/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091014.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 203 Headlines BRIDGEPORT PORT: 10 Conn. Ferry Riders Call Fare Unconstitutional CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Issues YieldPlus Class Pendency Notice CHATTEM INC: Suit Filed in S.D. Fla. Over Garlic Supplement DUPONT CO: New Jersey Class Action C8 Suit Can Proceed FACEBOOK INC: Accused of Disclosing Members' Movie Rentals FACET BIOTECH: Shareholders Complain About Proposed Biogen Deal HARLEY DAVIDSON: Wisc. ERISA Class Action Complaint is Dismissed HURON CONSULTING: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Restatement in Ill. INDYMAC MORTGAGE: Report Reveals Plaintiffs' Progress in "Benito" LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Workers' Overtime Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. MDL 1996: Defendants Move to Dismiss Potash Buyers' Amended Suit OHIO: Oct. 19 Objection Deadline for Disabled Students Settlement OHIO: Renewed Bid for Class Certification in Early Screening Case REED'S REFORESTATION: 300 Guatemalans Allege Forced Labor ROGERS INT'L: Consolidated Amended "Lane" Suit Nixed in June ROGERS INT'L: "Watkins" Suit in New York Remains Pending STANFORD FINANCIAL: Chadbourne & Park Named as a Defendants T-MOBILE: Class Action Lawyer Competition Promotes Justice TREASURE RESORT: Sued by Singapore Resort Club Members VISA INC: Modified Prepayment Terms Gets Final Approval VIVENDI SA: Sues French Plaintiffs in S.D.N.Y. Case in Paris XFONE INC: Fleisig's Damages Suit for Billed Attempts Pending * William Athanas, Esq., Joins Waller Lansden in Birmingham ********* BRIDGEPORT PORT: 10 Conn. Ferry Riders Call Fare Unconstitutional ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that ten regular riders of the Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Ferry claim in a class action that the ferry fares are unconstitutional. They say the Bridgeport Port Authority jacked up fees to cover the cost of litigating a previous lawsuit over fares, which the Port Authority lost. When the Bridgeport Port Authority was created in 1993, the ferry fee was 50 cents per passenger and $1 per car, according to the federal complaint. In 2003 the BPA doubled the charges, and passengers sued the agency, challenging the constitutionality of the fees hike. The Port Authority responded by adding another $1 surcharge in 2006 to help pay the costs of the suit, according to the most recent complaint. In July 2008, U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney ruled that the fares collected from April 2001 to March 2006 violated the Commerce and Tonnage Clauses of the Constitution and were excessive by about $8.7 million. The class seeks that money as damages, plus punitive damages and an injunction. Defendants include the City of Bridgeport, the BPA and all five of its commissioners. A copy of the Complaint in Desan, et al. v. Bridgeport Port Authority, et al., Case No. 09-cv-1605 (D. Conn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/FerryFees.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: 860-522-8888 - and - Larry Adler, Esq. ADLER LAW GROUP 290 Roberts Street, Suite 101 East Hartford, CT 06108 Telephone: 860-282-8686 Court Issues Class Pendency Notice in Schwab YieldPlus Class Action, Hagens Berman Announces CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Issues YieldPlus Class Pendency Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court in San Francisco issued a notice of pendency Monday to all class members involved in the Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW) YieldPlus litigation that claims the company misled investors about the diversification and safety of Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares (Nasdaq: SWYPX) and Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares (Nasdaq: SWYSX ). The notice includes details and instructions for participation in the lawsuit and potential recovery, outlines three specific classes already approved by the court as well as instructions for those who wish to opt out as a class member. The notice details three certified classes of investors: (A) All persons or entities who acquired shares of the fund from Nov. 15, 2006, through March 17, 2008 and is traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and were damaged; (B) All persons or entities who acquired shares of the fund from May 31, 2006, through March 17, 2008 and is traceable to a false and misleading prospectus for the fund; and (c) All California resident investors who held shares of the YieldPlus fund on Sept. 1, 2006. The notice declares that all eligible investors, as outlined above, are included in the lawsuit and require no further action to remain a class member. For those who wish to opt out as a class member, you need to contact Gilardi & Co. LLC in writing by Monday, Dec. 28, 2009. After opting out of this suit, individuals can choose to pursue further legal action through their own counsel and at their own expense. Anyone who wishes to opt out as a class member needs to send a written request for exclusion from the class membership to: In re Schwab Corp. Secs. Litigation Exclusions c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC PO Box 808061 Petaluma, CA 94975-8061 Investors and eligible class members can view the notice in full at http://www.hbsslaw.com/schw Further information about this case may be obtained by contacting the Notice Administrator directly at (888) 955-2703. The lawsuit is still pending in court and this notice is not an expression by the court of any opinion in the pending litigation. The lawsuit, first filed by Hagens Berman in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges Schwab omitted important information from the funds' SEC Registration Statement, Prospectus and selling representation, including how heavily the funds were exposed to sub-prime mortgage risks. The lawsuit claims more than 50 percent of the funds' assets are invested in the risky mortgage industry -- a percentage that grew as the company abandoned the original objectives of the funds in pursuit of higher yields. For more information about the lawsuit, progress and Monday's notice please visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/ CHATTEM INC: Suit Filed in S.D. Fla. Over Garlic Supplement ----------------------------------------------------------- Chattem, Inc., disclosed that it has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit entitled Wilson v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-80681 (S.D. Fla.) (Dimitrouleas, J.). The lawsuit, filed by Florida consumer James A. Wilson, relates to the labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of Chattem's Garlique product. The company was served with this lawsuit on May 27, 2009. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees. The plaintiff alleges that the company mislabeled its product and made false advertising claims. The plaintiff seeks certification of a national class. The disclosure appeared in the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009, delivered to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 6, 2009. Mr. Wilson is represented by: Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. 914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: 832-715-2788 - and - Brian William Smith, Esq. SMITH & VANTURE, LLP 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561-684-6330 Fax: 561-688-0630 E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com Chattem is represented by: Mercer Kaye Clarke, Esq. Craig Salner, Esq. CLARKE SILVERGLATE & CAMPBELL, P.A. 799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-377-0700 Fax: 305-377-3001 E-mail: bclarke@csclawfirm.com csalner@csclawfirm.com Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- is a marketer and manufacturer of a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care, oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products. The company's portfolio of products includes brands, such as Gold Bond, Cortizone-10 and Balmex (medicated skin care); Icy Hot, Aspercreme and Capzasin (topical pain care); ACT and Herpecin-L (oral care); Unisom, Pamprin and Kaopectate (internal OTC); Selsun Blue (medicated dandruff shampoos); Dexatrim, Garlique and New Phase (dietary supplements), and Bullfrog, UltraSwim and Sun-In (other OTC and toiletry products). Its products are sold primarily through mass merchandisers, independent and chain drug stores, drug wholesalers and food stores in the United States, and in various markets in approximately 80 countries worldwide. DUPONT CO: New Jersey Class Action C8 Suit Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ WaterTech Online.com reports that a U.S. District Court judge on October 9 ruled in Rowe v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Case No. 06-1810 (D. N.J.), and Scott v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Case No. 06-3080 (D. N.J.), that a class-action lawsuit can proceed against DuPont Co. in southern New Jersey, where some residents are arguing that DuPont has contaminated their drinking water with ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA (also known as C8), a chemical used to make cookware, according to recent media reports. The Charleston, W.Va., Gazette's political watchdog blog "Sustained Outrage" reported October 9, "Ruling in two different cases against DuPont, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb allowed residents to pursue claims of private nuisance and strict liability as class-action suits against the chemical giant." Attorney Stuart Lieberman, Esq., who represents a potential class of 15,000 residents of Penns Grove, Salem County, who live near DuPont's Chambers Works plant, is quoted in an October 12 KYW Newsradio 1060 Philadelphia report: "People who drank something that they shouldn't drink, and did so unknowingly, will now have judicial recourse. And, more importantly, they'll be able to have safer drinking water." DuPont told KYW Newsradio that the company is reviewing the judge's decision. According to the "Sustained Outrage" blog, this recent action is "quite different from that in a similar West Virginia case, where US District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin has declined to allow residents to proceed as a class and - in a bombshell ruling last week -- dismissed all claims against DuPont except for medical monitoring." Goodwin was ruling in a case brought by residents of the city of Parkersburg, whose water supply had been polluted with C8, reportedly from DuPont's nearby Washington Works plant. KYW Newsradio's report is available at http://is.gd/4g3hB The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Chamberlain, Esq. Michael George Sinkevich, Jr., Esq. Shari M. Blecher, Esq. Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq. LIEBERMAN & BLECHER, P.C. 10 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 100 Princeton, NJ 08540 DuPont is represented by: Roy Alan Cohen, Esq. PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, PC 100 Southgate Parkway P.O. Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962 FACEBOOK INC: Accused of Disclosing Members' Movie Rentals ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook violated privacy by posting the movies that its members rent from Blockbuster on their Facebook profile, without consent, a class action claims in Dallas Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Harris, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01912 (N.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/CCAFace.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. Thomas M. Corea, Esq. THE COREA FIRM P.L.L.C. 1201 Elm St., Suite 4150 Dallas, TX 75270 Telephone: 214-953-3900 - and - George A. Otstott, Esq. Ann Jamison, Esq. OTSOTT & JAMISON, P.C. Two Energy Square 4849 Greenville Ave., Suite 1620 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: 214-522-9999 Wendy Davis at Online Media Daily reports that Facebook probably thought its Beacon problems were behind it last month, when it announced an agreement to settle a class-action privacy lawsuit. But three Texas residents who have a pending lawsuit against Blockbuster for participating in the Beacon program have just filed a new case against Facebook. In the Harris suit filed Friday, consumers allege that the Beacon program violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act by sharing information about their movie rentals and purchases without first obtaining their written consent. That statute provides for damages of $2,500 per incident. A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the potential class-action lawsuit except to tell Ms. Davis: "This suit is without merit and we will fight it vigorously." At this point, Ms. Davis says, it's not clear whether the new lawsuit will affect the proposed settlement of a separate class- action lawsuit in California against Facebook. That agreement calls for Facebook to permanently shutter Beacon and to pay $9.5 million to a settlement fund. Around two-thirds of the money will be used to create a new privacy research foundation. Individual plaintiffs in that case also will receive settlements ranging from $15,000 to $1,000. Facebook's Beacon program told users about their friends' e-commerce activity at sites like Zappos, Blockbuster and Overstock. The platform initially operated by default, spreading news about members' purchases unless they affirmatively opted out. Within weeks of its November 2007 launch, Facebook revamped the program to make it opt-in. Shortly afterwards, the company added a feature that allowed people to permanently opt out. The Texas residents who just sued Facebook recently won a significant ruling against Blockbuster stemming from its participation in Beacon. Earlier this year, a federal judge rejected the movie rental store's argument that the case should have been brought before an arbitrator. Blockbuster argued that its contract with users calls for any disputes to be heard by an arbitrator rather than in court, and also said users waived their right to file a class action lawsuit. But U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas held that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time. Therefore, she ruled, the case could proceed in federal court as a class-action. Blockbuster is appealing that decision. FACET BIOTECH: Shareholders Complain About Proposed Biogen Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Directors of Facet Biotech failed to maximize shareholder value in a proposed deal with Biogen Idec, Facet shareholders claim in San Diego Superior Court. A copy of the Complaint in Dugdale v. Hasnain, et al., Case No. 37-2009-00099044-CU-BT-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., Dan Diego Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/SCAFacet.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Aaron W. Beard, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-231-1058 - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-682-1818 HARLEY DAVIDSON: Wisc. ERISA Class Action Complaint is Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Charles Clevert, Jr., entered an orer dismissing the class action Complaint alleging ERISA violations in In re Harley Davidson, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-C-912 (E.D. Wisc.). "[T]he complaint fails to state a claim that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a) by not managing the Plans in the best interests of the participants. . . . Consequently, related and derivative allegations of breach of a duty of loyalty, duty to monitor and investigate, co-fiduciary liability, and knowing breach of fiduciary duty . . . fail as a matter of law. . . . See e.g., In re RadioShack Corp. ERISA Litig., 547 F. Supp. 2d at 616 ("Plaintiffs' claims for failure to monitor other fiduciaries, co-fiduciary liability, and conflict of interest are derivative of their other claims. Thus, because the fiduciary-duty and misrepresentation claims are subject to dismissal, these claims are as well."); Delta Air Lines, 422 F. Supp. 2d at 1333-34 (same); Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., No. 05-3598, 2006 WL 1084087, *11 (D. N.J. April 25, 2006) (noting that upon finding that defendants did not breach fiduciary duty under ERISA by failing to manage the Plans in the best interests of the participants, related claims of breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty to monitor, and breach of co-fiduciary duty all fail), aff'd, 503 F.3d 340," Judge Clevert says. HURON CONSULTING: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Restatement in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Huron Consulting Group Inc. intends to defend a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 6, 2009. The purported class action complaint was filed in connection with the company's restatement of its 2006 to 2009 financial statements. The complaint in Fisher v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05475 (N.D. Ill.) (St. Eve, J.), was filed on Sept. 3, 2009. Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are named as co-defendants. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, contends that the company and the individual defendants issued false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial results and compliance with generally accepted accounting principles and seeks unspecified damages and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in connection with the action, including attorneys' fees. Mr. Fisher is represented by: David Barry Kahn, Esq. Michael Thomas Layden, Esq. David B. Kahn & Associates, Ltd. One Northfield Plaza, Suite 100 Northfield, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 501-5083 E-mail: dkahn@kahnlawchicago.com mlayden@rjpltd.com Huron is represented by: John C. Ellis, Esq. Mark E. King, Esq. Richard J. Prendergast, Esq. Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd. 111 West Washington, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 641-0881 E-mail: jellis@rjpltd.com mking@kahnlawchicago.com rprendergast@rjpltd.com The Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has entered its appearance and is represented by: Jonathan Nachsin, Esq. Jonathan Nachsin, P.C. l05 West Adams Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 327-1777 E-mail: nachsin@att.net With offices around the globe, Huron Consulting Group Inc. -- http://www.huronconsultinggroup.com/-- provides operational and financial consulting services. The company operates through four business segments: Health and Education Consulting, Accounting and Financial Consulting, Legal Consulting and Corporate Consulting. INDYMAC MORTGAGE: Report Reveals Plaintiffs' Progress in "Benito" ----------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Smith at the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the number of plaintiffs in Benito, et al., v. IndyMac Mortgage Services, Case No. 09-cv-01218 (D. Nev.) (Pro, J.), is growing, the fight with their mortgage lender has intensified, and they're making progress. Among many allegations, the attorneys contend OneWest "breached the loan agreements/contracts by failing to disclose the following: APR, method of determining the finance charge, balance, actual finance charge, total payments, amount financed, number of payments, and due dates. OneWest breached the loan agreements/contracts by doubling Plaintiffs mortgage payments when the mortgage 'arms' came due." Although they come from vastly different backgrounds, Mr. Smith says, the homeowners share a common story of how creatively they were qualified for their loans. Some of the loan documents, Mr. Smith quips, contained more fiction than a Stephen King novel. The lawsuit was filed in June 2009 in Nevada State Court, Case No. A591942 (8th J. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), and removed to Federal Court on July 6, 2009. In September, the Honorable Philip Pro signed a stipulation extending the preliminary discovery process another 90 days. Indymac/OneWest will have until Jan. 15 to reply. Meanwhile, all action against the more than two-dozen homeowners battling it out with a mortgage giant is frozen. Mr. Smith's complete report is available at http://is.gd/4hcR0 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brooke A. Bohlke, Esq. Matthew Q. Callister, Esq. CALLISTER & REYNOLDS 823 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: 702-385-3343 IndyMac Mortgage Services is represented by: Richard E. Gottlieb, Esq. Brett J. Natarelli, Esq. Renee L. Zipprich, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC 10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-876-1700 - and - David A. Carroll, Esq. Tamara Beatty Peterson, Esq. JONES VARGAS 3773 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 3rd Floor So. Las Vegas, NV 89109 Telephone: 702-862-3300 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Workers' Overtime Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators, Inc., removed a lawsuit alleging the retailer failed to pay overtime to employees filed by Crelencio Chavez and Joe Zaldivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. RG09472265 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 09-cv-04812), on Oct. 09, 2009. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Tafoya, Esq. David Garcia, Esq. TAFOYA & GARCIA, LLP 205 S. Broadway, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-617-0500 - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. Citigroup Center, Suite 1370 444 S. Flower St. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-488-6555 Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq. Sacha Steenhoek, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-442-1000 MDL 1996: Defendants Move to Dismiss Potash Buyers' Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants in multiple class-action lawsuits by direct and indirect purchasers of potash in the United States have moved to dismiss an amended complaint filed by direct and indirect purchasers of potash products. On Sept. 11, 2008, two complaints were filed against alleged potash distributors: -- Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., Agrium U.S. Inc., Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition L.L.C., Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., PCS Sales (USA), Inc., JSC Uralkali, Rue Pa Belaruskali, Rue Pa Belarusian Potash Company, BPC Chicago L.L.C., JSC Silvinit and JSC International Potash Company, Case No. 08-cv-05162 (D. Minn.) (Doty, J.); and -- Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., Agrium U.S. Inc., Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition L.L.C., Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., PCS Sales (USA), Inc., JSC Uralkali, RUE PA Belaruskali, RUE PA Belarussian Potash Company, BPC Chicago L.L.C., JSC Silvinit and JSC International Potash Company, Case No. 08-cv-05192 (N.D. Ill.) (Castillo, J.). Other antitrust lawsuits followed, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated them into one action. In late 2008 and early 2009, consolidated class action complaints were filed by direct and indirect purchasers against the defendants in In re Potash Antitrust Litigaiton (No. II), MDL No. 1996; Master Docket No. 08-C-6910 (N.D. Ill.) (Castillo, J.). The amended consolidated complaints generally alleges, among other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 15, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. OHIO: Oct. 19 Objection Deadline for Disabled Students Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN DOE, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:91-cv-464 : v. : JUDGE HOLSCHUH : STATE OF OHIO, et al., : MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP : Defendants. : AMENDED NOTICE TO OHIO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT 1. This notice may apply to you if you are the parent or guardian of a student with disabilities age three through twenty- one or a student with disabilities. The student must be enrolled or seeking enrollment in Ohio's public school system and require special education, related services, or accommodations as a result of a disability. 2. The purpose of this notice is to tell you about a proposed partial settlement in a lawsuit that may affect you and the student. The lawsuit was brought by people like you who want children with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Lawsuit 3. This lawsuit has two parts. The first is a challenge to the way Ohio funds special education and related services. The second is a challenge to the Ohio Department of Education's (ODE) procedures for implementing the IDEA. 4. The challenges to ODE's implementation of the IDEA raise four matters. The first is the way ODE monitors local school districts' and other agencies' compliance with the IDEA. The second is the way ODE handles school districts' requests for waivers of state standards controlling the delivery of special education services. The third is the way ODE operates its system for handling complaints about special education matters. The fourth is the way ODE corrects school districts' failure to comply with the IDEA. 5. The people who brought the lawsuit (named plaintiffs) were John Doe, by and through his parent, L.B.; T.M., by and through his parent, S.J.; L.J., by and through his parent, J.J.; T.D., by and through his parent, A.D.; L.A., by and through his parent, E.A.; B.M., by and through his parent, D.M; S.W., by and through his parent, C.S.; and M.G., by and through his parent, J.G. Their attorneys are Susan G. Tobin and Jason C. Boylan of the Ohio Legal Rights Service, an independent state advocacy agency. The Judge in this case has decided that these eight people and their attorneys will fairly represent all students who require special education, related services, or accommodations as a result of their disability, making this case a "class action." 6. The plaintiffs sued the State of Ohio, state agencies and commissions, and state officials responsible for ensuring the delivery of special education and related services. The defendants are the State of Ohio; Governor Ted Strickland; the Ohio School Facilities Commission; State Superintendent of Public Instruction Deborah Delisle; the State Board of Education; ODE; the Office of Exceptional Children; and the Office of Early Learning and School Readiness. The Settlement 7. After more than a year of negotiating, the parties have agreed to a partial settlement of this case without a trial. That settlement resolves the claims about the way that ODE implements the IDEA. It does not settle the challenges to the way Ohio funds the education of students with disabilities. 8. The plaintiffs and defendants have written the agreement in a document called a "Consent Order." The Judge has given preliminary approval of the Consent Order before it is final. Before the Judge decides to give final approval of the Consent Order, you can tell the Judge if you disagree with any part of it. To get a copy of the Consent Order you may write to the Ohio Legal Rights Service, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215-5923, call 1-800-282-9181, or view it online at http://www.olrs.ohio.gov/ 9. The Consent Order requires ODE to take a number of steps to identify and correct violations of federal and state special education statutes to ensure that class members receive a free and appropriate public education. The Consent Order's provisions include: a. Monitoring: ODE will be required to provide public involvement and access to information regarding its IDEA monitoring systems by requiring public posting of local school districts' performance and holding open meetings where individuals may present their concerns. b. Waivers: Waivers are requested by local school districts when the district claims that it can not meet special education service delivery ratios (such as class size, range of students' ages in the same classroom, service provider to student ratios), which are required by law. The Consent Order requires protections for students with disabilities and additional ODE oversight when a waiver is requested. Parents whose children with disabilities may be affected by waivers will now be given notice of requests for such waivers before the request for the waiver is decided. Waivers cannot result in the denial of a free and appropriate public education to affected students with disabilities. c. Complaints: This Consent Order provides a number of new measures to protect students with disabilities when a parent/guardian files a state-level complaint with ODE. As a result of the Consent Order, ODE will provide additional notice to parents/guardians of the complaint process and advocacy resources to assist parents/guardians. ODE will be required to conduct a more thorough investigation of complaints challenging the delivery of a child's free and appropriate public education, a local school district's failure to