/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091105.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 219 Headlines ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Tennessee BNSF RAILWAY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Personal Injury Claims CA INC: Second Circuit Denies Litigant's Petition for Rehearing CASH AMERICA: Still No Decision on Payday Loans Suit in Georgia CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Lawsuit in Pa. CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending CBEYOND INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact EAST COAST PUBLIC ADJUSTERS: Accused of Overcharging Floridians FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval FREESCALE SEMICON: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Motorola Suit Pending HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Air Cleaner Ozone Poisoning HORIZON LINES: Awaiting Court's Decision on Settlement Agreement ISILON SYSTEMS: Still Awaiting Court's Final Decision on MOU JABIL CIRCUIT: Oral Arguments for Dismissal Appear Set for Dec. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Accused of Cell Phone Spam in N.D. Calif. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending SUNSET HEALTH: Suit Challenges Product's Weight Loss Claims UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint WASTE MANAGEMENT: Eleven Employee Overtime Suits Filed Last Week ********* ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ Alcoa Inc., continues to defend a class-action suit styled Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In November 2006, a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co- insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing Sept. 22, 2009 and ending on Oct. 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. The briefing is to be complete by Dec. 4, 2009. No schedule was set for handing down a decision. Alcoa believes that it presented substantial evidence in support of its defenses at trial. However, at this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict the outcome. Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement benefit liability of approximately $300 million and approximately $40 million of expense (includes an interest cost component) annually, on average, for the next 11 years. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. 744 Broadway Albany, NY 12207 Phone: 518-463-7501 Fax: 518-463-7502 E-mail: katapano@gmail.com Representing the defendant is: John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. Hunton & Williams 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza East Tower Richmond, VA 23219-4074 Phone: 804-788-8629 Fax: 804-343-4794 E-mail: jwoods@hunton.com BNSF RAILWAY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Personal Injury Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Co. continues to face purported class actions over personal injury claims, including asbestos claims and employee work-related injuries and third-party injuries. Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) rather than state workers' compensation laws. FELA's system of requiring the finding of fault, coupled with unscheduled awards and reliance on the jury system, contributed to increased expenses in past years. Other proceedings include claims by non-employees for punitive as well as compensatory damages. A few proceedings purport to be class actions. The variability present in settling these claims, including non- employee personal injury and matters in which punitive damages are alleged, could result in increased expenses in future years. BNSF Railway has implemented a number of safety programs designed to reduce the number of personal injuries as well as the associated claims and personal injury expense. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. BNSF Railway Co. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. BNSF Railway operates a railroad system in North America. CA INC: Second Circuit Denies Litigant's Petition for Rehearing --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petition of the litigants in stockholder class-action lawsuits against CA, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M. Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998 were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance. In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned, "John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Federal Court. The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount. On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of fiduciary duty. As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits, including payment of attorneys' fees. The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys in legal fees and related expenses. On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants. The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present and former officers of the Company. The motion stated that the moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the Company. In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003 settlements. On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the August 2 decision. On Aug. 16, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion. On Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions denying the motions to amend or clarify. On Sept. 18, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12 decision. The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007. On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening briefs. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals. Also on Sept. 11, 2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P. de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals. On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions. Oral argument on the Wyly Litigants' appeals and cross-appeals occurred on March 11, 2009, and decisions are pending. On July 23, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the August 2, September 12 and October 4, 2007 decisions of the Federal Court. The summary order also acknowledged that the Ranger Governance litigation that was part of the 2004 Derivative Actions was not before the Second Circuit and, therefore, the company could renew its motion to dismiss and realign that had been dismissed without prejudice in the Oct. 29, 2007. On July 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the August 2, September 12 and October 4, 2007 decisions of the Federal Court referenced above. The summary order also acknowledged that the Ranger Governance litigation that was part of the 2004 Derivative Actions was not before the Second Circuit and, therefore, the company could renew its motion to dismiss and realign that had been dismissed without prejudice in the October 29, 2007 decision. On Aug. 31, 2009, Ranger and the Wyly Litigants filed petitions for rehearing before the Second Circuit, which were denied by the Second Circuit on October 19, 2009. Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage, security, and other systems. CASH AMERICA: Still No Decision on Payday Loans Suit in Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The State Court of Cobb County, Georgia has yet to render a decision on the propriety of class certification in a purported class action lawsuit Cash America International, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in the lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings. The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to compel arbitration was rendered moot after the Court struck Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia. A hearing on the propriety of class certification was held on Oct. 13, 2009, and the Court has not yet rendered a decision. The Court ordered that discovery directed at the merits of Plaintiff's claims be stayed until the Court issues its written decision regarding class certification. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Lawsuit in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- Cash America International, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action lawsuit filed by Peter Alfeche, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc., Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not in accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law or the licensing requirements of the CDCA. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages. CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the lending activities, and a hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009. On July 16, 2009, CashNetUSA filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt- Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the treatment of class action waivers in arbitration provisions under the Federal Arbitration Act. A hearing on the motions was held on Oct. 14, 2009, and the Court has not rendered its decision. The Alfeche litigation is still at an early stage. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit filed by Yulon Clerk is still pending, according to Cash America International, Inc.'s Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, against Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC and several other unrelated third-party lenders. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants' lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws. The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecified damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit now resides. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding in the Alfeche litigation. CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal court to enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the lending activities and has also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt- Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp. A hearing on the motions was held on Oct. 14, 2009, and the Court has not rendered its decision. The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this time. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CBEYOND INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on Oct. 16, 2009, issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement of the consolidated stockholder derivative litigation captioned In re Cbeyond, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2008CV157216, according to Cbeyond, Inc.'s Oct. 23, 2009, Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the company, the plaintiffs, and certain of the company's former and current officers and directors have entered into a settlement of the litigation. The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court, which has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 3, 2009. Under the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, the company will make certain corporate governance changes and the company's primary director and officer liability insurance carrier will pay an agreed amount of $200,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses, all subject to final Court approval. If the Stipulation is approved, the settling defendants will be dismissed with prejudice from the Litigation. Cbeyond, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBEY) -- http://www.cbeyond.net/-- is a leading provider of IT and communications services to more than 46,000 small businesses throughout the United States. Recently named as the sixth fastest growing technology company by Forbes magazine, and added to Standard & Poor's Small Cap S&P 600 Index, Cbeyond offers more than 30 productivity-enhancing applications including local and long-distance voice, broadband Internet, mobile, BlackBerry(R), broadband laptop access, voicemail, email, web hosting, fax-to-email, data backup, file-sharing and virtual private networking. Cbeyond delivers these services over a 100% private all IP network. EAST COAST PUBLIC ADJUSTERS: Accused of Overcharging Floridians --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims East Coast Public Adjusters charges a 33 percent settlement fee, far more than Florida's limit of 10 percent, in Miami-Dade County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Facciolo v. East Coast Public Adjusters, Inc., Case No. 09 79786 CA 4 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th J. Dist., Miami-Dade County), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/Insure.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lance A. Harke, Esq. Sarah Clasby, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. HARKE & CLASBY LLP 115 South Miami Ave., Suite 600 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-536-8220 - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. KOZYAK, TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305-372-1800 FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a purported class-action litigation against Fastenal Co. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and several state statutes remains subject to court approval. On Aug. 29, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a preliminary agreement to settle a purported class-action lawsuit relating to the classification of its Assistant General Managers as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania state statutes. This suit also alleged that Assistant General Managers in California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods under the California Labor Code. While the company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit, it decided to enter into the settlement agreement in order to avoid significant legal fees, the uncertainty of a jury trial, distractions to its operations, and other expenses and management time that would have to be devoted to protracted litigation. The settlement, which is still subject to court approval, fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, the company will make a cash payment of $10 million to cover claims by eligible class members, plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and payments to the named plaintiffs. The expense for this settlement was recorded in the results for the third quarter ending Sept. 30, 2008. The expense related to this legal settlement lowered the company's bonus payout by approximately $1.8 million for the third quarter of 2008. After factoring in the reduction of the bonus payout, this legal settlement resulted in a pre-tax expense of approximately $8.2 million for the quarter, or just over $0.03 per share (after-tax). No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Fastenal Co. -- http://www.fastenal.com-- sells industrial and construction supplies in a wholesale and retail fashion. As of December 31, 2008, it operated 2,311 company-owned or leased store locations in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and the Netherlands. Fastenal's offerings are grouped into 10 product lines: fasteners; tools and equipment; cutting tools and abrasives; hydraulics, pneumatics, plumbing, and heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC); material handling, storage and packaging; janitorial supplies, chemicals and paints; electrical supplies; welding supplies; safety supplies, and metals, alloys and materials. FREESCALE SEMICON: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Motorola Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," remains pending, according to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009. A purported class action, Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against Motorola and certain of its directors, officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005. On March 19, 2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal. Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2002. On September 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope of the class. Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain aspects of the class certification order. On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class, and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff, Howell, would be immediately appealable. The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001 with certain exclusions. On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its codefendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class. On Oct. 23, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order certifying the class. On June 17, 2009, the district court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment on all claims. This ruling rendered moot the interlocutory appeals current before the Seventh Circuit. The plaintiffs have appealed the June 17, 2009 ruling of the district court. As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities in embedded processing. The Company's product portfolio are Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors. HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas' denial of a class-action status to a case against Halliburton Co. over securities law violations is on appeal. The class-action suit was filed in June 2002, against the company with the federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during the period starting approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or probable of collection, the report notes. In the weeks that followed the suit filing, approximately 20 similar class actions were commenced against the company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP -- the company's independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits -- and several of the company's present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar, Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore, Jr. The class-action suits were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, entitled "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company in April 2003. However, as a result of a later substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled, "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al." In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. Settlement Attempts According to Reuters, a memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims. In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate. The mediation was unsuccessful. Motion to Dismiss Reuters recalls that in April 2005, the court appointed new co- lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the company file a motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the report relates, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. AMSF then filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been replead. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007, the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the company's CEO. The court ordered that the case proceed against Haliburton and the company's CEO. In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO. The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification, and the company's response was filed in November 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008). According to Reuters, the court decided that the lead plaintiff will have to pursue on its own the lawsuit, which claims Halliburton defrauded investors through questionable accounting practices from 1998 to 2001. The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas will elaborate by Nov. 3, 2008, when the plaintiffs will have the option to file motions for reconsideration or an appeal, Reuters further relates, citing Halliburton, which has headquarters in Houston and Dubai (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2008). The court issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion and the order denying class certification is currently on appeal. The case will remain stayed in the district court pending the outcome of the appeal. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The suit is The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01152 (N.D. Tex.) (Lynn, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 E-mail: rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com - and - Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Stanley Mandel & Iola 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: 214-443-4301 Fax: 214-443-0358 Email: mstanley@smi-law.com - and - Thomas Burt, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz 270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 Representing the company is: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner & Bilek 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Air Cleaner Ozone Poisoning ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Honeywell F300 Electronic Air Cleaner poisoned a woman with ozone, giving her a litany of fatiguing diseases, she says in a class action in Nashville Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Bearden, et ux. v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01035 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/CCAHoneywell.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael G. Stewart, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 227 Second Avenue North, 4th Floor Nashville, TN 37201-1631 Telephone: 615/254-8801 HORIZON LINES: Awaiting Court's Decision on Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Lines, Inc. is still awaiting the decision of the District Court of Puerto Rico on the settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the price-fixing class-action complaints, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 20, 2009. On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. Subsequently, the DOJ expanded the timeframe covered by the subpoena. The company is currently providing documents to the DOJ in response to the subpoena. The company intends to cooperate fully with the DOJ in its investigation. The company has entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under its Corporate Leniency Policy. The amnesty agreement pertains to a single contract relating to ocean shipping services provided to the United States Department of Defense. The DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal prosecution with respect to that government contract as long as the company, among other things, continues its full cooperation in the investigation. The amnesty does not bar a claim for damages that may be sought by the DOJ under any applicable federal law or regulation. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and other domestic shipping carriers. Fifty-seven cases have been filed in these federal district courts: -- eight in the Southern District of Florida, -- six in the Middle District of Florida, -- twenty in the District of Puerto Rico, -- eleven in the Northern District of California, -- two in the Central District of California, -- one in the District of Oregon, -- eight in the Western District of Washington, and -- one in the District of Alaska. Nineteen of the foregoing district court cases that related to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of Puerto Rico. All of the foregoing district court cases that related to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into MDL proceedings in the Western District of Washington. One district court case remains in the District of Alaska, relating to the Alaska tradelane. Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who directly, or indirectly in one case, purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean carriers. The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. On June 11, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the Puerto Rico MDL litigation. Under the settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval, the Company has agreed to pay $20.0 million and to certain base-rate freezes to resolve claims for alleged antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico tradelane. The Company paid $5.0 million into an escrow account pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and will be required to pay $5.0 million within 90 days after preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the district court and $10.0 million within five business days after final approval of the settlement agreement by the district court. The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico trade with the company as of the effective date of the final settlement agreement would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to have their "base rates" frozen for a period of two years. The base-rate freeze would run for two years from the expiration of the contract in effect on the effective date of the final settlement agreement. All class members would be eligible to share in the $20.0 million cash component, but only contract customers of the company would be eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of receiving cash. The company has the right to terminate the settlement agreement under certain circumstances. On July 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in the Puerto Rico MDL litigation. An initial hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement was held on Sept. 14, 2009, where the Court heard the objections of certain non-settling defendants. On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court resumed the hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. On March 20, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation. The plaintiffs filed a response to the company's motion to dismiss on April 20, 2009, and the company filed a reply on May 8, 2009. On Aug. 18, 2009, the District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation. In dismissing the complaint, however, the plaintiffs were granted 30 days to amend their complaint, and the company and the plaintiffs agreed to extend the time to file an amended complaint to Nov. 16, 2009. The Company and the plaintiffs have agreed to stay discovery in the Alaska MDL litigation. Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and integrated logistics company. The company's subsidiaries include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC (Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. (HLPR). With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets. The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated logistics services including relationships with third-party truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets. It ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials used in manufacturing. ISILON SYSTEMS: Still Awaiting Court's Final Decision on MOU ------------------------------------------------------------ Isilon Systems, Inc., is still awaiting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on the memorandum of understanding to settle and resolve the shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Youakim v. Isilon Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-01764 (W.D. Wash.) (Pechman, J.), according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Nov. 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed against Isilon and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Substantially similar complaints were filed later in the same court and all of these cases were subsequently consolidated. On April 18, 2008, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against Isilon, certain of its current and former directors and officers, underwriters, and venture capital firms. The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock during the period Dec. 16, 2006 to Oct. 3, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the company's Dec. 16, 2006 initial public offering and by thereafter misrepresenting its current and prospective business and financial results, thereby causing the company's stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. On Sept. 30, 2008, Isilon and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Oral argument on the defendants' motions was heard on Dec. 16, 2008, and a decision was issued on Dec. 29, 2008 granting in part and denying in part the motions. All claims against defendants Sequoia Capital (and related entities), Atlas Venture (and related entities) and Madrona Venture Group LLC were dismissed. The Section 12 claims were dismissed as against defendants Isilon, the company's former CEO Steven Goldman, and its former CFO Stuart Fuhlendorf, as were the Section 10(b) claims against Isilon directors William Ruckelshaus and Matthew McIlwain. The Court denied the remainder of the defendants' motions. All remaining defendants filed answers to the complaint on Jan. 30, 2009. On Sept. 21, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the other parties to settle and resolve the class action. The settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiff class of $15.0 million, of which Isilon will contribute $2.0 million and the balance will be paid by our insurers. The class action settlement is subject to preliminary and, following notice to class members, final approval by the Court. Representing the plaintiffs are: Karl Phillip Barth, Esq. Lovell Mitchell & Barth 11542 NE 21st Street, Ste. A Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-452-9800 E-mail: kbarth@lmbllp.com - and - Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC 1933 18th Street NW, Ste. 303 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com Representing the defendants is: Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 415-493-9300 E-mail: jbirn@wsgr.com - and - Seth Aronson, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers 400 S. Hope St., Ste. 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Phone: 213-430-6000 E-mail: saronson@omm.com Isilon Systems (Nasdaq: ISLN) -- http://www.isilon.com/-- calls itself the proven leader in scale-out NAS. Isilon's clustered storage and data management solutions drive unique business value for customers by maximizing the performance of their mission- critical applications, workflows, and processes. Isilon enables enterprises and research organizations worldwide to manage large and rapidly growing amounts of file-based data in a highly scalable, easy-to-manage, and cost-effective way. JABIL CIRCUIT: Oral Arguments for Dismissal Appear Set for Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments for the Second Amended Class Action Complaint against Jabil Circuit, Inc., has been set for December 2009, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2009 On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division against the company and various present and former officers and directors, including: 1. Forbes I.J. Alexander, 2. Scott D. Brown, 3. Laurence S. Grafstein, 4. Mel S. Lavitt, 5. Chris Lewis, 6. Timothy Main, 7. Mark T. Mondello, 8. William D. Morean, 9. Lawrence J. Murphy, 10. Frank A. Newman, 11. Steven A. Raymund, 12. Thomas A. Sansone, and 13. Kathleen A. Walters. on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the copany's shares between Sept. 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006. A second putative class action, containing virtually identical legal claims and allegations of fact was filed on Oct. 12, 2006. The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action. On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former officers, including Forbes I.J. Alexander, Scott D. Brown, Wesley B. Edwards, Chris A. Lewis, Mark T. Mondello, Robert L. Paver and Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of our directors, Mel S. Lavitt, William D. Morean, Frank A. Newman, Laurence S. Grafstein, Steven A. Raymund, Lawrence J. Murphy, Kathleen A. Walters and Thomas A. Sansone, as defendants. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of options for various senior officers and directors, causing the company's consolidated financial statements to understate management compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the stock price. In addition, the complaint alleged that the company's proxy statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of the company's shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of the grant. Also, the complaint alleged that the defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances that led the company , on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint it replaced but adding additional allegations relating to the restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense for certain stock option grants. The company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 29, 2007. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the company then filed a reply memorandum in further support of its motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2007. On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend such complaint on or before May 12, 2008. On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as the plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional allegations with respect to: (a) pre-class period option grants, (b) the professional background of certain defendants, (c) option grants to non-executive employees, (d) the restatement of our financial results for certain periods between 1996 and 2005 and (e) trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the defendants during the class period. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, and the Second Amended Class Action Complaint has been set for oral arguments in December 2009. The suit is Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla.) (Merryday, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: William E. Hoese Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. 1101 Market St., Suite 2400 Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389 Phone: 215-238-1700 E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com Representing the defendants is: Michael L. Chapman, Esq. Holland & Knight, LLP 100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601-1288 Phone: 813-227-8500 Fax: 813-229-0134 E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Accused of Cell Phone Spam in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Payless Shoesource, Collective Brands, and Mobile Broadcast Corp. dba VMBC sent spam text messages for which cell phone customers had to pay, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Kazemi v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-5142 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/Spam.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Jacobs, Esq. Bryan G. Kolton, Esq. THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD. 122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-427-4000 - and - Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq. KELLER GROVER, LLP 425 Second Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: 415-543-1305 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. continues to defend two purported class- action lawsuits over alleged violations of Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations. During the first quarter and early second quarter of 2008, the company was named as a defendant in two putative class actions on behalf of persons who purchased air travel from the Company while the company was allegedly in violation of FAA safety regulations. Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class actions include breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud/misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the U.S. Southwest predominantly serves short-haul routes with high frequencies. It complements this service with more medium to long-haul routes, including transcontinental service. SUNSET HEALTH: Suit Challenges Product's Weight Loss Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Sunset Health Products falsely claims its "48-hour Miracle Diet," can make a person "los[e] up to 10 pounds in 48 hours!" a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corp. continues to defend a putative class action complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Fitchburg Gas is the company's wholly owned distribution utility that provides both electric and natural gas service in the greater Fitchburg area of north central Massachusetts. A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on January 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester, Massachusetts. On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 Storm. On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of natural gas in Maine. Unitil has three retail distribution utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern). Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas. Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in December 2008. Unitil also provides energy brokering and advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers throughout the northeastern United States through its non- regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its subsidiary, Usource, LLC. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Eleven Employee Overtime Suits Filed Last Week ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Waste Management Inc. faces federal class action overtime complaints in 11 states: Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, New Mexico and Alabama. All were filed this week. Waste Management of Illinois was sued in Chicago; Waste Management of Wisconsin in Milwaukee; Waste Management of Michigan in Detroit; Waste Management of Massachusetts in Boston; Waste Management of New Jersey in Newark; Waste Management of New Hampshire in Concord; Waste Management of Kentucky in Louisville; Waste Management of Tennessee in Jackson; Waste Management of Kansas in Kansas City; Waste Management of New Mexico in Albuquerque; and Waste Management of Alabama in Birmingham. A copy of the Complaint in Kirk, et al. v. Waste Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-0124 (E.D. Wisc.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/30/WasteMgmt.pdf The Wisconsin Plaintiffs indicate that they were "opt-in" plaintiffs in Saleen, et al. v. Waste Management, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-4959 (D. Minn.). The Wisconsin Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Schug, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-256-3200 ********* 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 * * *