/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091012.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 201 Headlines AGRIUM ADVANCED: Accused of Not Paying Overtime ALTRIA GROUP: Class Action Notice in Minn. Light Cigarette Case ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho CONSTAR INT'L: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Pending in Pa. DIRECTV GROUP: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Pending in Del. EQ INDUSTRIES: Settles Apex Explosion Class Action for $7.85 Mil. HCA INC: Remanded Understaffing Suit Remains Ongoing in Kansas IMMUCOR INC: Defends Lawsuits on Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents IMMUCOR INC: Has Yet to Respond to City of Pontiac's Complaint IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania LSB INDUSTRIES: Unit Defends Suits Over Sale of Defective Coils MDL 1554: Order Approving $510 Mil. IPO Litigation Deal Avaialble MOLSON COORS: Accused of Issuing Invalid Prize Codes MONTREAL PROPERTY TAXES: High Court Rejects Class Action Bid NASHUA CORP: Discovery in ERISA Suit v. State Street Ongoing NASHUA CORP: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Settlement NASHUA CORP: "Russell" Suit Over Cenveo Merger Pending in Mass. NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit OSI RESTAURANT: Expecting EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS: Chicago Landlord Sued for Deposit Interest RED HAT: Defends Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.C. S&T CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Sue for Overtime Pay SALSA MARKET: Workers Sue for Overtime Pay in San Diego SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: N.J. Class Action Attacks Plasma Televisions SIX FLAGS: Mulls $2.5M Payment in Labor Suit Deal Fund in 2010 STATION CASINOS: Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nev. State Court US SUGAR: Final Hearing on Shareholder Settlement Set for Jan. 4 WELLS FARGO: Bankr. Ct. Has Jurisdiction for In Personam Relief WILLIAMS TRANSPORT: Drivers Claim They Weren't Paid Minimum Wage * Berger & Montague Named on to Nat.L.J.'s 2009 "Hot List" * Is the Death of the Securities Class Action Greatly Exaggerated? New Securities Fraud Cases MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suit in S.D. Tex. ********* AGRIUM ADVANCED: Accused of Not Paying Overtime ----------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Agrium Advanced Technologies doesn't pay its workers overtime, an employee claims in a class action in Alabama Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Grantham v. Agrium Advanced Technologies (U.S.) Inc. fka Agrium Polymer Coatings Corp., Case No. 09-cv-1992 (N.D. Ala.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/07/Agrium.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Arendall, Esq. Allen D. Arnold, Esq. ARENDALL & ASSOCIATES 2018 Morris Avenue, Third Floor Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-252-1550 ALTRIA GROUP: Class Action Notice in Minn. Light Cigarette Case --------------------------------------------------------------- This is a Court-ordered Class Notice in Curtis, et al. v Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Court File No. 27-CV-01-18042 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 4th J. Dist., Hennepin Cty., filed Nov. 28, 2001). If you purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Minnesota at any time before November 30, 2004, this class action notice may affect your rights. A class action lawsuit involving the marketing, advertising and promotion of Marlboro Lights cigarettes is pending in Hennepin County, Minnesota, entitled Curtis, et al., v Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc., Court File No. 27-CV-01-18042. This notice is to inform you of the Court's decision to certify a Plaintiff Class, the nature of Plaintiffs' claims, and your right to participate in or exclude yourself from the class. This notice tells you about the case, about your rights and responsibilities, and what to do if you decide to participate or not participate in this case. ARE YOU AFFECTED BY THIS CASE? The following are members of the Plaintiff Class: All persons who purchased Defendants' Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Minnesota for personal consumption from the first date Defendants sold Marlboro Lights in Minnesota through the date of the certification of the Class. (November 29, 2004) Therefore, regardless of where you live, you are a "Class Member" if you purchased Marlboro Lights in Minnesota for personal consumption at any time before November 30, 2004. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, by way of deceptive advertising, marketing and promotional activities in Minnesota during the Class period, misled the smoking public as to the delivery of tar and nicotine by Marlboro Lights cigarettes. The Plaintiffs seek to recover money from the Defendants' sales of cigarettes during the Class period. This case does not involve claims for personal injuries or wrongful death. Defendants deny that they made any misrepresentations about Marlboro Lights and deny that a class action is proper. Plaintiffs can either win or lose this case. The Court has not decided the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses. Plaintiffs will be required to prove their claims at trial. The following law firms represent Plaintiffs as Class Counsel: Gale D. Pearson, Esq. Stephen J. Randall, Esq. Kenneth LaBore, Esq. Suzanne M. Scheller, Esq. PEARSON, RANDALL, SCHUMACHER & LABORE, P.A. Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1025 Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - Phillip A. Cole, Esq. Kay Nord Hunt, Esq. Ehrich L. Koch, Esq. Valerie R. Sims, Esq. LOMMEN, ABDO, COLE, KING & STAGEBERG, P.A. Suite 2000, IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - Martha K. Wivell, Esq. 219 River Street, Suite 105 P.O. Box 339 Cook, MN 55723 - and - Stephen A. Sheller, Esq. SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Esther Berezosky, Esq. WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 - and - Mark Cuker, Esq. WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 If Class Counsel obtains a judgment, they may apply to the Court for payment of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. You do not need to hire your own attorney, but if you choose to do so, you will be responsible for paying that attorney's fee. You may seek the Court's permission to intervene or appear in the action as a named class co-representative. YOU MAY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS. You have a choice whether or not to remain a member of the class. To remain a member of the class, you need not do anything at this time. If you remain a class member, you will be bound by all Orders of the Court and you will be barred from bringing any future claims based on the allegations raised in this case. If you do not wish to remain a member of the class, you must state that you wish to "opt-out" in writing to the address listed below postmarked by September 4, 2009. If you opt-out (exclude) yourself, you cannot receive any recovery obtained on behalf of the Class in the event that Plaintiffs prevail, and you will not be bound by any Court orders or judgments. To exclude yourself, you must write to: Light Cigarette Litigation, Pearson, Randall, Schumacher & LaBore, P.A., 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1025, Fifth Street Towers, Minneapolis, MN 55402. To get more information, visit the Web site at: http://www.MinnesotaLightCigaretteLitigation.com/ DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT. ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho ------------------------------------------------------------ The proposed settlement of a class action styled In Re Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00428, is pending final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The company, certain of its directors and former officers and employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC, and Nano Clay and Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11, 2007, on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005, through Oct. 8, 2007. The First Amended Complaint -- see http://is.gd/26qUm-- alleges that the company damaged purchasers by making material misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the extent of the halloysite deposit on company property, the availability and quality of halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of halloysite. The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual defendants as to our financial statements. The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The company's former officers and employees have requested, with respect to this action, payment of their attorneys' fees and indemnification. Lead counsel in this case has been selected. On July 2, 2009, the company entered into a Settlement Agreement with the lead plaintiffs. Under the terms of the settlement pact, the Company will pay plaintiffs $1,250,000 (which includes fees to plaintiff's counsel), to be funded by the proceeds of an insurance policy issued by Navigators Insurance Co., in exchange for release of all claims against Company, Nano Clay & Technologies, Inc., and William T. Jacobson, Robert Dumont, Ronald Price and Barbara Suveg. The company will also fund up to $75,000 to fund expenses in connection with notification to class members. The Settlement Agreement is subject to a number of conditions including successful completion of confirmatory due diligence by the lead plaintiffs and final court approval, according to the company's Sept. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Atlas Mining Company -- http://www.atlasmining.com/-- is a natural resources company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of its resource properties in the states of Idaho and Utah. The company also provides contract mining services and specialized civil construction services for mine operators, exploration companies and the construction and natural resources industries through its trade name Atlas Fausett Contracting (AFC). AFC performs site evaluation, feasibility studies, trouble-shooting and consultation prior to the undertaking of exploration and mine development. The company also operates in timber industry. The company contracts its logging to a qualified logger when it is selling the timber. Its property consists primarily of pine, fir and larch. The company's major mining properties include Shoshone County, Idaho, and Juab County, Utah. CONSTAR INT'L: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Pending in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against Constar International, Inc., remains pending. The company and certain of its present and former directors, along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV- 05020." This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints: -- Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc., et al., Case No. 03-5020, filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and -- Frejek v. Constar International Inc., et al., Case No. 03-5166, filed on Sept. 15, 2003. A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. They seek class-action certification and an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses. Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters, the company has incurred certain indemnification and contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to this lawsuit. The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The company filed objections to the Report and Order. The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling. On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting the company's Rule 23(f) Petition. The parties have briefed the appeal, and oral argument was held on July 13, 2009. At the company's request, the Special Master and the District Court have agreed to stay all further proceedings before the District Court pending the outcome of the appeal, with the exception of certain limited discovery. In connection with the company's emergence from Chapter 11 and in accordance with the Plan, all such claims are to be subordinated pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and treated as equity interests. The Plan further provides that all pre- petition equity interests in Constar will be extinguished, as will any claims relating to, or arising in connection with, such equity interests (or the purchase or sale of such interests), including all indemnification and contribution obligations referred to above. The company intends to file papers with the District Court asking to be dismissed from the action based on the Plan, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit is In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020 (E.D. Pa.) (Ludwig, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com - and - Andrew J. Brown, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERGHAD HYNES & LERACH, LLP 401 B. Street, STE. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com - and - Darren J. Check, Esq. SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Steven B. Feirson, Esq. Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Scott A. Thompson, Esq. DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Phone: 215-994-2749 Fax: 215-994-2222 E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com michael.kichline@dechert.com scott.thompson@dechert.com DIRECTV GROUP: Merger-Related Suit Settlement Pending in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement reached in the multiple purported class action complaints against The DirectTV Group, Inc., and Liberty Media Corp. is pending final court approval. DIRECTV and Liberty have reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the multiple purported class action complaints pending against DIRECTV, Liberty and the DIRECTV board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were brought on behalf of the public stockholders of DIRECTV alleging, among other things, that the members of the DIRECTV board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement. The Settlement will be memorialized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release to be executed by DIRECTV, Liberty and the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action. In the event that final court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement is not obtained by June 30, 2010, the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement and the related changes to the Holdings amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws, with certain limited exceptions, will become null and void, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009. The DIRECTV Group, Inc. -- http://www.directv.com/-- provides digital television entertainment in the United States and Latin America. The company operates in two segments, DIRECTV U.S. and DIRECTV Latin America (DTVLA), which are engaged in acquiring, promoting, selling and/or distributing digital entertainment programming through satellite to residential and commercial subscribers. EQ INDUSTRIES: Settles Apex Explosion Class Action for $7.85 Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersAndSettlement.com reports that residents and businesses located in and around a waste warehouse in Apex, N.C., have prevailed in Beaulieu v. EQ Industrial Services, Inc., et al, Case No. 06-cv-00400 (D. N.C.), with a $7.85 million settlement Three years ago local businesses and residents were forced to evacuate because of a hazardous waste explosion at the Apex warehouse. The settlement will provide $750 per household that was evacuated, and up to $2,200 to each business that had to close. EQ has been fined in the past for failing to report fires and chemical reactions at the Apex site, and has paid more than $400,000 in penalties in order to remain open. As related in the Class Action Reporter on July 27, 2009, the suit was filed by the law firms Parker & Waichman, LLP, Greg Jones & Associates, PA, Neblett, Beard Arsenault, Becnel Law Firm, LLC & Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton. HCA INC: Remanded Understaffing Suit Remains Ongoing in Kansas -------------------------------------------------------------- Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No. 2:06-cv-02137 (D. Kans.) (Lungstrum, J.), alleges that, to maximize profits, HCA compromises patient care by deliberately understaffing registered nurses at its hospitals, and is ongoing according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The class-action complaint was filed on April 10, 2006, against the company in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of the company's hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations, negligence and unjust enrichment. Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died on April 22, 2004, at the company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit. She claims that her husband died because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized in 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2007). Lawrence Williamson, Esq., Mrs. Spires' attorney, said that the company set out in about 1996 to become a $50-billion company and has tried to reach that goal by reducing costs, primarily by cutting staff. The company reported revenues of $24.5 billion in 2005. According to the lawsuit, "The defendant's reduction of staffing of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its markets." Mr. Williamson seeks to include in the suit millions of patients at the company's other hospitals since 1996. The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of $12.250 billion. A motion to dismiss the case was granted on July 27, 2006, but the plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal. While the appeal was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court for the first time construed the Kansas Consumer Protection Act to apply to the provision of medical services. Based on that new ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the action for further consideration by the trial court. The plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq. Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. SHORES, WILLIAMSON & OHAEBOSIM, LLC 1400 Epic Center 301 N. Main Wichita, KS 67202 Phone: 316-261-5400 Fax: 316-261-5404 E-mail: l.williamson@swolawfirm.com u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com IMMUCOR INC: Defends Lawsuits on Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents --------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc. defends purported class-action lawsuits alleging that it conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold. Since May 18, 2009, a series of 30 lawsuits have been filed in 10 different U.S. District Courts against the company, Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold, asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations and seek to certify a class of persons and entities who purchased blood reagents from any of the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present. Most of the complaints limit the proposed class to persons and entities in the United States, but some do not contain that limitation. Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that these cases be centralized in a single U.S. District Court; arguments on these motions are scheduled to be heard July 30, 2009. On Aug. 17, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that these cases be centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the process of transferring these cases to this district is underway. Discovery has not yet begun in any of these cases. No court has made a determination whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action, according to the company's Oct. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. IMMUCOR INC: Has Yet to Respond to City of Pontiac's Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc. has not yet responded to the class action complaint filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System. In August 2009, the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and nine of its current and former directors and officers, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 and April 23, 2009. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the company was operating in violation of United States antitrust laws, according to the company's Oct. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas Schlenker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In September 2009, Mr. Schlenker sued the company and ten of its current and former directors and officers, also alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This plaintiff also seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the company's securities for the same class period. The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to the company's Oct. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. LSB INDUSTRIES: Unit Defends Suits Over Sale of Defective Coils --------------------------------------------------------------- One of LSB Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries in the Climate Control Business, Climate Master, Inc., defends a class action over the alleged sale of defective evaporator coils. A proposed class action was filed in the Illinois state district court in September 2007, alleging that certain evaporator coils sold by Climate Master in the state of Illinois from 1990 to approximately 2003 were defective. The complaint requests certification as a class action for the State of Illinois, which request has not yet been heard by the court. Climate Master has filed a motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' claims, and that motion is pending. Climate Master has removed this action to federal court. Climate Master has also filed its answer denying the plaintiffs' claims and asserting several affirmative defenses. Climate Master's insurers have been placed on notice of this matter, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. LSB Industries, Inc. -- http://www.lsb-okc.com/-- is a diversified holding company, which operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, ThermaClime, Inc. (ThermaClime) and its subsidiaries. The company operates in two segments: Climate Control and Chemical. Climate Control business is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of a range of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) products for use in commercial and residential new building construction, renovation of existing buildings and replacement of existing systems. Chemical business is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of chemical products produced from plants in Texas, Arkansas and Alabama for the industrial, mining and agricultural markets. MDL 1554: Order Approving $510 Mil. IPO Litigation Deal Avaialble ----------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Thurs., Oct. 8, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter, the Honorable Shira Ann Scheindlin gave final approval to the $510 million settlement in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1554; Master Docket No. 21-MC-92 (S.D.N.Y.), settling 309 lawsuits that were part of a class action against 55 underwriters and hundreds of issuers and corporate officers filed in 2001. A copy of Judge Scheindlin's 128-page Opinion is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/07/IPO%20settlement.pdf The Members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee are: Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Rebecca M. Katz, Esq. Christian Siebott, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-779-1414 - and - Robert A. Waller, Esq. Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Peter G.A. Safirstein, Esq. Neil Fraser, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: 212-946-9453 - and - David Kessler, Esq. BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: 610-667-7706 - and - Jules Brody, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY LLP 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-687-7230 - and - Howard B. Sirota, Esq. SIROTA & SIROTA LLP 260 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-425-9055 - and - Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-545-4600 Liaison Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants is: Gandolfo V. DiBlasi, Esq. Penny Shane, Esq. David M.J. Rein, Esq. Richard J.L. Lamuscio, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-558-4000 Liaison Counsel for the Issuer Defendants is: Jack C. Auspitz, Esq. Joel C. Haims, Esq. Hilary M. Williams, Esq. Angela T. Rella, Esq. Reema S. Abdelhamid, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: 212-468-8000 MOLSON COORS: Accused of Issuing Invalid Prize Codes ---------------------------------------------------- Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that the owners of Coors beer knowingly issued 5 million invalid prize codes for the "Coors Light Silver Ticket Sweepstakes," virtually assuring that many will enter and few -- if any -- will win, according to a class action in Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Mario Aliano claims he bought a carton of Coors Light because of the promotion, but received the message that his prize code was invalid when he entered it online and via text message. On Aug. 1, Coors launched the sweepstakes to boost sales, offering NFL tickets and gift certificates as prizes, the class claims. Consumers are supposed to retrieve prize codes inside beer cartons and enter them via the sweepstakes Web site or text message, the lawsuit states. But the plaintiffs say Molson Coors Brewing, MillerCoors and Miller Brewing knowingly issued millions of invalid prize codes and, despite receiving hundreds of consumer complaints, "did not issue any statements or post on their corporate Web sites that the Tickets were defective." The class claims Coors continues to market and promote the contest, despite the flaw. Plaintiffs demand restitution and an injunction to stop the alleged fraud, deceptive business practices, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and negligence. A copy of the Complaint in Aliano v. Molson Coors Brewing Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-06246 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/08/Coors.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 100 West Monroe Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 MONTREAL PROPERTY TAXES: High Court Rejects Class Action Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that The Supreme Court of Canada has thrown out three separate efforts to start class-action cases over property taxes in Montreal and Longueuil, Quebec. The court says class-action suits are not the way to fight perceived problems with municipal bylaws. The cases arose out of municipal amalgamations in 2001, which created a new Montreal and Longueuil. The appellants objected to the way the new municipalities set property-tax rates. They wanted to file a class-action suit seeking refunds of some of the taxes. Lower courts in Quebec rejected that approach and their rulings have now been upheld. NASHUA CORP: Discovery in ERISA Suit v. State Street Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery in the Nashua Pension Plan Committee's consolidated amended class action complaint against State Street Bank and Trust Co. is ongoing, according to Nashua Corporation's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On Oct. 24, 2007, the Nashua Pension Plan Committee filed a Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against State Street Bank and Trust, State Street Global Advisors, Inc. and John Does 1-20. On Jan. 14, 2008, the Nashua Pension Plan Committee filed a revised Complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same defendants. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated their obligations as fiduciaries under the Employment Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974. On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court consolidated the Nashua Pension Plan Committee action with other pending ERISA actions and appointed the Nashua Pension Plan Committee as one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On Aug. 22, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleges that State Street failed to loyally and prudently manage assets in certain bond funds, and seeks to recover the investment losses caused by State Street's alleged breach of its fiduciary duties. The aggregate damages suffered by the proposed class have not been adjudicated but are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. On Oct. 17, 2008, State Street filed an answer and included a counterclaim against the trustees of the named plaintiff plans, including the trustees of Nashua's Pension Plan Committee, asserting that to the extent State Street is liable to the plans, the trustees are liable to State Street for contribution and/or indemnification in the amount of any payment by State Street in excess of State Street's share of liability, including fees and costs suffered by State Street in connection with the claims asserted in the Complaint. On Dec. 22, 2008, State Street filed an amended counterclaim against the trustees maintaining their allegations concerning contribution and/or indemnification and adding a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The breach of fiduciary duty claim seeks to restore the losses suffered by the Plans. On March 3, 2009, the trustees filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Discovery commenced in March 2008. Nashua Corporation -- http://www.nashua.com/-- manufactures, converts and markets labels and specialty papers. The company's primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide- format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction and financial receipts. The company operates through two segments: Label Products and Specialty Paper Products. The company's Label Products segment converts, prints and sells pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification (RFID) labels and tickets and tags to distributors and end users. Nashua Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts, prints and sells papers and films. In September 2009, Cenveo, Inc. completed the acquisition of Nashua Corporation. NASHUA CORP: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 19, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the settlement of the consolidated class action, In re Nashua Corporation S'Holders Litigation, No. 09-cv-188-SM. On May 6, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Cenveo, Inc. and NM Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cenveo. On May 20, 2009, two putative class action complaints challenging the merger were filed in New Hampshire Superior Court for Hillsborough County: Joel Gerber v. Nashua Corporation, et al., No. 09-C-307, and Oscar Schapiro v. Nashua Corporation et al., No. 09-E-0148. The two suits were subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and consolidated into one action, In re Nashua Corporation Shareholders Litigation, No. 09-cv-188-SM. On June 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of all public shareholders of Nashua. The amended complaint names Nashua, its directors, Cenveo, and Merger Sub as defendants. It alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid to Nashua shareholders in the merger is unfair and undervalues Nashua. It also alleges that Nashua's directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, failing to engage in a fair sale process, and failing to disclose in the proxy material information regarding the merger. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that Cenveo and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Nashua's directors. The amended and consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing completion of the merger or, if the merger is consummated, rescission of the merger. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement dated as of July 2, 2009, which provides for the disclosure of additional information. The settlement is subject to approval by the court. On July 14, 2009, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Nashua Corporation -- http://www.nashua.com/-- manufactures, converts and markets labels and specialty papers. The company's primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide- format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction and financial receipts. The company operates through two segments: Label Products and Specialty Paper Products. The company's Label Products segment converts, prints and sells pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification (RFID) labels and tickets and tags to distributors and end users. Nashua Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts, prints and sells papers and films. In September 2009, Cenveo, Inc. completed the acquisition of Nashua Corporation. NASHUA CORP: "Russell" Suit Over Cenveo Merger Pending in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action challenging Nashua Corporation's merger with Cenveo, Inc. and NM Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cenveo, is pending in Massachusetts. On June 12, 2009, a putative class action challenging the merger, William Russell v. Thomas Brooker, et al., was filed in Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County, 09-2470-BLS. An amended complaint was filed on June 16, 2009. The Massachusetts complaint is substantially duplicative of the amended consolidated complaint that was filed in In re Nashua Corporation Shareholders Litigation: it asserts substantially the same claims against the same defendants on behalf of the same putative class of Nashua's public shareholders. It also seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing completion of the merger, or if the merger is consummated, rescission of the merger or rescissionary damages. On June 23, 2009, Nashua served a motion to stay all proceedings in the matter on the basis of the substantially duplicative, earlier-filed federal litigation described above. On July 3, 2009, Plaintiff sent Nashua an opposition to that motion. Nashua filed the motion and opposition with the court, together with a reply brief, on July 16, 2009. Although Nashua requested a hearing on the motion, one has not yet been scheduled, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Nashua Corporation -- http://www.nashua.com/-- manufactures, converts and markets labels and specialty papers. The company's primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide- format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction and financial receipts. The company operates through two segments: Label Products and Specialty Paper Products. The company's Label Products segment converts, prints and sells pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification (RFID) labels and tickets and tags to distributors and end users. Nashua Corporation's Specialty Paper Products segment coats, converts, prints and sells papers and films. In September 2009, Cenveo, Inc. completed the acquisition of Nashua Corporation. NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Security Group, Inc.'s property & casualty subsidiaries continue to defend a number of legal matters filed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. These actions include individual lawsuits and purported statewide class actions, although to date no class has been certified in any action. These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained. The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or declaratory relief. All of these matters are in various stages of development, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. -- http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding company. The Company, through its property and casualty subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage, including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of insurance in 11 states. The Company, through its life insurance subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident insurance products in six states. OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour law, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled, "Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. This lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back pay and attorney fees. The complaint alleges a class-action under state law and a collective action under federal law. Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. -- http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com/-- which was formerly known as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system- wide restaurants. The Company operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly through company- owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of partnerships and franchises. OSI RESTAURANT: Expecting EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. expects the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to pursue claims of gender discrimination against the company on a nationwide basis through other proceedings, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services, Inc. are the defendants in a class-action lawsuit brought by the EEOC alleging that they have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against women on the basis of their gender with respect to hiring and promoting into management positions as well as discrimination against women in terms and condition of their employment and seeks damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 28, 2006, is styled, "EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. In addition to the EEOC, two former employees have successfully intervened as party plaintiffs in the case. On Nov. 3, 2007, the EEOC's nationwide claim of gender discrimination was dismissed and the scope of the suit was limited to the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. -- http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com/-- which was formerly known as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system- wide restaurants. The Company operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly through company- owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of partnerships and franchises. PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS: Chicago Landlord Sued for Deposit Interest ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Marinov and Marieta Petrova, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situatied, filed suit against Partnership Concepts Realty Management, Inc., and Foxboro North Associates, Ltd. (Docket No. 2009-CH-37754, Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.) on Oct. 7, 2009. The Plaintiffs say their Landlords failed to properly pay interest on their security deposits. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Silverman, Esq. Mark Silverman Law Office Ltd. 225 W. Washington, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-775-1015 RED HAT: Defends Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- Red Hat, Inc., is defending In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-473 (E.D.N.C.) (Britt, J.) -- a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit. In the summer of 2004, 14 class action complaints were filed against the company and several of its present and former officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's securities during various periods from June 19, 2001, through July 13, 2004. All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. All of the claims arise in connection with the company announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate certain of its financial statements. One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and former officers and the company variously violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial statements that the company subsequently restated. One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the company's chief executive officer and former chief financial officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief. As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR." A lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been designated, and on May 6, 2005, an amended consolidated class- action complaint was filed. On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Also on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer. The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss. A scheduling order has been entered in the matter and discovery was scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007. In November 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class certification and denying all other pending motions, including certain plaintiffs' motions for appointment as class representative, as moot. Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing Mr. Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel. On Jan. 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action as a class action. The motion to certify the action as a class action has since been briefed by the parties and now awaits disposition by the Court (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2009). On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the action as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class representative, and defining the class as "all purchasers of the common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged thereby," excluding company insiders, according to its Oct. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiff is: William Webb, Esq. THE EDMISTEN & WEBB LAW FIRM, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602 Phone: 919-831-8700 E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com Red Hat's counsel is: Pressly M. Millen, Esq. WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com S&T CONSTRUCTION: Construction Workers Sue for Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that S&T Construction failed to pay its construction workers overtime, a class claims in San Diego Superior Court. A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez v. S&T Construction Co., Case No. 37-2009-00099796-CU-OE-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at http://is.gd/45AUI The Plaintiff is represented by: Raul Cadena, Esq. Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq. CADENA CHURCHILL, LLP 701 "B" Street, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-456-0888 SALSA MARKET: Workers Sue for Overtime Pay in San Diego ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Salsa Market doesn't pay its workers at least minimum wage, a class claims in San Diego Superior Court. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: N.J. Class Action Attacks Plasma Televisions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung Electronics America sells defective plasma televisions that overheat, crack and lose their picture, a class claims in Newark Federal Court. SIX FLAGS: Mulls $2.5M Payment in Labor Suit Deal Fund in 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags, Inc., may be required to pay up to a maximum of $2,500,000, in 2010, into the settlement fund of a purported class-action suit filed in California, alleging labor-related violations. Certain plaintiffs filed the complaint on Nov. 7, 2005, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees against the company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege 10 causes of action for, among others, unpaid wages and related penalties, and violations of California law governing employee meal and rest breaks with respect to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Los Angeles, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom (formerly Six Flags Marine World), Waterworld USA/Concord and Waterworld USA/Sacramento. On April 5, 2006, the company moved for summary judgment with respect to some of the plaintiffs' purported claims and to dismiss all claims against those parks and individuals who were improperly named in the complaint. Since that time, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint to include several additional purported class members. Discovery is proceeding with respect to the company's summary judgment motion and the class certification issue. An agreement was reached to settle the case. Under the settlement, which covers the period from November 2001 to Dec. 18, 2007, the company expressly denies any violation of California law governing employee meal and rest breaks or other wrongdoing. In 2007, the company deposited into escrow $9,225,000 to be applied to the initial settlement fund which has been recorded in other expense. In April 2009, the company paid approximately $255,000 into the settlement fund based on its meeting certain performance criteria in 2008. In 2010, the company may be required to pay up to a maximum of $2,500,000 into the settlement fund based on its meeting certain performance criteria in 2009, although the company does not expect to incur this obligation based on 2009 operating results to date, according to its Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Six Flags, Inc. -- http://www.sixflags.com/-- is engaged in operating regional theme parks. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company operated 20 parks. In April 2007, the company sold seven parks. The theme parks offer thrill rides, water attractions, themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues and retail outlets. In 2007, the theme parks offered more than 840 rides, including over 130 roller coasters. STATION CASINOS: Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nev. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Station Casinos, Inc., faces a purported class action complaint by Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV- 00141. The plaintiffs are all former employees of the company or its subsidiaries. The complaint alleged that the company (i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay overtime, (iii) failed to timely pay wages and (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel. On Oct. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. During a hearing on that motion, the U.S. District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on May 16, 2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the company's favor. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614- C. The complaint in the State Court Action alleges substantially the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal Court Action. The corporate defendants, other than the company, are required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in the State Court Action on or before Aug. 19, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50% owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are 50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe. US SUGAR: Final Hearing on Shareholder Settlement Set for Jan. 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis S. (Mike) Eidson, Esq., Senior Partner at the Coral Gables- based law firm Colson Hicks Eidson, reports that his law firm has successfully reached a settlement for a total potential value of $15.9 million with the U.S. Sugar Corporation in Matura v. White, et al., Case No. 08-cv-80711 (S.D. Fla.) (Marra, J.), on behalf of the employee shareholders and other shareholders of the Clewiston, Florida-based company. U.S. Sugar is the country's largest producer of sugar cane and refined cane sugar and is one of Florida's major producers of oranges and orange juice products. The class action lawsuit was filed in West Palm Beach Federal Court in January 2008 on behalf of 4,000 current and former U.S. Sugar employees including farm field workers, union mill workers, administrative staff, and others who own or owned a large percentage of the company's shares through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), and other shareholders including several Michigan-based charities. The lawsuit alleged U.S. Sugar's Board of Directors failed to inform shareholders of two lucrative buyout offers thus denying them a substantial profit on their shares and undervalued the shares held by the ESOP. A final approval hearing has been scheduled for January 4, 2010. The settlement requires U.S. Sugar to pay $8.4 million to the employee shareholders and other shareholders upon final approval, with the balance of $7.5 million to be paid upon U.S. Sugar and the State of Florida successfully completing their deal relating to the U.S. Sugar property, expected to be completed in 2010. "We have been litigating this action very aggressively for almost two years and are very pleased to have reached a settlement of all claims. We believe the settlement is fair for the ESOP participants and shareholders of U.S. Sugar," said Plaintiffs' attorney Mike Eidson who filed the case along with his partners Roberto Martinez and Curtis Miner. Eidson is a past president of the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial lawyers' bar with 60,000 members worldwide. Colson Hicks Eidson is a trial firm with more than 35 years of experience handling local, national and international litigation. Partners at the firm have had the distinction of holding the following offices: President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; President of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers; President of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers; President of the Dade County Bar Association; United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; and, Chairman of the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission. Eidson is best known for his work as the lead counsel in some of the largest automobile recalls in U.S. history: the Ford Pinto, the Chrysler Minivan and most recently, the Firestone/Ford tire tread separation. The outcomes of these cases created higher safety standards in the automobile industry safeguarding consumers across the globe. Mr. Martinez is a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida known for his work as a former federal prosecutor and as counsel for plaintiffs in major commercial and tort litigation, including the Brothers to the Rescue anti-terrorism litigation, the Eller Media bus shelter electrocution case, and the Rafael Sanchez lawsuit against the Government of Aruba. Mr. Miner is best known for his work as a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida prosecuting major political, police, and public corruption cases and for serving as lead counsel to the Federal Receivership of the Mutual Benefits Corporation. WELLS FARGO: Bankr. Ct. Has Jurisdiction for In Personam Relief --------------------------------------------------------------- WestLaw reports that claims asserted by a Chapter 7 trustee on behalf of a putative class of bankruptcy trustees throughout the United States, seeking a determination that a mortgage lender and its affiliated entities did not hold allowable claims in connection with mortgage notes that had been assigned to them without assignment of the associated mortgage, or without recording of any mortgage assignment, and seeking to enjoin the lender and its affiliated entities from falsely representing their status as holders of both the mortgage notes and accompanying mortgages, were claims over which the court could exercise jurisdiction as claims seeking in personam relief against the lender and its affiliated entities for actions that they allegedly took, or failed to take, that systematically abused the bankruptcy process. The federal statute providing that the district court in the judicial district in which a bankruptcy case is commenced or pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all property of the debtor, wherever located, and over property of the estate, had to be read narrowly to limit the exclusive jurisdiction of the "home" bankruptcy court strictly to in rem matters. In re Krause, Bankr. Case No. 07-35568; Harker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Adv. Pro. No. 08-3111 --- B.R. ----, 2009 WL 2837428 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio, Sept. 2, 2009) (Humphrey, J.). WILLIAMS TRANSPORT: Drivers Claim They Weren't Paid Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holleran at The West Virginia Record reports that group of Williams Transport drivers have filed a putative class action suit against the company and against CSX Transportation, alleging they were not paid minimum wage. The plaintiffs in Adkins, et al. v. Williams Transport and CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01052 (S.D. W.Va.) (Boone, J.), claim they did not receive minimum wage based upon the number of hours they were forced to work in a week. As part of their jobs, Williams Transport drivers were required to provide transportation services to CSX workers and would be under their control during this time, according to the complaint filed Sept. 28 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Frequently, drivers were forced to work more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid for the extra time spent on the job, the complaint says. CSX employees and Williams Transport authorities should have known the drivers were not being paid minimum wage, but did nothing to prevent the illegality of the situation, the suit states. "Based on the foregoing, Defendant's conduct in this regard was a violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and entitles Plaintiff to compensation for all hours in which they were not paid minimum wage, overtime hours worked, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court costs," the complaint says. Plaintiffs named in the suit include Johnny Adkins, Leslie Adkins, Carlina Albright, Connie Albright, Scotty Albright, Roger Baldwin, Johnny Bell, Kimberly Bell, Pauline Bell, Roy Bell, Joseph Bumbarner, James E. Carr, Charles Curry, Harry Dunalp, James P. Goode, Anna Mae, Steven Michonski and Gregory H. Parsley. They are seeking unpaid wages that are under the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime due, liquidated damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems just. The Plaintiffs are represented by: G. Patrick Jacobs, Esq. 7020 MacCorkle Avenue, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Telephone: 304/926-6676 Fax: 304/926-8336 E-mail: pjacobs@bjblaw.com - and - George B. Morrone, III, Esq. Cynthia M. Ranson, Esq. J. Michael Ranson, Esq. RANSON LAW OFFICES P. O. Box 3589 Charleston, WV 25336-3589 Telephone: 304/345-1990 Fax: 304/345-1999 E-mail: gbm@ransonlaw.com * Berger & Montague Named on to Nat.L.J.'s 2009 "Hot List" ---------------------------------------------------------- The Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., has