/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090507.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 89 Headlines 3M CO: Faces Lawsuit in California Alleging Age Discrimination AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Reinstated APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over MagSafe Power Adapters BEAZER HOMES: Reaches $30.5M Deal in Ga. Shareholders' Lawsuit BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces AUD1.3B Suit in Sydney Court CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Jacobs & Copyright Owners Junked in March CENTEX CORP: Investors File Lawsuits Over Pulte Homes Takeover EDDIE BAUER: Discovery in "Scherer" Labor Lawsuit Postponed EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement Pending ENERGY TRANSFER: NYMEX Manipulation Suit Dismissed on March 26 ENERGY TRANSFER: "Rio Grande" Suit in Texas Dismissed in March FEDERAL DEPOSIT: WaMu Executives File Lawsuit Over CIC Payments J.P. MORGAN: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Card Policy Change LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Suit Pending in Minnesota MAPLE LEAF: Nov. 21, 2009 Cutoff Set for Claims to CDN$27M Deal MONSANTO CO: No Trial Date Yet for Contamination Suit in W.Va. OKLAHOMA: Judge Grants Class Certification to Foster Care Suit PASO ROBLES: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Sewer, Water Fees PEROT FAMILY: Faces Investors' Suit in Texas Over $2.5Bil Loss ROYAL BANK: NY Judge Backs Out of Litigation Due to Family Link THOMSON CORP: Ontario Court to Mull Settlement in Robertson Suit TOTAL S.A.: Removed from Claims List of South African Citizens VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Second Suit Over Contaminated Water WSB FINANCIAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in March YTB INT'L: Continues to Face Consolidated Litigation in Illinois New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ********* 3M CO: Faces Lawsuit in California Alleging Age Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California filed by current and former employees who allege that the company discriminated against them in promotion and employment decisions based on their age, saying that the company's use of the Six Sigma quality improvement program favored younger workers, Julie Forster of The Pioneer Press reports. The suit is captioned, "Garcia et al v. 3M Company, Case No. 5:2009-cv-01943," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 4, 2009, alleging 3M violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Listed as plaintiffs in the case are Arthur J. Garcia, Ronald K. Brooks, Betty Jean Norman, Roderick Vold, Robert Elander, and John Lynn. They are represented by lead counsel Steven Sprenger of the Sprenger & Lang, PLLC. AARP, the advocacy group for older people, is providing co-counsel in the case as well, according to The Pioneer Press report. The six named plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for a group of more than 6,000 current and former 3M employees around the nation. The complaint alleges that since at least 2001, 3M intentionally discriminated against employees ages 46 and older in performance appraisals, training, promotions and pay. It also alleges 3M fires or forces these older employees to retire or resign, The Pioneer Press reported. Furthermore, the complaint alleges age discrimination stems largely from the company's selection of employees for "Six Sigma" training, a management method 3M adopted in 2001. 3M selects very few older employees for high-level Six Sigma training compared with their presence in the work force, the complaint says, and the selection process gives younger employees big advantages in subsequent employment decisions, reports The Pioneer Press. The suit is "Garcia et al v. 3M Company, Case No. 5:2009-cv- 01943," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steven Sprenger, Esq. Sprenger & Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-265-8010 Fax: 202-332-6652 Thomas W. Osborne, Esq. AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E. Street, N.W. Washinton, DC 20049 Phone: 202-434-2060 Fax: 202-434-6424 - and - Teresa Demchak, Esq. (dem@gdblegal.com) Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Reinstated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Missouri Court of Appeals reinstated a $17 million jury verdict against American Family Mutual Insurance Co. in a class- action lawsuit over vehicle repairs and aftermarket auto parts, Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports. The state appeals court ruled that Jackson County Circuit Judge Edith Messina was mistaken when she ruled in June 2007 that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their theory of damages, according to The Kansas City Star report. The Associated Press reports previously reported that Jackson County Circuit Judge Edith Messina overturned a jury's decision ordering American Family Mutual Insurance Co. to pay $17 million in a class-action suit involving after-market auto parts (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2007). Filed in May 2000 and certified as a class action in December 2001, the suit challenges the company's policy of specifying after-market auto parts and omitting certain repair procedures in its repair estimates. It alleged that American Family specified non-original equipment manufactured parts in paying to repair policyholders' damaged vehicles. Further, it alleged that the use of aftermarket crash parts, including fenders, doors, hoods and panels, were inferior to original equipment and a potential safety hazard. In March 2007, a Missouri jury awarded more than $17 million to approximately 315,000 Missouri residents with claims for vehicle repairs between May 1990 and December 2004 (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2007). Jurors determined American Family allowed repair shops to use inferior, third-party equipment to repair policyholders' damaged vehicles. American Family is based in Madison, Wisconsin. Representing it is attorney David Oliver. APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over MagSafe Power Adapters -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California that accuses the company of distributing unsafe MagSafe power adapters and forcing customers to buy replacements instead of addressing the problem with an improved design, AppleInsider reports. The suit is captioned, "Kitagawa, Jr et al v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2009-cv-01911," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 1, 2009. Listed as plaintiffs are Naotaka Kitagawa, Jr., Timothy J. Broad, and Jesse Reisman, who are claiming that the cables inevitably break down, leading to wire fraying that causes a potential fire hazard, according to AppleInsider report. The litigation alleges that standard use, such as winding the cable around the guides, is all that is needed to damage the adapter. Mr. Broad claims the plastic covering melted, exposing the wires and building enough heat to start a house fire. "It almost burned my hand when I brushed it accidentally," he claims, reports AppleInsider. The plaintiffs are asserting that Apple has failed to act on a widespread problem, directing customers to Apple service locations just to recommend a second purchase of a new adapter. The lawyers seek class-action status, as the issues are known to be experienced by "at least thousands" of customers and possibly into the hundreds of thousands, AppleInsider reported. Additionally, the company is charged in the lawsuit of violating California's business codes and breaching the explicit and implied warranties for its devices. The plaintiffs are asking for refunds to cover any associated cost, along with punitive damages and a public warning issues by the company, according to the AppleInsider report. The suit is "Kitagawa, Jr et al v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2009- cv-01911," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com) Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-822-5100 x116 Fax: 202-822-4997 - and - Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. (alreenh@zhlaw.com) Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP 625 Broadway Suite 906 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-342-8000 Fax: 619-342-7272 BEAZER HOMES: Reaches $30.5M Deal in Ga. Shareholders' Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Beazer Homes USA, Inc. agreed to pay $30.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over allegations it misled shareholders about problems with its mortgage-lending practices that led to a federal investigation, Bloomberg News reports. Under terms of the settlement, the company denies any wrongdoing, according to a statement by Beazer. The settlement is subject to final approval by Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to the Bloomberg News report. The company and certain of its current and former executive officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class- action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2009). The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27, 2006, and March 27, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to alleged improper lending practices in its mortgage origination business. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed on May 18 and 21, 2007, before the same district court, asserting similar factual allegations and proposing class periods of July 28, 2005, through March 27, 2007, and March 30, 2005, through March 27, 2007, respectively. The three cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs. On June 27, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, which purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the securities of Beazer Homes during the period Jan. 27, 2005, through May 12, 2008. The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company business and prospects, including, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged improper lending practices in the company's mortgage origination business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's land investments and inventory. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the suit is properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On Nov. 3, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Briefing of the motion was expected to be completed in March 2009, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com) Milberg LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-594-5300 Krissi T. Gore, Esq. (KGore@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 - and - Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 Representing the defendants are: Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com) Cravath Swaine & Moore 825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza New York, NY 10019-7475 Phone: 212-474-1227 BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces AUD1.3B Suit in Sydney Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A major stakeholder in the troubled builder and operator of Brisbane's airport link toll road says it has launched a AUD1.3 billion class-action lawsuit against BrisConnections Management Company Ltd. and Macquarie Bank, the Australian Associated Press reports. The claim was filed in the Federal Court in Sydney in April 2009 by lawyers for Brisbane Toll Road Link -- owned by U.S.-based New Hampton Distressed Asset Fund and represented by Sydney businessman Jim Byrnes -- which owns 15.2% of BrisConnections, according to the Australian Associated Press report. Mr. Byrnes says the class-action suit was launched on behalf of all past and present unit holders. It alleged misleading statements and errors in the product disclosure statement. "We're saying, stay in the class action and we'll fight for your rights," Mr. Byrnes told the Australian Associated Press. Lawyer Raymond Whitten of Whittens confirmed the court had accepted the statement of claims seeking AUD1.3 billion, the Australian Associated Press reported. CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Jacobs & Copyright Owners Junked in March ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed against Carnival Corp., its subsidiaries and affiliates, on behalf of James Jacobs and a purported class of owners of intellectual property rights to musical plays and other works performed in the U.S. was dismissed on March 25, 2009. In January 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and other unaffiliated cruise lines in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs claim infringement of copyrights to Broadway, off Broadway and other plays. The suit seeks payment of (i) damages, (ii) disgorgement of alleged profits and (iii) an injunction against future infringement. On March 25, 2009, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Carnival and its subsidiaries and affiliates, because of the plaintiffs' failure to state their claims with the required specificity. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the dismissal, according to the company's April 2, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2009. Carnival Corp. -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com-- is a cruise and vacation company. The company has a portfolio of cruise brands and is a provider of cruises to all vacation destinations. The cruise brands of the company includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Princess Cruises (Princess), Costa Cruises (Costa), Holland America Line, P&O Cruises, AIDA Cruises (AIDA), Cunard Line (Cunard), Ibero Cruises (Ibero), Ocean Village, P&O Cruises Australia and The Yachts of Seabourn (Seabourn). In addition to the cruise operations, the company owns Holland America Tours and Princess Tours, the cruise/tour operators in the State of Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada. CENTEX CORP: Investors File Lawsuits Over Pulte Homes Takeover -------------------------------------------------------------- At least five investors in Centex Corp. have filed lawsuits on behalf of certain current shareholders in CTX shares in Nevada and Texas State Courts over the proposed takeover of Centex Corporation (Public, NYSE:CTX) by Pulte Homes under the present conditions. The shareholders of CTX allege that the members of board of directors of Centex Corp. (Public, NYSE:CTX) breached their fiduciary duty owed to the CTX shareholders and violated other state law in connection with the attempt to sell CTX to Pulte Homes. Under the terms of the proposed $3.1 billion takeover, Centex shareholders will receive 0.975 shares of Pulte stock for each share of Centex they own, or $10.50 per share based on the April 7, 2009 closing price of Pulte stock. The plaintiffs allege that the transaction appears unfair given that, among other things, Centex shares traded above $12.40 per share as recently as January 8, 2009 and Centex has a book value in excess of $10.50 per share. Specifically the plaintiffs allege that "The proposed acquisition as currently constituted does not adequately value Centex's extensive land holdings nor does it adequately account for Centex's balance sheet, which included $1.7 billion in cash as of March 31. Likewise, the proposed acquisition fails to compensate shareholders for the $350 million in annual synergies Pulte expects to receive from the combined company post-merger." Centex, which is incorporated in Nevada but based in Dallas, was sued as early as April 17 with now at least four lawsuits against Centex directors and Pulte in District Court for Dallas County and on April 24 in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas. Centex spokesman Ken Smalling reportedly said on Monday the company had no comment on the suits. EDDIE BAUER: Discovery in "Scherer" Labor Lawsuit Postponed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 2007-cv-02270," pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has been postponed. The purported class-action suit was filed in September 2007, by Kristal Scherer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against Eddie Bauer, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 before the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The suit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code relating to the payment of incentive bonuses and the company's policy on forfeiture of personal days. The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In December 2007, the company filed a partial motion to dismiss certain counts of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. That motion was denied in June 2008. The complaint was amended in January 2008 to add an additional named plaintiff. The company filed an answer in July 2008 denying the claims made. The parties have agreed to postpone discovery pending issuance of a ruling on the settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc.," according to the company's April 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2009. The suit is "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 3:2007cv02270," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James C. Kostas, Esq. (jkostas@aol.com) Huffman and Kostas 1441 State Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-544-0800 Fax: 619-544-0892 - and - Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq. (sostrofflaw@aol.com) Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff 1441 State Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-544-0881 Representing the defendants is: Kalia C. Petmecky, Esq. (kpetmecky@akingump.com) Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-229-1000 EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Final approval to a proposed settlement of a purported class- action suit against Eddie Bauer, Inc. remains pending, according to the company's April 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2009. The purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc.," was filed on June 15, 2006, before the Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California. The suit alleged, among other things, that Eddie Bauer: -- did not provide the plaintiffs with adequate wage statements; -- did not reimburse the plaintiffs for business-related expenses; -- forced the plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing; -- did not timely pay the plaintiffs at the cessation of employment; and -- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest and meal periods without compensation. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert various causes of action, including those under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. On April 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement related to the class-action suit. A hearing to consider final court approval of the settlement occurred on July 10, 2008, at which the plaintiff in the matter, "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 3:2007cv02270," objected to the settlement on various grounds. The court took the parties' positions under advisement and the company expects a ruling to be issued during the third quarter of 2008. In connection with the proposed settlement, the company accrued $1.6 million in the first quarter of 2007 to cover settlement payments and attorneys' fees, the company's regulatory filing stated. The settlement payments are proposed to be made partly in cash and partly in company gift cards. In a status conference held on March 30, 2009, the judge indicated that he would sign an order approving settlement. Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories for the modern outdoor lifestyle. The company's primary target customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old. ENERGY TRANSFER: NYMEX Manipulation Suit Dismissed on March 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on March 26, 2009, dismissed a putative class-action lawsuit against Energy Transfer Partners LP that accuses the energy pipeline and natural gas firm of illegally manipulating the price of natural gas futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleges that the company engaged in intentional and unlawful manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2008). It further alleges that during the class period from Dec. 29, 2003, to Dec. 31, 2005, the company had the market power manipulate index prices, and that it used this market power to artificially depress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs, including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit the company's natural gas physical and financial trading positions and intentionally submitted price and volume trade information to trade publications. The action asserts that the unlawful depression of index prices by the company manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff and all other members of the putative class who purchased or sold natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during the class period. Initially, two class-action lawsuits were filed against the company. Following the consolidation order, the plaintiffs who had filed the two earlier cases filed a consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs have requested certification of their consolidated suit as a class action, unspecified damages, court costs and other appropriate relief. On Jan. 14, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit on the grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated class action complaint. In response to this new pleading, on May 5, 2008, the company filed yet another motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response opposing the company's motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an order dismissing the consolidated class action complaint. The court dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. The company is unable to predict whether the plaintiff will seek to appeal this order, according to the company's April 2, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, with Judge Keith P. Ellison, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com) Labaton & Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-883-7527 Craig Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com) Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-822-5100 Fax: 202-822-4997 - and - Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq. Attorney at Law 1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave. Galveston, TX 77550 Phone: 409-762-5393 Fax: 409-762-0538 Representing the defendants is: Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com) Skadden Arps 1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-655-5160 Fax: 888-329-2286 ENERGY TRANSFER: "Rio Grande" Suit in Texas Dismissed in March -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc v. Energy Transfer Partners LP et al, Case No. 4:2008-cv-00857," was dismissed on March 26, 2009. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 17, 2008, as a class-action complaint. It alleges that the company engaged in unlawful restraint of trade and intentional monopolization and attempted monopolization of the market for fixed-price natural gas baseload transactions at the Houston Ship Channel from December 2003 through December 2005 in violation of federal antitrust law. The complaint further alleges that during this period, the company exerted monopoly power to suppress the price for these transactions to non-competitive levels in order to benefit from its own physical natural gas positions. The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested certification of the suit as a class-action and seeks unspecified treble damages, court costs and other appropriate relief. On May 19, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On March 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an order dismissing the class-action complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on all causes of action and for anti-trust injury, but granted leave to amend. The company is unable to predict whether the plaintiffs will seek to amend their complaint in accordance with the order or whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal the order, according to its April 2, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc. v. Energy Transfer Partners LP et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00857," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com) Labaton & Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-883-7527 - and - Robert A Chaffin, Esq. (robert@chaffinlawfirm.com) Chaffin & Stiles 4265 San Felipe, Ste 1020 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: 713-528-1000 Fax: 713-952-5972 Representing the defendants is: Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com) Skadden Arps et al 1000 Louisiana, Ste 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-655-5160 Fax: 888-329-2286 FEDERAL DEPOSIT: WaMu Executives File Lawsuit Over CIC Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Five former Washington Mutual, Inc. (WaMu) executives sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), saying that under their written employment agreements they were owed "change in control" payments, equal to one-and-a-half times their regular pay, after the thrift was seized and its banking assets sold off, Drew DeSilver of The Seattle Times reports. The lawsuit, filed in April 2009, seeks class-action status for more than 100 other former WaMu executives similarly affected, according to The Seattle Times report. J.P. MORGAN: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Card Policy Change --------------------------------------------------------------- J.P. Morgan & Chase continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit for monthly service fees attached to some low-interest credit cards, Herb Weisbaum of KOMO News reports. In January 2009, Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart filed a class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. on behalf of a class of customers who have been charged a monthly service fee on balance transfers to their Chase credit cards that have low fixed APRs (annual percentage rates) for the life of the loan. Affected customers calling Chase said they were offered a $10 monthly fee and a higher minimum payment schedule -- jumping minimum payments from 2 percent to 5 percent of their balances - - or a higher interest rate, USA Today reported on Feb. 9, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009). Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson told United Press International that the new policy affected credit card holders with promotional rates who have kept large balances for more than two years, making little progress reducing their balances. The change, affected about 400,000 accounts, she adds. For more details, contact: Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, New York 10004 Phone: 212.847.8315 Fax: 646.964.9645 Web site: http://www.gslawny.com/ LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Suit Pending in Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawson Software, Inc., continues to face a labor-related class- action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The punitive class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business, systems, and technical consultants. The suit, "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," alleges that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleges violations of state record-keeping requirements. It also alleges certain violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and unjust enrichment. The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. The Minnesota Federal District Court has conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA counts. Still pending before the Court is the company's motion to dismiss the Minnesota state law wage and hour claims, according to its April 2, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. The suit "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq. (lgreen@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C., DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Representing the defendants are: Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq. (lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com) Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 190 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: 516-747-0300 Fax: 516-747-0653 - and - Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq. (smcgrane@felhaber.com) Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-373-8511 Fax: 612-338-0535 MAPLE LEAF: Nov. 21, 2009 Cutoff Set for Claims to CDN$27M Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 21, 2009 deadline was set for availing of the CDN$27 million settlement in the Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against Maple Leaf Foods, which was filed over last year's listeriosis outbreak. A Canada-wide settlement of up to CDN$27 million has been approved by the Courts in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec providing financial compensation for people who purchased or consumed recalled meat products produced by Maple Leaf Foods, during the period January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008. How to Apply for Compensation Anyone who believes they qualify for compensation can download a claim form from the web site http://www.mapleleafclaim.comor by calling the court-appointed Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-800-801-2521. If you are unsure if you qualify, you are encouraged to call the Claims Administrator. All claims must be filed by 5:00 pm EST, November 2, 2009 and you are encouraged to file your claim as soon as possible to avoid processing delays. The only way to receive compensation is to submit a completed claim form to the Court appointed Claims Administrator. Who Should Claim The settlement establishes a fund of up to CDN$27 million to pay valid claims for compensation relating to the physical or psychological harm caused by the consumption of Recalled Products. The settlement provides varying amounts of compensation to individuals who consumed recalled products and became sick or died. The following claim submission facts should be noted: -- Proof of purchase and consumption is not required. A sworn Declaration attesting to purchase and consumption is sufficient. -- Proof of any listeria infection is not required. A sworn Declaration attesting to physical illness with flu like symptoms is sufficient. -- Medical proof of illness or psychological trauma is required except in the case of illness lasting between 24 and 48 hours. In the latter case, no medical proof is required at all. People who purchased but did not consume Recalled Products are also bound by the settlement but are ineligible to be paid any compensation. Summary of legal rights to compensation in this settlement: A. Physical and Psychological Trauma Claims Without Medical Evidence Lump sum payment: CDN$750.00. a. Physical symptoms consistent with listeriosis after consuming. b. Illness duration: 24 hours to less than 48 hours. c. Medical proof: None required. NOTE: If a claimant consumed recalled product and suffered from flu-like symptoms but never visited a doctor or hospital or clinic, he or she may claim at Level 1 as this is the level that does not require medical evidence to support a claim. B. Physical and Psychological Trauma Claims with Medical Evidence Payment range: CDN$3,000 - CDN$125,000 plus certain additional amounts. a. Physical symptoms consistent with listeriosis after consuming. b. Illness duration: More than 48 hours. c. Medical proof: Required. C. Psychological Trauma Only Claims with Medical Evidence Payment range: CDN$2,000 - CDN$17,500 plus certain additional amounts. a. Psychological trauma only, after consuming. b. Anxiety onset after August 17, 2009. c. Medical proof: Required. A list of over 242 Recalled Products which were identified as potentially contaminated with the bacteria listeria monocytogenes, can be found on the website http://www.mapleleafclaim.com. Opting Out of the Class Action Settlement The only option that allows claimants to ever be part of any other lawsuit against Maple Leaf Foods regarding the legal claims in this case, is by submitting a signed "Opt Out" form postmarked no later than Friday August 7, 2009. Under the settlement approved by the courts, if a claimant chooses to do nothing by the claims deadline of November 2, 2009, they will receive no compensation and give up all of their rights to further legal action in this matter. For further information: visit http://www.mapleleafclaim.comor contact the Claims Administrator: Bruneau Group Inc.: Maple Leaf Settlement Administrator, 1-800-801-2521, Fax: (613) 562-0321, info@mapleleafclaim.com. MONSANTO CO: No Trial Date Yet for Contamination Suit in W.Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit against Monsanto Co. that claims the company polluted the Nitro area with unsafe levels of the toxic chemical dioxin remains pending. The order prevents lawyers from placing ads in the media about the facts of the case and from initiating contact with the media about the case, according to the WOWK report. Case Background The purported class-action lawsuit was filed by 15 plaintiffs against Monsanto Co. and several other defendants over dioxins/furans contamination (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2008). The suit, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," also names as defendants Pharmacia Corp. and seven others. The company is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. Akzo Nobel and Flexsys are named defendants in the case, but Solutia is not, due to its pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human contamination and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys group of defendants tendered their cases to Monsanto for indemnification and defense. Monsanto agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action matters. The court has not set a trial date for the case, according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended Feb. 28, 2009. For more details, contact: W. Stuart Calwell, Esq. Alex McLaughlin, Esq. The Calwell Practice P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-343-4323 and 304-291-5223 Fax: 304-344-3864 and 304-291-2240; - and - James F. Humphreys, Esq. J. David Cecil, Esq. Thomas G. Wilson, Esq. James F. Humphreys & Associates United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-347-5050 Fax: 304-347-5055 OKLAHOMA: Judge Grants Class Certification to Foster Care Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has allowed a case against the state in connection to its foster care system go forward as a class-action suit, Marla Carter of kjrh.com reports. Previously, Jay F. Marks of NewsOK.com reported that Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has excluded a state employees' group from a purported class-action lawsuit seeking to reform the state child welfare system (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2009). The Oklahoma Public Employees Association, which includes more than 300 state Department of Human Services child welfare workers, filed a brief in February in support of an advocacy group's attempt to turn its lawsuit into a class-action case, according to the NewsOK.com report. U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell sided with DHS, agreeing the group did not have any unique perspective to offer, reports NewsOK.com. NewsOK.com reported that the group's proposed brief, which was filed Feb. 11, 2009 largely duplicated the arguments made by Children's Rights, the advocacy