/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 129 Headlines A. H. BELO: Appeal to Denied Class Certification Still Ongoing A. H. BELO: To Defend Calif. Suit Over Wage Payment Violations ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for $65.7M TriCor Deal B&R AERIAL: Wash. Apple Pickers Sue Pilot Over 2008 Spraying BEST BUY: Faces Ind. Suit Over Improper Installation of Dryers CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Lawsuit Over 2007 Copia Bonds CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in New Jersey CHILDREN'S PLACE: Stockholder Suit Settlement Pending Approval DSM ELASTOMERS: Conn. Court Certifies Class in EPDM Litigation EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement on Appeal EDDIE BAUER: "Scherer" Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of "Hill" Deal EDDIE BAUER: To Defend "Hernandez" Complaint Over Wage Payment ELBIT IMAGING: Appeal to Dismissal of Certification Bid Pending ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders' Suit Still in Early Stages ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending MBNA CORP: Oct. 6 Hearing Set for $25M Securities Suit Agreement MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit v. LabCorp Deal MONSANTO CO: Aug. 13 Status Conference Set for Consolidated Suit MONSANTO CO: Property Damage Suits Over Contamination Pending OHIO: DPS, BMV Faces Privacy Violations Lawsuit in Federal Court PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Deferred SEMPRA ENERGY: Class Status in Wildfire Suits Denied on June 25 ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Mo. Suit Over "Illegal" Recycling Fees TIM PARTICIPACOES: Expects Action on Assets Return to Continue TIM PARTICIPACOES: Still Faces Suits Over Consumer/Labor Issues VERIFIED IDENTITY: Sued Over $250 Fee, Personal Information VIVENDI S.A.: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York WASHINGTON: Cities Face 2nd Suit Over Fines From Traffic Cameras New Securities Fraud Cases RAYMOND JAMES: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing ********* A. H. BELO: Appeal to Denied Class Certification Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder suit filed against A. H. Belo Corporation, Robert W. Decherd, and Barry T. Peckham, a former executive officer of The Dallas Morning News, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas continue to appeal the denial of class certification. On Aug. 23, Aug. 26, and Oct. 5, 2004, three related lawsuits, now consolidated, were filed by purported shareholders of Belo, arising out of the circulation overstatement at The Dallas Morning News. James M. Moroney III, an executive officer of The Dallas Morning News, was added later as a defendant. The plaintiffs seek to represent a purported class of shareholders who purchased Belo common stock between May 12, 2003 and Aug. 6, 2004, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 2, 2008, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and on April 16, 2008, plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for permission to appeal that denial. On June 17, 2008, permission was granted and on April 2, 2009, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument. No amount of damages has been specified, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- owns three primary daily newspapers: The Dallas Morning News, The Providence Journal and The Press-Enterprise. They produce local, state, national and international news. In addition to these three daily newspapers, the Company publishes various products in the same or nearby markets, where these daily newspapers are published. Each of A. H. Belo's daily newspapers and publications operates its own related Website. It also operates direct mail and commercial printing businesses. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belo. Corp. (Belo). A. H. BELO: To Defend Calif. Suit Over Wage Payment Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- A. H. Belo Corporation intends to defend against the claims in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class- action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, Belo Corp., Press-Enterprise Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the purported class members as independent contractors rather than employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum, hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations applicable to an employer-employee relationship. According to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages, unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- owns three primary daily newspapers: The Dallas Morning News, The Providence Journal and The Press-Enterprise. They produce local, state, national and international news. In addition to these three daily newspapers, the Company publishes various products in the same or nearby markets, where these daily newspapers are published. Each of A. H. Belo's daily newspapers and publications operates its own related Website. It also operates direct mail and commercial printing businesses. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belo. Corp. (Belo). ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for $65.7M TriCor Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed $65.7 million settlement in the matter, "In re TriCor Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-360 (SLR)." The hearing will be held before Judge Sue L. Robinson for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware at 844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. The suit alleges that defendants violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws regarding the sale of TriCor and generic fenofbrates. As a result, the lawsuit claims, a class of Consumers and Third-Party Payors (TPPs) such as health insurers and employee benefit plans paid too much for the products. Fenofbrate is the active ingredient in certain medications that are used to treat high cholesterol and high triglyceride levels. Prescription drugs that contain fenofbrate include TriCor, Lofbra, Antara, Triglide and any generic version of these products. Listed as defendats in the matter are Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, and Laboratoires Fournier S.A. The settlement covers all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased, paid and/or reimbursed for fenofbrate products, including TriCor tablets and TriCor capsules, intended for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, plan participants and beneficiaries or insureds between April 9, 2002 and May 8, 2009. The $65,700,000 will be placed in to a settlement fund that will be divided into two parts: $33,333,334.00 for consumers and $32,366,666.00 for TPPs. For more details, contact: TriCor Indirect Purchaser Claims Administrator c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 24797 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Phone: 1-877-567-3014 e-mail: info@TriCorSettlement.com Web site: http://www.tricorsettlement.com/ - and - Pamela Tikellis, Esq. Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP P.O. Box 1035 222 Delaware Ave, Suite 1100 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Phone: 302-656-2500 or 866-399-2487 Fax: 302-656-9053 Web site: http://chimicles.com/ B&R AERIAL: Wash. Apple Pickers Sue Pilot Over 2008 Spraying ------------------------------------------------------------ Three apple pickers filed a class-action lawsuit against a pilot they say sprayed dozens of workers in Mattawa, Washington last year with an herbicide, according to The Associated Press. The Yakima Herald-Republic reports that the lawsuit was filed in Franklin County Superior Court in Pasco. It seeks compensation for injuries the workers say they suffered. The lawsuit claims that Bernard Eskildsen, a pilot with B&R Aerial Crop Care Inc. in Connell, sprayed them with a restricted-use herbicide when he was spraying an adjacent alfalfa field, AP reports. A news release by the workers' lawyer, Ernest Radillo of Columbia Legal Services in Wenatchee, says about 60 workers suffered exposure systems following the Sept. 10, 2008 incident. For more details, contact: Ernest Radillo, Esq. Columbia Legal Services 300 Okanogan Ave, Suite 2A Wenatchee, WA 98801 Phone: (509) 662-9681 Fax: (800) 572-9615 Web site: http://www.columbialegal.org/ BEST BUY: Faces Ind. Suit Over Improper Installation of Dryers -------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Stores LP is facing a purported class-action lawsuit, claiming the company's delivery crews cause fire hazards by improperly installing laundry dryers in customers' homes, The Times reports. The suit was filed on June 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by Lunette Woods, under the caption, "Woods v. Best Buy Stores LP, Case No. 2:2009-cv- 00180." It seeks class action status to represent other people who believe Best Buy crews installed their dryers hazardously and demands $5,000,000 in damages. The complaint centers on Best Buy installers who allegedly use plastic or foil vents, instead of the "heavy metal" vents recommended by the dryers' makers. A crew installed Ms. Woods' Whirlpool dryer with a metal foil vent, the suit states, according to The Times. Plaintiff claims that Best Buy breached its contract with Woods' when the installers used the foil vent. She does not claim the dryer installation caused any fires in her home though, reports The Times. The suit cites government reports that recommend metal vents, saying plastic or foil vents can kink or be crushed, reducing air flow or trapping flammable lint. It also contains newspaper briefs detailing house fires traced to dryers, The Times reported. For more details, contact: Thomas K. Caldwell, Esq. (tkcaldwell@mhclaw.com) Maddox Hargett & Caruso PC 10100 Lantern Road Suite 150 Fishers, IN 46037 Phone: 317-598-2040 Fax: 317-598-2050 CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Lawsuit Over 2007 Copia Bonds -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of McGrane Greenfield, LLP and Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a class of persons or entities that hold a derivative interest as of June 10, 2009 in bonds issued by the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, referred to as Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A and Series 2007B (COPIA: The American Center for Wine, Food & The Arts Project), issued pursuant to a certain Indenture dated May 1, 2007, between the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (the "2007 Copia Bonds"). The complaint alleges that the Prospectus for the 2007 Copia Bonds was false and misleading in that it was affirmatively represented in the Prospectus that the 2007 Copia Bonds had been issued for the express purpose of defeasance of a prior 1999 bond issue (the "1999 Bonds") on or before September 7, 2007. The Complaint alleges that the representation was false in that, in order for the prior 1999 Bonds to have been defeased, a written opinion of counsel was required by Section 10.03(4) of the 1999 Bonds Indenture, which was not provided as required. Therefore, the 1999 Bonds have never been made the subject of any proper or legal defeasance and could never have been made the subject of any proper or legal defeasance. The Complaint alleges that the misrepresentation and failure to disclose the lack of any proper or legal defeasance respecting the prior 1999 Bonds and the 2007 Copia Bonds allowed what would have been otherwise unmarketable bonds to be issued and sold. The Complaint alleges that the holders of a derivative interest in the 2007 Copia Bonds suffered substantial losses as a result. The class action, entitled "Copia Claims, LLC v. California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank," was filed on June 10, 2009, and amended on June 16, 2009. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Case Number is 2:09-CV-01610. It names as defendants Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation ("ACA"), and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Defendants are charged with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and ACA also is charged with insurance bad faith. For more details, contact: Christopher D. Sullivan (csullivan@mcgranegreenfield.com) One Ferry Building, #220 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 283-1776 Web site: http://www.mcgranegreenfield.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Co. faces a purported class-action suit charging the soup maker with racial discrimination for failing to promote African Americans on the company's sales force, Eileen Stilwell of Cherry Hill Courier Post reports. The suit was filed on June 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by Chester A. Hicks, under the caption, "Hicks v. Campbell Soup Co., Case No. 1:2009-cv-03106." Mr. Hicks, an African-American salesman for the company, claims less qualified and less experienced white employees received promotions, according to the Cherry Hill Courier Post. The purported class represents Mr. Hicks and all African Americans employed by Campbell in salaried sales jobs in the United States from July 2003 to the present, the Cherry Hill Courier Post reported. For more details, contact: Susan Rebecca Wexler, Esq. (swexler@discrimlaw.net) Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C. 1835 Market Street Suite 515 Philadelphia, Pa 19103 Phone: (215) 569-1999 Fax: (215) 569-3870 CHILDREN'S PLACE: Stockholder Suit Settlement Pending Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- A stipulation to settle the consolidated stockholder class- action suit entitled, "Hall v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-cv-8252(SAS)" is pending the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's approval. September Litigation On Sept. 21, 2007, a stockholder class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its current and former senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the company's current and former officers made statements to the investing public which misrepresented material facts about the company's business and operations, or omitted to state material facts required in order for the statements not to be misleading, causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as amended. The suit alleges that more recent disclosures establish the misleading nature of these earlier disclosures. The complaint seeks money damages plus interest, as well as costs and disbursements of the lawsuit. October Litigation On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former senior executives. This complaint asserts similar allegations as the September suit. It seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees. The two cases have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008. The company, however, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2008). On July 18, 2008, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the move to dismiss the shareholders' securities fraud lawsuit. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs in the class action have provided enough evidence for a trial to go forward. On June 26, 2009, the company and all other parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the stockholder class action. The settlement of the action is subject to Court approval, and on June 26, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. According to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 26, 2009, the company and other defendants have denied and continue to deny all allegations made in the Action and entered into the Stipulation solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and risk of further litigation and to finally and fully resolve all claims asserted in the Action. The defendants maintain that their conduct was at all times proper and in compliance with applicable provisions of law, and the defendants deny, among other things, that they made any material misstatements or omissions in the company's public filings, press releases, or other public statements. In the Stipulation, the Company agreed to pay the total amount of $12 million in exchange for a release of all claims. The cost of the settlement is covered by the Company's insurance. The suit is "Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610-668-7987 Fax: 610-660-0450 e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com DSM ELASTOMERS: Conn. Court Certifies Class in EPDM Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has certified a class in the matter, "In Re: Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. Case No. 3:03 MD 1542 (SRU)." In an order dated Feb. 13, 2009, the court certified a class that includes all individuals or entities (excluding governmental entities, Defendants and their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries, affiliates, and co-conspirators) who purchased ethylene propylene diene monomer ("EPDM") in the United States directly from one or more of the Defendants or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate of any Defendant at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1997 to Dec. 31, 2001. Listed as defendants in the matter are: -- Bayer AG, -- Bayer Polymers LLC, -- Bayer Corporation, -- Crompton Corporation, -- Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., -- The Dow Chemical Company, -- DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC, -- DSM Elastomers Europe B.V., -- DSM Copolymer, Inc. (a/k/a DSM Elastomers Americas), -- Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation, -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A. (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl), -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc. (f/k/a Enichem Americas, Inc.). This litigation is over six years old. Several class notices have been mailed to class members informing them about settlements with the following groups of defendants: (1) Bayer AG, Bayer Polymers LLC, Bayer Corporation; (2) Crompton Corporation, Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc.; (3) The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC; and (4) Polimeri Europa S.p.A. (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl), Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc. (f/k/a Enichem Americs, Inc.). These settlements have been approved by the Court and the settlement proceeds have been distributed to those class members that submitted valid and timely proof of claim forms. Additionally, on August 21, 2008, after notice to the Class, the Court approved the dismissal without prejudice of the Class' claims against defendant Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation. This litigation presently continues against defendants DSM Copolymer, Inc. (a/k/a DSM Elastomers Americas) and DSM Elastomers Europe B.V. Case Background Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws by the major manufacturers of EPDM were filed in multiple federal District Courts (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2007). Motions were made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the cases in a single court to promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. On Aug. 12, 2003, the JPML entered a transfer order centralizing the cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. By order dated Sept. 11, 2003, the court appointed class counsel as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. The operative complaint in this action is the second consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix or maintain the prices of, and/or allocate markets for, EPDM sold in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. It further alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, the defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM and to allocate markets and customers for the sale of EPDM. As a result of this conduct, the complaint alleges that members of the class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and, therefore, have suffered injury. For more details, contact: EPDM Antitrust Litigation Administrator Gilardi & Co. P.O. Box 8090 San Rafael, CA 94912-8090 Web site: http://www.epdmantitrustlitigation.com/ Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq. Bolognese & Associates, LLC One Penn Center, 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 650 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-814-6750 Web site: http://www.bolognese-law.com/ Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hausfeld LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-540-7200 Web site: http://www.hausfeldllp.com/ Howard J. Sedran, Esq. Levin, Fishbein Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-592-1500 Web site: http://www.lfsblaw.com/ - and - Steven O. Sidener, Esq. Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-777-2230 Web site: http://gbcslaw.com/about/who-we-are.htm EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval to a proposed settlement of a purported class-action suit against Eddie Bauer, Inc. is being appealed by the plaintiff in the "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer, Inc." suit, according to Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 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. The court approved the settlement on April 6, 2009. The plaintiff in the Scherer v. Eddie Bauer, Inc. suit appealed the order approving the settlement on various grounds. 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. EDDIE BAUER: "Scherer" Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of "Hill" Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 2007-cv-02270," are appealing the final approval of a settlement in the "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc." lawsuit. 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." The court approved the "Hill" settlement on April 6, 2009. The Scherer plaintiffs appealed the order approving the settlement on various grounds, according to Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 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: To Defend "Hernandez" Complaint Over Wage Payment -------------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Bauer, Inc. intends to defend the claims in a putative class-action suit styled, "Danny Hernandez v. Eddie Bauer," according to Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009. In May 2009, the company was served in "Danny Hernandez v. Eddie Bauer," a putative class action filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California in November 2008, alleging causes of action for wages not paid upon termination, a failure to pay wages, and violation of California Business and Professions Code. The class is substantially the same class as that included in the "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer, Inc." suit, and the claims are duplicative of those in Scherer. 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. ELBIT IMAGING: Appeal to Dismissal of Certification Bid Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision dismissing the motion to certify their claim as a class action on behalf of certain shareholders against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others, remains pending before the Supreme Court. On Nov. 2, 1999, a number of institutional and other investors, holding shares in Elscint Ltd., instituted a claim against the company, Elscint, Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. ("EIL"), Control Centers Ltd, past and present officers in the said companies and others. Together with the claim an application was filed to certify the claim as a class action on behalf of everyone who was a shareholder in Elscint on Sept. 6, 1999 and until the lodging of the claim, excluding the company and certain other shareholders. The Plaintiffs claim continued and systematic oppression of the minority shareholders in Elscint, which caused them monetary damages and which started - so they allege - in the oppressive agreements Elscint made for the realization of the main part of its assets, continued with the sale of the control in Elscint to the EIL and with the breach of a tender offer made by the company to purchase of the minority shares of Elscint and ended with the agreements executed by Elscint for the acquisition of the hotel operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel, from EIL and Control Centers, respectively ("September 99 Transactions") at a lower value than the consideration received for them. Due to these acts, the Plaintiffs allege that the value of Elscint's shares fell during the period between Feb. 24, 1999 and up until the date at which the claim was instituted from a price of $13.25 per share to a price of $7.25 per share. The main relief which the original claim sought was to order the Company to carry out a tender offer for Elscint's shares at a price of $14 per share, and alternatively, to purchase Elscint's shares held by the Plaintiffs at a price to be set by the court. Further alternatively, the Plaintiffs sought, in their original claim, that the court grants an order prohibiting the execution of the September 99 Transactions and for the restitution of all money paid, if paid within the framework of the above mentioned transactions. Some of the relief sought was also sought as a derivative action on behalf of Elscint. On Dec. 16, 2007, Elscint lodged an application for leave to appeal on a decision of the Registrar of the District Court in respect of Court fees that Elscint alleges should be paid by the Plaintiffs for the main claim made in the "updated statement of claim" which amounts to a sum of at least NIS2.4 million. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court decided that the motion for leave to appeal requires reply, and thereafter the Plaintiffs and all other parties submitted their replies. On Jan. 11, 2009, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' motion to certify the claim as a class action. On March 26, 2009, the Plaintiffs appealed the decision to dismiss their motion to certify the claim as a class action before the Supreme Court, according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation, construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same through its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the research and development, production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment, through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities consisting of the distribution and marketing of women's fashion and accessories through wholly-owned Israeli subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital investments. ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders' Suit Still in Early Stages ---------------------------------------------------------------- A minority shareholder class-action lawsuit against Elbit Imaging Ltd., Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past directors and others is in its preliminary stages. In September 1999, the company, Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past directors and others were served with a copy of a claim instituted by a shareholder in Elscint. Together with the claim an application was filed to certify the claim as a class-action suit on behalf of everyone who was a minority shareholder in Elscint on the date of instituting the claim and was such a shareholder on Feb. 18, 1999. The scope of the class action claim (as amended in October 1999) is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately $158.3 million and its personal damages (as amended in October 1999) are estimated by him at approximately $0.6 million. The plaintiff claims that the company acted, through Elscint's directors, systemically with the aim of emptying and diluting Elscint of its business, assets, capital and value, whilst enriching other companies in the Group at the expense of Elscint and at the expense of the minority shareholders of Elscint. The Plaintiff also alleges that the several transactions executed by the company and Elscint in 1998 for the sale of substantially all of their assets and business in the CT, MRI and Focused Ultrasound business as well as a transaction to grant options ("Option Transaction") to the former chairman of the company, were all done whilst oppressing the minority shareholders of Elscint and in contravention of Section 235 of the Israeli Companies Ordinance. The relief sought in the claim is to order the company, and alternatively the other defendants, to purchase from the Plaintiff and from the other members of the proffered class, Elscint shares they hold at a price of $27.46 per share, and as interim relief, in order to limit the Plaintiff's damages, to oblige the Company to realise its undertakings dated Feb. 18, 1999 to acquire the above said shares at a price of $14 per share. ("Tender Offer Claim") According to an agreement reached between the parties in the case, the hearing in this case was postponed until after the Supreme Court rules on Leave for Civil Appeal as detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit. After a judgement was handed down in Application for Leave to Appeal in the case detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit, on Sept. 25, 2007, legal counsel for the Plaintiff addressed the court asking to renew the hearings in this proceeding. Following this application, on July 1, 2008, the defendants filed an "announcement and application" on their behalf, updating the court on the major events in the proceedings. On March 31, 2009, the district court stroke out, in limine, the causes of action in respect of the Options Transaction and the Tender-Offer Claim. According to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, its legal counsels believe that-to their best understanding-and also considering, inter alia, that this matter is in its preliminary stages, and that responses have not yet been submitted to the application to certify the claim as a class action, nor have statements of defense been lodged, nor has any hearing been held on material matters on the motion to the certify the claim as a class action and/or on the claim itself, and also considering the fact that they have not yet received all the information and documents in connection with this claim, and they have not yet interviewed all the relevant entities - the probability of the claim being upheld is not greater than 50%. Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation, construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same through its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the research and development, production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment, through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities consisting of the distribution and marketing of women's fashion and accessories through wholly-owned Israeli subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital investments. ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Haifa District Court has yet to rule on the appropriateness of a third party claimant to serve as a class representative in a lawsuit against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others. On Sept. 6, 2006, a third party instituted two claims before the Haifa District Court in which he sued the company, Elscint Ltd., Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. ("EIL"), Control Centers Ltd. And others. These statements of claim constitute an almost identical copy of the claim detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit over "September 99 Transactions" and the Plaintiff asked to combine the hearings with those in the said matter. In the statements of claim the Plaintiff asked to approve the claims he had instituted as class actions, however up to the date of the approval of these financial statements no separate applications have been served to the companies for the certification of the claims as class actions. In the first claim, the Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression towards the company's shareholders and in the second claim the Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression towards Elscint's shareholders. The Plaintiff alleges continued and systematic oppression of the minority shareholders in Elscint and the company, which caused him monetary damages and which started - so he claims- in the oppressive agreements Elscint made for the realization of the main part of its assets, continued with the withholding of information from the stock exchange and from the public, with the sale of the control in Elscint to the company's controlling shareholder and with the breach of a tender offer made by the company to purchase of the minority shares of Elscint and ended with the agreements executed by Elscint for the acquisition of the hotel operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel, from EIL and Control Centers, respectively ("September 99 Transactions") at a lower value than the consideration received for them. The main relief sought in the claim is compensation consists of (i) punitive damages for the acts of the defendants; and (ii) damages for "mental anguish" to the plaintiff and to the proffered class. In addition, the plaintiff is also suing for compensation for the difference between the price at which Elscint shares were actually sold by the Plaintiff and the proffered class members and in the sum of $14 million, plus interest and linkage differences since 1999. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is also claiming for harm caused to the value of his holdings in the company's shares. It will be noted that the statements of claim in both proceedings require certain clarifications, due to the wording of the claims. In the pre-trial session held at the District Court on Feb. 22, 2007, the Court asked the parties to refer to the question of the appropriateness of the claimant to serve as a class representative and on the issue of the overlap between the claims lodged by the plaintiff and the claim detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit. The parties were given the opportunity to complete their arguments in this matter, and in this framework the Plaintiff asked, inter alia, that he be allowed to take legal representation for the proceedings. All the parties have submitted the completion of their arguments in writing. No decision has yet been handed down in this matter, according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation, construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same through its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the research and development, production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment, through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities consisting of the distribution and marketing of women's fashion and accessories through wholly-owned Israeli subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital investments. MBNA CORP: Oct. 6 Hearing Set for $25M Securities Suit Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 6, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed $25 million settlement in the matter, "In Re MBNA Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-CV-00272-GMS." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Court Chief Judge, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Previously, Law360 reported that Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware gave preliminary approval to $25 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against MBNA Corp. The lawsuit generally accuses MBNA and some of its officers and directors of failing to disclose the true financial condition of the company and making false and misleading statements to investors, according to the Law360 report. For more details, contact: MBNA Corp. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217-8042 Phone: 800-431-9392 William H. Narwold, Esq. (bnarwold@motleyrice.com) Meghan S.B. Oliver, Esq. Motley Rice LLC Phone: 860-882-1681 or 843-216-9000 Web site: http://www.motleyrice.com/ MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit v. LabCorp Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of California challenging the proposed acquisition of Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGRM) by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE: LH). LabCorp has agreed to acquire Monogram Biosciences in an all-cash deal valued at approximately $106.7 million ($155 million, including indebtedness). Under the proposed agreement, Monogram Biosciences shareholders will receive $4.55 for every share of Monogram Biosciences common stock they own. The investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law related to the Monogram Biosciences Board's approval of the proposed merger. The transaction appears to be unfair, in part, given that Monogram Biosciences stock was trading at over $4.35 a share as recently as February 2009 and traded at over $5.00 a share into the 4th quarter of 2008. For more details, contact: Jason L. Brodsky, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com MONSANTO CO: Aug. 13 Status Conference Set for Consolidated Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 13, 2009 status conference has been set for a consolidated purported class-action lawsuit against Monsanto Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the Monsanto Company Pension Plan. The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age discrimination and other rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 from Jan. 1, 1997 (when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present. In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other defendants. On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants. On Sept. 1, 2006, the Court consolidated these lawsuits with two purported class action lawsuits also pending in the same Court against the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under "Walker v. Monsanto," the first filed case. All parties have agreed the case should proceed as a class action and also agreed on a definition of the respective classes. The classes were certified by Court Order on May 22, 2008. On July 11, 2008, all parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which motions were heard by the court on May 6, 2009. On June 10, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto and the other defendants on the age discrimination claims. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on a separate claim regarding post- termination interest. On that claim, the Court ordered that a status conference be held on Aug. 13, 2009, to schedule remaining proceedings, including discovery, with respect to remedies. The company, in its June 26, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2009, says it does not expect the amount of the post-termination interest claim to be material. Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for farmers. MONSANTO CO: Property Damage Suits Over Contamination Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Co. continues to face purported class-action lawsuits alleging property damage due to dioxins/furans contamination, according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2009. On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class-action lawsuit, styled, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. This is a companion case to "Carter, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," that was filed in the same state court Aug. 4, 2000, and alleges property damage due to dioxin contamination. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia in both cases. 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 Inc. and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then 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 exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Carter and Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) cases as class actions matters. The court has not set a trial date for these cases. On Nov. 21, 2008, Monsanto removed all cases to federal court based on recent revelations from plaintiffs that afford the opportunity to assert Federal Officers' defense to the litigation. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the cases to West Virginia state court and the federal court granted that motion, in part, on Dec. 19, 2008. The personal injury cases and the Bibb case were remanded to the state court but the federal court retained jurisdiction in the Carter case. 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 OHIO: DPS, BMV Faces Privacy Violations Lawsuit in Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Department of Public Safety and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of federal law, WCPO reports. Attorney Eric Deters, Esq. represents three Cincinnatians who say the state passed on their personal information to two companies, according to WCPO. Mr. Deters wants the court to certify the federal lawsuit as a class-action case. He also wants the practice stopped and damages for the defendants, WCPO reported. For more details, contact: Eric Deters, Esq. (eric@ericdeters.com) Eric Deters, Attorney at Law 5247 Madison Pike Independence, KY 41051 Phone: (859) 363-1900 or 1-866-960-4878 (HURT) Cell: (859) 250-2527 Fax: (859) 363-1444 Web site: http://ericdeters.com/ PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Deferred -------------------------------------------------------------- Further action in the class-action matter captioned, "Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc.," remains deferred, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 The plaintiff sued PS on behalf of a purported class of California non-exempt employees based on various California wage and hour laws and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking to certify five subclasses. Plaintiff sought certification for alleged meal period violations, rest period violations, failure to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage reimbursement, and for wage statement violations. In October 2006, the Court declined to certify three out of the five subclasses. The Court did, however, certify subclasses based on alleged meal period and wage statement violations. Subsequently, PS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the matter in its entirety. On June 22, 2007, the Court granted PS' summary judgment motion as to the causes of action relating to the subclasses certified and dismissed those claims. The only surviving claims are those relating to the named plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed an appeal to this ruling. On Oct. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's ruling. The plaintiff filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was granted but further action in this matter was deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, which is pending before the California Supreme Court. Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a real estate investment trust. The business activities of the Trust include the acquisition, development, ownership and operation of self-storage facilities, which offer storage spaces for lease, generally on a month-to-month basis, for personal and business use. The Trust operates in three business segments: self- storage, Shurgard Europe and ancillary. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Trust had a direct and indirect ownership interests in the 2,012 and 181 storage facilities located in the 38 states within the United States and seven Western European nations. SEMPRA ENERGY: Class Status in Wildfire Suits Denied on June 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- Class-action status in lawsuits against Sempra Energy and its subsidiary, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) over San Diego County wildfire was denied on June 25, 2009. In October 2007, San Diego County experienced catastrophic wildfires. The causes of many of these fires remain under investigation, including the possible role of SDG&E power lines affected by unusually high winds. In July 2008, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) issued investigation reports stating that the Witch and Rice fires were each a "power line-caused fire" and that the Guejito fire occurred when a wire securing a large communication company's fiber optic cable came into contact with an energized power line "causing an arc and starting the fire." The reports indicate that the Witch and Guejito fires merged and eventually burned approximately 198,000 acres, resulted in two fatalities, injured approximately 45 firefighters and destroyed approximately 1,141 homes. Cal Fire is still investigating the perimeters of these two fires to determine the damages associated with each one. Cal Fire stated that the Rice fire burned approximately 9,500 acres and damaged 206 homes and two commercial properties. Numerous lawsuits, four of which seek to be designated as class actions, have been filed against SDG&E in San Diego County Superior Court, seeking unspecified amounts for damages relating to the fires. Several of the lawsuits also name Sempra Energy as a defendant. The lawsuits allege inverse condemnation, negligence and other causes of action, and assert that SDG&E improperly designed and maintained its power lines and failed to adequately clear adjacent vegetation. On June 25, 2009, the court ruled that the lawsuits cannot proceed as class actions on behalf of all persons who experienced wildfire damages but must instead be pursued in individual lawsuits. SDG&E has filed cross-complaints against Cox Communications seeking indemnification for any liability that SDG&E may incur that relates to the Guejito fire, according to Sempra Energy's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 26, 2009. Sempra Energy -- http://www.sempra.com/-- is an energy services holding company that, through its subsidiaries, develops energy infrastructure, operate utilities, and provide related products and services. The company has five separately managed segments comprising Southern California Gas Co., San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Sempra Commodities, Sempra Generation and Sempra Pipelines & Storage. SoCalGas and SDG&E are collectively referred to as the Sempra Utilities. ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Mo. Suit Over "Illegal" Recycling Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- St. Louis County, Missouri is facing a purported class-action lawsuit accusing it of illegally making residents pay for recycling, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in St. Louis County Court by James O. Grace, David J. Birtley, Lucille DeGeare, and Ana McDonald who are claiming that the state's Hancock Amendment requires voter approval before political subdivisions, such as St. Louis County, can levy any new taxes, licenses or fees. In December 2006, without voter approval, St. Louis County passed an ordinance that for the first time forced residents in unincorporated areas to pay for recycling services, the complaint states. The ordinance divided unincorporated areas into eight districts, selected a waste management provider for each district and required each resident to pay for at least a minimum level of service that includes weekly trash pickup and recycling service and a twice-yearly bulk pickup, according to The Courthouse News Service. The plaintiffs say that requiring them to pay for recycling without a vote violates the state constitution's Hancock Amendment, and that failure to pay for the services constitutes an ordinance violation and could subject the violator to fines and prison, The Courthouse News Service. The plaintiffs -- who paid for the recycling services under protest -- are seeking to represent a class of all residents in unincorporated areas of St. Louis County who have been forced to pay for recycling services under the new ordinance. The plaintiffs are represented by represented by David Butsch, Esq. They want the ordinance declared unconstitutional, and seek damages. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e7c TIM PARTICIPACOES: Expects Action on Assets Return to Continue -------------------------------------------------------------- TIM Participacoes SA expects proceedings relating to the return to the federal government of the company's assets used in connection with the provision of telecommunication services to continue, according to its June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In January 2003, a type of class action was brought by an individual against Anatel and all the companies controlled by Telecom Italia in Brazil, including Tim Participacoes. The claim sought to suspend the effects of Resolucao 318, of Sept. 27, 2002, and other acts by Anatel, including Authorizations PVCP/SPV Nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002, published on Dec. 12, 2002, which authorized the company to migrate from the SMC regime to the PCS regime. The action specifically challenged the omission of provisions regulating the return of the assets used by the company in connection with the provision of telecommunication services by the time of the expiration of the authorizations. By reason of such omission, argues the claimant, the Brazilian Federal Government would suffer irreparable damage and, therefore, Anatel acts allowing the migration from SMC to PCS should be declared null and void. The company challenged this action, and after some preliminary decisions by lower courts it has obtained a unanimous decision from the Regional Federal Court of Appeals ("Tribunal Regional Federal") permitting the migration from SMC to PCS, reserving discussion about the return of the assets to the Brazilian Federal Government for a later date. The judge extinguished the action. The decision was subject to compulsory appeal at a superior court. On Oct. 19, 2007, the court of appeals ordered the return of the case to the lower courts to allow other interested parties to take part in the litigation. In 2003, Anatel and the federal government informed the Court that Authorizations PVCP/SVP nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002 are valid and should not be voided by the Court. The company entered into amendments to its authorizations to provide for the contingency that in the event of the termination of our authorizations, the assets essential to its provision of services would be returned to the federal government. TIM Participacoes SA -- http://www.timpartri.com.br/tim-- is a wireless provider in Brazil. The company primarily uses the global system for mobile communications technology (GSM), to provide mobile telecommunications services throughout Brazil. The company offers value-added services, including short message services or text messaging, multimedia messaging services, push- mail, Blackberry service, video call, turbo mail, wireless application protocol (WAP) downloads, Web browsing, business data solutions, songs, games, television access, voice mail, conference calling, chats and other content and services. The company provides interconnection services to fixed line and mobile service providers as well. TIM PARTICIPACOES: Still Faces Suits Over Consumer/Labor Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- TIM Participacoes SA remains a party to consumer protection and labor law proceedings, according to the company's June 26, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The company remains a party to certain legal proceedings, which may be divided into two main categories: consumer protection claims and labor law claims. The most common issue raised by claimants in the consumer protection cases against the company is allegedly incorrect charges imposed by TIM as well as defects on mobile handsets the company sells. Most labor law claims against the company have been brought by former employees for alleged infringement of labor laws during the duration of their employment contracts with TIM. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company was a party to approximately 34,400 consumer protection claims and 2,350 labor law claims. There are also 105 public civil actions and class actions. TIM Participacoes SA -- http://www.timpartri.com.br/tim-- is a wireless provider in Brazil. The company primarily uses the global system for mobile communications technology (GSM), to provide mobile telecommunications services throughout Brazil. The company offers value-added services, including short message services or text messaging, multimedia messaging services, push- mail, Blackberry service, video call, turbo mail, wireless application protocol (WAP) downloads, Web browsing, business data solutions, songs, games, television access, voice mail, conference calling, chats and other content and services. The company provides interconnection services to fixed line and mobile service providers as well. VERIFIED IDENTITY: Sued Over $250 Fee, Personal Information ----------------------------------------------------------- Verified Identity Pass, Inc., now known as Clear, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by a stranded member who wants the company to refund his $200 membership fee and return his fingerprints and iris prints, Ryan Singel of Wired Blogs reports. The airport security fast-pass company that closed its lanes this month is being sued by Robert I. Harwood, who is alleging that he asked the company for a refund on June 23 -- the day it announced it would shut down its lanes -- and that the company refused, according to Wired Blogs. The suit was in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, under the caption, "Robert I. Harwood v. Verified Identity Pass, Inc., Index No. 09601971." Mr. Harwood wants the court to force the company to give pro- rated refunds to him and the estimated 165,000 other Clear cardholders. He also wants the court to force the company to return users' biometric prints, Wired Blogs reported. Last week, Clear said it would try to sell the data to another Registered Traveler program, but would destroy it if it could not find a buyer. Clear, which had express lanes at 20 of the nation's busiest airports, was the largest provider in the government's Registered Traveler program. All members cards had to interoperate, but Clear was the definite leader and its shutdown likely means the end of the Registered Traveler program, reports Wired Blogs. Clear was founded by journalist-turned entrepreneur Steven Brill as Verified Identity Pass in 2005. Mr. Brill, who was fired by the board in March, envisioned that a thorough background check would let Clear sell a card that would let members skip airline screening, Wired Blogs reports. VIVENDI S.A.: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Vivendi, S.A., and two of its former senior officers, Jean-Marie Messier and Guillaume Hannezo are facing a purported class- action lawsuit alleging securities fraud. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-5571." It affects Vivendi investors from the United States, France, England and the Netherlands who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between Oct. 30, 2000 and Aug. 14, 2002. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the United States federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding the financial condition of Vivendi, inflating the share price and causing economic harm to certain investors. For more details, contact: Vivendi Securities Class Action c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 9250 Dublin, OH 43017-4650 U.S.A. Phone: 800-767-2840 or +1.941.906.4609 Web site: http://www.vivendiclassaction.com/ - and - Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, New York 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-5191 e-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com Web site: http://www.abbeyspanier.com/ WASHINGTON: Cities Face 2nd Suit Over Fines From Traffic Cameras ---------------------------------------------------------------- More than a dozen Washington cities are facing a second purported class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of drivers who have been caught by traffic cameras and paid too much for a ticket, Issaquah Press reports. The lawsuit accuse officials in Issaquah and other cities of entering into deals with camera manufacturers in order to turn a profit. Attorneys for plaintiffs want officials to refund fines collected as a result of violations caught on camera, according to Issaquah Press. The suit was brought on behalf of drivers ticketed after being caught by traffic cameras. The plaintiffs said the infractions are illegal because state law requires fines for infractions caught on camera to be less than or equal to parking tickets issued by the same agency, Issaquah Press reported. Attorneys for The Rosen Firm, of Seattle, filed the lawsuit on June 25, 2009 in King County Superior Court, reports Issaquah Press. Josh Kerns of KIRO Radio previously reported that about nineteen Washington cities are facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of drivers who have been caught by traffic cameras and paid too much for a ticket. On June 23, 2009, Rob Williamson, Esq. of Williamson & Williams and the Bowler Law Office filed a class-action lawsuit against several cities in Washington that use "automated traffic safety cameras" to detect violations of certain traffic laws. The suit claims that the cities have imposed fines for these violations that are far more than what was intended, and is permitted, by the State Legislature. The use of automated traffic safety cameras was initially authorized by RCW 46.63.170, a state law passed in 2005. The main purpose of the legislation is to promote safety, not raise revenue. The law permits municipalities to use the cameras at two-arterial intersections, railroad crossings and school speed zones. The law also provides that the fine issued for an infraction shall not exceed the amount of the fine issued for "other parking infractions within the jurisdiction." Notwithstanding the clear intention of the legislature and the law, the defendant cities have used the law as a way to generate revenue. The cities generally charge the same amount -- $124 -- as if the driver had been observed and cited by a police officer. These fines are up to four times more than the "parking fines" the state law permits. Mr. Williamson contends the legislature never meant for cities to charge the same fine for an infraction caught on a traffic camera as you would be charged if caught by police. "It was meant to be a safety measure, not a revenue raiser, and what's happened I think is that the cities have not really taken that to heart," he tells KIRO Radio. The suit was filed in the King County Superior Court and has been assigned to Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell. It seeks to certify a class of all persons who have paid the excess fines. It also seeks declaratory relief that the practices of the cities are illegal, an injunction ordering them to stop assessing the excess fines, and restitution of the excess amounts paid. For more details, contact: Rob Williamson, Esq. (roblin@williamslaw.com) Williamson & Williams 187 Parfitt Way SW Suite 250 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Phone: (206) 780-4457 or (206) 780-4447 Fax: (206) 780-5557 Web site: http://www.williamslaw.com/ - and - The Rosen Firm 800 5th Avenue Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 333-3633 or (800) 384-2886 Fax: (206) 770-6136 Web site: http://www.rosenlegalfirm.com/ New Securities Fraud Cases RAYMOND JAMES: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Raymond James Financial, Inc. (NYSE: RJF) between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Raymond James and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants repeatedly touted Raymond James' supposedly conservative management practices and avoidance of risky assets associated with subprime residential mortgages. Defendants, however, failed to disclose that Raymond James understated the credit risks of its wholly owned subsidiary's commercial and residential loan portfolios, and failed to set aside adequate reserves for the losses that Raymond James knew, or recklessly disregarded, were forthcoming. On April 14, 2009, Raymond James announced that results for the second fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, would be well below the consensus analysts' estimates and that both its commercial and residential portfolios would require higher loss reserves, with the loan loss provision tripling from the previous quarter. On this news, Raymond James stock fell $2.57 per share, or 13.48%, to close at $16.49 per share on April 15, 2009. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Aug. 10, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/ ********* 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 * * *