/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 252 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Face "Ross" Suit in Ohio AMCORE FINANCIAL: Accused of Stealing from Health Savings Accts. APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Thee Suits Over Planner Semitool Buy AVERY DENNISON: Settling Tennessee Labelstock Suit for $2 Mil. BIG LOTS: Court Denies Writ of Mandamus for Case Jurisdiction BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York BIG LOTS: Class Certification Denied in Los Angeles Suit BIG LOTS: Class Certification in Consolidated Suit Denied CALIFORNIA: Furloughed Workers Sue for Labor Law Violations COMTECH TELECOMMS: Pompano Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Accused of Unconstitutional Searches DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 447,000 Infant Car Seats & Carriers GOOGLE INC: French Court Rules Against Google in Books Case ICO INC: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from Wildcat Spider JEFFERSON COUNTY: Dentist's Tax Suit May Become a Class Action JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval MERCK & CO: Calif. Court Declines Class Certification Invitation NETFLIX: Accused in Calif. of Subscriber Privacy Violations NATIONAL CITY BANK: Sued in Tenn. for Reducing HELOC Credit Lines PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in EDNY PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls 700,000 Packages of Vicks Dayquil UNITED STATES: Fees in Indian Trust Case "Well Below the Norm" UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Final Approval of $40 Million Settlement WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending WAL-MART STORES: March 10 Trial Set in Kansa EEOC Lawsuit XTO ENERGY: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from ExxonMobile ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., are continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006. She, along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006. The parties engaged in discovery. On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims in the action. The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004. On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed partial settlement. The partial settlement does not affect claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing on April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the plaintiffs' remaining claims. On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie stores in California from May 1, 2004, through the future date upon which the action concludes. No further developments were reported in the company's Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men, women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL brands. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Face "Ross" Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud suit styled Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 05-cv-00819 (S.D. Ohio.) (Sargus, J.). The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005, and Aug. 16, 2005. The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005. The suit also named as defendants the company's officers. In September and October of 2005, five other purported class- action suits were filed against the company and other defendants with the same court. All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005. On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. The company joined in that motion. On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings. A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2006. On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. On Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their purported class. After briefings and argument, the motion was submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21, 2009. On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit permission to appeal the class certification order and on Aug. 24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted leave to appeal. No further developments were reported in the company's Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs is: Keith W. Schneider, Esq. MAGUIRE & SCHNEIDER 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-224-1222 Fax: 614-224-1236 E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com Representing the defendants are: Philip Albert Brown, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Phone: 614-464-6400 Fax: 614-464-6400 E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com - and - Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER 65 E. State Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-4294 Phone: 614-462-5400 Fax: 614-462-5422 E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com - and - Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. MCNAMARA AND MCNAMARA 88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-228-6131 E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us AMCORE FINANCIAL: Accused of Stealing from Health Savings Accts. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Amcore Financial stole money from more than 1,000 health savings accounts, according to a federal class action. Named plaintiff Susan Patton claims millions of dollars are missing due to Amcore's failure to prevent commingling of assets and misappropriations, and class members have no access to their accounts because they are frozen due to Amcore's negligence. Ms. Patton bought her health savings account through (nonparty) Canopy Financial and it was administered by Amcore. On Nov. 30, Canopy co-founder Jeremy Blackburn was charged with using fraudulent financial statements to raise $75 million for Canopy -- that criminal complaint was filed five days after Canopy filed for bankruptcy, according to the complaint. The class consists of all health savings account owners who bought accounts through Canopy for which Amcore is the custodian bank. The class wants a collective trust set up on Amcore's health savings accounts and damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties. A copy of the Complaint in Patton v. Amcore Financial, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01038 (S.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/Amcore.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Katz, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 No. 7th St., Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-240-4844 - and - Thomas F. Crosby, Esq. WINTERS, BREWSTER, CROSBY & SCHAFER, LLC 111 West Main Street Marion, IL 62959 Telephone: 618-997-5611 APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Thee Suits Over Planner Semitool Buy ------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Materials, Inc. faces three purported class action lawsuits resulting from its planned acquisition of Semitool, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 11, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 25, 2009. On Nov. 16, 2009, Applied entered into an agreement to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Semitool, a public company based in the state of Montana, for $11 per share in an all-cash tender offer. Under the terms of the agreement approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies, Applied will pay an aggregate purchase price of approximately $364 million based on the fully- diluted capitalization of Semitool upon closing the acquisition. The acquisition will be conducted through a tender offer for all of the outstanding shares of Semitool and is conditioned on the occurrence or absence of certain events, including the tender of at least 66.67% of Semitool's outstanding stock on a fully- diluted basis, as well as regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. Subsequent to announcement of the Offer, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in state court in the County of Flathead, State of Montana, against Semitool, Semitool's directors, Applied and Applied's acquisition subsidiary. The actions seek certification of a class of all holders of Semitool common stock (except the defendants and their affiliates). The complaints allege, among other things, that Semitool's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value, securing benefits for certain defendants at the expense or to the detriment of Semitool's public shareholders, discouraging and/or inhibiting alternative offers, and failing to disclose material nonpublic information, and that Applied aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The actions seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from consummating the Offer and the Merger, damages, and attorneys' fees. Applied Materials, Inc. -- http://www.appliedmaterials.com/-- is the global leader in Nanomanufacturing Technology(TM) solutions with a broad portfolio of innovative equipment, services and software products for the fabrication of semiconductor chips, flat panel displays, solar photovoltaic cells, flexible electronics and energy-efficient glass. AVERY DENNISON: Settling Tennessee Labelstock Suit for $2 Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- If You Purchased Labelstock after January 1, 1995 Please Read this Legal Notice This notice is to inform you of the proposed partial settlement of an action entitled Benson v. Avery Dennison Corporation, et al., brought by class action counsel on behalf of consumers of labelstock in the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and Vermont. The lawsuit, which is currently pending in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee at Newport, relates to the pricing of labelstock. Who Is Involved? You are a member of the Settlement Class and your rights are affected if you are a person who purchased indirectly (i.e., other than from the Defendant labelstock manufacturers and their alleged co-conspirators) labelstock, including products made from labelstock, during the period from January 1, 1995 to the present (the "Class Period"), in the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and Vermont (the "Class Jurisdictions"). "Labelstock," also known as "Self-Adhesive Labelstock" or "Pressure Sensitive Labelstock" or "PSL," means products made with paper-based and film-based labelstock, as described in Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. Labelstock is primarily used to manufacture, among other products, stickers, name tags, and office labels. Who Are the Settling Defendants? Avery Dennison Corporation ("Avery Dennison"); Bemis Company, Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company What Is the Litigation About? Plaintiff alleges that Avery Dennison, Bemis Company, Inc., Morgan Adhesives Company and other Defendants and co-conspirators participated in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, maintain or stabilize the price of labelstock at artificially high levels, and/or to allocate markets and customers for the sale of labelstock, in violation of antitrust and/or consumer protection laws of the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and Vermont. Avery Dennison, Bemis Company, Inc., Morgan Adhesives Company and the other Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing asserted by the Plaintiff. What Are the Terms of the Settlement? The Court has preliminarily approved two settlements, one with Avery Dennison ("Avery Settlement") and one with Bemis Company, Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company ("Bemis-Morgan Settlement"). If the proposed settlements are approved by the Court and become effective, Avery Dennison has agreed to pay Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) and Bemis and Morgan Adhesives have agreed to pay Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) into a fund for notice costs, fees and expenses of Class Counsel, and cy pres distribution, to be divided and distributed to charitable and/or governmental organizations in Tennessee and one or more of the Class Jurisdictions that engage in such activities as the Court may approve or direct, in any such instance to be expended for public benefit. Distribution of the Settlement Fund to not-for-profit organizations is appropriate because any attempt to distribute the Settlement Fund to individual members of the Settlement Class would result in prohibitive administrative costs that would consume any settlement proceeds. What Are My Legal Rights? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and the Court approves the proposed settlement and the settlement becomes effective, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and any claims you may have against Avery Dennison, Bemis Company, Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company only for the conduct alleged in this action will be resolved and released. How to Exclude Yourself From the Settlement If you do not wish to be a member of the Settlement Class, you may exclude yourself by sending a letter or postcard to the Clerk of the Court, Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee, 111 Court Avenue, Newport, Tennessee 37821 which must be received by the Clerk of the Court by January 29, 2010. You must include your name, address, and telephone number and a statement that you wish to be excluded. You must also serve a copy of such statement both upon: Counsel for Avery Dennison: William Sherman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Counsel for Bemis Company, Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company: Patrick J. Ahern, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE 130 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Class Counsel: Gordon Ball, Esq. Bank of America Center, Suite 601 550 Main Street Knoxville, TN 37902 by hand delivery, overnight delivery service, or first-class mail by that same date. How to Object to the Settlement If you remain a member of the Settlement Class, you or your counsel have the right to appear before the Court and object to the Settlement. To do so, however, by January 29, 2010 you must file with the Court a Notice of Intention to Appear and Object, stating your name, address, and telephone number and describing the general nature of your objection(s). To be considered timely filed, this Notice must be received by the Clerk of the Court by January 29, 2010. By this same date, you must also serve a copy of this Notice on counsel [listed above] by hand delivery, overnight delivery service, or postmarking the Notice by first- class mail on that date. Your written objection must include (1) your name, address, and telephone number; (2) information sufficient to establish your membership in the Settlement Class (such as receipts for purchases during the Class Period of labelstock); (3) a statement of your views; and (4) any supporting documentation you wish to submit. If you wish to appear and present your objection orally at the fairness hearing described below, your written objection must contain a notice that you intend to appear and be heard, a statement of the positions you intend to present at the hearing and any supporting arguments. You may, but need not, appear in the lawsuit through your own attorney. If you do so, you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses. The Court will hold a hearing to determine if the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate on March 12, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Circuit Courtroom for Cocke County, Tennessee, at Newport. For a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, contact Class Counsel. * * * The Class Action Reporter provided an update about this matter on July 14, 2009. BIG LOTS: Court Denies Writ of Mandamus for Case Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Big Lots, Inc.'s writ of mandamus challenging the Court's jurisdiction to hear multiple individual actions, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former assistant store managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001. As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter. Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana matter. The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on Aug. 24, 2007. The trial began on May 7, 2008 and concluded on May 15, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs. After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District Court in Louisiana. On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana. Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice. On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $100,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were determined to be $400,000. The company appealed both of these decisions. Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed individual actions in the District Court in Louisiana. On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus challenging the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction to hear these cases. This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc., intends to defend a civil collective action complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees. In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the State of New York. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The company believes, according to its Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009, the Fair Labor Standards Act claims alleged in the this matter are the same claims alleged in the cases filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Louisiana Matter. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Class Certification Denied in Los Angeles Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County has denied class certification in a lawsuit alleging violation of certain California wage and hours laws, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the company alleging that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion, with prejudice. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Class Certification in Consolidated Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------- Class certification in a consolidated suit against Big Lots, Inc., has been denied, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed against the company by a California resident ("Caron matters"). The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is similar in nature to the lawsuit filed September 2006 pending in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County This enabled the company to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company believes these two matters overlapped and the company successfully consolidated the two cases before one court. On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion, without prejudice. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. CALIFORNIA: Furloughed Workers Sue for Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses California of violating labor laws by ordering state workers to work during furlough days, and promising them a day off later. The class of prison and correctional workers reported their grievances to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in June; now they want action. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, a major political force in California, claims that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his administration are violating federal laws on wages and hours, overtime and record keeping. They seek declaratory judgment and costs. California instituted furlough days as part of its long, after failing in its effort to control a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall. A copy of the Complaint in Newton, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al., Case No. 09-cv-05887 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/ArnoldFurlough.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Lindsay, Esq. James P. Harrison, Esq. Jennifer L. Ragan, Esq. Leanne M. Kent, Esq. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC. Legal Department 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 Telephone: 916-372-6060 COMTECH TELECOMMS: Pompano Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of the plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit styled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, etc., v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. et al. (Case No. 09-cv-3007), to consolidate their complainy with the case styled Lawing v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Case No. 09-cv-3182), remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are named as defendants. The Complaints, filed in July 2009, allege that the company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements with respect to revenue and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2009. The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of purchasers of our stock between Sept. 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009. The essence of the Complaints is that the company allegedly failed to disclose certain adverse facts that were allegedly known to exist at the time the company issued the revenue and earnings guidance at issue in the Complaints. The company has, to date, only been served with a complaint by the Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System. On Sept. 10, 2009, the District Court entered a scheduling order in the Pompano Beach lawsuit, and pursuant to that order, Pompano Beach filed a motion seeking consolidation of the two related actions and appointment as lead plaintiff under the procedure set out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. That motion has not yet been decided, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended OCt. 31, 2009. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. -- http://www.comtechtel.com/-- designs, develops, produces and markets products, systems and services for communications solutions. The company conducts its business through three business segments: telecommunications transmission, mobile data communications and radio frequency (RF) microwave amplifiers. It sells its products to a diverse customer base in the global commercial and government communications markets. On Aug. 1, 2008, the Company acquired Radyne Corporation. DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Accused of Unconstitutional Searches ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Ann Arbor Federal Court claims the Detroit Public Schools unconstitutionally search students, their backpacks and purses "on a daily basis at Mumford High School," without reasonable suspicion, and in violation of a 2006 consent judgment, A copy of the Complaint in McBurrows, et al. v. Detroit Public Schools, Case No. 09-cv-14863 (E.D. Mich.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/CivRts.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark P. Francher, Esq. Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq. Michael J. Steinberg, Esq. Kary L. Moss, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313-578-6800 - and - Amos E. Williams, Esq. 615 Griswold, Suite 1115 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: 313-963-5222 DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 447,000 Infant Car Seats & Carriers ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in cooperation Dorel Juvenile Group Inc., of Columbus, Ind., announced a recall of about 447,000 Dorel Infant Car Seat/Carriers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. When used as an infant carrier, the child restraint handle to the seat can loosen and come off, posing a fall hazard to infants. Dorel has received 77 reports of the child restraint handle fully or partially coming off the car seat/carrier resulting in at least three injuries to infants including bumps, bruises and a head injury. This recall involves Safety 1st, Cosco, Eddie Bauer and Disney branded infant car seat/carriers with these model numbers and that were manufactured from January 6, 2008 through April 6, 2009: Model No. Product Description --------- ------------------- 22-057 DBY Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-085 DWA Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-057 CLN Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-057 HRT Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-322 HRR Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-322 PTK Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-057 LPH Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-085 LYN Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System 22-322 KDL Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-322 LXI Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-322OLY Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-322PRS Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-322 MAI Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-325 COB Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-095 RBK Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System 22-380 LGA Safety 1st Lite Wave Travel System 22-380 MSA Safety 1st Lite Wave Travel System 22-627 WAV Safety 1st Vector Travel System 22-325 PAC Safety 1st Vector Travel System 22-300 FZN Cosco Sprint Travel System 22-300 OSF Cosco Sprint Travel System 22-300 CSF Cosco Sprint Travel System 22-300 JJV Cosco Sprint Travel System 22-300 THD Cosco Sprint Travel System 22-300 TWD Cosco Sprint Travel System 22-627 AWF Disney Propack Travel System 22-355 LBF Disney Propack Travel System 22-305 NAB Disney Propack Travel System 22-305 PPH Disney Propack Travel System 22-355 PWK Disney Propack Travel System 22-627 CGT Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System 22-627 FRK Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System 22-627 SNW Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System 22-627 WPR Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System 22-627KGS Eddie Bauer Endeavor Travel System 22-655BYTE Eddie Bauer Endeavor Travel System The model number and manufacture date are located on a label on the side of the car seat/carrier. They were sold with Travel Systems. The stroller portion of the travel system is not affected by this recall. A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10084.html The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold at department and juvenile product stores nationwide from January 2008 through December 2009 for between $120 and $220. Consumers should not use the handle of the car seat/carrier until the repair kit has been installed. The product can continue to be used as a car seat when properly installed in the vehicle. Contact Dorel Juvenile Group to receive a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Dorel Juvenile Group at (866) 762-3316 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.djgusa.com/safety_notice GOOGLE INC: French Court Rules Against Google in Books Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Greg Keller and Nicolas Vaux-Montagny at The Associated Press report that court in Paris, France, ruled last week that Google Inc. is breaking French law with its policy of digitizing books, handing the U.S. Internet giant a $14,300 (10,000 euro)-a-day fine until it rids its search engine of the literary extracts. A judge also ordered Google to pay $430,000 (300,000 euro) in damages and interest to French publisher La Martiniere, which brought the case on behalf of a group of French publishers. The attorney for Google, Alexandra Neri, said Google plans to appeal the decision. Google's plans to scan millions of books to make them available online has drawn criticism from publishers and libraries in both the U.S. and Europe. Even if the case doesn't have much financial impact on Google or force a big change in its book-scanning strategy, it is a reminder that its ambitions are increasingly colliding with fears that the company is getting too powerful. The head of the French publisher's union said he was "completely satisfied" with the verdict. "It shows Google that they are not the kings of the world and