). Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2007). PUBLISHING COS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Freelancers' Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider reviving the $18 million settlement of a dispute involving payment to freelance writers for use of their work online, The Associated Press reports. The settlement came in a class-action lawsuit filed by the freelancers against publishers and database companies. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had thrown the agreement out, but on March 2, 2009, the high court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision, reports The Associated Press. The Associated Press reported that the proposed settlement covers both freelancers who registered the copyright to their works and those who didn't. The appeals court said courts generally do not have authority over infringement claims on works that have not been copyrighted. The lawsuit followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that freelance writers have online rights to their work. The case largely applied to articles, photographs and illustrations that were produced 15 or more years ago, before freelance contracts provided for the material's electronic use. The case is "Reed Elsevier v. Pogebrin, 08-103," according to The Associated Press. QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Patents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has dismissed a proposed antitrust class-action against Qualcomm, Inc. over cell phone technology patents approved by standards-setting organizations, ruling that the plaintiff was too far removed from the alleged injury, Law360 reports. In a decision issued on March 3, 2009, Judge Hayes granted Qualcomm's motion to dismiss, tossing all of plaintiff Jesse Meyer's allegations, according to the Law360 report. The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that Qualcomm is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging it forced cell phone price hikes by abusing its monopoly power (Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2008). The suit is a national class action brought under the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act on behalf of all persons who: (1) purchased one or more cellular devices that either contain the Wideband Code Division Access technology of that are compatible with the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System standard (the Device Class); and (2) purchased cellular service from any carrier in the United States which bundles its cellular service with subsidized UMTS-compliant devices (the Service Class). According to the antitrust class-action complaint, after inducing cell phone manufacturers to adopt its Wideband CDMA technology as the industry standard, Qualcomm abused its monopoly power and breached its promise to license the technology "on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" and jacked up its licensing fees, forcing higher costs to consumers. The plaintiffs claim that Qualcomm, "by its intentional deception of private standards-determining organizations (SDOs) has monopolized certain markets for cellular telephone technology and components." It did this by causing the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System to adopt its WCDMA "third generation technology" as the industry standard, the suit states. After cell phone companies invested "billions of dollars" in adapting to the UMTS standard, "Qualcomm disregarded its FRAND commitments (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) . . . (and) coerced device manufacturers and service carriers who are locked into the UMTS standard into paying supracompetitive (sic) prices to license Qualcomm's WCDMA technology," the complaint states. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether Qualcomm's patents are essential to manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices; (b) whether Qualcomm patents are essential to manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices to relevant manufacturers, and said manufacturers have relied on those representations; (c) whether Qualcomm represented or committed that it would license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO participant involved in the selection and formulation of the UMTS standard; (d) whether Qualcomm intentionally misrepresented that it would license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO participants involved in the selection and formulation of the UMTS standard; (e) whether Qualcomm has committed the UMTS Licensing Practices alleged; (f) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices alleged are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory; (g) whether Qualcomm reneged on its commitments to license its UMTS patents on FRAND terms; (h) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices have anti- competitive effects, including supracompetitive pricing and impair non-price competition in the form of deterred innovation; (i) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices violate the Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (j) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices violate the Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (k) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices' anticompetitive effects are passed on to end consumers of UMTS devices; (l) what portion of end-user prices for UMTS devices are attributable to Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct alleged; (m) whether UMTS Licensing creates a trust in violation of California's unfair competition law; and (n) whether plaintiff and the device class are entitled to relief, and the nature of such relief. The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order: -- certifying the suit as a class action and designating the plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the Device and Service classes; -- awarding treble damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- setting an injunction against further anticompetitive acts, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- providing equitable relief including an accounting, a constructive trust and restitution, in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorneys' fees; and -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest. The suit is "Jesse Meyer et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08 CV 0655 WQH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com) KamberEdelson, LLC 2757 Leonis Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90058 Phone: (323) 585-8696 Jay Edelson, Esq. (jedelson@kamberedelson.com) Ethan Preston, Esq. (epreston@kamberedelson.com) KamberEdelson, LLC 53 West Jackson Ave., Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 589-6370 - and - Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Orin Kurtz, Esq. Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP 212 East 29th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 889-3700 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal to Amended Order in Scott Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal to the amended judgment in favor of the class in the Louisiana state court case styled, "Scott v. American Tobacco Co.," which named a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., as a defendant, remains pending. The suit was filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. In 2004, a jury in Scott returned a verdict in favor of the "Louisiana class" for $591 million to establish a state-wide smoking cessation program. In 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld class certification, significantly reduced the scope of recovery, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Louisiana and U.S. Supreme Courts denied the defendants' applications for writ of certiorari. In July 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in favor of the class for approximately $263 million plus interest from June 30, 2004. On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court signed the order for appeal of the amended judgment. The briefing schedule with the Court of Appeals has not 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. 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: Mo. Lawsuits Over "Light Cigarettes" Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Two purported class-action suits over "light cigarettes" that were filed in Missouri against entities affiliated with Reynolds American, Inc., and several other manufacturers remain pending. Reynolds American was incorporated as a holding company in the state of North Carolina on Jan. 5, 2004, and its common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol RAI. On July 30, 2004, RAI combined the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI. These July 30, 2004, transactions generally are referred to as the B&W business combination. As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns approximately 42% of RAIs outstanding common stock, and previous RJR stockholders exchanged their shares of RJR common stock for approximately 58% of RAIs outstanding common stock. Collora Litigation The suit "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," was filed with the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri in May 2000. On Dec. 31, 2003, a judge certified a class defined as "all persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri for personal consumption between the first date the Defendants placed their Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce through the date of this Order." The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light" smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke. The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained "low tar and nicotine." On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign "Collora" to a single general division. On April 9, 2007, the Missouri Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion. On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: "Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.," and "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp." Black Litigation In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005. On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted on March 17, 2006. The plaintiffs motion for class certification is scheduled to be heard on April 16, 2008. This case and certain other cases have been reassigned to a single general division. On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the "Collora" and "Black" cases pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc., this case is likely to become active in 2009, 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: "Schwab" Suit Ongoing in N.Y. District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The federal lights class-action suit tagged, "Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.," against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and other tobacco manufacturers proceeds in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. RJR Tobacco is a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc. The nation-wide "lights" class-action, was filed on May 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to RICO, challenging the practices of the defendants in connection with the manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light." On Sept. 25, 2006, the court issued its decision, among other things, granting class certification. On Nov. 16, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the defendants' motions to stay the district court proceedings and for review of the class certification ruling. On April 3, 2008, the Second Circuit decertified the class. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings, 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. VISION AIRLINES: Denies Claims in Nevada Lawsuit Over Hazard Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vision Airlines, Inc. has denied the claims made in a purported class-action lawsuit by charter aircraft crew members who made flights for the U.S. government into war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. On March 2, 2009, the company filed court papers responding to the lawsuit, which is generally claiming that the company failed to pay all of the federal hazard pay that charter aircraft crew members are due for their work, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun previously reported the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Jan. 16, 2009 by former pilot Gerald Hester of Colleyville, Texas. It states that at least 300 current and former employees are affected (Class Action Reporter, Jan 27, 2009). According to plaintiff's attorney Ross Goodman, Esq. of Las Vegas, the company, known locally for flying Grand Canyon tour flights, has been running the charters carrying personnel and cargo since May 2005. The lawsuit states "flying aircraft to and from the airports in Baghdad and Kabul is extremely dangerous." It explains, "Aircraft typically arrive or depart these airports under the cover of darkness to avoid light arms fire, rocket propelled grenades, and missile attacks. In fact, all flights arriving and departing from the airports in Baghdad and Kabul must be authorized by either the United States or British military operational command centers located in those cities." Aircraft must observe blackout procedures in which exterior and interior lights are turned off and then must execute difficult corkscrew landing procedures in which aircraft fly within a spiral above the airport while landing in order to minimize their exposure to enemy fire, according to the suit. The suit states that the hazard pay due to charter crews flying to and from Iraq is $2,500 for each captain, first officer and international relief officer for each take-off and landing. It adds that other crew members such as flight attendants and mechanics are to receive $1,500 each for each take-off and landing. The suit says hazard pay was initially provided to some employees, but those payments were later halted by management, reports The Las Vegas Sun. "Despite receiving more than $21 million in hazard pay intended for its employees, Vision has failed to pay its employees the hazard pay to which they are entitled," according to the suit. The suit is "Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv- 00117-RLH-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Ross C. Goodman, Esq. (ross@goodmanlawgroup.com) Goodman Law Group 520 S. Fourth Street 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-384-5563 New Securities Fraud Cases NUTRACEA INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- March 03, 2009: 05:40 PM ET -- Marketwire -- Federman & Sherwood announces that on February 27, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against NutraCea (OTCBB: NTRZ). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from August 14, 2007 through February 23, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *