/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 232 Headlines AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal BANK OF AMERICA: Ruling Opens Treasure Trove of Merrill Documents BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Walker" Yaz Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Super. Ct. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiff's Appeal Hearing Set for Jan. 25 CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on "Off" Suit CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still No Decision on Demand Letter CENTURY 21: Recalls 17,000 Hooded Sweatshirts & Jackets CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Report On Contractor Privilege Tax Settlement COST PLUS: Recalls 300 Sets of Stainless Steel Cookware CRM HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss WRWCTNY Suit Remains Pending CRM HOLDINGS: Trade Trust Files Amended Complaint in New York CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Real Estate Trust's N.Y. Suit Dismissed CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Dismiss Transportation Trust's Suit FORD MOTOR: Suit Claims Minivan Torque Converters Are Defective GORILLA INC: Recalls 90 EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses GRAND WORLD: Recalls 641,000 "Bobby Chupete" Pacifiers L G SOURCING: Recalls 664,700 Gas Grills Sold at Lowe's Stores M-QUBE INC: Inks Global Settlement with KamberEdelson Clients OLIN CORP: Feb. 18 Hearing Set to Review $1.3 Mil. Settlement SALOMON USA: Recalls 10,000 Alpine Ski Bindings TD BANK: Motion to Dismiss Gift Card Domancy Fee Suit is Denied TOYOTA MOTOR: Two RAV4 SUV Lawsuits Filed in California Courts WAL-MART STORES: Accused in Va. Lawsuit of Selling Used Goods WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Doesn't Let JPMorgan Off the HELOC Hook WELLS FARGO: Buying Back $1.4 Billion of Auction Rate Securities YOUBET.COM: Shareholders Sue in Calif. To Get More from Churchill ZYNGA GAME: Sued, with Facebook, for Improper Credit Card Charges ********* AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the denial of his renewed motion for class certification. The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on electronic receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder. The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case. On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America signed the FACTA reform bill. The bill specifies that if a company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the law. The legislation does not specifically address the situation where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a receipt. The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff has appealed this decision. The case is stayed pending this appeal. NO further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 1, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. Ira Spiro, Esq. Spiro Moss Barness 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310-235-2468 E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com ira@spiromoss.com Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitskim, Esq. Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Phone: 213-576-8097 Fax: 213-576-8080 BANK OF AMERICA: Ruling Opens Treasure Trove of Merrill Documents ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let's hope the plaintiffs lawyers in the Bank of America securities class action suit have some big wheelbarrows, or at least terabytes of computer hard drive space," Susan Beck at The American Lawyer quips, as she reports that in a huge win last week for shareholders, Manhattan federal district court Judge Denny Chin took the unusual step of lifting the statutory discovery stay in the securities fraud case. His order will give the plaintiffs access to the mountains of documents that BofA and related defendants have already turned over to Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York attorney general and other government entities scrutinizing BofA's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. In addition, lawyers for the shareholders will be able to use transcripts of depositions taken by other investigators. They will also probably get access to communications between BofA and its lawyers that the bank turned over to various government agencies after it waived the attorney-client privilege in October. Judge Chin's ruling does not carve out an exception for privileged materials. The protective order issued by Manhattan federal district court Judge Jed Rakoff in the SEC's case against Bank of America states that BofA is not deemed to be waiving its privilege "regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits." That language can be construed to mean that BofA can still claim privilege over materials government investigators didn't ask for -- not necessarily that plaintiffs in private lawsuits can't have access to the documents the bank did turn over. The class action plaintiffs asked Judge Chin to lift the discovery stay automatically imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in an Oct. 6 letter. The three-page letter -- signed by co-lead counsel from Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check -- argues that the discovery stay, which typically remains in place until after motions to dismiss have been decided -- placed the class at a disadvantage compared to others investigating BofA's merger with Merrill. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, representing BofA, immediately objected to lifting the stay in an Oct. 8 letter. A furious exchange of letters ensued: from the plaintiffs on Oct. 14 and Nov. 13; and from Wachtell on Oct. 15, Nov. 13 and Nov. 16. Ms. Beck says the securities class action plaintiffs were itching to get the stay lifted in part because of a competing derivative case against BofA in Delaware Chancery Court, in which the plaintiffs have already survived a motion to dismiss and have begun discovery. The federal plaintiffs argued to Chin that because such defendants as former BofA CEO Kenneth Lewis have finite resources, the class's discovery should not be delayed. They reiterated that position at oral arguments before Judge Chin on Oct. 16. Wachtell maintained there was no compelling reason to lift the stay. (Here's the transcript of oral arguments.) As Zach Lowe at The Am Law Daily noted earlier this month, the Delaware plaintiffs have received permission to subpoena documents from BofA's lawyers at Wachtell and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton. They have demanded "all documents concerning the merger." In his discovery stay ruling in the federal securities case, Judge Chin concluded that the BofA securities fraud plaintiffs would be unduly prejudiced if they didn't have access to documents that have already been turned over. Without them, he wrote, the shareholders "will be less able to make informed decisions about litigation strategy." He added that this discovery won't overly burden the defendants since they've already given the documents to others. Ohio Attorney General Mark Cordray, the lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action, offered this statement: "[This] ruling by Judge Chin in the Bank of America litigation will allow our case to proceed more rapidly." Bank of America offered Ms. Beck this comment via e-mail: "It's a step in the court process. We continue to believe that we disclosed all that we were required to disclose." There was one final bit of interest in Judge Chin's ruling, Ms Beck says: the list of defense counsel at the end of the document, many of whom haven't yet entered appearances on the court docket: BofA and its outside directors in the securities class action, ERISA class action and federal derivative suit are represented by: Peter C. Hein, Esq. Eric M. Roth, Esq. Jonathan Goldin, Esq. Christopher S. Szczerban, Esq. Keola R. Whittaker, Esq. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & HATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019-6150 BofA inside directors and officers are represented by: Lawrence Portnoy, Esq. Charles S. Duggan, Esq. Douglas K. Yatter, Esq DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Merrill Lynch is represented by: Adam S. Hakki, Esq. Terence P. Gilroy, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Merrill's outside directors are represented by: Robert D. Joffe, Esq. Richard W. Clary, Esq. Julie A. North, Esq. Yonatan Even, Esq. Patrick A. Meagher, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Former Merrill CEO John Thain is represented by: Andrew J. Levander, Esq. David S. Hoffner, Esq. Jennie B. Krasner, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 The Financial Advisors involved in the Merrill-BofA merger are represented by: Gary W. Kubek, Esq. Robert H. Chandler, Esq. Corey Whiting, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 - and - Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq. Tracy R. High, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Deloitte is represented by: Brad S. Karp, Esq. Charles E. Davidow, Esq. Hallie Goldblatt, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Walker" Yaz Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Mae Walker filed a personal injury lawsuit last week against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for severe and lasting injuries caused by Bayer's birth control drug Yaz. Walker's complaint charges that Yaz is a dangerous prescription drug sold without adequate warnings about the risk of serious injuries. Walker, age 30, of Belpre, Ohio, works 40 hours a week at McDonald's and is the mother of three young children. Approximately one year after she started taking Yaz, Walker was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis ("DVT"), more commonly known as a blood clot, in her left leg. If left untreated, blood clots in the leg can break off and result in life-threatening conditions. Walker was hospitalized for three days, where she received anti-coagulation medication to reduce the swelling in her leg and treat the blood clot. "Yaz has had a devastating impact on my health and family," Walker stated. "My work requires me to stand on my feet all day. I still experience leg swelling and cannot lift heavy items. I have to be extremely careful not to ever cut myself due to the blood-thinning medication I am taking, which I have been told I must likely take the rest of my life." The complaint charges that Walker would never have developed DVT, been hospitalized, or forced to undergo numerous medical tests and procedures, had Bayer properly warned patients of the dangers of using Yaz. "The FDA's adverse event database for Yaz and Yasmin reveal a very high number of serious adverse events associated with these drugs, including strokes, heart attacks, blood clot formation, gallbladder and kidney disease, and sometimes death," commented attorney Fleishman. "Bayer failed to warn doctors and consumers that Yaz and Yasmin are actually more dangerous than previous generations of oral contraception pills." The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, where Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is located. Legal Resources for Patients Injured By Yaz and Yasmin Birth Control Drugs The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a medical device or prescription drug with dangerous, undisclosed side effects. If you or a family member have suffered a serious injury or a loved one died after being prescribed Yasmin or Yaz, please visit http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/yasmin-yaz.htm to learn more about your legal rights and submit a complaint. Personal injury lawyers at Lieff Cabraser will promptly review each case submitted without charge or obligation. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiff's Appeal Hearing Set for Jan. 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the plaintiff's appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision dismissing the the case against Centerline Holding Co., has been set for Jan. 25, 2010, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative class actions was filed against the company and certain of its officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, five other, essentially duplicative putative class actions were also filed in the same court. The complaint in each case asserted that the company and other defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion the company's December 2007 transaction with Freddie Mac. On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group, which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for these cases. Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the company's announcement of the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the company's business model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007 through Dec. 28, 2007. The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and the motion was granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12, 2009. Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12, 2009 and the Defendants filed their reply to the opposition motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009. On Aug. 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to replead. On Sept. 2, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court has indicated in a scheduling order that the appeal will be heard no earlier than Jan. 25, 2010. Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/-- provides real estate financial and asset management services, including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments, supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for commercial real estate. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on "Off" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Centerline Holding Co. still awaits the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery on the settlement in a putative class and derivative action lawsuit. On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative class and derivative action, entitled Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468- VCP, was filed against the company, its Board of Trustees and TRCLP in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit concerns the company's sale of a new issue of convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of The Related Companies LP. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from them as well as injunctive relief against all defendants. Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New York and in the Delaware Chancery Court. Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees breached their fiduciary duties to us by allegedly violating the federal securities laws. The company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against the company in any of those cases. The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case are: -- On Jan. 18, 2008, Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No. 100861-08, was filed against the company and its board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court; -- On Jan. 25, 2008, Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al., No. 08 CV 00912, was filed against the company and its board of trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; -- On Jan. 30, 2008, Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No. 3511, was filed against the company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. in the Delaware Court of Chancery; -- On Feb. 22, 2008, Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ. 01827, was filed against the company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; -- On Feb. 27, 2008, Broy v. Centerline Holding Company et al., No. 08 CV 01971, was filed against the company and certain of its officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; -- On April 10, 2008, Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index No. 601043-08, was filed against the company and its board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and -- On April 10, 2008, Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index No. 601044-08, was filed against the company and its board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court. On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of trustees in Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class action on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who qualified to purchase the company's 11.0% Preferred Shares pursuant to the rights offering but who did not do so. In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants reached a basis of settlement which would require a reduction in the rate payable on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by TRCLP and its affiliates to 9.5% and an increase in the conversion price from $10.75 to $12.35. A Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009 and a fairness hearing for approval of the settlement was held May 18, 2009. At that time the District Court entered a Final Judgment approving the Settlement, which will become effective once the Delaware Court of Chancery dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters with prejudice. A settlement with the plaintiff in the Off case based on the rights offering was negotiated, but on Nov. 26, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected the settlement and stayed any further proceedings in the action, pending resolution of the Carfagno case. As a result, several of the other derivative lawsuits that had been voluntarily stayed by the plaintiffs, including the Kramer, Ciszerk and Kanter actions are now subject to various stipulations deferring further activity in those actions until a final decision on the Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno or, in the case of Kastner and Kostecka, pending further activity in the consolidated securities class action. The Carfagno Stipulation of Settlement is contingent upon the dismissal with prejudice of the overlapping Off and Ciszerk actions pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 28, 2009 the defendants filed a motion for dismissal of the Off and Ciszerk matters in the Delaware Court of Chancery based upon the approved Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno and the principle of res judicata. The defendants are awaiting the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Counsel for the plaintiff Off has also filed a motion for allowance of fees. The defendants opposed this motion and are also awaiting a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery on this issue. No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/-- provides real estate financial and asset management services, including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments, supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for commercial real estate. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Still No Decision on Demand Letter ------------------------------------------------------ Outside members of Centerline Holding Co.'s Board of Trustees have received a letter from one of its purported shareholders demanding that they investigate potential claims against the companies officers and others arising out of the allegations asserted in the federal securities litigation. The independent Trustees determined, at their meeting on March 11, 2009, to defer further consideration of the letter until after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had decided the motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS). No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/-- provides real estate financial and asset management services, including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments, supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for commercial real estate. CENTURY 21: Recalls 17,000 Hooded Sweatshirts & Jackets ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Century 21 Promotions, of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 17,000 Youth Hooded Sweatshirts and Jackets. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines -- see http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/208.pdf -- to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves children's sweatshirts and jackets sold in sizes XS - XXL in colors: navy blue, black, brown, pink, red, white, green, grey, blue, yellow, and orange. The recalled garments contain the following embroidered logos: "Montauk," "Avalon," "Stone Harbor," "Cape May," "Sea Isle," "Ocean City," "Alaska," "Nantucket," "Maine," "Long Beach Island," "Lavallette," "Seaside Park," "Newport," "Monterey," "Carmel," "Skaneateles," "1000 Islands," "Block Island" and "Seattle." A picture of the recalled product is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10041.html The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold at Montauk Clothing, Riptide East, Shirt Shops of Cape May, Summer Sweats, Rip Current Sportswear, B&B Dept. Stores, Trapper Jack's, Annie & The Tees, Emporium, Inc., The Trading Co., Mackerel Jack's, Carmel Classics, Rolands, The Ship Gift Shop, Star Dept. Store, Seattle Shirt and Simply Seattle from September 2005 through September 2009 for between $25 and $35. Most stores are located in New England with two stores each in Seattle, Washington and Alaska. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to the place of purchase for a full refund. For additional information, contact Century 21 Promotions at (800) 935-2100 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Report On Contractor Privilege Tax Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vision Ventures Construction Services, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, et al., (09-CVS-3551), was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. The Plaintiff Class of building contractors and construction companies asserted that they were improperly charged with a privilege tax in excess of $10.00 per year during three prior years of tax collection. After negotiation between the parties, a settlement was reached and the court approved the terms of the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the total amount of the settlement was $2,617,734 representing all privilege taxes paid in excess of $10.00 per year during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 tax years. There were 2,502 individuals or businesses which were members of the class. Over 90% of class members have been located and paid settlement benefits as of October 15, 2009. 248 class members have yet to be located. A total of $2,092,280.40 of a total of $2,205,304.58 has been paid in settlement benefits to members of the class (a 94% ratio). Attorneys' fees of $391,865.96 were paid to Plaintiffs' counsel, which represented a fifteen percent award as approved by the court for prosecuting the case and implementing the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel was also reimbursed for $2,261.19 in administrative costs. Excess tax payments reflected by Class members who opted out of the class settlement totaled $5,354.00. The Defendant City of Charlotte was reimbursed $12,948.27 in administrative costs. Unclaimed settlement funds in the amount $113,024.19 are being distributed as provided by Chapter 116B of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Plaintiff Class was represented by Jameson P. Wells, Esq., of Charlotte, North Carolina. This summary was published in The Charlotte Observer by the attorney representing the Defendant pursuant to an order of the North Carolina Superior Court dated November 4, 2009. COST PLUS: Recalls 300 Sets of Stainless Steel Cookware ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cost Plus Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 300 sets of stainless steel cookware manufactured by Kraftwares, of Mahalaxmi, Mumbai in India. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The handles on the cookware can break, posing a burn hazard to consumers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves three stainless steel cookware sets: Description SKU Number Four-piece multi cooker set 422698 Three-piece steamer set 422699 1.5 quart egg poacher 422700 The SKU numbers can be found on the sales receipt. The recalled cookware was sold at Cost Plus World Market stores nationwide in August 2009. The 4-piece multi cooker was sold for $30, the 3-piece steamer set for $15 and the 1.5QT egg poacher for $15. Pictures of the recalled products are available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10044.html Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cookware and return it to any Cost Plus or World Market store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Cost Plus toll free at (877) 967-5362 between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., ET, anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.worldmarket.com/ CRM HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss WRWCTNY Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former members of the Wholesale Retail Workers' Compensation Trust of New York remains pending in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Nov. 24, 2008, FS Kids, LLC, Mask Foods, Inc., Valu Home Centers, Inc., KBLM Foods, Inc., KDJB Foods, Inc., Gaige & Son Grocery, Inc., TJ's Market, Inc., BB&T Supermarkets Inc., BNR- Larson, LLC, and Gift Express of New York, Inc., all of which were former members of Wholesale Retail Workers' Compensation Trust of New York (WRWCTNY), on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York Supreme Court, Erie County. On Aug. 26, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking class action certification and alleging that CRM: (1) breached its contract with WRWCTNY; (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to WRWCTNY; (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to WRWCTNY; (4) was negligent in administering WRWCTNY; (5) engaged in deceptive business practices; (6) was unjustly enriched; and (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments that they may incur. The plaintiffs are seeking damages arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several liability for the deficit of WRWCTNY which, as of Sept. 30, 2007, was estimated at $19 million, and from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount presently undetermined. On Sept. 14, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The company's main business activities include underwriting primary workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers' compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers' compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally, fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups in California. The company reports its business in four segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. CRM HOLDINGS: Trade Trust Files Amended Complaint in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The Trade Industry Trust Workers' Compensation Trust for Manufacturers filed, on Nov. 10, 2009, an amended complaint against CRM Holdings, Ltd. in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On March 6, 2009, Armstrong Brands, Inc., Metal Cladding, Inc., TREK, Inc., Petri Baking Products, Inc., Time Cap Laboratories, Inc., Custom Coatings, Inc., GPM Associates, LLC, d/b/a Forbes Products, PJR Industries, Inc., d/b/a Southside Precast Products, Lakeshore Metals, Inc. Duro-Shed, Inc., Tooling Enterprises, Inc. Northeast Concrete Products, Inc., d/b/a Concrete Building Supply and Superior Steel Studs, Inc., all of which were former members of Trade Industry Trust Workers' Compensation Trust for Manufacturers (the "Trade Trust"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that CRM: (1) breached its contract with the Trade Trust; (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the Trade Trust; (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to Trade Trust; (4) was negligent in administering the Trade Trust; (5) engaged in deceptive business practices; (6) was unjustly enriched; and (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments that they may incur. The plaintiffs are seeking damages: a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several liability for the deficit of the Trade Trust which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at $4.9 million, (b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount presently undetermined, (c) from potentially being liable for the costs of liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and (d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Trade Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM and the Trade Trust. On Aug. 17, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The motion is currently pending before the court. On Nov. 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging substantially the same claims and damages as contained in their original complaint. CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The company's main business activities include underwriting primary workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers' compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers' compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally, fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups in California. The company reports its business in four segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Real Estate Trust's N.Y. Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former members of the Real Estate Management Trust of New York remains pending in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 18, 2009, Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip LLC, Anchor Building Maintenance Corp., Conifer Realty, LLC, Constanza Enterprises, Inc., Court Plaza Senior Apartments, L.P., John Wesley Village II, Midland Management, LLC, Niagara River World, Inc., Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corp., and Wen Management Corp., all of which were former members of the Real Estate Management Trust of New York (the "Real Estate Trust"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that CRM: (1) breached its contract with the Real Estate Trust; (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the Real Estate Trust; (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to the Real Estate Trust; (4) was negligent in administering the Real Estate Trust; (5) engaged in deceptive business practices; (6) was unjustly enriched; and (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments that they may incur. The plaintiffs are seeking damages: (a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several liability for the deficit of the Real Estate Trust which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at $1.6 million, (b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount presently undetermined, (c) from potentially being liable for the costs of liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and (d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Real Estate Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM and the Real Estate Trust. On Oct. 20, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The company's main business activities include underwriting primary workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers' compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers' compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally, fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups in California. The company reports its business in four segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. CRM HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Dismiss Transportation Trust's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former members of the Transportation Industry Workers' Compensation Trust remains pending in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 20, 2009, 70 Sheldon, Inc., Advance Relocation Storage, Inc., All County Bus, LLC, Alpha Services of Westchester, Inc., A. T. & A. Trucking Corp., B. Pariso Transport, Inc., Carmen M. Pariso, Inc., Covered Wagon Train, Inc., Exclusive Ambulette Service, Inc. Ficel Transport, Inc., North Shore Ambulance and Oxygen Service, Inc., Rivlab Transportation Corp., Woodland Leasing Co., Inc., all of which were former members of the Transportation Industry Workers' Compensation Trust (the "Transportation Trust"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that CRM: (1) breached its contract with the Transportation Trust; (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the Transportation Trust; (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to the Transportation Trust; (4) was negligent in administering the Transportation Trust; (5) engaged in deceptive business practices; (6) was unjustly enriched; and (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments that they may incur. The plaintiffs are seeking damages: (a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several liability for the deficit of the Transportation Trust which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at $6.1 million, (b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount presently undetermined, (c) from potentially being liable for the costs of liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and (d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Transportation Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM and the Transportation Trust. On Oct. 20, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The company's main business activities include underwriting primary workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers' compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers' compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally, fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups in California. The company reports its business in four segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. FORD MOTOR: Suit Claims Minivan Torque Converters Are Defective --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey 2004-06 minivans have defective torque converters that disengage the transmission while the engine is running, a class action claims in Minneapolis Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Diagle, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 09-cv-03214 (D. Minn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/18/Ford.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Craig S. Davis, Esq. Matthew B. Johnson, Esq. LOCKBRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2197 Telephone: 612-339-6900 - and - Jay P. Saltzman, Esq. SCHOENGOLD & SPORN, P.C. 19 Fulton St., Suite 406 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: 212-964-0046 GORILLA INC: Recalls 90 EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses ------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of about 90 EXO-Tech Safety Harnesses. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The webbing of the waist belt on the safety harness is not routed through the lineman's loop located on the front of the harness near waist level. Since the loops are not properly anchored to the harness webbing but are attached only through stitching not intended to restrain a user during a fall, they that can pull away from the harness when force is applied, leaving the user unrestrained. In addition, the manufacturer of the harness used a previously untested carabiner connector located at the end of the tether at the back of harness, which is the portion of the tether that attaches to the tree. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The safety harness, used as a fall restraint for hunting, is comprised of two leg straps and two shoulder straps, which connect to a waist belt and padded back support. There is a long, black tether strap at the top rear of the safety harness, which has grey and red accents. The name EXO-Tech is located on the right front shoulder strap and the name Gorilla is located on the left front should strap both in white lettering. Similar to a shirt tag, there is a white manufacturing label on the inside of the back of the harness with the model number 45111 and manufacturing dates, 4/22/2009 or 6/26/2009. These are the only harnesses recalled. A picture of the recalled product is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10042.html The recalled products were manufactured in the Philippines and sold at Cabelas, Bass Pro and at various sporting goods stores nationwide from May 2009 to August 2009 for about $200. Consumers should immediately stop using the harness and contact Gorilla Inc. to receive a refund. For additional information, contact Gorilla Inc. at (877) 685-7817 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gorillatreestands.com/or write to the firm at Gorilla, Inc., P.O. 378, Flushing, MI 48433 or 3475 Eastman Drive, Flushing, MI 48433. GRAND WORLD: Recalls 641,000 "Bobby Chupete" Pacifiers ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Grand World Inc., of Maspeth, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 641,000 "Bobby Chupete" Pacifiers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards. The pacifier mouth guard is too small, posing a choking hazard to infants and toddlers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves "Bobby Chupete" pacifiers. The pacifiers have a ring-shaped handle and heart-shaped mouth guard with two ventilation holes. The nipple is made of latex. "Bobby Chupete" and a picture of an infant are printed on the pacifier's packaging. The pacifier was sold in aqua, red, white or yellow colors at various retail stores nationwide from November 2004 through July 2009 for about $1, and manufactured in China. Pictures of the recalled products are available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10040.html Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from infants and toddlers and contact Grand World for a refund or a replacement pacifier. For additional information, call Grand World collect at (718) 326-7786 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.grandworldinc.com/ L G SOURCING: Recalls 664,700 Gas Grills Sold at Lowe's Stores -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada announced a voluntary recall of about 664,700 Perfect Flame SLG Series Gas Grills manufactured by Lucas Innovation Inc., of China, and imported by L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, N.C. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The burners can deteriorate causing irregular flames and the lids of some models can catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards to the consumer. L G Sourcing has received about 40 reports of fires from the burners deteriorating and about 23 reports of the lids catching fire. The firm is aware of one report of an eye injury requiring surgery and 21 incidents of minor burns to the hands, arms or face. The recalled grills are SLG series "Perfect Flame" brand outdoor propane or natural gas grills. The grills are stainless steel and painted black or gray metal. The model numbers affected by this recall are listed below. The model number can be found in the compartment under the cooking chamber. No other Perfect Flame model numbers are included in this recall. Model Replacement Burners Replacement Lid ----- ------------------- --------------- SLG2006B Yes No SLG2006BN Yes No SLG2006C Yes No SLG2006CN Yes No SLG2007A Yes Yes SLG2007B Yes Yes SLG2007BN Yes Yes SLG2007D Yes No SLG2007DN Yes No SLG2008A Yes Yes Pictures of the recalled product are available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10043.html The recalled grills were sold exclusively at Lowe's retail outlets in the U.S. from September 2005 through May 2009 for between US$200 and US$550 and in Canada from December 2007 through May 2009 for between C$200 and C$250. Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact L G Sourcing to receive free replacement burners and, depending on the model of the grill owned, a free replacement lid. For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (888) 840-9590 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com/ M-QUBE INC: Inks Global Settlement with KamberEdelson Clients ------------------------------------------------------------- A global settlement agreement was reached promising to conclude numerous separate class action lawsuits filed throughout the country involving claims that unauthorized charges for "mobile content" were placed on consumers' cell phone bills. The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois on November 3, 2009, entitles wireless customers across the country to receive refunds for unauthorized mobile content charges and requires that the defendants remain in compliance with the consumer best practices guidelines established by the Mobile Marketing Association. The defendant, m-Qube, Inc., has denied any wrongful conduct. Mobile content refers to products such as ringtones, games, graphics, news, and other alerts that generally are received via text messages on mobile phones and are charged directly to customers' mobile phone bills. Although a relatively new form of commerce, mobile content has evolved to form a large and increasingly important industry. Defendant m-Qube acts as an "aggregator" in the industry, which means that it acts as a middleman between numerous merchants that sell mobile content and the wireless carriers who provide wireless phone and data service. See www.mQubeSettlement.com for complete details. The lawsuit alleged that there were not adequate safeguards in place to ensure that customers are only billed for services they agreed to purchase. The resolution of this suit follows several other recent settlements in the mobile content industry related to unauthorized charges. Chicago attorneys Jay Edelson, Esq., Myles McGuire, Esq., Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq., and Ryan D. Andrews, Esq., of KamberEdelson, LLC, were appointed by the Court to serve as the attorneys for the class. "m-Qube has decided to demonstrate leadership in improving this growing industry and we applaud them for it," explained Edelson, "It took years of hard fought litigation and negotiation to get to this point." Class members are encouraged to go to: http://www.mQubeSettlement.com/ to learn more details about the settlement and how to apply for refunds. Class members may also call the claims administrator directly at 1-800-207-0343 or class counsel at 1-866-354-3015. m-Qube, Inc., is represented by: James L. Cooper, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER, LLC 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 OLIN CORP: Feb. 18 Hearing Set to Review $1.3 Mil. Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CLARENCE COLLINS, JR., et al., ) CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, ) 3-03-cv-945 (CFD) v. ) OLIN CORPORATION, ) Defendant. ) SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO OWNED CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE NEWHALL NEIGHBORHOOD OF HAMDEN, CT ON MAY 2, 2003 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a hearing will be held on February 18, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Christopher F. Droney, United States Courthouse, 450 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action for the sum of $1,396,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, therefore, this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendant as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated October 20, 2009; (3) whether the plan for allocating the Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Action, together with interest thereon. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Clarence Collins, Jr., et al v. Olin Corporation, c/o Cohen and Wolf, P.C. 1115 Broad Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 or calling 1-203-749-5568 or sending an e-mail to newhallclassaction@gmail.com or by downloading this information at http://www.newhallclassaction.com/ If you are a Class member, in order to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than February 1, 2010, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the above address, by December 18, 2009. Any objection to the settlement must be filed with the Court and mailed or delivered so it is received no later than January 18, 2010, by: Counsel for Plaintiffs: Monte E. Frank, Esq. COHEN AND WOLF, P.C. 1115 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Counsel for Defendant: Michael H. Wetmore, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: November 4, 2009 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SALOMON USA: Recalls 10,000 Alpine Ski Bindings ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Salomon USA, of Ogden, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 Alpine Ski Bindings manufactured by Salomon SAS, of France, that were manufactured in Romania. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The toe component of the ski bindings could fail to fully secure the ski boot to the ski binding, causing the binding to release unexpectedly. This could cause the skier to lose control or fall and suffer injuries. The firm has received two reports of injuries, including a broken leg and a knee injury. This recall involves the Salomon alpine ski bindings with models LZ 7, LZ 8, LZ 9, LZ 7 SR, LZ 8 SR, LZ 8 SC, and J LZ 9 and the Atomic ski bindings with model Evox 2.8, Evox 2.8+, Evox 2.8++, and FFG 8. "Salomon" or "Atomic" and the respective model number are displayed on the ski bindings. The toe components bear a production date code ending in "8" that can be found on the center plate where the toe of a ski boot contacts the toe component of the bindings. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10045.html The recalled products were sold by authorized Salomon USA and Atomic USA ski dealers nationwide from September 2008 through October 2009 for between $90 and $160. Consumers should stop using these ski bindings immediately and return the Salomon-brand ski bindings to any authorized Salomon ski dealer, or return the Atomic-brand ski bindings to any authorized Atomic ski dealer, for a free inspection and replacement of the toe component. For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (877) 789-5111 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Mountain TIme, Monday through Friday or e-mail qualityinfo.usa@salomon-sports.com or visit the firm's Web sites at http://www.salomon.com/or http://www.atomicsnow.com/ TD BANK: Motion to Dismiss Gift Card Domancy Fee Suit is Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In a major setback for banks, Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports, federal judges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have refused to dismiss a pair of class action consumer suits against TD Bank over allegedly deceptive practices used to market gift cards. In both decisions, the judges rejected TD Bank's argument that such suits, brought under state consumer protection laws, are pre-empted by the federal National Bank Act. At issue in both cases are so-called "dormancy fees" charged by TD Bank that reduce the value of gift cards each month after a period of non-use. Typically, if a card is not used for more than six months, the bank begins charging a monthly fee of $2.50, the suits say, so that a $25 card could be completely depleted before the holder makes a single purchase. Gift cards are a $300 billion annual business, according to court papers, and consumer advocates have estimated that about 10 percent of the value of gift cards is never used, yielding a windfall profit to the issuers. The central claim in the suits is that consumers are never properly warned of the fees, either at the time of purchase or in the materials that accompany the cards when they are presented as gifts. The lead plaintiffs lawyers in both cases are: Leonard V. Fodera, Esq. Michael P. Lalli, Esq. SILVERMAN & FODERA 1835 Market St., #2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2910 Telephone: (215) 561-2100 TD Bank's lawyers: Stephen G. Harvey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: 215-981-4000 - and - Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq. Eric J. Goldberg, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400 Princeton, NJ 08543-5276 Telephone: 609-452-0808 moved for dismissal of both cases, arguing that the National Bank Act and the regulations promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency completely pre-empt such claims. Congress, the defense team argued, intended the NBA and OCC regulations to establish a uniform federal regulatory scheme for national banks. And since OCC regulations control the sale of gift cards, any lawsuits brought under state consumer protection laws would conflict with the NBA and OCC regulations. In an interview, Mr. Harvey said TD Bank won on several key issues when the plaintiffs lawyers conceded that they were barred from suing over the amount or the timing of the gift card fees because such claims would be pre-empted. As a result, he said, the suits focused only on allegedly deceptive marketing practices that violate state consumer laws by failing to properly and adequately notify purchasers and holders of the cards of the existence of the fee scheme. Now federal judges on both sides of the Delaware River have sided with the plaintiffs and held that such consumer suits can no longer be barred under any pre-emption doctrine. In Mwantembe v. TD Bank, Case No. 09-cv-00135 (E.D. Pa.), U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Savage found that a decision early this year by the U.S. Supreme Court "caused a sea change in the perception of the pre-emptive effect of the NBA and the OCC regulations." Judge Savage found that prior to the high court's decision in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, the lower federal courts "appeared to be expanding the scope of federal pre-emption for national banks." But Cuomo "reverses this trend," Judge Savage said, "and has dispelled the popular notion that all state laws that affect national banks in any way or to any degree are pre-empted." In Cuomo, the New York state attorney general sought information "in lieu of a subpoena" from national banks to determine whether they had violated New York's fair lending laws. The district court enjoined the attorney general from enforcing those state laws through demands for records or judicial proceedings, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, citing the pre- emptive effect of the NBA and OCC regulations. But the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, holding instead that courts must distinguish between a sovereign state's visitorial powers and its enforcement power. Only visitorial powers are pre-empted, the justices said, leaving the states free to enforce their laws so long as they are not contrary to or expressly pre-empted by federal law. The decision cleared the way for state attorneys general to file suit against national banks for violating state consumer protection laws. TOYOTA MOTOR: Two RAV4 SUV Lawsuits Filed in California Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota knew its 2001-2003 RAV4 sports utility vehicles have "a dangerous safety defect that causes the engine control modules and/or automatic transmissions to fail prematurely," but sold them anyway and won't repair or replace them, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Milligan v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05418 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/ToyotaRAV4.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 Fremont Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: 206-816-6603 - and - Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. MERRILL, NOMURA & MOLINEUX LLP 350 Rose Street Danville, CA 94526 Telephone: 925-833-1000 Courthouse News Service reports that Another class action, in L.A. Federal Court, says Toyota concealed a dangerously defective throttle control system in its 2001 Lexus and 2002-03 Lexus and Camrys. A copy of the Complaint in Kmetz, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 09-cv-08478 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/ToyotaLA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Heather M. Peterson, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2361 Rosecrans Ave., 4th Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: 310-536-1000 WAL-MART STORES: Accused in Va. Lawsuit of Selling Used Goods ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman says Wal-Mart sold her a used video camera as new, and she can prove it because her daughters saw graphic pornography on it. The federal class action accuses Wal-Mart of negligence and violating consumer laws. April Cortez says her 10- and 13-year-old girls found the "graphic pornography" on the camera, which left them "both crying hysterically" with "severe emotional trauma." She says that when she saw the porn to which her daughters had been exposed, "she became emotionally distraught and physically ill herself, to such a degree that she was incapable of comforting and calming her daughters at that moment, ultimately requiring her husband to deal with the situation." Ms. Cortez says Wal-Mart sells used and returned merchandise as new without telling its customers. She claims that if Wal-Mart employees discover that a returned item has been damaged or is missing a component, they simply slap a discount tag on it, usually 10%, and put it back on the shelves. The new price tag looks identical to the original and contains no warnings that the merchandise has been used, she says. "Wal-Mart recognizes that if it disclosed to the public that an item had been previously used or returned, it could not successfully re-sell the item for 90-100% of its original price in most instances," Ms. Cortez says. She says that's how her young daughters were exposed to pornography on a presumptively new camera. Wal-Mart chooses not to disclose to customers that merchandise has been returned, so it can increase its profits, Cortez says. She claims that Wal-Mart has a history of putting returned merchandise back on the shelves without inspecting it, and that numerous complaints have been filed by consumers who bring their "new" electronics home only to find the box filled with rocks, paper or other materials. She seeks punitive damages and attorney fees. A copy of the Complaint in Cortez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-00725 (E.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/WalMartPorn.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: 703-273-7770 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Doesn't Let JPMorgan Off the HELOC Hook ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a victory for former home equity line of credit (HELOC) customers of Washington Mutual Bank ("WAMU") who have been harmed by Chase's broad-based HELOC credit reductions and suspensions, a federal court last Thursday denied a motion by JPMorgan Chase Bank (NYSE:JPM) that sought to require former WaMu customers to sue the F.D.I.C. -- even in those instances where Chase itself is alleged to have acted illegally. Cupertino homeowners Jeffrey and Jenifer Schulken, who originated their HELOC with WaMu, had their line suspended by Chase earlier this year when Chase claimed the couple's finances would not allow them to make their HELOC payments. This is despite the fact the Schulkens enjoy excellent credit scores, maintain steady incomes, always make their payments on time and even pay extra toward the principal. The Schulkens responded by filing a lawsuit seeking class action status on behalf of all Chase customers who have had their HELOCs suspended or reduced unlawfully. Chase responded by filing a motion to dismiss that argued it had no responsibility to former WaMu borrowers. According to Chase, although it purchased WaMu's assets, it supposedly did not acquire any liability -- even for its own misconduct. "Chase's unprecedented position was fairly simple: Chase can harm former WaMu customers with impunity, and anyone who suffers damages should have to go sue the F.D.I.C.," says the Schulkens' attorney Jay Edelson, Esq., whose law firm, KamberEdelson LLC, has filed similar class actions against Chase, WaMu, Wells Fargo and Citibank. As Mr. Edelson explains, "Under Chase's reasoning, it could seize former WaMu borrowers' homes by force and throw people out on the street, and the only recourse would be for the former WaMu customers to sue the F.D.I.C. The court saw through Chase's arrogant -- and frankly scary -- position." Chase purchased WaMu from the F.D.I.C. in September 2008 for $1.9 billion. Through creative "purchase accounting," experts have forecast that Chase will realize a $29 billion windfall as a result of the acquisition. "Its have your cake and $29 billion too," continued Edelson. "Chase was supposed to use the bailout money to lend to consumers -- not to freeze up credit lines. More than anything, it shows that Chase's attitude is that no matter how poorly it behaves, the government should be on the hook for its improper acts. Its as if the bailout taught it nothing." Edelson had called upon Congress to act, a movement that is gaining significant support. "Call your Congressman and ask them where the bailout money went. It isn't being used to get credit flowing, that's for sure." Mr. Edelson is joined in the suit by KamberEdelson attorneys Evan Meyers, Esq., Steven Lezell, Esq., and Irina Slavina, Esq. About KamberEdelson Jay Edelson, Esq., testified before the U.S. Senate in 2008 in connection with the contaminated pet food recall, in which his law firm was lead counsel and achieved a result in a settlement of over $24 million. He has a reputation for bringing and winning high profile class action lawsuits. Just last year, Edelson settled a nationwide case involving lead paint contamination with Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Wooden Railway children's toys that was valued at over $30 million. WELLS FARGO: Buying Back $1.4 Billion of Auction Rate Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Miller at The Recorder reports that Wells Fargo & Co. will buy back an estimated $700 million in troubled auction-rate securities from California investors under terms of a settlement announced by Attorney General Jerry Brown last week. The banking giant will also pay the AG's office $600,000 to cover investigation expenses and monitoring of the settlement's terms. In exchange, Mr. Brown will drop the civil lawsuit he filed against Wells Fargo in San Francisco Superior Court in April. "Wells Fargo convinced thousands of investors to purchase auction-rate securities with promises of robust returns and liquidity, but when the market collapsed, investors were left out in the cold," Mr. Brown said. In a separate deal reached with the North American Securities Administrators Association -- which included investigators from the California Department of Corporations and other states' regulators -- the San Francisco-based banker has agreed to repurchase non-liquid auction rate securities totaling approximately $700 million from non-California residents. The Department of Corporations is finalizing a separate consent order with Wells Fargo and will receive an undetermined amount of penalties from the company. "We have been working with ARS issuers since the auction rate market froze, and while there has been progress, redemptions by issuers have not occurred as fast as anyone would have hoped or predicted," Wells Fargo Investments CEO Charles Daggs said in a statement. "We are glad to have resolved this for our customers." Mr. Brown accused three subsidiaries of the bank of peddling the debt instruments as safe, cash-like investments that could be sold at periodic auctions. But as the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit, the auctions failed and investors could no longer cash out. Under terms of the deal with Mr. Brown, individuals, charities, trusts and corporations who purchased auction-rate securities worth less than $10 million as of Jan. 31, 2008, are eligible for the buyback. The securities had to be purchased before Feb. 14, 2008, and they had to have failed at auction at least once since then. Customers who sold their securities at a loss between Feb. 13, 2008, and Nov. 19, 2009, will be offered the difference between their sale price and par, plus "reasonable" interest, according to the agreement. Since 2008, lawsuits and investigations brought by state regulators have pressured firms to repurchase more than $61 billion in auction-rate securities, according to the North American Securities Administrators Association. At Girard Gibbs, the San Francisco firm serving as lead counsel in 13 auction-rate securities class actions, attorneys were still reviewing terms of the attorney general's settlement to see whether their clients will be made whole. While some plaintiffs have recovered their investments through past broker-dealer buybacks, others, particularly corporations, have been excluded by terms of legal settlements, said Girard Gibbs' Managing Partner, Daniel Girard, Esq. Settlement negotiators often argue that corporations should have known better the risks of auction-rate securities than individual investors, Mr. Girard said. Mr. Girard and his colleagues contend that no one could have known the risky nature of the investment vehicles without "inside information." Girard Gibbs still has litigation pending on behalf of investors excluded from settlements as well as plaintiffs targeting securities re-marketers that have not settled with regulators. YOUBET.COM: Shareholders Sue in Calif. To Get More from Churchill ---------------------------------------------------------------- at Courthouse News Service reports that Youbet.com is selling itself too cheaply to Churchill Downs, for $127 million, shareholders say in Los Angeles Superior Court. ZYNGA GAME: Sued, with Facebook, for Improper Credit Card Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook and game developer Zynga help to scam customers with misleading ads that dupe them into revealing their telephone and credit card numbers and then bill them for bogus charges, a class action claims in Federal Court. Players of Facebook games, including "Farmville" and "Mafia Wars," say they were scammed by misleading ads that persuade them to exchange their credit card and cell phone numbers in exchange for virtual cash to use in video games. Lead plaintiff Rebecca Swift says she gave her cell phone number to a Zynga advertiser in exchange for a code redeemable for "Yocash," virtual money to use in the Zynga game "Yoville." Swift says that as a result, her cell phone was charged three times for $9.99 without her knowledge or permission. On another occasion, Swift says she agreed to participate in a free trial for a green tea herbal supplement for more "Yocash." She provided a Zynga advertiser with her credit card number, and says she tried to cancel the trial before it ended. Nonetheless, Ms. Swift says she was charged more than $165 for the green tea supplements and was unable to get a refund. At least 10 percent of Facebook's revenue is generated from users' participation in the "special offers," and Zynga has made from $33 million to $84 million from unwitting Facebook gamers who responded to the misleading ads, the complaint states. The complaint cites a speech it attributes to Zynga CEO Mark Pincus, in which Pincus allegedly admits duping users for profit: "So I funded the company myself but I did every horrible thing in the book to just get revenues right away." In response to media criticism, Zynga this month banned all special offers promoted through its games and Facebook also tried to bar the misleading ads, according to the complaint. But the class claims that neither company has offered to reimburse them for the money they lost. The class demands restitution for unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Swift v. Zynga Game Network Inc. and Facebook, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05443 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/19/ZyngaFace.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Kershaw, Esq. C. Brooks Cutter, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP 401 Watt Street Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: 916-448-9800 - and - Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. Ian J. Barlow, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916-492-1100 ********* 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 * * *