they can't do whatever they want," said Serge Eyrolles, president of France's Syndicat National de l'Edition. He said Google had scanned 100,000 French books into its database - 80 percent of which were under copyright. Eyrolles said French publishers would still like to work with Google to digitize their books, "but only if they stop playing around with us and start respecting intellectual property rights." Philippe Colombet, the head of Google's book scanning project in France, said the company disagrees with the judgment. "French readers now face the threat of losing access to a significant body of knowledge and falling behind the rest of Internet users," Mr. Colombet said in a conference call with reporters. "We believe that displaying a limited number of short extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in France and the U.S. -- and improves access to books," Mr. Colombet said. Mr. Colombet declined to answer questions posed by the AP reporters about whether Google would remove the books from its database or pay the fine. "We are going to study the judgment carefully over the coming days," he said. The judgment will have negligible impact on Internet users outside of France, and French books from publishers Google has agreements with will remain searchable, even in France. Mr. Colombet could not say how many French books Google has scanned overall, or how many French publishers it has agreements with. He said Google has agreements with 30,000 publishers around the world, including 9,000 in Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made catching up on France's digital delay one of the national priorities by earmarking ?750 million of a EUR35 billion ($51 billion) spending plan announced earlier this week for digitizing France's libraries, film and music archives and other repositories of the nation's recorded heritage. Earlier this week a consortium of French technology companies announced a plan to create a book scanning project they said would be better than Google's, but only in three years time. Google defended its publication of excerpts of copyright- protected material at a trial in September. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that using select excerpts without permission "is a bad representation of the works." U.S. authors and publishers also sued Mountain View, California- based Google. The parties have settled, but are renegotiating details after the U.S. Justice Department concluded that the original deal probably violates antitrust law. The top U.S. copyright official and the governments in Germany and France also have raised objections about the settlement overstepping its bounds. ICO INC: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from Wildcat Spider --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that ICO Inc. is selling itself through an unfair process to Wildcat Spider, at an unfair price of $105 million, shareholders claim in Harris County Court, Houston. A copy of the derivative Complaint in Mraud v. Kemp, et al., Case No. 2009-79556 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/CCAICO.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, LLP 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: 214-706-9314 - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-363-7500 JEFFERSON COUNTY: Dentist's Tax Suit May Become a Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- WBRC reports that lawyers for a Mountain Brook, Ala., dentist are trying to turn their lawsuit against Jefferson County, Ala., into a class-action filing. Dr. Jeffrey Weissman is suing the county over a newly approved occupational tax. His attorneys claim it is unconstitutional for the county to tax certain professionals. If the suit is successful, architects, lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers and others who work in the county would be exempt from paying. The 0.45% tax goes into effect January 1, 2010. The lawsuit was filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court, and Dr. Weissman is represented by: E. Clayton Lowe Jr., Esq. LOWE & GRAMMAS LLP 1952 Urban Center Pkwy Birmingham, AL 35242-2594 Telephone: (205) 380-2400 - and - Wilson F. Green, Esq. BATTLE FLEENOR GREEN WINN & CLEMMER LLP 2316 University Boulevard, Suite 200 Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 397-8160 JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California gave its preliminary approval to the $5 million settlement in the purported wage and hour class-action suit, Patti Blair et al. v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. BC394795, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees, individually and on behalf of the purported class members, allege that certain current and former California store team leaders employed by the company since July 21, 2004, were classified improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for overtime work), and that current and former hourly employees employed by the company's California stores since July 21, 2004, missed rest and meal breaks for which they were not properly compensated and at times worked off the clock without compensation. The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law arising from the alleged wage and hour violations. The amended complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a class action. In September 2009, an agreement in principle, which has been executed by the company, was negotiated with counsel for the plaintiff. In November 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the negotiated settlement. The negotiated settlement provides for the payment by the company of up to $5.0 million, depending on the number of claims that are filed by the purported class members. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating and other creative endeavors. The company's retail stores (operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores) and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material, artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home decor merchandise. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large- format stores). MERCK & CO: Calif. Court Declines Class Certification Invitation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that a California appeals court upheld a decision denying class-action status to a lawsuit demanding that Merck reimburse consumers who bought its higher-priced Vioxx painkiller instead of a safer, generic drug before Vioxx was pulled from the market due to health concerns. The proposed class sought damages for anyone who bought Vioxx since its release in 1999 until it was pulled from the market in 2004, after a study revealed that the drug posed heart health risks. In the wake of the damaging study, Merck launched a "campaign to downplay or outright ignore the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx," the ruling states. The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles affirmed the lower court's decertification of the class action, saying too many individual factors were involved. "Some patients would still take Vioxx today if it were on the market; some physicians would still prescribe it regardless of risks," Justice Walter Croskey wrote. The plaintiffs claimed that, had they known the risks of Vioxx, they would have instead bought naproxen, a safer generic pain reliever. But the appeals court rejected naproxen as the basis for a common claim, explaining that not all Vioxx users switched to the generic naproxen after Vioxx was taken off the market; some went to other name-brand drugs. "The failure of naproxen as a viable class-wide comparator . . . defeats the claim for class-wide restitution," Justice Croskey wrote. Determining class damages -- the difference in price between Vioxx and a generic version -- requires a patient-specific inquiry, the appeals court ruled. And the decision to prescribe Vioxx was an individual physician decision that varies from patient to patient, the judges added. As a result, Justice Croskey wrote, "the trial court properly concluded that restitution could not be calculated on a class- wide basis." A copy of the slip opinion in In re Vioxx Class Cases, No. B216521 (Calif. Ct. App., 2nd App. Dist.) is available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B216521.PDF NETFLIX: Accused in Calif. of Subscriber Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog Newsletter reports that a lawsuit was filed in San Jose, Calif., last week concerning a closeted lesbian's privacy and Netflix, the movie rental company. The woman, an Ohio resident who, for purposes of the lawsuit has requested anonymity, sued Netflix alongside others hoping to sue on behalf of a potential class, claiming that the company divulged personal information which allowed thousands to discern her sexual preference. A copy of the Complaint in Doe, et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05903 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/12/doe-v-netflix.pdf In 2006, the Law Blog Newsletter relates, Netflix initiated a contest in which it would pay $1 million to the first person or team of people to make certain improvements to its recommendation system - the system by which the company recommends movies to subscribers based on their previous movie selections. As part of the contest -- as explained in a Wired article at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/netflix-privacy-lawsuit/ -- the company sent more than 50,000 contestants two huge troves of data. One contained 100 million movie ratings, the date of each rating, a unique ID number for the subscriber and information about the movie. The suit argues that, based on this information alone, individuals' identities could be figured out. In fact, according to the complaint, two University of Texas researchers did just that by comparing Netflix users' "anonymous" reviews to ones posted on a different Web site, the Internet Movie Database Web site. Through such comparisons, the Texas researchers were able to unearth personal information, like users' sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The plaintiffs allege that Netflix violated a handful of California laws, in addition to the federal Video Protection Privacy Act. Interestingly, the VPPA was passed in the wake of the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, during which Bork's video store gave a list of his rentals to a Washington reporter. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs' and class members' movie data and ratings have now become a permanent, public record on the Internet. In addition to damages, the also asking the court to stop Netflix from launching its promised second contest to improve the recommendations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Kamber, Esq. David A. Stampley, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 11 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-920-3072 - and - Joseph H. Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY 1045 North Zang Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: 214-943-6100 - and - David Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: 818-990-1299 NATIONAL CITY BANK: Sued in Tenn. for Reducing HELOC Credit Lines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that National City Bank unfairly reduced limits on home equity credit lines across the country "in a transparent attempt to limit its exposure to the troubled United States housing market," according to a class action in Memphis Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Raeth v. National City Bank, Case No. 09-cv-02812 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/16/BanksNatCity.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale Tuttle, Esq. Robert Cox, Esq. GLASSMAN, EDWARDS, WADE & WYATT, P.C. 26 N. Second Street Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 527-4673 - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Steven Lezell, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in EDNY ------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Pall Corp. is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Initially, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain members of its management team alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to the Company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods. These lawsuits were filed between Aug. 14, 2007, and Oct. 11, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading public statements about the company's financial results, financial statements, income tax liability, effective tax rate and internal controls. They seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. On Oct. 15, 2007, various plaintiffs and groups of plaintiffs filed motions seeking to consolidate the cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff. By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption "In re Pall Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL)," appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that the lead plaintiff file a consolidated amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on Aug. 4, 2008. The lead plaintiff seeks to act as representative for a class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock between April 20, 2007, and Aug. 2, 2007, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint names the company, Eric Krasnoff and Lisa McDermott as defendants and alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It alleges that the defendants violated these provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading public statements about the company's financial results and financial statements, including the company's income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and accounting practices. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 19, 2008. The company filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's opposition to its motion to dismiss on Dec. 2, 2008. By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint. On Oct. 9, 2009, the company moved for certification for interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by Memorandum and Order entered Nov. 25, 2009, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 58 South Service Road Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: malba@csgrr.com Representing the defendants are: Lewis J. Liman, Esq. CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2000 Fax: 212-255-3949 E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls 700,000 Packages of Vicks Dayquil ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Procter & Gamble Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 700,000 packages of Vicks Dayquil Cold & Flu 24-Count Bonus Pack Liquicaps. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The cold and flu medicine contains acetaminophen and is not in child-resistant packaging and lacks the statement, "This Package for Households Without Young Children," as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. This medicine could cause serious health problems or death to a child if several of the capsules are swallowed. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall involves Vicks Dayquil Cold & Flu 24-Count Bonus Pack Liquicaps. The medicine comes in orange packaging with the green Vicks symbol and has the following UPC#: 3 23900 01087 1. No other Vick's product is included in this recall. A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10085.html The recalled medicine was manufactured in Canada and sold at drug stores, grocery stores and other retailers nationwide between September 2008 and December 2009 for about $5. Consumers should keep this product out of the reach of children. Consumers who purchased the product with the expectation that it would be in child-resistant packaging can contact Procter & Gamble for a full refund or a replacement coupon. Adult consumers can continue to use the product as directed. For additional information, contact Procter & Gamble at (800) 251-3374 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or log on to their Web site at http://www.vicks.com/ UNITED STATES: Fees in Indian Trust Case "Well Below the Norm" -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarella at The National Law Journal reports that the lawyers suing the government over Indian trust funds in Cobell, et al. v. Kempthorne, et al., Case No. 96-cv-01285 (D.C.) (Robertson, J.), agreed to a range of legal fees that is well below the norm for class actions in hope of making the deal more palatable to the class, according to a lead attorney for the plaintiffs. The Justice Department earlier this month reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs after the suit dragged on for more than 13 years with no end in sight. The more than 300,000 class members are seeking an historical accounting of the government's handling of billions of dollars in royalties flowing from Indian land. The $1.41 billion settlement, a far cry from the billions the plaintiffs had been seeking, requires authorization from Congress -- and, ultimately, approval from the presiding trial judge, James Robertson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Justice attorneys and counsel for the plaintiffs say Robertson was integral in supervising settlement negotiations, which ramped up in July following an appellate court ruling that kicked the case back to the trial court. The plaintiffs lawyers, including a team of Kilpatrick Stockton attorneys and D.C. solo practitioner Dennis Gingold, agreed to argue for fees in the range of $50 million to nearly $100 million -- roughly between about 3 and 7 percent of the $1.4 billion settlement. The lawyers in the case declined to say whether they asked for more than $100 million. Class action lawyers in Washington have said that the Cobell case -- based on the length and complexity of the litigation-could have earned the lawyers more than $100 million. Sen. John Barrasso, R-N.Y., raised the question of legal fees at yesterday's Senate Indian Affairs Committee oversight hearing. Convincing the class members to support hundreds of millions in attorney fees could have proven a challenge. "I think all parties understand that the norm award in most class actions would be higher than the range. The parties had discussions about it and agreed to this range. We think that the interest of the class is served by it," said Kilpatrick Stockton partner Keith Harper, a lead attorney in the case. "Obviously there is concern about attorneys fees. I think it's fair to say this is well below the norm. But we felt it was important to make sure that nothing held up the deal for the class. That's got to be our singular focus. That has always been our focus." UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging antitrust violations. The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption, "Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd." It alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14, 2008). Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are: -- Panalpina, Inc.; -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG; -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.; -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.; -- EGL, Inc.; -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP; -- Deutsche Bahn AG; -- Schenker AG; -- Schenker, Inc.; -- Deutsche Post AG; -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.; -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders. Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding Services sold in the United States; (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy or combination; (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an artificially high and non-competitive level; (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or combination upon interstate commerce; (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. The plaintiffs pray: -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws; -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner: (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose of effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the distribution or sale of Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any such products except to the extent necessary in connection with bona fide sale transactions between the parties to such communication; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further, and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042 (E.D.N.Y.). No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58 New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212) 608-1900 Fax: (212) 719-4677 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com Representing the defendants are: August C. Venturini, Esq. VENTURINI & ASSOCIATES 230 Park Avenue, Suite 545 New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-826-6800 Fax: 212-949-6162 E-mail: acv@venturini-law.com - and - James Joseph Calder, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-940-6460 Fax: 212-940-3871 E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com - and - Breon S. Peace, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2059 Fax: 212-225-3999 E-mail: bpeace@cgsh.com WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to a $188 million judgment in the matter, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to remain pending. The case is containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege that the company forced or encouraged them to work "off the clock," failed to provide rest breaks or meal periods, or otherwise failed to pay them correctly. It generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. A trial was commenced in the matter on September 2006, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks. On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off- the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. The company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the company filed its Notice of Appeal. No further developments were reported in the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves customers and club members more than 200 million times per week at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15 countries. The company operates in three business segments: Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico. In January 2009, the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A. WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Final Approval of $40 Million Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is awaiting approval from the the Superior Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, of a settlement agreement disposing of all claims asserted in Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. The plaintiffs in the suit allege that class members worked off the clock and were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with Massachusetts law, and seek compensatory damages in the amount of $30 million, plus statutory treble damages, interest, costs of court and attorneys' fees. The trial court granted class certification in December 2004, then decertified the class in November 2006. In September 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decertification and remanded the case for trial. On Oct. 19, 2009, the parties entered into a settlement agreement disposing of all claims asserted in the litigation, which is subject to approval by the trial court. If the proposed settlement is approved, the amount to be paid by Wal-Mart will be approximately $40 million. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves customers and club members more than 200 million times per week at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15 countries. The company operates in three business segments: Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico. In January 2009, the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A. WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a gender-discrimination class-action lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The purported class-action suit was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees in all of the company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the U.S. The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training, and job assignments. It seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs. The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6 million present and former female associates. The company believes that the district court's ruling is incorrect. On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review of the ruling. On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's certification order. On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court. On Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of Feb. 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion. As a result, Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot. Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8, 2008. On Feb. 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting the Petition. The court of appeals heard oral argument on the Petition on March 24, 2009. No further updates regarding the matter were reported in the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves customers and club members more than 200 million times per week at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15 countries. The company operates in three business segments: Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico. In January 2009, the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A. WAL-MART STORES: March 10 Trial Set in Kansa EEOC Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has set a March 1, 2010 trial in a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC on Aug. 24, 2001, on behalf of Janice Smith and all other females who made application or transfer requests at the London, Kentucky, distribution center from 1998 to the present, and who were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for which they applied. The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on gender in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended. The EEOC can maintain this action as a class without certification. The EEOC seeks back pay and front pay for those females not selected for hire or transfer during the relevant time period, plus compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. The EEOC has asserted that the hiring practices in question resulted in a shortfall of 245 positions. The claims for compensatory and punitive damages are capped by statute at $300,000 per shortfall position. The amounts of back pay and front pay that are being sought have not been specified. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves customers and club members more than 200 million times per week at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15 countries. The company operates in three business segments: Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico. In January 2009, the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A. XTO ENERGY: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from ExxonMobile --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that XTO Energy, a natural gas company, is selling itself too cheaply to ExxonMobil, a $41 billion deal in which XTO shareholders will get 0.71 shares of ExxonMobil for every share of XTO stock, shareholders say in Tarrant County Court, Fort Worth. A copy of the Complaint in Israni v. XTO Energy Inc., et al., Cause No. 017 242424 09 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/16/XTO.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Steckler, Esq. Kelly Reddell, Esq. BARRON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-521-3605 - and - Marc S. Henzel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-660-8000 ********* 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 * * *