implement due process hearings or state level review decisions, and the inappropriate use of restraint or seclusion. ODE will ensure that violations of the law will be corrected in a timely manner. The Consent Order does not change the procedures controlling due process hearings before impartial hearing officers. d. Complaint Timelines: If only the school district requests an extension of time for a decision by ODE and the parent or guardian does not agree to the extension, ODE may only grant the district's request in extraordinary circumstances. When both the parent/guardian and the school district agree to enter into mediation, the mediation will not delay the outcome of state complaints and an extension of time will be granted only when agreed to by both parties. e. Corrective Action: When a local school district fails to meet state or federal standards, ODE will require that the district correct those deficiencies within a year. The district may be subject to penalties if it fails to correct the deficiencies. Effect of the Consent Order 10. The Consent Order is a partial settlement between the plaintiffs and defendants because it does not resolve plaintiffs' claims about the way Ohio funds the education of students with disabilities. If this Consent Order is finally approved by the Judge, plaintiffs' claims about the way Ohio funds the education of students with disabilities remain unaffected. 11. If ODE does not carry out the terms of the Consent Order, the plaintiffs can enforce those terms for two years after the Judge orders final approval. However, if this Consent Order is finally approved by the Judge, the claims of this case that are summarized in paragraph 9 of this notice may not be relitigated. 12. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed in the Consent Order that plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of those fees and expenses will be determined later. Next Steps 13. If you agree with the Consent Order you do not have to do anything, but you may submit comments to the Judge in the same manner as described in paragraph 14 of this notice. 14. If you disagree with any part of the Consent Order and you want to tell the Judge, you must file written objections NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 19, 2009. a. On the first page of your objections, write in large or underlined letters: "OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSAL IN DOE v. STATE, Case No. 2:91-cv-464." b. A parent or guardian may object on behalf of a child class member, but must state in the objection the relationship that he or she has with the affected child class member. c. You must sign your name, and include your address, your phone number, and the date objections are mailed. You may or may not be contacted by plaintiffs' or defendants' attorneys to discuss your concerns. d. Objections must be mailed to the following address: Clerk of Court United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse 85 Marconi Boulevard Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Judge Holschuh's Docket e. DO NOT CALL THE COURT. THE COURT WILL NOT ACCEPT PHONE CALLS ABOUT THIS MATTER. YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTIONS IN WRITING. 15. A hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 20, 2009, before the Honorable John D. Holschuh, in Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215. At the hearing, the judge will consider whether the proposed partial settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether is should receive the court's final approval. The hearing is open to the public. Person who have submitted timely objections may be given the opportunity to speak at the hearing if they so desire. If you desire to speak at the hearing, please note this on your objection. 16. Following the hearing, the Judge will decide whether to approve the Consent Order and allow this part of the lawsuit to end. If the Judge decides to approve the proposed Consent Order, his decision is final and the Consent Order becomes effective and lasts for 2 years. 17. If you have any questions about this case you can call Ohio Legal Rights Service, Intake Worker, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215-5923, at 1-800-282-9181 or (614) 466-7264. Please mention that you are calling about the case Doe v. State of Ohio, Case No. 2:91-cv-464. OHIO: Renewed Bid for Class Certification in Early Screening Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Legal Rights Service continues to press its lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) in the G.D. v. Lumpkin, Case No. 05-cv-980 (S.D. Ohio). OLRS alleges that the state has failed to inform, failed to provide access to the necessary services and has failed to provide the necessary services within a reasonable time frame to children and families under Ohio's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program. OLRS has renewed its Motion for Class Certification and awaits a decision by the Hon. Judge Holschuh. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. (ABLE) has moved to join the suit on behalf of several additional children and their families. Depositions and the exchange of discovery continue. A trial date for this case is expected in mid-2010. Additional information about the case is available at http://www.olrs.ohio.gov/asp/EPSDT.asp The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristin E. Hildebrant, Esq. Winnifred N. Weeks, Esq. OHIO LEGAL RIGHTS SERVICE 50 W. Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 466-7264 Fax: (614) 644-1888 - and - Robert A. Cole, Esq. W. David Koeninger, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC. CENTER FOR EQUAL JUSTICE 525 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43604-1373 Telephone: (419) 255-0814 Fax: (419) 259-2880 REED'S REFORESTATION: 300 Guatemalans Allege Forced Labor --------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that Reed's Reforestation lured more than 300 Guatemalans to the United States with false promises, then confiscated their passports, put them to forced labor in squalid conditions for less than minimum wage, threatened them and took illegal deductions from their pay, according to a federal class action. Walter Reed, who owned the company, died on July 28. The workers demand compensatory and punitive damages from Reed's Reforestation and Reed's Forestry, which operate in three Southern states. Lead plaintiffs Doroteo Gomez-Argueta and Reynaldo Vasquez-Gomez say Reed threatened them with deportation if they tried to quit and told them they would never be able to work in the United States again if they refused to do the forced labor. Reed secured legal visas for approximately 307 guest workers, then violated state and federal wage and labor laws by, among other things, taking "illegal deductions" for recruitment, processing, visa and transportation, according to the complaint. The workers say they were denied basic sleeping arrangements, kitchen facilities, basic sanitation, toilets, potable water and hand-washing facilities. They demand damages for forced labor, human trafficking, and violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Complaint in Gomez-Argueta, et al. v. The Estate of William Reed dba Reed's Reforestation adba Reed's Forestry, Case No. 09-cv-02027 (N.D. Ala.) (Proctor, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/12/ForcedLabor.