group behind the lawsuit, Judge Frizzell wrote. The Daily Oklahoman previously reported that Children's Rights, a New York-based child advocacy organization, joined several prominent Oklahoma law firms and an international firm in filing a class-action suit against Oklahoma's Department of Human Services (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2008). The suit accuses DHS of repeatedly subjecting children in state custody to extreme abuse and neglect. It asks the judge to impose far-reaching reforms on the state system. "Oklahoma has long maintained one of the most dangerous and badly mismanaged child welfare systems in the nation, and thousands of children have suffered under nightmarish conditions for years as a result," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights. "It is disgraceful that we have to seek a federal court order to force the state to begin fixing problems that it should have addressed many years ago. But it is clear that this is the only way to protect Oklahoma's abused and neglected children -- and that is what this lawsuit is about." Children's Rights is asking the judge to declare the lawsuit a class action so the attorneys can represent all of the more than 10,000 children in state care. For more details, contact: Marcia Robinson Lowry Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212.683.2210 or 888.283.2210 Fax: 212.683.4015 e-mail: info@childrensrights.org Web site: http://www.childrensrights.org/ PASO ROBLES: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Sewer, Water Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Paso Robles, California is seeking for dismissal of a class-action lawsuit alleging it violated state law when it raised water and sewer rates in 2002 and 2004, Tonya Strickland of The San Luis Obispo Tribune reports. City Attorney Iris Yang, Esq., filed the city's formal response to the lawsuit on April 24, 2009, saying the allegations don't satisfy required legal standards, according to The San Luis Obispo Tribune report. The Paso Robles Press previously reported that the City of Paso Robles, California faces a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by members of the group Concerned Citizens of Paso Robles, alleging that the city illegally imposed water and sewer fees in violation of Proposition 218 and seeking the return to ratepayers of an estimated $8 million (Class Action Reporter, April 2, 2009). The action -- filed in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court on March 25, 2009 -- intends to recover bill payer's money for illegally collected water and sewer fees by City officials, reaching back as far as 2002. More than $8 million could be refunded to city residents, according to The Paso Robles Press report. According to a press release issued by CCPR on March 27, 2009, the plaintiffs alleged that reaching back as far as 2002 "and perhaps earlier," the city failed to obtain voter approval for the charges or fees, which also compelled a writ of mandate to return the illegally collected fees to bill payers in the community. The Paso Robles Press reported that Paul Heidenreich, Esq., an attorney for Manhattan Beach-based Huskinson, Brown, Heidenreich & Carlin, LLP, is lead counsel for the plaintiffs. PEROT FAMILY: Faces Investors' Suit in Texas Over $2.5Bil Loss -------------------------------------------------------------- The Perot Family Trust is facing a purported class-action suit in Texas by investors who say that the trust lost $2.5 billion in its wholly owned Parkcentral Global Hub, whose value sank from $2.5 billion to "less than zero," The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit is captioned, "Levine Capital Ltd v. The Perot Family Trust et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00826," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 4, 2009. The lead plaintiff in the case, Levine Capital, Ltd., is represented by Ellen Presby of Dallas and Coughlin, Stoia, Geller of San Diego, Calif. In the suit which also names Hill Air Company I LLC, Perot Management GP LLC, Perot GP Inc., Petrus Securities LP, Steven L. Blasnik, and Joy Leffingwell as defendants, the plaintiffs say they lost "100% of their invested capital," according to The Courthouse News Service report. Among the allegations in this complicated 28-page complaint are that investors paid the defendants more than $94 million in management and incentive fees from Sept. 1, 2007 through Oct. 31, 2008, and that "from July 1, 2007 until Nov. 30, 2008, defendants wrongfully induced investors to place $219,248,551 in new capital into the Global Fund," reports The Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c81 The suit is "Levine Capital Ltd v. The Perot Family Trust et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00826," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ellen A. Presby, Esq. (epresby@presbylaw.com) Presby Law Office 10,000 N Central Expwy Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: 214/890-4045 Fax: 214/890-4046 - and - James I. Jaconette, Esq. (jamesj@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 ROYAL BANK: NY Judge Backs Out of Litigation Due to Family Link ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Loretta A. Preska of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, who had been appointed to oversee a legal action brought by British local authority pension funds against Royal Bank of Scotland, has stepped aside from the case after it emerged that her husband had provided legal advice to the bank, Mark Kleinman and Jonathan Sibun of Telegraph.co.uk reports. The judge recused herself after disclosing that her husband, Thomas Kavaler, Esq., was a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel, a law firm which counts RBS among its clients, according to the Telegraph.co.uk report. In a document handed to lawyers representing the investors, Judge Preska said Cahill Gordon & Reindel "from time to time represents" RBS as well as other international investment banks. Investors launched the class-action lawsuit amid claims that RBS "falsely reassured" shareholders that its business was solvent ahead of its near nationalization, reports Telegraph.co.uk. North Yorkshire and Merseyside council pension funds, which have a combined value of about GBP4bn, are seeking compensation for the "massive losses" incurred when RBS was bailed out and its share price collapsed. The pension funds hired U.S. law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins which in turn appointed Cherie Blair, wife of the former Prime Minister, a QC at the Matrix Chambers, as an adviser on the case, the Telegraph.co.uk reported. At least six legal actions have been filed with several other law firms involved. A lead plaintiff, who would shape the detail and strategy of the class-action suit, has yet to be appointed. The suit names RBS and its board, including former RBS chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and former chairman Sir Tom McKillop, as defendants, Telegraph.co.uk reports. Although RBS is a British bank, investors have been able to bring the class-action suit in the U.S. because the bank conducted a lot of business there, according to the Telegraph.co.uk report. THOMSON CORP: Ontario Court to Mull Settlement in Robertson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will be asked on June 16, 2009 to consider a proposed settlement in "Robertson v. Thomson," Julius Melnitzer of The National Post reports. The class-action lawsuit involves breach of copyright claims by freelance writers who objected to the defendants publishing works written for print media in electronic databases without paying the writers for the electronic rights, reports The National Post. Canada's Supreme Court ruled in favor of a freelance writer in a class action she filed in 1996 against Globe and Mail and Thomson Corp. over reproduction of articles in online databases without additional compensation to the author, the Canadian Press reports, The National Post reported. The suit was filed in 1996 by freelance writer Heather Robertson against against Globe and Mail and Thomson Corp. after Globe and Mail reproduced two of her articles in an online database (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2006). Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky represented the plaintiffs. The settlement involves a payment of CDN$11 million to provide benefits to class members including a claims-based compensation plan and an alternative take-down benefit for certain freelance work, as well as certain donations, according to The National Post report. TOTAL S.A.: Removed from Claims List of South African Citizens -------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL S.A. has been removed from the list of companies against which certain South African citizens alleging human rights violations may bring claims, according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In a threatened class action proceeding in the United States, TOTAL, together with approximately 100 other multinational companies, is the subject of accusations by certain South African citizens who alleged that their human rights were violated during the era of apartheid by the army, the police or militias, and who consider that these companies were accomplices in the actions by the South African authorities at the time. The claims against the companies named in the class action, which were not officially brought against TOTAL, were dismissed by a federal judge in New York. The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and, after a procedural hearing on Nov. 3, 2008, decided to remove TOTAL from the list of companies against which it was bringing claims. TOTAL S.A. -- http://www.total.com/-- together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, is an integrated international oil and gas company. With operations in more than 130 countries, TOTAL engages in all aspects of the petroleum industry, including Upstream operations (oil and gas exploration, development and production, liquefied natural gas (LNG)) and Downstream operations (refining, marketing and the trading and shipping of crude oil and petroleum products). The company also produces base chemicals (petrochemicals and fertilizers) and specialty chemicals for the industrial and consumer markets. In addition, TOTAL has interests in the coal mining and power generation sectors, as well as a financial interest in Sanofi- Aventis. TOTAL's worldwide operations are conducted through three business segments: Upstream, Downstream and Chemicals. VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Second Suit Over Contaminated Water --------------------------------------------------------------- The Village of Crestwood, Illinois, and its past two mayors are facing a second class-action lawsuit for allegedly endangering the public health by allowing residents to drink water from a contaminated well for more than 20 years, Sun-Times News Group reports. The lawsuit, filed by Crestwood resident Kathryn Torrisi, accuses the village, Mayor Robert Stranczek, former Mayor Chester Stranczek and unnamed co-conspirators of concealing the presence of chemicals in the village's tap water and "unscrupulously" causing the tainted water to be pumped into homes and businesses, according to the Sun-Times News Group report. Ms. Torrisi brings the claim on behalf of all people who paid for and consumed tap water from the Crestwood well between 1986 and 2007, the lawsuit says. She resided in Crestwood from 1980 to 1991 and again from 2001 to 2005 and consumed and paid Crestwood for the tainted tap water at issue, Sun-Times News Group reported. The lawsuit seeks damages and establishment of a "constructive trust" consisting of money the defendants collected from water bills for the purpose of testing and monitoring the adverse health effects of the contaminated water, reports Sun-Times News Group. CBS2 Chicago previously reported that a suit, filed by Crestwood resident Joseph Marzano on behalf of "thousands" of Crestwood residents who paid for allegedly contaminated tap water, accuses the Village of Crestwood, Mayor Robert Stranczek, his father, and unnamed alleged co-conspirators with "quietly" making use of contaminated water as a way to save money (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2009). That suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, claims the village touted their cheap water prices while covertly using water from a well known to contain dry cleaning chemicals, specifically vinyl chloride. It claims that in 1986, state regulators told Crestwood officials that a well they were using was tainted with dangerous chemicals. Following the notification, the suit claims village officials told the state that it would only use the well in emergency situations and would provide tap water from Lake Michigan only. However, Mr. Marzano claims the village continued to use the "tainted" well in an effort to save money, reports CBS2 Chicago. WSB FINANCIAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in March -------------------------------------------------------------- The final settlement of the matter, "In Re: WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ," which was filed against WSB Financial Group, Inc., was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 27, 2009. In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class-action suit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain of its directors and current and former officers alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief in connection with the Company's initial public offering (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 2, 2008). Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington. As is typical in these cases, all the actions have been consolidated into a single action, "In RE: WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ." As previously reported, WSB Financial Group, the parent company of Westsound Bank, said that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in a pending securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008). The class-action settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The settlement agreement provides for the certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering completed on December 21, 2006. The total amount of the settlement is $4.85 million. The Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policy will contribute approximately $4.45 million towards the settlement amount and has previously contributed approximately $350,000 towards the Company's legal fees. The settlement agreement contains no admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants. "This settlement is a significant accomplishment and allows our management team to focus on our future," said Terry A. Peterson, President and CEO. "It further demonstrates our focus on identifying and executing strategies to eliminate risk. While we still believe we have strong defenses, we felt it was important to get it behind us and eliminate the burden and expense of protracted litigation. We continue to maintain adequate levels of capital and liquidity, which are important measures of the Bank's safety and soundness for both shareholders and depositors." The final settlement of the shareholders' class action lawsuit against the Company was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 27, 2009. As of March 16, 2009, Westsound Bank had commenced collection and foreclosure proceedings on approximately 103 real estate loans, according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. For more details, contact: David R. Stickney, Esq. Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (888) 924-1888 Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com - and - In re WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 91179 Seattle, WA 98111-9279 Phone: 1 (800) 961-2567 Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/1434 YTB INT'L: Continues to Face Consolidated Litigation in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- YTB International, Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit in Illinois claiming that the company is nothing more than "an elaborate pyramid scheme." Initially, two groups of attorneys filed class-action suits against the company, according to Sanford J. Schmidt of The Telegraph. The suits claim people taken in by the alleged scheme wanted to earn money by becoming marketing representatives selling travel packages over the Internet on individual Web sites. They paid a $500 license fee and a monthly fee of $50, The Telegraph reported. People also could earn more money by recruiting others to join the firm, and lawyers claim the real money was to be earned that way, instead of actually selling travel to the public, reports The Telegraph. Ann Knef of the St. Clair Record previously reported that Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois consolidated two competing class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc. (Class Action Reporter Jan. 16, 2009). In general the lawsuits claim that the company operates an illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs an illegal chain referral sales technique in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Following a hearing in December 2008, lawyers in both cases agreed that consolidation was appropriate. Judge Murphy entered his order on Jan. 6, 2009, according to the St. Clair Record. Sanford J. Schmidt of The Telegraph reported that at a recent hearing, Judge Murphy told the two sides he was unwilling to hear two parallel cases at the same time. The judge said, "We're not going to be hearing two cases at one time." He added, "It makes a lot of sense to file one complaint" (Class Action Reporter Dec. 17, 2008). However, Judge Murphy pointed out that even if the suits were consolidated, the earliest trial date would be in 2010. To that end, the judge gave the lawyers two weeks to come up with an agreement to consolidate the cases, or he would issue an order of his own choosing, reports The Telegraph. Previously, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reported that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois set a Dec. 8, 2008 status conference for two purported class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc., which alleges that the company is an illegal pyramid scheme (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2008). One of the suits was filed by Faye Morrison and Kwame Thompson on Aug. 8, 2008. They seek to represent a putative class who allege YTB operates an illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs an illegal chain referral sales technique in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Ms. Morrison, of St. Louis and Mr. Thompson, of Atlanta, acted as both independent marketing representatives (IMRs) and referring travel agents (RTAs) for YTB. Their suit seeks at least $100 million in damages on behalf of the putative class, the Madison County Record reports. The two have retained Rex Carr, Christian Montroy and Michael Marker of East St. Louis to represent them. In addition, Jay Kanzler, Jr., and Brian Massimino of St. Louis will assist in representing the class. The Madison County Record reported that the second purported class-action suit against YTB and its subsidiaries was filed by Jeffrey and Polly Hartman. Their suit is almost identical to the first case, however they are represented by different lawyers. They filed their lawsuit, captioned, "Hartman et al. v. YTB International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR- CJP," seven days after the first one. John Carey, Tiffany Marko and Francis "Casey" Flynn of Carey & Danis in St. Louis represent the Hartmans, according to the Madison County Record. New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting claims for securities fraud, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Sequenom, Inc. (Nasdaq:SQNM). The complaint seeks remedies under the federal securities laws against Sequenom and certain of its executive officers and was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that after months of touting the Company's accomplishments, on April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a press release stating that its employees mishandled R&D test data for SEQureDx, which was being developed as a non-invasive prenatal test for Down syndrome. Sequenom also disclosed that the commercial launch of SEQureDx would be delayed and that: -- the Company suspended four employees; -- the Company formed a special committee of independent directors to oversee an independent investigation of the employees' activity related to the test data and results; -- the committee engaged independent counsel to assist the committee in the conduct of the investigation; -- the Company's previous press releases and public SEC filings concerning SEQureDx could no longer be relied upon; and -- due to these developments, the Company is now reviewing the test results for all its products, not just SEQureDx. On this news, and after trading as high as $29.14 per share during the Class Period, the price of Sequenom common stock plummeted from its previous closing price of $14.91, to $3.62, a loss of over $11.00 per share. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 ********* 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 * * *