/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 27 Headlines AMERICAN AIRLINES: D. Mass. Certifies Skycap Class for Lost Tips AWB LTD: Australian Shareholder Class Trial Begins Tomorrow BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Washington Suit Complains About Cramming D.R. HORTON: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of "Yeatman" Suit D.R. HORTON: Final Settlement Agreement in "Wilson" Suit Pending EXPERIAN GROUP: Free Credit Reports Not Free, Calif. Suit Says FAMILY DOLLAR: Mo. Suit Complains About Work Policy and Practice GOOGLE INC: Justice Dept. Criticizes Revised Author Settlement HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Pa. LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit in Georgia Over Plan Merger with LSREF LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit Over Planned LSREF Merger in Delaware LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Ask for $700,000 in Fees PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Still Pending PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Chism" Suit in Alabama PANTRY INC: Wants to Transfer "Gee" Suit to Alabama PANTRY INC: Defends "Amason" Suit Over FACTA Violations QUEST RESOURCE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Okla. QUEST RESOURCE: Cherokee Subsidiary Evaluating Settlement Offer RENTECH INC: Faces Three Shareholder-Related Suits in California SCHYLLING ASSOC: Paying $200,000 to Resolve Lead Paint Problem SEQUENOM INC: Court Gives Preliminarily Approval to Settlement TOYOTA MOTOR: Beasley Allen Files Class Action Suit in S.D. Fla. TOYOTA MOTOR: Cohen & Malad Files Class Action Suit in Indiana TOYOTA MOTOR: President Akio Toyoda Apologizes for Global Recalls UNITED STATES: Pentagon Accused of Not Paying Departure Bonuses UNITRIN INC: Units Continue to Face Hurricane-Related Lawsuits ********* AMERICAN AIRLINES: D. Mass. Certifies Skycap Class for Lost Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that skycaps across the country who claim they lost tips after American Airlines imposed $2 curbside baggage fees can now join a Boston lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge William Young on Thursday certified a nationwide class in DiFiore, et al. v. American Airlines, Case No. __-cv-____ (D. Mass.). The class action lawsuit comes 18 months after a federal jury awarded nine current and former American Airlines skycaps from Massachusetts $325,000 for tips they lost as a result of the baggage fees. The class certification means that hundreds of American Airlines skycaps at 85 airports around the country are now part of the case seeking damages. One of the Plaintiff's lawyers: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: 617-994-5800 told the Boston Globe that damages could amount to millions. An American Airlines spokesman said the company "respectfully disagrees with the court's decision." The Class Action Reporter previously reported about this litigation on April 9, 2008. AWB LTD: Australian Shareholder Class Trial Begins Tomorrow ----------------------------------------------------------- The herald Sun, via AAP, reports that a class action against agribusiness company AWB Ltd involving more than 1000 shareholders seeking compensation for its failure to disclose Iraqi kickbacks begins in the Federal Court on Wednesday. Members of the action say they collectively lost over $100 million when AWB shares plummeted after the Cole inquiry found in 2006 that AWB paid more than $290 million to the former Iraqi regime between 1999 and 2003. No shareholder class action has yet reached judgment in Australia, with settlements between parties the usual outcome. The trial, to be held in Sydney, was to begin today but was pushed back one day due to a court delay. The court hearing comes almost three years after the class action was first filed in the Federal Court by retired farmers and former AWB shareholders, husband and wife John and Kaye Watson. Many other institutions and investors who bought AWB 'B Class' securities after March 11, 2002 and retained them until January 13, 2006, have since joined the action. They will allege AWB breached its continuous disclosure obligations by failing to inform the market it paid fees to the Iraqi regime, disguised as transport fees, in exchange for access to the country's lucrative wheat markets. AWB also engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making representations to the market about the nature of its dealings with Iraq and its integrity, they claim. Investors would not have bought AWB shares, or paid a lower price for the shares, if this alleged non-disclosure and misleading conduct had not occurred, lawyers for the claimants will argue. The class action is being run by Maurice Blackburn lawyers and funded by the listed litigation fund IMF Australia Ltd. The trial has been set to run for five weeks. BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc., is awaiting a decision from California's highest court in a decertified class-action suit related to meal and rest breaks. Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a lawsuit against Brinker in California Superior Court alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as a class action in July 2006. On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all claims with prejudice. On Oct. 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of Appeal. No further updates on the case were reported in the company's Feb. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 23, 2009. Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/-- is principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar, Maggiano's Little Italy, and On The Border Mexican Cantina restaurant concepts. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Washington Suit Complains About Cramming ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon "turns a consumer's . . . wireless telephone number into a charge card" by cramming, a class action claims in Seattle Federal Court. Also sued are Vodafone Group, OpenMarket Inc., Snackable Media, and Predicto Mobile. A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declatory Relief, Damages and Rescision in Shaw v. Cellco Partnership, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00184 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/Cramming.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher I. Brain, Esq. Nancy A. Pacharzina, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-682-5600 D.R. HORTON: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of "Yeatman" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action, John R. Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., is now concluded after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate affirming the dismissal of the complaint, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed on June 15, 2007, one of the company's customers against the company and its affiliated mortgage company subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The complaint sought certification of a class alleged to include persons who, within the year preceding the filing of the suit, purchased a home from the company and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from its affiliated mortgage company subsidiary. The complaint alleged that the company violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by effectively requiring the company's homebuyers to use its affiliated mortgage company to finance their home purchases by offering certain discounts and incentives. The action sought damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On April 23, 2008, the Court ruled on the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed this complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the decision. On Sept. 1, 2009, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate affirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. The time for additional appeals has passed, thus this matter is now concluded. The suit is John R. Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-00081 (S.D. Ga.) (Edenfield, J.). Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas A. Withers, Esq. Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC P.O. Box 10164 Savannah, GA 31412 Phone: 912-447-8400 Fax: 912-233-6584 E-mail: TWithers@gcpwlaw.com Representing the defendants is: David M. Souders, Esq. Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC 1300 19th Street, NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-628-2000 Fax: 202-628-2011 D.R. HORTON: Final Settlement Agreement in "Wilson" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A final settlement agreement in the matter James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. The putative class action was filed on March 24, 2008, by five customers of Western Pacific Housing, Inc., one of the company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, against the company, Western Pacific Housing, Inc., and the company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint sought certification of a class alleged to include persons who, within the four years preceding the filing of the suit, purchased a home from the company, or any of its subsidiaries, and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary. The complaint alleged that the company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 16720, 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code by effectively requiring homebuyers to apply for a loan through the company's affiliated mortgage company. In June 2009 the complaint was amended to limit the putative class to California customers only and the claims asserted were limited to alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges that the homebuyers were either deceived about loan costs charged by our affiliated mortgage company or coerced into using the company's affiliated mortgage company, or both, and that discounts and incentives offered by the company or its subsidiaries to buyers who obtained financing from the affiliated mortgage company were illusory. The action seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. Subsequent to Dec. 31, 2009, the plaintiffs tentatively agreed to dismiss their lawsuit in exchange for a waiver of costs. A final settlement agreement is pending. The suit is James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB, (S.D. Calif.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Blumenthal & Nordrehaug 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com Representing the defendants is: John T. Brooks, Esq. Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-3372 Phone: 619-236-1414 Fax: 619-232-8311 E-mail: jtbrooks@luce.com EXPERIAN GROUP: Free Credit Reports Not Free, Calif. Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Experian's "free credit reports" are not free at all, but trick customers into signing up for a credit monitoring service that can cost up to $179 a year, consumers say in a federal class action. The class claims Experian does this despite promising the FTC in 2005 that it would "stop its fraud" -- but all it did was change the name. Experian runs commercials for FreeCreditReport.com, which are frequently broadcast in the L.A. area. FreeCreditReport.com is a "for-profit business" owned by Experian, according to the 48-page complaint, with 82 pages of attachments. The class claims that when consumers go to the Web site for a free report, they are required to give personal financial information, which Experian uses to enroll them into its Triple Advantage credit-monitoring program -- without warning. Experian charges their credit cards $14.95 a month for Triple Advantage, the class says. This makes Experian's "extensive use of the form 'free' fraudulent and misleading," the complaint states. Until the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint with similar allegations against Experian in 2005, the company had been operating under the name ConsumerInfo. The Commission's allegations led to an agreement in which the company "agreed to stop its fraud," according to the complaint. But it did not stop, the class claims; it adopted a new name and continued doing it. None of Experian's commercials make direct mention of the Triple Advantage program, the class claims. On the Web site, the company acknowledges that neither ConsumerInfo.com nor FreeCreditReport.com are affiliated with the annual free credit report program, which provides consumers with one free report each year from each of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies. The class action cites a November 2009 New York Times article that reported that for "the vast majority of consumers whose credit status doesn't change quickly or drastically, a monitoring service is a waste of money." The class alleges unfair competition, false advertising, willful deception, fraud, negligence and unjust enrichment. It seeks damages, restitution and an injunction. A copy of the Complaint in Possin v. Experian Group Ltd., Case No. 10-cv-00126 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/Experian.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Balestriere, Esq. BALESTRIERE FARIELLO 225 Broadway, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-374-5401 - and - Joseph A. Ferucci, Esq. BROWN AND CHARBONNEAU LLP 420 Exchange, Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92602 Telephone: 714-505-3000 FAMILY DOLLAR: Mo. Suit Complains About Work Policy and Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Family Dollar Stores of Missouri forced its "alleged managerial" employees to work straight time for 55 to 80 hours a week, a class action claims in Jackson County Court, Independence. A copy of the Employees' Petition for Damages in Walters v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, Inc., Case No. 1016-CV02190 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/EmployFamilyDollar.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy P. Maloney, Esq. Kirk D. Holman, Esq. HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC 4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-283-8738 - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. Tony E. La Croix, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Ave. Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: 816-531-0033 GOOGLE INC: Justice Dept. Criticizes Revised Author Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Helft at The New York Times reports that in another blow to Google's plan to create a giant digital library and bookstore, the Justice Department on Thursday said that a class-action settlement between the company and groups representing authors and publishers had significant legal problems, even after recent revisions. In a 31-page filing in The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 05-cv-08136 (S.D.N.Y.) (Chin, J.), that could influence a federal judge's ruling on the settlement, the department said the new agreement was much improved from an earlier version. But it said the changes were not enough to placate concerns that the deal would grant Google a monopoly over millions of orphan works, meaning books whose right holders are unknown or cannot be found. A copy of the government's filing is available at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/20100205_googlebooks.pdf The department also indicated that the revised agreement, like its predecessor, appeared to run afoul of authors' copyrights and was too broad in scope. The revised agreement "suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class-action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation," the department wrote. The department asked the court to encourage the parties to continue discussions on further changes to the settlement, which it said had many public benefits. While the Justice Department did not explicitly urge the court to reject the deal, as it had the previous version, its opposition on copyright, class action and antitrust grounds represented a further setback for Google and the other parties to the deal. The settlement stems from copyright lawsuits filed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers over Google's plan to digitize books from major libraries. The settlement, introduced in October 2008, would allow Google to make millions of books available online and commercialize them, while creating new ways for authors and publishers to earn money from digital copies of their works. But the deal faced a chorus of critics who argued that it would give Google a monopoly on millions of out-of-print books and had failed to take into account the interests of many authors. In a statement on behalf of Google and the author and publisher groups, a Google spokesman, Gabriel Stricker, said the Justice Department's filing "recognizes the progress made with the revised settlement, and it once again reinforces the value the agreement can provide in unlocking access to millions of books in the U.S." He said Google looked forward to the court's review of the department's views and those of the deal's supporters. Critics of the agreement include Amazon, Microsoft and a range of authors, academics and public interest groups. Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who will rule on the settlement, scheduled a hearing on the agreement for Feb. 18. HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ RTT News reports that Harleysville National Corp. disclosed that a class action has been initiated by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a proposed class of the company's shareholders and their successors-in-interest, other than defendants or those associated with defendants, who were holders of record on December 7, 2009, and eligible to vote at the January 22, 2010, shareholder meeting. The complaint charges the members of Harleysville's Board of Directors with violations of federal securities laws for their failure to provide shareholders with all material information in the merger proxy statement seeking shareholder approval of the merger between Harleysville and First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. A copy of the Complaint in Maffia v. Garaghty, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00508 (E.D. Pa.) (Diamond, J.), is available at: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/harleysville/complaint.pdf Mr. Maffia is represented by: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215-561-3600 - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Aaron W. Beard, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-231-1058 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Hamilton Lindley, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: 214-744-3000 - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St. Asaphs Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-822-0201 - and - Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-732-6067 Shoemaker, et ux. v. Geraghty, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00204 (E.D. Pa.) (Diamond, J.), also names Harleysville and First Niagara as defendants. In that litigation, Mr. and Mrs. Shoemaker are represented by: Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-667-6200 In Shoemaker, Harleysville National Corp. and its officers and directors are represented by: Kristina Carol Evans, Esq. Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Michael J. Newman, Esq. Joseph A. Tate, Esq. DECHERT, LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: 215-994-2331 and First Niagara is represented by: ROBERT J. LANE, JR., Esq. IVAN E. LEE, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP The Guaranty Bldg., Suite 100 140 Pearl St. Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: 716-856-4000 - and - James H. Thomas, Esq. BLAKINGER, BYLER & THOMAS, P.C. 28 Penn Square Lancaster, PA 17603 Telephone: 717-299-1100 LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit in Georgia Over Plan Merger with LSREF -------------------------------------------------------------- Lodgian, Inc., faces a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, over its planned merger with LSREF Lodging Investments, LLC, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Jan. 22, 2010, Hospitality Mortgage Investments, LLC, and an affiliate of LSREF Lodging Investments, purchased the lender's interest in Lodgian's $130 million mortgage loan facility originally made by Goldman Sachs Commercial Mortgage Capital, L.P. An amendment to the loan was also concurrently entered into by Hospitality and Lodgian's subsidiary borrowing entities which own the hotels securing the loan. The material terms of the loan amendment are: -- Effective immediately, the cash lockbox provisions of the loan were amended to provide that excess cash flow from the mortgaged properties after debt service, reserves and operating expenses, will not be retained by the lender in an excess cash flow reserve account, but will instead be released to the borrowers on a monthly basis, even if the properties do not meet previously required financial ratio tests. -- The deadline for Lodgian's subsidiary which owns the Crowne Plaza Albany, New York, to complete renovation work on the hotel's parking structure was extended to May 1, 2010. -- The allocated loan amounts for each of the properties securing the loan were readjusted. -- Effective July 1, 2010, after the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Jan. 22, 2010, by