/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 12 Headlines APOLLO GROUP: "Juric" Suit in California in Discovery Phase APOLLO GROUP: Certification Motion in "Sabol" Due February 15 APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Tranchita" Suit Pending in Ill. APOLLO GROUP: Class Action Allegations Removed in "Davis" Suit APOLLO GROUP: March 22 Certification Hearing Set for Calif. Suit APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending APOLLO GROUP: No Hearing Yet in Appeal to Ruling in Arizona Suit CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit CARAMINA FURNITURE: Recalls 1,000 "Diane" Drop-Side Cribs CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss Bonus Pay Class Action IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend City of Pontiac's Complaint IMMUCOR INC: Plaintiffs' Motion for Interim Lead Counsel Pending MATTRESS WORLD: Recalls 750 MWQ and MWFOBXQ Mattress Sets MONSANTO CO: No Hearing Date Yet in Class Certification Motion MONSANTO CO: April 2011 Trial Date Set in "Bibb" Suit MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs' File Appeal to Discrimination Ruling PIER 1: Recalls 67,000 Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holders PIER 1: Recalls 40,000 Silver & Gold Glitter Tea Lights PUTNAM FUNDS: Madison County Class Action Dismissed on Appeal TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit ********* APOLLO GROUP: "Juric" Suit in California in Discovery Phase ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, University of Phoenix, filed by former employee Dejan Juric, is in discovery, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. On April 3, 2009, former employee Dejan Juric filed a lawsuit in California State Court in Los Angeles against the company and the University of Phoenix. The suit is alleging wage and hour claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain other violations. The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims on May 4, 2009 and then removed the case to the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. The matter is currently in discovery. Under the District Court's current Scheduling Order, the deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was Jan. 11, 2010, and the hearing on the motion is set for March 22, 2010. Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private education provider. The company offers educational programs and services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global). The company has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University (Meritus), which began operations in September 2008. APOLLO GROUP: Certification Motion in "Sabol" Due February 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, University of Phoenix, filed in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia, have until Feb. 15, 2010, to file their Motion for Conditional Certification, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. The action was filed on July 31, 2009, by plaintiffs Erik Sabol, Rebecca Odom, Geraldine Andrews, and John Lyons. The plaintiffs are former employees and allege wage and hour claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain other violations. The company filed an answer denying the asserted claim on Sept. 29, 2009. The matter is in discovery. Under the District Court's current Scheduling Order, the deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is Feb. 15, 2010. Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private education provider. The company offers educational programs and services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global). The company has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University (Meritus), which began operations in September 2008. APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Tranchita" Suit Pending in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remains pending, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. The action was filed on Aug. 10, 2009, by Anthony Tranchita alleging wage and hour claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain other violations. On Sept. 2, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously filed action by Erik Sabol, et al., in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia. Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private education provider. The company offers educational programs and services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global). The company has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University (Meritus), which began operations in September 2008. APOLLO GROUP: Class Action Allegations Removed in "Davis" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Adonijah Davis filed an amended complaint removing the class action allegations against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, University of Phoenix, and electing to proceed on a single plaintiff basis, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. The action was filed on Sept. 28, 2009, by former employee Adonijah Davis in Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida. On Nov. 2, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously filed action by Erik Sabol, et al., in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia. On Nov. 17, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint removing the class action allegations and electing to proceed on a single plaintiff basis. As a result, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss as moot on Nov. 18, 2009. Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private education provider. The company offers educational programs and services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global). The company has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University (Meritus), which began operations in September 2008. APOLLO GROUP: March 22 Certification Hearing Set for Calif. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A March 22, 2010, class certification hearing has been set for the lawsuit filed by former University of Phoenix, Inc. (UPX) students against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Dec. 9, 2008, three former University of Phoenix students filed a complaint against Apollo Group and UPX in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The complaint alleges that with regard to students who dropped from their courses shortly after enrolling, University of Phoenix improperly returned the entire amount of the students' undisbursed federal loan funds to the lender. The students purport to be bringing the complaint on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly-situated student loan borrowers. On Jan. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs voluntarily filed a dismissal "without prejudice to re-filing." The plaintiffs then filed a similar complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Feb. 5, 2009. The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims on March 30, 2009. Under the District Court's current Scheduling Order, trial is set for October 2010. The matter is currently in discovery. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and an amended complaint on July 14, 2009. The hearing on class certification is set for March 22, 2010. According to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009, Apollo Group does not know how many students may fall into this category, or whether there is a proper basis for the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action lawsuit. Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private education provider. The company offers educational programs and services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global). The company has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University (Meritus), which began operations in September 2008. APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a securities class-action lawsuit alleging that executives of Apollo Group Inc. backdated stock option grants for five years remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. The class-action complaint, captioned, "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," was filed on Nov. 2, 2006, and purported to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2008). The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to disclose alleged deficiencies in the company's stock option granting policies and practices. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to pursue the action. The court later appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel. On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning the company's stock option granting policies and practices, traded while in possession of material non-public information, violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in self-dealing. The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of the purported class. Aside from the company, other named defendants are: -- John G. Sperling, -- Todd S. Nelson, -- Kenda B. Gonzales, -- Daniel E. Bachus, -- John M. Blair, -- Hedy F. Govenar, -- Brian E. Mueller, -- Dino J. DeConcini, -- Peter V. Sperling, and -- Laura Palmer Noone. All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on Jan. 22, 2008. On March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as to Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini, and Laura Noone. The Court also dismissed the case as to John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint against them. Finally, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct before November 2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty. On April 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against the same defendants. On June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which is currently pending with the Court. Discovery in this case has not yet begun. The suit is Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-02674 (D. Ariz.) (Broomfield, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-377-1181 Fax: 312-377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385 Phone: 602-262-5900 Fax: 602-495-2618 E0mail: mfarrell@jsslaw.com - and - Joseph E. Floren, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 101 Park Ave. New York, NY 10178-0060 Phone: 212-309-6000 APOLLO GROUP: No Hearing Yet in Appeal to Ruling in Arizona Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a hearing date on the plaintiffs' appeal to a ruling in a consolidated lawsuit, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. In October 2004, three class-action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The court consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff. The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004, and Sept. 14, 2004. The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as defendants. On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act by the company for defendants' allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection with its failure to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report. The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007. On Jan. 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and still owned on Sept. 14, 2004. The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008. On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay execution of the judgment pending resolution of its motions for post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008, provided that the company post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million. On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with the Court. Oral arguments occurred on Aug. 4, 2008 as part of the company's post-trial motions, during which the District Court vacated the earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment in favor of Apollo and the other defendants. The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently released on Aug. 11, 2008. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2008. The appeal has been fully briefed by both parties and was originally scheduled for hearing on Jan. 13, 2010. Plaintiffs' lawyers recently filed a request to extend the hearing date, which was granted. The consolidated action is In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-02147 (Ariz.) (Teilborg, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert D. Mitchell, Esq. Mitchell & Forest 2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-468-1411 Fax: 602-468-1311 E-mail: robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com - and - Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com Representing the company is: Wayne W. Smith, Esq. Orange County Office 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949-451-4108 Fax: 949-475-4709 CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ CalAmp Corp. continues to pursue the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against the company, the former owner of its Aercept business unit and one of Aercept's distributors. The class has not been certified in the lawsuit filed in November 2008. The lawsuit alleges that Aercept made misrepresentations when the plaintiff purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005, which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset purchase. The tracking devices ceased functioning in early 2008 due to termination of analog service by the wireless network operators. The company is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis that the assertion of successor liability is not supported by the law or the facts. No further updates were reported in the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009. CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere access. The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division and Satellite Division. CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls, and mobile resource management market segments with wireless solutions built on communications technology platforms that include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular networks. CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) market. CARAMINA FURNITURE: Recalls 1,000 "Diane" Drop-Side Cribs --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Caramia Furniture and Mother Hubbard Cupboard's, of Ontario, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Diane Drop- Side Cribs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The slats on the cribs drop-side can detach from the top and bottom rails, posing fall and entrapment hazards to the child. The firm has received 18 reports of slats detaching from the rails of the crib. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Caramia "Diane" drop-side cribs. The cribs were manufactured between September 2002 and June 2004. A label affixed to the inside of the headboard or footboard lists the manufacturing dates. A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10113.html The recalled cribs were manufactured in Slovenia and sold at Buy Buy Baby and juvenile product and mass merchandise stores nationwide from September 2002 through December 2005 for between $240 and $370. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Diane crib and contact Caramia Furniture to receive a free replacement drop side. The free replacement will be available beginning March 2010. For additional information, contact Caramia toll-free at (877) 728-0342 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.caramiafurniture.com/ CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss Bonus Pay Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Halah Touryalai at Penton Media's Registered Rep. Advisorland reports that Citigroup filed a motion last week to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the firm over the terms of its financial advisor bonus pay agreements. The firm filed the motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The original lawsuit was brought on behalf of six former Citigroup brokers who allege that the payback terms on their upfront bonuses violate contract law, and that they do not owe the firm any money. Lawyers for the brokers argued that clauses in their employment contracts are unfair and one-sided that no reasonable or informed person would agree to them. In addition, they said, broker employment contracts that contain such clauses are themselves "illusory," or unenforceable under contract law. In its motion, Citi argues that the brokers have litigated this issue before with FINRA and lost. Having chosen to litigate it before FINRA, Citi says the brokers have waived any right to have the court decide the issue. There's "a good chance" the court will dismiss the complaint filed by the brokers and rule that FINRA already made a decision on the case, says the layer representing the Plaintiffs: Thomas B. Lewis, Esq. Stark & Stark 993 Lenox Drive Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: 609-985-7321 Mr. Lewis says it could take two to six months for a judge to write a decision. "Realistically it's an issue that's subject to FINRA's jurisdiction," he says. "The plaintiffs tried to get out of the FINRA arbitration by getting class action status for the case. But courts are reluctant to get involved if there is FINRA jurisdiction." But if the court decides that class action status for the case is legitimate, Citi has other arguments. For one, Citi says the plaintiffs received over $1.4 million in upfront loans, and each signed a promissory note agreeing to immediately repay the balance on the loans. This makes the brokers' claims baseless and they should be dismissed by the court, the Citi filing says. "Specifically, Plaintiffs' allegation that the promissory notes are unenforceable because they are not supported by consideration and are illusory is preposterous on its face considering that Plaintiffs received over $1.4 million in interest-free loan proceeds," Citigroup writes in its response. Citi says the plaintiffs other arguments are also without merit. "As for Plaintiffs' theory that accelerating the payment of loan balances on termination constitutes an unconscionable penalty, courts have routinely rejected such theories as a matter of law. Plaintiffs' theory that CGMI made it impossible for them to perform under the contract or otherwise frustrated the purpose of the loan arrangement also lacks merit because the very events Plaintiffs claim rendered performance impossible, i.e., their resignation, was contemplated by the parties and specifically addressed in the promissory note." IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas Schlenker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In September 2009, Mr. Schlenker sued the company and ten of its current and former directors and officers, also alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This plaintiff also seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the company's securities for the same class period. The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend City of Pontiac's Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Immucor, Inc., continues to defend a class action complaint filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. In August 2009, the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and nine of its current and former directors and officers, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 and April 23, 2009. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the company was operating in violation of United States antitrust laws. As of Jan. 7, 2010, the company says that it has not yet responded to the complaint. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. IMMUCOR INC: Plaintiffs' Motion for Interim Lead Counsel Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of the plaintiffs to appoint interim lead counsel in purported class-action lawsuits against Immucor, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. Since May 18, 2009, a series of 30 lawsuits have been filed in 10 different U.S. District Courts against the company, Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold, asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations and seek to certify a class of persons and entities who purchased blood reagents from any of the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present. Most of the complaints limit the proposed class to persons and entities in the United States, but some do not contain that limitation. Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that these cases be centralized in a single U.S. District Court; arguments on these motions are scheduled to be heard July 30, 2009. In August 2009, these cases were ordered to be centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That court now has before it motions to appoint interim lead counsel for plaintiffs. There has been no discovery in any of these cases, and no court has made a determination whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. MATTRESS WORLD: Recalls 750 MWQ and MWFOBXQ Mattress Sets --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Mattress World, of Dallas, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 750 mattress sets. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The mattress sets fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard and pose a fire hazard to consumers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves Mattress World renovated twin, full, queen and king mattress sets sold in blue floral, white floral and taupe floral. This recall applies only to mattresses with tags attached to the mattress and foundation (box spring) containing this information: Manufacturer: Mattress World Date of Manufacture: May 29, 2009 through September 4, 2009 Prototype ID: MWQ or MWFOBXQ Pictures of the recalled mattress sets are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10109.html The recalled mattress sets were manufactured in the United States and sold at various furniture stores in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas from May 2009 through September 2009 for between $35 and $105. Consumers should immediately contact Mattress World to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Mattress World at (877) 819-0725 between 9:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or e-mail the firm at mattressworld@live.com MONSANTO CO: No Hearing Date Yet in Class Certification Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has yet to set a date for the class certification hearing in a consolidated class action suit against Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., and Monsanto Co., according to Monsanto's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class action cases were filed in 14 different state courts against Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., and the company. The suits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to violate various state competition and consumer protection laws by fixing and artificially inflating the prices and fees for the company's various biotechnology traits and seeds containing those traits and imposing certain use restrictions. All of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated, except for one case that was pending in state court in Tennessee, which has been dismissed. A hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2009, to determine the schedule of proceedings regarding Pioneer's announced intention to settle the claims for payment of $2 million. On Dec. 8, 2009, the Court declined to grant preliminary settlement class approval to the purported Pioneer settlement. The Court will conduct a single hearing to determine all class certification issues. Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- along with its subsidiaries, is a worldwide provider of agricultural products for farmers. MONSANTO CO: April 2011 Trial Date Set in "Bibb" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- An April 4, 2011, trial date has been set for the class action styled Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group. The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Carter and Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) cases as class action matters. The court has set a trial date of April 4, 2011, for the Bibb class action. Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- along with its subsidiaries, is a worldwide provider of agricultural products for farmers. MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs' File Appeal to Discrimination Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action against Monsanto Co. filed a notice of appeal of the summary judgment order on the age discrimination claims, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the Monsanto Company Pension Plan (Pension Plan). The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age discrimination and other rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 from Jan. 1, 1997 (when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present. In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other defendants. On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants. On Sept. 1, 2006, the Court consolidated these lawsuits with two purported class action lawsuits also pending in the same Court against the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under Walker v. Monsanto, the first filed case. The court conducted a class certification hearing on Sept. 12, 2007. Prior to the hearing, all parties agreed the case should proceed as a class action and also agreed on a definition of the respective classes. The classes were certified by court order on May 22, 2008. On July 11, 2008, all parties filed dispositive motions on the issue of liability, which motions were heard by the court on May 6, 2009. On June 11, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto and the other defendants on the age discrimination claims. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on a separate claim regarding post-termination interest, which was subsequently settled for an immaterial amount. The Court entered judgment on the entire case on Sept. 29, 2009. On Oct. 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the summary judgment order on the age discrimination claims. Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- along with its subsidiaries, is a worldwide provider of agricultural products for farmers. PIER 1: Recalls 67,000 Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holders ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 67,000 Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holders -- about 61,500 United States and about 5,500 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The flame from tea lights can ignite these tea light holders, posing a fire hazard. Pier 1 has received three reports of the tea light holders burning. No injuries have been reported. The Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holder is red and white and designed in the image of Santa Claus. The tea light holder measures approximately 7-1/2 inches tall and 3-1/2 inches wide with a red metal hat and an opening in the back to place a tea light candle. SKU number 2417274 is printed on the bottom of the tea light holder. A picture of the recalled product is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10111.html The recalled items were manufactured in China and sold at Pier 1 Imports in the U.S. and Canada from September 2009 through December 2009 for about $10. Consumers should stop using the Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holder immediately and return it to their nearest Pier 1 Imports retail store for a full refund or merchandise credit. For additional information, contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-4595 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.pier1.com/ PIER 1: Recalls 40,000 Silver & Gold Glitter Tea Lights ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 40,000 Silver Glitter Tea Lights and Gold Glitter Tea Lights. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The flame from the tea lights can ignite the glitter on the candle, posing a fire hazard. Pier 1 has received three reports of the glitter burning. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves two styles of tea lights: -- a clear box of 24 silver glitter tea lights with SKU 2410335 and -- a clear box of 24 gold glitter tea lights with SKU 2410322. The SKU number is located on the bottom of the packaging. A picture of the recalled product is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10112.html The recalled items were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Pier 1 Imports in the U.S. and Canada from September 2009 through December 2009 for about $10. Consumers should immediately stop using the tea lights and return them to their nearest Pier 1 Imports retail store for a full refund or merchandise credit. For additional information, contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-4595 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.pier1.com/ PUTNAM FUNDS: Madison County Class Action Dismissed on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Knef at The Madison Record reports that the Fifth District Appellate Court has ordered that a Madison County mutual funds class action be dismissed. In a ruling handed down Wednesday, the court reversed Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder who in 2007 denied a defense motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case against international mutual fund defendants Putnam Funds Trust, Putnam Investment, Evergreen International Trust and Evergreen Investment Management. The defendants had argued that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Securities Litigation Act. The appellate court remanded the case with directions to dismiss. Justices considered five certified questions on appeal, but they answered only the first -- whether the case was precluded by the Securities Litigation Act - in the affirmative. "We decline to answer the remaining certified questions because to answer them would have no practical effect on this litigation," wrote Justice Stephen Spomer. Justices Melissa Chapman and Bruce Stewart concurred. Plaintiffs Carl Kircher and Robert Brockway as investors sued in 2003, claiming in part that the defendants exposed them, as long- term shareholders, to market timing traders who regularly purchased and redeemed the defendants' shares as a part of profitable trading strategy. Korein Tillery represented the class. TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co., continues to defend a purported class-action complaint, Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al., according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. The "Shellman" lawsuit was filed in late April 2008, in the Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant. The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The suit requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as punitive and exemplary damages. Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case. As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined. Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com/-- is a supplier of heavy construction materials in the United States through its three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer products. The company's cement segment produces gray portland cement and specialty cements. Its cement production and distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and California. The company's aggregates segment produces natural aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and specialty lightweight aggregates. Its consumer products segment produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent, packaged products. The company is a supplier of natural aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas. ********* 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 2010. 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 * * *