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caitlin Berberic, Esq. Stacie Jonas, Esq. Douglas L. Stevick, Esq. SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES 311 Plus Park Blvd., Suite 135 Nashville, TN 37217 Telephone: 615-750-1200 ROGERS INT'L: Consolidated Amended "Lane" Suit Nixed in June ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated amended derivative and class-action complaint Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane against Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P., was dismissed in June 2009. Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant, in a class-action and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust dated April 10, 2001. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers International assets to Refco Capital Markets. The suit seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers International's limited partners. Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Walter Thomas Price was not named as a defendant in the state court complaint. The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District of New York. On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers in the matter. This personal jurisdiction dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing. On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended derivative and class action complaint. The amended complaint adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs. All defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court has entered a briefing schedule on these motions which shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2008. Oral argument on the motions was held May 7, 2009. On June 16, 2009, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, but held that it had personal jurisdiction over Rogers. Plaintiffs did not appeal, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois limited partnership that was established in May 2000. It trades a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts, principally on recognized exchanges. The Company's General Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. ROGERS INT'L: "Watkins" Suit in New York Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) continues to face a class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets. The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets, or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other relief. Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007, for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond. On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Lane Case The Lanes filed a class-action and derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's limited partners. Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of New York. On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers. On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an amended complaint. A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8, 2007. The Watkins matter is stayed pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in the Lane case. The plaintiffs, Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins, joined the Lane plaintiffs in the nearly identical Illinois state court action, and that action was dismissed, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois limited partnership that was established in May 2000. It trades a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts, principally on recognized exchanges. The Company's General Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. STANFORD FINANCIAL: Chadbourne & Park Named as a Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that until 2006, Thomas Sjoblom, Esq. -- the Proskauer Rose partner caught up in the $7 billion collapse of Stanford Financial Group -- was a partner at Chadbourne & Par, and on Monday, according to Leigh Jones at the National Law Journal, investors who lost money in the Stanford fraud added Chadbourne as a defendant to a class action against Mr. Sjoblom and Proskauer that they filed in Dallas federal district court in August. The amended complaint, Ms. Jones reports, alleges that Mr. Sjoblom participated in the Stanford fraud while he worked at both Chadbourne and Proskauer. As the NLJ has previously reported, the investors' suit relies on disclosures by former Stanford CFO James Davis, who appeared to implicate Mr. Sjoblom in a conspiracy to thwart an Securities and Exchange Commission investigation when he pled guilty to fraud and conspiracy last summer. The National Law Journal is also reporting that Mr. Sjoblom, who worked at the SEC for 20 years before joining Chadbourne, has withdrawn from Proskauer. The firm previously called the investors' class action "legally flawed and factually erroneous," saying in a statement, "There is no basis whatsoever for any claim that Proskauer, which functioned as defense counsel in a regulatory investigation, bears any responsibility for the fraud allegedly inflicted upon investors." Chadbourne declined the NLJ's request for comment. The class action, in which the investors are represented by Edward Snyder, Esq., and Jesse Castillo, Esq., at Castillo Snyder, also names P. Mauricio Alvarado, the former general counsel of Stanford Financial Group, as a defendant. The case docket does not list counsel for any of the defendants, Ms. Frankel reports. T-MOBILE: Class Action Lawyer Competition Promotes Justice ---------------------------------------------------------- Upholding free market principles, Steve Korris at the St. Clair Record reports, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares ruled that competition among class action lawyers promotes justice. In a Sept. 10 order he blessed "reverse auctions," where defendants drive settlement costs down by bargaining with different lawyers in different courts. He rejected a bid from lawyers in California litigation against telephone company T-Mobile for 80 percent of fees from a settlement T-Mobile reached with other lawyers in his court. He slashed the 80 percent request of the Bursor and Plutzik firms to 16 percent, California's share of the settlement, awarding them $720,000 from a $4.5 million fee. He warned that granting the most credit for a settlement to the lawyer who sued first would wreak havoc on class action practice. He wrote that an 80 percent claim would act as a disincentive against new suits. "In the end, T-Mobile would be forced to settle with the Bursor and Plutzik groups or not at all," he wrote. "In fact, adopting the Bursor and Plutzik groups' position in this case would ostensibly allow them to prevent attorneys from filing related actions in different jurisdictions altogether," he wrote. "This argument is as aggressive as it is untenable," he wrote. Judge Linares approved a February settlement of claims that T-Mobile improperly charged $200 fees for early terminations of service contracts. T-Mobile agreed to pay the class $13.5 million, plus a third of that to lawyers. Judge Linares awarded 84 percent of the fee, $3,780,000, to those who settled in his court. He blistered one of them, Paul Weiss of Chicago, who for the past 10 years has pursued class actions in Madison County among other courts. Judge Linares rejected all expenses Weiss claimed, more than $40,000. He declared Weiss's statement of hours "facially untenable." Judge Linares wrote, "He claims to have taken primary responsibility for the uploading and reviewing of over 140,000 documents produced by T-Mobile after preliminary approval of the settlement." Weiss counted hours from other cases where, Judge Linares wrote, "nothing has taken place." In a similar case involving Weiss and associates, Judge Linares granted preliminary approval last year to a settlement of early termination claims against Sprint. A motion for final approval in that case remains pending. TREASURE RESORT: Sued by Singapore Resort Club Members ------------------------------------------------------ Cheow Xin Yi and Rachel Kelly at Channel NewsAsia report from Singapore that 205 members of the former Sijori Resort Club on Sentosa have filed a class action lawsuit against the new owners of the club for breach of contract. A writ was filed in the High Court on Monday against Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and its sister company Colony Members Service Club Pte Ltd -- both subsidiaries of Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd. according to Joyce Hooi at The Business Times -- by seven plaintiffs representing the members. They are alleging that Treasure Resort renounced its obligations under the membership agreement when it bought over the club, Channel NewsAsia says. According to Ms. Hooi, the writ of summons asserts that the transfer agreement between Sijori and Treasure Resort, the latter agreed to maintain various membership privileges provided to club members. Among the privileges promised were complimentary room vouchers for three nights annually, special discounts for room stay, food and beverage and karaoke, and free use of swimming pool and gymnasium. In February last year, however, Treasure Resort terminated its agreement with the members and told them they would have to enter into a new membership agreement with its associate company, Colony Members Service Club. Having paid between $20,000 and $30,000 in entrance fees when they first joined, the members saw red when Colony hoisted the monthly subscription fees 5.5 times, from $30 to $165 for individuals and $50 to $275 for family memberships. Treasure Resort and Colony Members, Channel NewsAsia says, drew up a new agreement with changes including a massive hike in monthly subscription payments of more than five times the original amount. The members also claim that they have been denied membership privileges since Treasure Resort took over as club owner in 2006. Efforts by MediaCorp to contact Treasure Resort were unsuccessful. VISA INC: Modified Prepayment Terms Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------- The modified payment obligations under a settlement agreement between Visa U.S.A. Inc., a principal operating subsidiary of Visa Inc., and plaintiffs in an antitrust class action lawsuit was approved on October _, 2009. Visa U.S.A. Inc., a principal operating subsidiary of Visa Inc., entered into an agreement on Aug. 31, 2009, to modify its payment obligations under a settlement agreement, dated as of June 4, 2003, with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. On Oct. 2, 2009, the court in the class action lawsuit entered a final order approving the Prepayment Agreement. According to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 6, 2009, as a result, and, consistent with previous disclosure and pursuant to the terms of the Prepayment Agreement, the Company made a prepayment of its remaining $800 million in payment obligations at a discounted amount of $682 million on Oct. 5, 2009. Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail electronic payments network. The company facilitates global commerce through the transfer of value and information among financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and government entities. Its primary customers are financial institutions, for which it provides processing services and payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments. The company has three business operations: transaction processing services, product platforms and payments network management. VIVENDI SA: Sues French Plaintiffs in S.D.N.Y. Case in Paris ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Campbell at Bloomberg News reports that Vivendi SA sued two investors and a shareholder rights group in a Paris court over their participation in In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-5571 (S.D.N.Y.) (Holwell, J.). The Paris-based owner of the world's largest music company argues that Olivier Gerard and Gerard Morel, and the Association for the Defense of Minority Shareholders, or Adam, should take any legal action against Vivendi in France rather than New York, Vivendi's lawyer said. Vivendi is fighting a lawsuit in New York over whether its former Chief Executive Officer Jean-Marie Messier misled investors with upbeat statements about the company's financial health between 2000 and 2002. Class action lawsuits are not permitted in France, Mr. Campbell relates. "Our position is that French shareholders who bought their shares in France, on the Paris bourse, on the basis of information distributed by Vivendi in France, and under the control of the French market regulator, have recourse in France," Herve Pisani, a lawyer for Vivendi, told Mr. Campbell. Concerned investors should therefore pursue claims against Vivendi in French courts, Mr. Pisani added. The suit in Paris names Messrs. Gerard and Morel as the "French representatives" in the class action, and describes Adam, the investor group, as its "initiator and organizer." About two- thirds of the parties to the class action are French, Vivendi spokesman Antoine Lefort tells Mr. Campbell. "Scandalous" Vivendi's position is "absolutely scandalous," Colette Neuville, president of Adam, told Mr. Campbell. "They want to have the advantages of double listing, which permits them to sell their shares to raise more capital, and at the same time, they refuse the inconveniences." Vivendi is listed in Paris and New York. Adam says French rules should be changed to allow class action suits, which let large groups of plaintiffs participate in the same case. Vivendi, which initially asked for 1 million euros ($1.48 million) in damages from the defendants named in its complaint, will reduce its claim to 1,000 euros because the company is interested in the legal principle, "not a question of money," Mr. Lefort said. The plaintiffs in the U.S. suit say Vivendi lied about its revenue and earnings by falsely claiming it was generating enough cash and earnings to meet its obligations on $21 billion in debt. Detailed coverage about the shareholder lawsuit pending in New York appeared in the Thurs., Oct. 8, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter. Vivendi's case will be argued on Nov. 25 in Paris, Mr. Campbell relates. XFONE INC: Fleisig's Damages Suit for Billed Attempts Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action suit styled Omer Fleisig vs. Israel 10 - Shidury Haruts Hahadash Ltd. and Xfone 018 Ltd., remains pending. On Dec. 16, 2008, Omer Fleisig filed a request to approve a claim as a class-action against Xfone 018 Ltd., a 69% owned Israel based subsidiary of Xfone, Inc., and Israel 10 - Shidury Haruts Hahadash Ltd., an entity unrelated to the company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel. Fleisig attempted to participate in a television call-in game show, which was produced by Israel 10, using Xfone 018's international telecom services. The claim alleges that although Fleisig's two attempts to participate in the show were unsuccessful because he received a busy signal when trying to call in, he was billed by Xfone 018 for both attempts. Fleisig seeks damages for the billed attempts. He was billed approximately $2.50 for the calls. The Class Action Request states total damages of NIS 24,750,000 (approximately $5,856,602) which reflects Fleisig's estimation of damages caused to all participants in the game show which (pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly received a busy signal while trying to call in to the game during a certain period defined in the Class Action Request. All parties are attempting to reach an understanding regarding the scope of the Class Action Request and its justification, if at all, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Xfone, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/-- is a holding and managing company providing international voice, video, and data communications services with operations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel offering a range of services, which includes local, long distance and international telephony services; video; prepaid and postpaid calling cards; cellular services; Internet services; messaging services (Email/Fax Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and reselling opportunities. The divisions of the company include Partner Division, Customer Service Division, Operations Division, Administration Division, Research and Development Division and Marketing Division. * William Athanas, Esq., Joins Waller Lansden in Birmingham ----------------------------------------------------------- Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 200 attorneys, has added seasoned federal prosecutor William Athanas, Esq., as Of Counsel to the firm's Birmingham, Ala., office. Mr. Athanas joins Waller Lansden's trial and appellate practice after nearly eight years prosecuting federal criminal matters. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Alabama, Mr. Athanas headed up numerous complex grand jury investigations and prosecutions in the areas of economic crime and public corruption, and successfully tried several high- profile cases including one of the lengthiest and most complex bank fraud trials ever conducted in the Northern District of Alabama. At Waller Lansden, Mr. Athanas will provide counseling and representation to clients around the United States and abroad on all aspects of corporate criminal defense, governance, and regulatory matters, including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act matters, internal investigations, white collar defense, and complex litigation issues related to healthcare, securities, and financial institutions. "Bill is a talented attorney with an impressive, successful trial record in difficult high-profile cases," said John Tishler, chairman of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP. "His experience at the federal level will be an invaluable asset to our clients- he strengthens our already stellar trial and appellate practice, which is one of the cornerstones of our firm." Mr. Athanas will reside in the firm's Birmingham office, which is headed by Larry Childs, Esq., a partner with more than 30 years' experience in complex litigation matters. "We are excited to welcome Bill to Waller Lansden and specifically to our Birmingham office. Bill will provide much-needed reinforcement for our busy practice, which includes complex litigation and the defense of class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative suits against financial institutions," Mr. Childs noted. Within Waller Lansden's Trial and Appellate Practice, Mr. Athanas will become a member of its Government Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense subgroup. That subgroup is headed by Sheila Sawyer, Esq., a partner based in the firm's Nashville office who also has substantial prosecutorial experience, having spent nine years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston. The group also includes Paul Summers, Esq., who previously served as the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee and as a Judge on the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Prior to joining Waller Lansden earlier this month, Mr. Athanas served as a federal prosecutor with the United States Department of Justice for nearly eight years, first as a Trial Attorney with the Criminal Division's Fraud Section in Washington, D.C, and then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Alabama. During that service, he acquired a wealth of federal litigation experience, heading up numerous complex grand jury investigations and prosecutions in the areas of economic crime and public corruption, and successfully trying several high- profile cases. Mr. Athanas' successful trial experience included the public corruption convictions of a former state senator and representative; the tax fraud conviction of the pastor of a 3,000 member church; and the bank fraud convictions of five individuals charged with perpetrating an elaborate scheme to defraud the now- defunct Community Bank out of over $1.7 million. Mr. Athanas also successfully prosecuted an armed carjacker who abducted and assaulted a Birmingham attorney in 2006, securing a sentence of life imprisonment after trial. Prior to his service as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Athanas was engaged in the private practice of law in Boston, where he represented clients in civil and criminal health care matters, white collar criminal defense, and complex commercial litigation. Mr. Athanas received his Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, and his undergraduate degree from the University of New Hampshire in Durham, N.H. About Waller Lansden With more than 200 attorneys, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP -- http://www.wallerlaw.com/-- assists Fortune 500 clients and other businesses and individuals throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia in a wide range of transactional, regulatory and litigation matters. Recognized as one of the nation's largest and most experienced healthcare law firms, Waller Lansden is also proud to be considered a trusted advisor to leading companies involved in financial services, manufacturing, transportation, retail, real estate development, and other industries. Headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., Waller Lansden provides counsel in mergers and acquisitions, securities and commercial finance transactions, regulatory compliance; commercial litigation; real estate transactions; environmental issues; intellectual property; labor and employment; and tax. ********* 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 * * *