and among Lodgian, LSREF Lodging Investments (Purchaser), and LSREF Lodging Merger Co., Inc., an affiliate of Purchaser (Merger Sub) is currently expected to have closed, the margin over LIBOR used to determine the interest rate on the loan will be increased from 1.50% to 4.25%. -- If the Merger Agreement is validly terminated for any reason other than as a result of a breach by Purchaser of any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements contained in the Merger Agreement such that certain of Lodgian's closing conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement would not be met, Lodgian's subsidiary borrowing entities on the loan will be required, in their sole discretion, to either pay down the principal balance of the loan by $5,000,000, or to cause the Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property to be pledged as additional security for the loan. If the Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property is pledged as additional security for the loan, it may be subsequently released from the loan upon payment of cash release price of $5,000,000. On Jan. 26, 2010, a putative class action was commenced against Lodgian, each of Lodgian's directors, Purchaser and Merger Sub alleging that the members of Lodgian's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Lodgian shareholders in approving and adopting a merger agreement that allegedly contains preclusive deal protection measures and unfair merger consideration. The complaint further alleges that Lodgian, Purchaser and Merger Sub aided and abetted Lodgian's directors in allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the completion of the Merger, an award of unspecified monetary damages and to recover certain costs incurred by the plaintiff. Lodgian, Inc. -- http://www.lodgian.com/-- is an independent owner and operator of full-service hotels in the United States. The company operates substantially all of its hotels under brands, such as Crowne Plaza, Four Points by Sheraton, Hilton, Holiday Inn, Marriott and Wyndham. LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit Over Planned LSREF Merger in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Lodgian, Inc., faces a putative class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, over its planned merger with LSREF Lodging Investments, LLC, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Jan. 22, 2010, Hospitality Mortgage Investments, LLC, and an affiliate of LSREF Lodging Investments, purchased the lender's interest in Lodgian's $130 million mortgage loan facility originally made by Goldman Sachs Commercial Mortgage Capital, L.P. An amendment to the loan was also concurrently entered into by Hospitality and Lodgian's subsidiary borrowing entities which own the hotels securing the loan. The material terms of the loan amendment are: -- Effective immediately, the cash lockbox provisions of the loan were amended to provide that excess cash flow from the mortgaged properties after debt service, reserves and operating expenses, will not be retained by the lender in an excess cash flow reserve account, but will instead be released to the borrowers on a monthly basis, even if the properties do not meet previously required financial ratio tests. -- The deadline for Lodgian's subsidiary which owns the Crowne Plaza Albany, New York, to complete renovation work on the hotel's parking structure was extended to May 1, 2010. -- The allocated loan amounts for each of the properties securing the loan were readjusted. -- Effective July 1, 2010, after the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Jan. 22, 2010, by and among Lodgian, LSREF Lodging Investments (Purchaser), and LSREF Lodging Merger Co., Inc., an affiliate of Purchaser (Merger Sub) is currently expected to have closed, the margin over LIBOR used to determine the interest rate on the loan will be increased from 1.50% to 4.25%. -- If the Merger Agreement is validly terminated for any reason other than as a result of a breach by Purchaser of any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements contained in the Merger Agreement such that certain of Lodgian's closing conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement would not be met, Lodgian's subsidiary borrowing entities on the loan will be required, in their sole discretion, to either pay down the principal balance of the loan by $5,000,000, or to cause the Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property to be pledged as additional security for the loan. If the Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property is pledged as additional security for the loan, it may be subsequently released from the loan upon payment of cash release price of $5,000,000. On Jan. 29, 2010, a putative class action was commenced Lodgian, each of Lodgian's directors, Purchaser, Merger Sub and Lone Star Funds, an affiliate of Purchaser and Merger Sub (Lone Star), alleging that the members of Lodgian's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Lodgian shareholders by allegedly failing to obtain the highest price available for Lodgian's shareholders, failing to adequately shop Lodgian and approving a merger agreement that contains preclusive deal protection measures. The complaint further alleges that Lone Star aided and abetted Lodgian's directors in allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the completion of the Merger, an order compelling the directors to undertake a new sale process, an award of unspecified monetary damages and costs of litigation. Lodgian, Inc. -- http://www.lodgian.com/-- is an independent owner and operator of full-service hotels in the United States. The company operates substantially all of its hotels under brands, such as Crowne Plaza, Four Points by Sheraton, Hilton, Holiday Inn, Marriott and Wyndham. LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Ask for $700,000 in Fees ------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs in the matter McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, on Jan. 29, 2010, filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a supplemental award of $700,000 for attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred between Jan. 1, 2009 and Jan. 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment issued by the Court on Jan. 15, 2010, related to the company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Court ordered Lufkin Industries to pay the plaintiff class $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The company had previously estimated the total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from Jan. 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. The plaintiffs are required to submit this request within 14 days of the final judgment. Until the plaintiffs submit this reimbursement request and the Court reviews their request, the company says it cannot reasonably estimate this liability. On Jan. 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's final judgment. On Jan. 21, 2010, the company filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same court. In addition, the company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals. The District Court has not yet ruled on this motion to stay. The Company will accrue an additional charge of $300,000 during the fourth quarter of 2009 related to the interest and damages award. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company will record a provision of $1.0 million for these legal expenses and accrual adjustments for the final judgment award of damages, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 97- 00063 (E.D. Tex.) (Cobb, J.). The plaintiffs are represented by: Morris J. Baller, Esq. GOLDSTEIN DEMCHAK BALLER BORGEN 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800 Fax: 1-510-835-1417 E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com - and - Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq. STUCKEY GARRIGAN & CASTETTER 2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902 Phone: 936-560-6020 Fax: 1-936-560-9578 E-mail: tbgstugar@cox-internet.com The Company is represented by: Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: 713-758-2222 Fax: 1-713-615-5014 E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of the plaintiffs for class certification in several purported class action lawsuits against The Pantry, Inc., over motor fuel that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale, remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009. Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country against numerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits. The company has been named as a defendant in seven cases: -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed on Feb. 16, 2007; -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed on March 7, 2007; -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL, filed on March 7, 2007); -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed on March 26, 2007; -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed on June 5, 2007; -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed on July 13, 2007); and -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed on Sept. 24, 2007. Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre- trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which we are named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on Feb. 21, 2008. A number of the defendants, including the company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political questions." The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political question grounds on Dec. 3, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court to certify an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, which defendants have opposed, remain pending. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Chism" Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit over unpaid wages, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009. On Sept. 29, 2009, Wimbreth Chism and Charlotte Minor, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly situated, filed suit against The Pantry in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama (Wimbreth Chism et.al. v. The Pantry, Inc d/b/a Kangaroo Express, No. 63-CV-2009-900612.00). The plaintiffs seek collective action status and assert claims on behalf of present and former employees for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. The plaintiffs generally allege that they are or were employed by The Pantry as store managers, but were misclassified as exempt, and as such are or were entitled to overtime compensation. The suit seeks permission to give notice of this action to all current and former employees who were employed as store managers during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit. The plaintiffs also seek damages, liquidated damages, costs, pre- judgment interest and attorneys' fees, and any injunctive and/or declaratory relief to which they may be entitled. On October 28, 2009, the company removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, and on Nov. 18, 2009 filed an Answer to the Complaint. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. PANTRY INC: Wants to Transfer "Gee" Suit to Alabama --------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc.'s motion to transfer the suit captioned Gee, et. al. v. The Pantry, Inc. a/k/a Kangaroo Express No 3109-CV-1140, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009. On Nov. 19, 2009, Andrea Gee, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed suit against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Gee, et. al. v. The Pantry, Inc. a/k/a Kangaroo Express No 3109-CV-1140). The plaintiff seeks collective action status and asserts claims on behalf of present and former employees for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. The plaintiff in the generally allege that they are or were employed by The Pantry as store managers, but were misclassified as exempt, and as such are or were entitled to overtime compensation. The suit seeks permission to give notice of this action to all current and former employees who were employed as store managers during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit. The plaintiffs also seek damages, liquidated damages, costs, pre- judgment interest and attorneys' fees, and any injunctive and/or declaratory relief to which they may be entitled. On Jan. 12, 2010, the company filed a motion to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, and the motion is currently pending. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. PANTRY INC: Defends "Amason" Suit Over FACTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc., defends a suit alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009. On Oct. 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W). The plaintiff seeks class action status and alleges that The Pantry included more information than is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g). The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. QUEST RESOURCE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Okla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Resource Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit alleging violation of federal securities laws, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming the company, its subsidiary Quest Energy Partners, L.P., and Quest Energy GP, LLC and certain of their current and former officers and directors as defendants. The complaints were filed by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 2, 2005 and Aug. 25, 2008 and QELP common units between Nov. 7, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008. The four suits are: (1) Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-936-M, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, filed Sept. 5, 2008; (2) James Jents, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, David E. Grose, and John Garrison, Case No. 08-cv-968-M, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, filed Sept. 12, 2008; (3) J. Braxton Kyzer and Bapui Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-1066-M, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, filed Oct. 6, 2008; and (4) Paul Rosen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-978-M, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, filed Sept. 17, 2008. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning certain unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of the company to entities controlled by the company's former chief executive officer, Mr. Jerry D. Cash. The complaints also allege that, as a result of these actions, the company's stock price and the unit price of QELP was artificially inflated during the class period. On Dec. 29, 2008 the court consolidated these complaints as Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma. On Sept. 24, 2009, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for each of the QRCP class and the QELP class. The lead plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after being appointed. No further activity is expected in the purported class action until an amended consolidated complaint is filed. On Oct. 13, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for partial modification of the automatic discovery stay provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Quest Resource Corporation -- http://www.questresourcecorp.com/ -- is an integrated energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, production and transportation of oil and natural gas. The company operates in two segments: oil and gas production, and natural gas pipelines, including transporting, gathering, treating and processing natural gas. The company's subsidiaries include Quest Energy Partners, L.P. and Quest Midstream GP, LLC. QUEST RESOURCE: Cherokee Subsidiary Evaluating Settlement Offer --------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Resource Corp.'s subsidiary, Quest Cherokee, LLC, is in the process of evaluating an initial settlement offer from the plaintiffs in the matter Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, Case No. 07-1225-MLB, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Quest Cherokee was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed on Aug. 6, 2007, by several royalty owners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The case was filed by the named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class consisting of all Quest Cherokee's royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Kansas portion of the Cherokee Basin. Plaintiffs contend that Quest Cherokee failed to properly make royalty payments to them and the putative class by, among other things, paying royalties based on reduced volumes instead of volumes measured at the wellheads, by allocating expenses in excess of the actual costs of the services represented, by allocating production costs to the royalty owners, by improperly allocating marketing costs to the royalty owners, and by making the royalty payments after the statutorily proscribed time for doing so without providing the required interest. Quest Cherokee answered the complaint and denied plaintiffs' claims. On July 21, 2009, the court had granted plaintiffs' motion to compel production of Quest Cherokee's electronically stored information, or ESI, and directed the parties to decide upon a timeframe for producing Quest Cherokee's ESI. Discovery has been stayed until Dec. 5, 2009 to allow the parties to discuss settlement terms. Quest Cherokee has received an initial settlement offer from plaintiffs' counsel and is in the process of evaluating that offer and its response to the same. Quest Resource Corporation -- http://www.questresourcecorp.com/ -- is an integrated energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, production and transportation of oil and natural gas. The company operates in two segments: oil and gas production, and natural gas pipelines, including transporting, gathering, treating and processing natural gas. The company's subsidiaries include Quest Energy Partners, L.P. and Quest Midstream GP, LLC. RENTECH INC: Faces Three Shareholder-Related Suits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rentech, Inc., faces three purported class action shareholder lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Between Dec. 29, 2009 and Jan. 6, 2010, three purported class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case captions are: (1) Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW; (2) Moti Ben-Ami v. Rentech, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-09555-JFW-MAN; and (3) Kevin Kelly v. Rentech, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00069-SVW-CT. The complaints allege that the company and the named current and former directors and officers made false or misleading statements regarding the company's financial performance in connection with its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. Plaintiffs in the three actions purport to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Rentech securities between May 9, 2008 and Dec. 14, 2009 and seek unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company has not yet filed a response to the complaints. Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- is focused on providing clean energy solutions. The company is focusing on the deployment of the Rentech Process and the Rentech-SilvaGas biomass gasification technology (Rentech-SilvaGas Technology) through both licensing of its technology and development of facilities to produce synthetic fuels and chemicals, natural gas substitutes, and electric power from renewable and fossil feedstocks. SCHYLLING ASSOC: Paying $200,000 to Resolve Lead Paint Problem -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., has agreed to pay a $200,000 civil penalty. A Settlement Agreement -- see http://is.gd/7Ljml-- provisionally accepted by the Commission, resolves staff allegations that the company violated the federal lead paint ban regarding toys with surface paints containing lead above the 600 parts per million (ppm) legal limit applicable at the time, and failed to immediately report to CPSC information about the non-compliant toys. In 1978, a federal ban was established that prohibited toys and other children's articles from having more than 600 ppm (by weight) in paints or surface coatings. The regulatory limit was reduced to 90 ppm on August 14, 2009, as a result of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The settlement resolves the following allegations: * Schylling imported up to 66,000 units of non-compliant spinning top toys with Thomas and Friends, Curious George and Circus graphics between June 2001 and June 2002, and distributed them to its retail business customers for sale to consumers. * Schylling imported as many as 10,200 units of non-compliant tin pail toys with Thomas and Friends, Curious George and Primary Colors graphics from late January 2002 through March 2002, and distributed about 4,700 of them to its retail customers for sale to consumers. * Schylling also imported as many as 3,600 units of non- compliant Winnie-the-Pooh style spinning top toys between April and May 2003, and distributed them to its retail customers for sale to consumers. * Although it eventually reported about these toys to CPSC in 2007, Schylling knew or should have known by 2002 that most of the toys did not comply with the lead paint ban, and it failed to report this information to the government in a timely manner. Instead of notifying CPSC immediately, in 2002 Schylling conducted a unilateral recall of the distributed pails by seeking their return from affected retail business customers. Within weeks of being notified of each of these violations in 2007, CPSC announced the firm's voluntary recall of the products first in August and for additional toys in November of that year. "Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have a legal obligation to ensure that no banned products are introduced into or distributed in the U.S. marketplace, and to inform CPSC as soon as they become aware of information that must be reported under our laws. We will continue to penalize companies that do not follow these basic requirements," said CPSC Chairman, Inez Tenenbaum. In agreeing to the settlement, Schylling denies that it violated federal law, as alleged by CPSC staff. SEQUENOM INC: Court Gives Preliminarily Approval to Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, on Jan. 26, 2010, entered an order preliminarily approving the stipulation of settlement reached in the class action securities lawsuits consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:09-cv-00921 LAB-WMC, according to the company's Feb. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In the order, the Court approved the notice of class action, the summary notice of proposed settlement of securities class action and proof of claim and release forms, authorized the distribution of such forms to all potential settlement class members and appointed Rust Consulting as the settlement administrator to supervise and administer the notice and claim procedures. The stipulation of settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court, which set May 3, 2010 as the date for the final settlement approval hearing. Under the settlement agreement, in exchange for a release of all claims by the class members and a dismissal of the consolidated lawsuits, the company has agreed: (i) to pay the class members and their attorneys a total of $14 million which will be funded from insurance proceeds, (ii) to issue to the class members and their attorneys shares of the company's common stock, and (iii) to adopt certain corporate governance measures, including an amendment to the company's Bylaws to provide that at all times a majority of the company's directors must be independent. The number of shares of the company's common stock to be issued will be determined on a date to be established after final approval of the settlement by the U.S. District Court and will constitute 9.95% of the shares of the company's common stock outstanding post-issuance, provided that certain shares issued after entry into the stipulation of settlement, including any shares issued in a bona fide financing, in connection with a licensing, collaboration or acquisition transaction or pursuant to our currently existing equity incentive plans, will be excluded from the shares outstanding calculation. As of Dec. 23, 2009, the company had 61,693,241 shares of common stock outstanding, and if the share number had been determined as of that date, the company would have been obligated to issue 6,816,743 shares of common stock pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Sequenom, Inc. -- http://www.sequenom.com/-- is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis company. The company is focused on providing products, services, diagnostic testing, applications and genetic analysis products that translate the results of genomic science into solutions for biomedical research, translational research, molecular medicine applications, and agricultural, livestock and other areas of research. TOYOTA MOTOR: Beasley Allen Files Class Action Suit in S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., has filed a complaint seeking class action status on behalf of over 5 million Toyota owners whose vehicles have been recalled by Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida against Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc. The complaint in Heilbrunn v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No. 10-cv-80208 (S.D. Fla.) (Zloch, J.), charges Toyota with breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and alleges that Toyota has downplayed or dismissed owner complaints of sudden unintended acceleration, blaming it on driver error. Dee Miles, Esq., who heads Beasley Allen's consumer fraud and class action department, will be working with lawyers Brian W. Smith, Esq., in Florida, Joe R. Whatley, Esq., in New York and Howard Rubinstein, Esq., in Colorado. "The complaint seeks justice for those people who rely on their vehicle for their livelihood, those who are making payments on an automobile that they are afraid to drive and those who have made payments on a car that they believed would last for many years and maintain value," says Ms. Miles. According to Sean Kane, an independent automotive safety expert and founder of Safety Research and Strategies, Inc. says that 19 deaths and 341 injuries can be attributed to 815 separate crashes involving Toyotas that had accelerated suddenly and unexpectedly. 2,262 incidents involving unintended acceleration have been reported since 1999. The makes and models in the various recalls include the 2005-2010 Avalon, 2007-2010 Camry, 2009-2010 Corolla, 2008-2010 Highlander, 2009-2010 Matrix, 2004-2009 Prius, 2005-2010 Tacoma, 2009-2010 RAV4, 2007-2010 Tundra, 2009-2010 VENZA and 2008-2010 Sequoia. On February 3, 2010 Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Toyota owners they should not drive their recalled vehicles. Secretary LaHood later recanted his statement, however millions of Toyota owners have been left worried that their vehicles are potential deathtraps. The Beasley Allen firm is also handling individual product liability lawsuits where deaths and disabling injuries are involved. About Beasley Allen Law Firm Headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, Beasley Allen -- http://www.beasleyallen.com/-- is comprised of over 42 attorneys and 200 support staff. Beasley Allen is a national leader in civil litigation, with verdicts and settlements of over $22 billion including the $4.85 billion settlement with Merck on behalf of over 50,000 Vioxx claimants. The Merck settlement led by Beasley Allen was the largest settlement in American history. TOYOTA MOTOR: Cohen & Malad Files Class Action Suit in Indiana -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawyers of Cohen & Malad, LLP have filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota on behalf of Judy Enderle of Carmel, an owner of a 2006 Toyota Avalon. Ms. Enderle's attorney: Eric S. Pavlack, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: 317-636-6481 who is a partner at Cohen & Malad, explained, "Toyota's abuse of American car buyers is disgusting. Toyota knew they were putting millions of lives at risk and lied about it. It doesn't get much worse than that." Toyota recently recalled more than 5 million vehicles due to a defect that can cause uncontrollable acceleration. The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of Ms. Enderle and a proposed class of Indiana Toyota customers whose cars suffer from the faulty acceleration problem. Despite mounting evidence in past years of the magnitude and severity of this problem, Toyota's response was slow and so far incomplete. It only issued a recall after being pressured by the United States government, and even then, Toyota's first recall blamed the problem on floor mats-a theory that not only has been largely discredited, but that misled Toyota owners into believing they could fix this deadly safety problem simply by removing their floor mats. The latest recall attributes the uncontrollable acceleration to a sticky mechanism in the gas pedal, but, as Pavlack explained, "What's the truth? No one knows. Many experts have expressed serious doubts this is the real culprit, instead blaming the vehicles' electronic accelerator systems. Unlike other manufacturers who include failsafe safety systems to override potentially deadly problems with these systems, Toyota chose not to do so." It will be at least weeks or months before the suspected faulty part on the millions of Toyotas affected by this recall can be replaced. Even if this fixes the problem-which is doubtful at best-Toyota owners face the immediate and potentially life-and- death decision of whether to drive their cars in the meantime. On February 3, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota owners should stop driving their vehicles until they receive the replacement part, only to reverse course later that day, leaving Toyota owners more confused than ever. Founded in 1968, Cohen & Malad -- http://www.cohenandmalad.com/ -- represents clients from throughout the United States in a variety of legal matters. TOYOTA MOTOR: President Akio Toyoda Apologizes for Global Recalls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yuri Kageyama at The Associated Press reports from Tokyo that Toyota's president apologized Friday for the massive global recalls over sticking gas pedals as the automaker scrambles to repair a damaged reputation and sliding sales. But Akio Toyoda, also Toyota's CEO, said the automaker is still deciding what steps to take to fix brake problems in the popular Prius gas-electric hybrid. Speaking at a hastily announced news conference, a stern-looking Toyoda promised to beef up quality control. He said the company is setting up a special committee he would head himself. It would review internal checks, go over consumer complaints and listen to outside experts to come up with a solution to the widening quality problems. "I offer my apologies for the worries," he said in Japanese. "Many customers are wondering whether their cars are OK." Toyoda said the company was moving quickly on the global recalls covering 4.5 million vehicles for sticking gas pedals, about half of them in the U.S. Dealers are scrambling to make repairs on the gas pedals that need a new steel part to prevent sticking, he said. "Please believe me. We always put customers first," he said, when asked by a reporter to speak in English. He said a decision on what to do about the Prius braking problem will be reached as soon as possible. The automaker said this week a recall was being considered. Mr. Toyoda, the grandson of Toyota's founder, who took office last year, has been criticized for not coming out sooner to answer questions about the flood of quality problems that have hit Toyota. The news conference at the company's headquarters in Nagoya, Japan was shown at Toyota's Tokyo office by a satellite feed. UNITED STATES: Pentagon Accused of Not Paying Departure Bonuses --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of retired Defense Department employees says the Pentagon refused to pay their departure bonuses by selectively interpreting its own regulations. They say the Pentagon fails to inform retiring employees that they need to stay on the job until the beginning of the first pay period in January to qualify for the bonus. The Superior Court complaint cites the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004, which created a performance-based pay structure that was meant to give pay increases to hard-working employees, not just those who had been around the longest. The class claims this law set the payout date for salary increases during the first pay period in January of each year, but the Pentagon has interpreted the law so that employees who retire before January are shown the door without a bonus. "There is no basis in the regulations for DOD's arbitrary application of the January effective date for an increase in base salary to the payment of bonuses." Ralph Price, class representative and a Pentagon civilian employee for 36 years, says he retired on Jan. 3, 2009, one day before the first pay period of the year. He says the Pentagon stiffed him for his $4,777 bonus. Price is suing on behalf of all retired and departing Pentagon employees for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad faith. He and the class want an order forcing the Defense Department to pay their performance-based bonuses and an injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from denying future retirees their bonuses. A copy of the Complaint in Price v. Gates, Case No. 10-cv-00048 (E.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/Pentagon.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa A. Bertini, Esq. Hyojin Bae, Esq. BERTINI O'DONNELL & HAMMER, PC 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1010 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: 757-670-3868 - and - David J. Meiselman, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Jerome Noll, Esq. Jill C. Owens, Esq. MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C. 1311 Mamaroneck Ave. White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: 914-517-5000 UNITRIN INC: Units Continue to Face Hurricane-Related Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of Unitrin, Inc., continue to defend a significant volume of lawsuits, among them two statewide putative class actions, in Florida, Louisiana and Texas, according to the company's Feb. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suits arise out of property damage caused by catastrophes and storms, including major hurricanes that have occurred over the last several years. In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- is a diversified insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty insurance, life and health insurance, and automobile finance services. The Company serves the basic financial needs of individuals, families and small businesses. The Company conducts its operations through five operating segments: Kemper, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct, Life and Health Insurance, and Fireside Bank. On February 13, 2009, Unitrin's subsidiary, Trinity Universal Insurance Company (Trinity) completed its acquisition of Direct Response Corporation and its subsidiaries (Direct Response). ********* 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 * * *