been named to the National Law Journal's 2009 "Plaintiffs' Hot List." This is the sixth time that Berger & Montague has received this special and prestigious honor. The National Law Journal has selected Berger & Montague for this award in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The National Law Journal's "Hot List" recognizes outstanding plaintiffs' law firms, nominating those firms in the United States that did "exemplary, cutting-edge work on the plaintiffs' side between the summer of 2008 and the summer of 2009." The winning firms had to prevail "in a bench or jury trial when the stakes were high, meaning that a substantial amount of money was at issue, or that the case could affect the litigation strategy or outcome of similar cases nationally." The National Law Journal also focused on "wins that could effect significant social change or civil rights gains." The National Law Journal selected "firms that struck us as representing the bar's best qualities and that demonstrated unusual flair and creativity." The National Law Journal wrote: Philadelphia-based Berger & Montague can claim 39 years of successful practice, primarily in complex plaintiffs' litigation in securities, antitrust, consumer fraud, environmental and employment law. During the past year, the Philadelphia firm reached nine-figure settlements on behalf of two large classes. The National Law Journal singled out Berger & Montague's achievements during the past year in: -- In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., No. 07-CV-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement in one of the first securities class actions arising from the subprime mortgage meltdown); -- In re TriCor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 05-340 (D. Del.) ($250 million antitrust class action settlement); and -- New Jersey v. Qwest Communication Int'l, No. MER-L-3438-02 (Mercer Co., N.J., Super. Ct.) ($45 million settlement on behalf of the State of New Jersey in a case that established that in New Jersey, unlike in federal court, plaintiffs can recover from auditors and other enablers of fraud). These were just some of Berger & Montague's many achievements in the past year. For example, in June 2008, in Cook v. Rockwell International Corporation (Rocky Flats), No. 90-CV-181 (D. Colo.), Berger & Montague obtained a judgment of $926 million, including compensatory and punitive damages, following a trial on behalf of thousands of property owners against the former operators of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant in Colorado. Berger & Montague -- http://www.bergermontague.com/-- consists of over 60 attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex litigation. The firm has played lead roles in major cases for almost 40 years resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes they represent. * Is the Death of the Securities Class Action Greatly Exaggerated? ------------------------------------------------------------------ "It's been a source of some mystery over the last several months," Ashby Jones at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog writes. "Where have all the securities class-actions gone? The drop in filings has caused folks to wonder whether the heyday of the 10b-5 suit is over or whether the blip was simply temporary." We're starting to see signs now, however, like a hillside of brushland years after a fire, Mr. Jones continues, that signs of life are returning. According to a recent post by Kevin LaCroix over at the D&O Diary blog, "securities class action lawsuit filings during the third quarter were closer to historical norms . . . ." According to Mr. LaCroix's count, there were 49 new securities class action lawsuits during the third quarter, which brings the year to date total of new securities class action lawsuit filings to 143. Mr. LaCroix writes: "The annualized equivalent of the filings for the first nine months of 2009 projects to a twelve- month filing rate of 191, which is slightly below but still well within range of the average of 197.7 annual filings during the 13-year period between 1996 and 2008." So the numbers may be back up, but upon closer inspection at the breakdown, LaCroix still sees irregularity, specifically in the fact that the number of monthly filings has varied significantly in recent months. There may be any number of reasons for this fluctuation, but I continue to believe that the fluctuations are largely due to the fact that the plaintiffs' lawyers are jammed up with the mass of lawsuits they filed over the last three years. . . . These filings may suggest that the plaintiffs' lawyers have been so preoccupied with the other cases and with the Madoff lawsuits that they developed a backlog, which they are now getting around to working off. So what accounted for the drop and subsequent bounceback? In Mr. LaCroix' opinion, the dip was, perhaps ironically, partly due to the global meltdown, which really affected all sectors and most companies, making it hard to tie any given stock drop to fraud or other impropriety. Writes Mr. LaCroix: What started several years ago with the subprime meltdown has evolved into a global financial crisis, affecting all companies across the entire economy. As a result of these developments, it has become increasingly difficult to define precisely what constitutes a subprime and credit crisis- related lawsuit. It may not be so much that the subprime and credit crisis litigation wave has crested as it is that the wave has merged into a larger tidal movement and is no longer its own separately identifiable phenomenon. In addition to plaintiffs' lawyers "working off" the backlog, Mr. LaCroix surmises that the recent bump has a bit to do with "new cases involving unusual targets," like ETF Funds, closed-end investment funds and mortgage trusts. New Securities Fraud Cases MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suit in S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Men's Wearhouse Inc. (NYSE:MW) between March 7, 2007, and January 9, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman, Esq., or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/menswearhouse/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Men's Wearhouse and certain of its executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Men's Wearhouse describes itself as "one of North America's largest specialty retailers of men's apparel with 1,284 stores." The Company's U.S. retail apparel stores are operated under the brand names of Men's Wearhouse and K&G. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the Company's financial condition, business and prospects. The complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the K&G division was performing poorly and not meeting internal expectations; (b) that the Company was experiencing significant difficulties integrating the After Hours acquisition which was causing a severe disruption in that division's business and reducing sales volumes below budgeted levels; (c) that, given the deteriorating demand for the Company's products, the Company was forced to significantly discount products beyond customary discounts which would further erode earnings; and (d) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 9, 2008, Men's Wearhouse announced its mid fourth quarter update for the quarter ending February 2, 2008. In response to the Company's reduced guidance for fiscal 2007, the price of Men's Wearhouse common stock fell $7.60 per share, or 30%, to close at $17.84 per share, on January 10, 2008, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Men's Wearhouse common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site at http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm. ********* 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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *