/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100301.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 41 Headlines AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Faces Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee AMERICAN AIRLINES: Refund Won't End Baggage Fee Suit, Court Says AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal of Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: 1st Cir. Wants Oil Spill Class Certified CALIFORNIA: Poor Areas Face More Teacher Layoffs, Suit Claims CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Bank Wants Suit in New York Dismissed CARACO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Violations Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: Las Vegas Condo Buyers Sue to Recover Deposits GANZ USA: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Webkinz Antitrust Suit HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending INT'L GAME: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Securities Fraud Suit INT'L GAME: Motion to Consolidate Two ERISA Suits Still Pending KAISER PERMANENTE: Accused of Not Paying Overtime in Calif. Suit LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Directors Face Suit Over Fertitta Pact LOS ANGELES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Racketeering Class Action Suit NORTHWESTERN CORP: Continues to Defend Sixth Amended Complaint NORTHWESTERN CORP: Fairness Hearing in "McGreevey" Set for May ROVI CORP: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit SCOTSMAN GROUP: Recalls 43,000 Commercial Ice Cube Machines SOUTHWESTERN BELL: 5th Cir. Won't Revive Texas Antitrust Suit TERRA INDUSTRIES: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Acceleration Lawsuit in Calif. VESTIN REALTY: Gets Favorable Ruling in San Diego Class Suit ********* AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Faces Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- AirTran Holdings, Inc., faces an amended complaint alleging that the company conspired with Delta Air Lines, Inc., in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air and AirTran in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning Dec. 5, 2008. Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single judge in Atlanta. An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidated action broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran also cut capacity on competitive routes and raised prices. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities and attorneys fees. AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary, AirTran Airways, Inc.. The company operates scheduled airline service throughout the United States and to selected international locations. Approximately half of its flights originate or terminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it serves a number of markets with non-stop service from its focus cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando, Florida. As of Feb. 1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing B717-200 aircraft (B717) and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737) offering approximately 700 scheduled flights per day to 63 locations in the United States, including San Juan, Puerto Rico, and to Orangestad, Aruba, Cancun, Mexico, and Nassau, The Bahamas. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company initiated service to seven domestic locations and initiated service to three international destinations. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Refund Won't End Baggage Fee Suit, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that American Airlines can't "pick off" a class action simply by refunding a woman's $40 baggage fee after a canceled flight, an Illinois appeals court ruled. Andrea Barber filed a class action against the airline when her flight to Chicago's O'Haire Airport to White Plains, N.Y., was canceled. Ms. Barber claimed that because she refused to take another flight, the ticket agent would not refund her fee. After Ms. Barber sued, American refunded her fee. That was enough to satisfy the trial court, which dismissed the case as moot. Judge Robert Gordon saw things differently on appeal and reversed the decision. He ruled that American could not "pick off" the lawsuit simply by refunding the fee. "By seeking discovery promptly and filing a motion to compel it, plaintiff exercised the required reasonable diligence in pursuing her class action claim," Judge Gordon wrote. "Thus, defendant's unilateral act of crediting plaintiff's credit card did not make plaintiff's claim moot," he added. AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal of Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action against Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former officers and directors remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of current and former officers and directors. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005 that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock declined. The class-action complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On Oct. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as "In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05 Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints and also alleged that the company violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable technology. In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. Certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were not dismissed with prejudice. In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which does not assert any claims relating to the company's patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the prior complaint. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov. 13, 2006. On March 26, 2009, the company reported that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the shareholder class actions filed against the company and certain of its current and former directors and former officers. On April 24, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A hearing in the case was held before the Second Circuit on Feb. 3, 2010. The suit is In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-05323 (S.D.N.Y.)(Swain, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard William Gonnello, Esq. Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq. Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-894-7200 Fax: 212-894-7272 E-mail: rgonnello@entwistle-law.com aentwistle@entwistle-law.com jwhitman@entwistle-law.com - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Irwin Howard Warren, Esq. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: 212-310-8000 Fax: 212-833-3148 E-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: 1st Cir. Wants Oil Spill Class Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sonya Angelica Diehn at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ordered a federal judge to reconsider his refusal to certify a class of Massachusetts property owners affected by an oil spill, saying his "spare treatment" of facts requires another look. A 2003 spill from a fuel tanker tugged by the Bouchard Transportation Co. released about 98,000 barrels of fuel oil on about 90 miles of shore along Buzzards Bay. Property owners sued for liability, nuisance and damages in 2006. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro denied the property owners' request for class certification, agreeing with the transportation company that each individual plaintiff must show specific damages to their property. But the Boston-based appeals court said the plaintiffs showed enough evidence of common issues to prevent outright dismissal of their request for class certification. Mass tort does not necessarily require every plaintiff to show specific entitlement to recovery, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote for the three-judge panel. With most damages falling in the $12,000 to $39,000 range, individual legal fights may not be worthwhile, especially considering the probable need for expert witnesses, the ruling states. An extensive system detailing the degree of oil discharged in specific zones during cleanup could be used in a class action, the court added. The 1st Circuit vacated and remanded the issue of class certification for further fact-finding. A copy of the decision in Gintis, et al. v. Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc., et al., No. 09-1717 (1st Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1717P-01A.pdf The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Jason B. Adkins, Esq. John Peter Zavez, Esq, Noah Rosmarin, Esq. ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C. 90 Canal St., Suite 500 Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: 617-367-1040 The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Ronald W. Zdrojeski, Esq. Linda L. Morkan, Esq. Peter R. Knight, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE, LLP One Boston Place, 25th Floor Boston, MA 02108-4404 Telephone: 617-557-5900 - and - Austin P. Olney, Esq. Robert G. Goulet, Esq. Christopher DeMayo, Esq. DEWEY & LEBOEUF, LLP 260 Franklin St. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-748-6800 CALIFORNIA: Poor Areas Face More Teacher Layoffs, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that public school students in Los Angeles are denied the basic education guaranteed by the California Constitution as the district plans to lay off thousands of teachers. Due to California's budget fiasco, the state expects to send out 14,000 reduction-in-force notices to teachers this spring -- nearly 5 percent of the teaching force -- despite its rank as 46th in the nation in per-pupil spending. Students at Samuel Gompers, John H. Liechty, and Edwin Markham Middle Schools, in the city's poorest areas, with the highest concentration of minorities, were hit the hardest, according to the Superior Court complaint. Already "denied the basic educational opportunity guaranteed them by the California Constitution," according the complaint. Those schools expect to lose or already have lost 50 to 70 percent or more of their teachers. Schools in wealthier areas face far fewer layoffs. And the layoffs affect teachers who were prepared and committed to serve the poor, minority, urban students, the class claims. Such schools have a higher percentage of non-English speakers, less access to materials, and more students with learning disabilities than schools in wealthier districts. The class of students and parents say their schools had "successfully recruited a critical mass of teachers committed to staying at the schools and becoming a foundation for an experienced, effective teaching corps." But that has been demolished, the class claims. The class adds that because their schools had the highest concentration of young teachers, they were disproportionately affected by the reduction in force, which dismissed teachers with less experience first. Since layoffs began, the plaintiff students have been taught by a string of substitutes. Some students have had as many as 9 substitutes so far this school year, several of whom do not have credentials in the areas they teach -- or no credentials at all, the complaint states. (Schools traditionally rotate such "permanent substitutes," as they must pay them more per day after a certain period, so disrupting students' learning saves the state money.) Many teachers who are assigned to the poor urban schools from the state's "Rehire List" quit after a few days or weeks because they are unable to keep control of classrooms, or they don't want to work in the poor areas, the class claims. "Effective instruction is not merely a matter of whether a teacher is able to teach the course content; it is also a matter of whether the teacher is able to teach that content to the students who attend that school," the complaint states. In the past 5 years, Gompers Middle School, in Watts in South Central Los Angeles, has had fewer than 15 percent of its students perform at or above proficient levels on state achievement testing, the complaint states. Markham Middle School, also in Watts, had only 13 percent of its students score as proficient. California expects to send out 14,000 reduction-in-force notices by this spring, said Ramon Cortines, Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent. California has about 307,000 public schoolteachers. Receiving a RIF notice does not guarantee that a teacher will be laid off; many schools do not complete the hiring process until late August. But receiving a RIF notice makes teachers fear for their job and seek a new one. They become demoralized, distracted and can't focus on teaching, which exacerbates an already devastating situation, the class claims. The class sued the State of California and the Los Angeles Unified School District, alleging violations of equal protection under the Constitution. They seek an injunction, costs and fees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Rosenbaum, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 W. 8th St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-977-9500 CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Bank Wants Suit in New York Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Canandaigua National Corp.'s principal operating subsidiary, The Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company, has filed a motion to dismiss action seeking class action status alleging violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In October 2009, the Bank was served with a Summons and Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in an action seeking class action status alleging that the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq. and its implementing regulations 12 C.F.R Section 205 et seq. by failing to post a notice on or at two of its automatic teller machines advising consumers who transact an electronic funds transfer of the fact that a fee may be imposed for the transaction and the amount of the fee. The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages on behalf of the class and attorney's fees. Damages are capped by statute at $500,000, exclusive of costs and fees. On Nov. 24, 2009, the Bank by its counsel moved to dismiss the class action allegations. Although settlement negotiations are ongoing, in the event a settlement is not achieved, the Bank intends to defend the matter vigorously. No estimate of potential loss to be incurred by the company can be made by management at Dec. 31, 2009. Canandaigua National Corporation -- http://www.cnbank.com/-- is a bank holding company. The company's principal operating subsidiaries are The Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company (the Bank), Home Town Funding, Inc. and Genesee Valley Trust Company (GVT). The Bank provides a range of financial services to its retail, commercial and municipal customers through a range of deposit, lending, trust, investment, and insurance products. These products are delivered through the Bank's network of community banking offices, which include drive-up facilities and automatic teller machines (ATM), other remote cash-dispensing machines, its customer call center, and the Internet. The Bank is a majority owner in a real estate investment trust (REIT), which invests in a portion of the Bank's amortizing residential real estate loans, and a portion of the Bank's amortizing commercial real estate loans. CARACO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit alleging securities violations, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. On July 17, 2009 and July 23, 2009, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the company and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuits allege securities violations related to the company's public statements on U.S. Food and Drug Administration compliance issues made between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009. On Sept. 15, 2009, plaintiffs in both of the purported lawsuits filed motions for consolidation of the cases and for approval of lead plaintiff. On Nov. 9, 2009, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was entered by the Court dismissing one of the two cases, effectively consolidating the cases. On Jan. 13, 2010, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order appointing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiff. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. -- http://www.caraco.com/-- is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and private-label pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores and managed care providers, throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. DEUTSCHE BANK: Las Vegas Condo Buyers Sue to Recover Deposits ------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a group of Californians who bought planned condos at the troubled Cosmopolitan high-rise project on the Las Vegas Strip say Deutsche Bank "perverted the class-action system" and "railroaded" buyers into an unfair settlement that netted $64 million worth of deposits, all while "playing coy" as to whether the project will even include condos at all. "Defendants have walked away laughing, having duped both the majority of buyers and the court," plaintiffs claim in Los Angeles Superior Court. About 39 condo purchasers in "one of the largest condominium/hotel developments in Las Vegas history" say they were recruited "with aggressive sale tactics" and told the project would be finished by 2008. But the original developer, 3700 Associates, defaulted on its construction loan in 2007, and Deutsche Bank foreclosed on the project, according to the complaint. "Construction ground to a virtual halt," the lawsuit states, and Deutsche Bank announced that the complex would not be done in 2008, but "would perhaps be completed sometime in 2010." According to the complaint, "What Deutsche Bank did not reveal was that they were considering -- and would later decide -- to abandon the condominium component of the Cosmopolitan entirely and develop it exclusively as a hotel." Plaintiffs say they have tried to get their deposits, interest and attorneys' fees back, citing the language of the contract that calls for the refund of those monies "if their condominium units would not be completed as planned." But defendants have "flatly refused to return a cent, despite facing multiple arbitrations and a class action lawsuit," according to the complaint. Deutsche Bank then "conceived a fraudulent plot to keep tens of millions of plaintiffs' deposits, even though they did not intend to deliver their condominiums," the lawsuit states. Plaintiffs say the plan was simple: "Defendants brazenly concealed their abandonment of the condominium project from both the court and plaintiffs," while stating the project would be completed as planned and holding plaintiffs to their contracts. Based on defendants' "malicious concealment, the majority of buyers were railroaded into an unfair class action settlement, accepting a mere 60.9 percent net, after attorneys' fees, of their deposits and forfeiting the remaining 39.1 percent to Deutshe Bank," according to the complaint. Plaintiffs say they refused to accept the 60.9 percent of their deposits, "when they knew that they were entitled not only to the entire amount plus interest, but also to their attorneys' fees." They say defendants have refused to negotiate, or even confirm whether the Cosmopolitan will include condos when completed. "If Deutsche Bank has always intended to complete plaintiffs' condominium units, why would its counsel coyly refuse to confirm this fact?" the complaint asks. Plaintiffs seek at least $64 million for fraud and conversion, along with attorneys' fees. They also want the class action settlement rescinded. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Park, Esq. LURIE & PARK Comerica Bank Building 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 9th Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: 818-380-3022 GANZ USA: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Webkinz Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that Ganz USA convinced a federal judge in San Francisco to dismiss the antitrust claims in a class action accusing the company of forcing retailers to buy at least $1,000 in unrelated Ganz products in order to buy its popular Webkinz plush toys. Class members claimed that Ganz illegally tied its Webkinz toys to other "core-line" products, forcing them to buy those products through Ganz instead of other producers. Each Webkinz toy is linked to an interactive Web site, called Webkinz World, that allows users to take care of a virtual pet by earning points through online games. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco said the plaintiffs needed to show how the allegedly tied products reduced consumer choice. "However, the complaint does not allege that consumers are unable to purchase the competing manufacturers' products from other retailers," Judge White wrote. The judge also tossed an antitrust injury claim, saying the alleged inability to stock store shelves with competing products "does not amount to recognizable harm to competition." "Plaintiffs do not allege that Ganz's conduct has in any way affected the price of the tied products or even the overall price for the bundled goods," he wrote. Judge White also granted Ganz's motions to dismiss state claims for consumer fraud under New York and Illinois law, and unfair competition under California law. A copy of the Honorable Jeffrey S. White's Feb. 17, 2010, Order in In re: Webkinz Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-01987 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/24/Webkinz.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. Douglas Y. Park, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY 840 Malcom Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650-697-6000 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face purported class- action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over allegations that 12 filter manufacturers engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc. v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-00475." It is a purported class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S., and Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified Honeywell on Jan. 21, 2010 that it has officially closed its investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto filters industry. The consolidated lawsuit is S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 2008-cv-00475 (Conn.) (Arterton, J.) Representing the plaintiffs is: Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. One State St., Po Box 231277 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 Phone: 860-548-2600 E-mail: krcallahan@uks.com INT'L GAME: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has yet to appoint a lead plaintiff in a putative securities fraud class action against International Game Technology, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2010. The suit was filed on July 30, 2009, by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 alleging causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom is a director. The complaint alleges that between Nov. 1, 2007 and Oct. 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects. The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems products. IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan and China. The company derives its revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services and licensing. It operates in two segments: North America and International. North America consists of its operations in the United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009). International consists of its operations in all other jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues during fiscal 2009. In January 2009, it acquired Progressive Gaming International Corporation. INT'L GAME: Motion to Consolidate Two ERISA Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' motion to consolidate two putative class action lawsuits against International Game Technology remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2010. On Oct. 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of participants in the company's employee pension plans, naming as defendants the company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan Committee, and several current and former officers and directors. The complaints, which seek unspecified damages, allege breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132. The complaints allege similar facts as the securities class action lawsuit. The complaints further allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to disclose material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the Participants, failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to diversify Plan assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company stock. The actions are captioned: (1) Carr et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and (2) Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two actions which motion is currently pending. Defendants need not respond until the Court rules on the consolidation motion. International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems products. IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan and China. The company derives its revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services and licensing. It operates in two segments: North America and International. North America consists of its operations in the United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009). International consists of its operations in all other jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues during fiscal 2009. In January 2009, it acquired Progressive Gaming International Corporation. KAISER PERMANENTE: Accused of Not Paying Overtime in Calif. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Permanente stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County Court, Oakland. A copy of the Complaint in Washington v. Kaiser Permanente, et al., Case No. RG10500062 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/25/Kaiser.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Qualls, Esq. Robin G. Workman, Esq. Aviva N. Roller, Esq. QUALLS & WORKMAN, LLP 244 California St., Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-782-3660 LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Landry's Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class-action lawsuit in Delaware following the announcement of the company's merger agreement with Fertitta Holdings, Inc. On June 16, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended on Oct. 18, 2008, with Fertitta Holdings (Parent), and Fertitta Acquisition Co. (Merger-Sub), which are solely owned by Tilman J. Fertitta, the company's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, to acquire all of the company's issued and outstanding capital stock. James F. Stuart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. et al., was filed on June 26, 2008 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The company was are named as a defendant along with its directors, Parent and Merger Sub. Stuart is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges that the merger agreement unduly hinders obtaining the highest value for shares of the company's stock. Plaintiff also alleges that the merger is unfair. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind the merger, an accounting and damages along with costs and fees. David Barfield v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. et al., was filed on June 27, 2008 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The company was named in this case along with its directors, Parent and Merger Sub. Barfield is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges that the company's directors aided and abetted Parent and Merger Sub, and have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to engage in a fair and reliable sales process leading up to the merger agreement. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind the transaction, an accounting and damages along with costs and fees. Stuart and Barfield were consolidated by court order. The consolidated action is proceeding under Consolidated C.A. No. 3856-VCL; In re: Landry's Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. In their consolidated complaint, plaintiffs allege that the company's directors breached fiduciary duties to its stockholders and that the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 17, 2008 fails to disclose what plaintiffs contend are material facts. Plaintiffs also alleged that the company, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. No further developments were reported in the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/ -- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House. LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Directors Face Suit Over Fertitta Pact ------------------------------------------------------------ Landry's Restaurants, Inc.'s Board of Directors face a purported class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty for renegotiating the merger agreement with the Fertitta Holdings Inc., according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 16, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended on Oct. 18, 2008, with Fertitta Holdings (Parent), and Fertitta Acquisition Co. (Merger-Sub), which are solely owned by Tilman J. Fertitta, the company's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, to acquire all of the company's issued and outstanding capital stock. On Feb. 5, 2009, a purported class action and derivative lawsuit entitled Louisiana Municipal Police Employee's Retirement System on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated shareholders of Landry's Restaurant's, Inc. and derivatively on behalf of minimal defendant Landry's Restaurant's, Inc. was brought against all members of the company's Board of Directors, Fertitta Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta Acquisition Co. in the Court at Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, a breach of a fiduciary duty by the directors for renegotiating the Merger Agreement with the Fertitta entities, allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire shares of stock in the company and gain majority control thereof, and terminating the Merger Agreement without requiring payment of the reverse termination fee. The suit seeks consummation of the merger buyout at $21.00 a share or damages representing the difference between $21.00 per share and the price at which class members sold their stock in the open market, or damages for allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire control of the company without paying a control premium, or alternately requiring payment of the reverse termination fee or damages for the devaluation of the company's stock. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/ -- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House. LOS ANGELES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Racketeering Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a racketeering class action that accused the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department of keeping people in custody too long and then coercing them into accepting $500 to settle their over-detention claims. Lead plaintiff J. Avalos claimed he spent more than two months in jail after being arrested on an Orange County warrant for domestic abuse. On the day of his release, a deputy sheriff in street clothes allegedly had him sign some papers, though Mr. Avalos doesn't speak English. Mr. Avalos said he didn't understand that the papers were an offer to settle his over-detention claim for $500. According to Mr. Avalos, the offer was based on his weekly salary as a janitor. He said he received a check for $500 and cashed it. Mr. Avalos filed suit on behalf of himself and more than a hundred others who had been detained to long and were "fraudulently, oppressively, extortionately, or with threats duped into compromising their monetary claims for sums far less than those claims are worth." The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution and the RICO Act, an anti-racketeering law. In August 2007, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all claims, and the 9th Circuit affirmed. The three-judge panel in Pasadena said Mr. Avalos failed to establish that the officers or the sheriff's department have a "policy, practice or custom of over-detaining inmates" needed to allege civil rights violations. "Avalos has failed to allege any improper acts by the named defendants that could be construed as constituting a pattern of racketeering activity and he failed to show any harm to a business or property interest," Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote. A copy of the opinion in Avalos v. Baca, No. 07-56511 (9th Cir.), is available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?554d The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Marion R. Yagman, Esq. Joseph Reichmann, Esq. YAGMAN & YAGMAN & REICHMAN 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: 310-452-3200 The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: David D. Lawrence, Esq. Michael D. Allen, Esq. Justin W. Clark, Esq. FRANSCELL, STRICKLAND, ROBERTS & LAWRENCE, O.C. 100 West Broadway, Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210 Telephone: 818-545-1925 NORTHWESTERN CORP: Continues to Defend Sixth Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- NorthWestern Corp. continues to defend a sixth amended complaint alleging violations of the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The company is a defendant, along with its predecessor entities the Montana Power Company (MPC) and pre-bankruptcy NorthWestern Corporation (NOR), in an action (Gonzales Action) pending in the Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, alleging fraud, constructive fraud and violations of the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act all arising out of the adjustment of workers' compensation claims. Putnam and Associates, the third party administrator of such workers' compensation claims, also is a defendant. The Gonzales Action was first filed on Dec. 18, 1999, against MPC (NOR acquired MPC in 2002) and was stayed due to the chapter 11 bankruptcy filing of NOR. On Aug. 10, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court approved a "Bankruptcy Settlement Stipulation" which permitted the Gonzales Action to proceed, assigned to plaintiffs NOR's interest in MPC's insurance policies (to the extent applicable to the allegations made by plaintiffs), released NOR from any and all obligations to the plaintiffs concerning such claims, and preserved plaintiffs' right to pursue claims arising after Nov. 1, 2004, relating to the adjustment of workers' compensation claims. To date, no insurance carrier has indicated that coverage is available for any of the claims. On Sept. 30, 2009 the Montana State Court granted the plaintiffs' motions to file a sixth amended complaint and partially granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Montana State Court excluded the fraud claims from its class certification. The new complaint seeks to hold the company jointly and severally liable for the acts of MPC and NOR and alleges that the company negligently or intentionally sabotaged plaintiffs' ability to recover under the MPC insurance policies. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages from all defendants. Due to the individual nature of the claims, the company believes the class certification was improper under Montana law, and the company continues to believe that the new complaint violates the bankruptcy stipulation. The company has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana with respect to these issues and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The company also believes the sixth amended complaint violates the Bankruptcy Settlement Stipulation and have filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking enforcement of the Bankruptcy Settlement Stipulation. The motion before the Bankruptcy Court is pending. In addition, settlement discussions concerning these claims are ongoing. NorthWestern Corporation -- http://www.northwesternenergy.com/-- is a provider of electricity and natural gas in the Upper Midwest and Northwest, serving approximately 650,000 customers in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. NORTHWESTERN CORP: Fairness Hearing in "McGreevey" Set for May -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has scheduled a fairness hearing for May 2010 on the proposed settlement in the matter McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SHE, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The company is one of several defendants in a class action lawsuit entitled McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Company, et al., now pending in U.S. District Court in Montana. The lawsuit, which was filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power Company, most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings, Inc., as a result of a corporate reorganization of The Montana Power company), contends that the disposition of various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana Power Company are void because of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the transactions. Plaintiffs thus seek to reverse those transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder approval should have been sought. NorthWestern is named as a defendant due to the fact that the company purchased The Montana Power Company L.L.C. (now CFB), which plaintiffs claim is a successor to the Montana Power Company. The company is one of the defendants in a second class action lawsuit brought by the McGreevey plaintiffs, also entitled McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Company, et al., pending in U.S. District Court in Montana. The company was dismissed from this lawsuit by the U.S. District Court in Montana in February 2009. In June 2006, the company and the McGreevey plaintiffs entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the McGreevey plaintiffs in all of the actions. This agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court in November 2006; however on Jan. 11, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Montana suggested that the settlement agreement was invalid and enjoined the plaintiffs from taking any further action in any of these matters. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's injunction to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where a determination is pending. In January 2009, the U.S. District Court in Montana asked all parties to submit memorandum discussing the party's willingness to enter into a global settlement of the matter. In October 2009, the parties to the various lawsuits reached a global settlement involving various agreements, which must be approved by the U.S. District Court in Montana and the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. In November 2009, the parties submitted documentation concerning the settlement to the U.S. District Court in Montana for its approval. Approval of the settlement by the U.S. District Court in Montana is still pending. A fairness hearing concerning the proposed settlement is scheduled for May 2010. If the court approves the settlement, the company will receive approximately $2.0 million from the Touch America bankruptcy estate and have no remaining liability in the litigation. The suit is McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al., Case No. 03-00001 (Mont.) (Haddon, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Wade Dahood, Esq. Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton P.O. Box 727 Anaconda, MT 59711-0727 Phone: 406-563-3424 Fax: 406-563-7519 Milton Datsopoulos, Esq. Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind 201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201 Missoula, MT 59802 Phone: 406-728-0810 Fax: 406-543-0134 E-mail: mdatsopoulos@dmllaw.com - and - Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey, 745 S. Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901-2529 Phone: 406-752-5566 Fax: 406-752-7124 E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq. Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven PO Box 1697 Helena, MT 59624-1697 Phone: 406-443-6820 Fax: 406-443-6883 E-mail: kim@bkbh.com ROVI CORP: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit against Rovi Corp., according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit is John Burke v. TV Guide Magazine Group, Inc., Open Gate Capital, Rovi Corp., Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., and filed on Aug. 11, 2009. The plaintiff claims that the company's former subsidiary, TV Guide Magazine, breached agreements with its subscribers and violated consumer protection laws with its practice of counting double issues toward the number of issues in a subscription. On Sept. 10, 2009, the company filed an answer to the complaint along with a petition to remove the case to federal court. On Dec. 18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff has filed an appeal of that dismissal. Rovi Corp. -- http://www.rovicorp.com/-- formerly Macrovision Solutions Corporation, provides a set of solutions that are embedded in its customers' products and services and used by end consumers. The company's offerings include interactive program guides (IPGs); embedded licensing technologies (such as recommendations and search capability), standards based media connectivity middleware, media recognition technologies, licensing of its database of descriptive information about television (TV), movie, music, books, and game content, and content protection technologies and services. The company sells its products into the market verticals, such as service providers (cable, satellite, telecommunications, mobile and Internet service providers), consumer electronics (CE) manufacturers and others. In January 2009, the company sold its TVG Network business and, in February 2009, it sold TV Guide Network and TV Guide Online businesses. SCOTSMAN GROUP: Recalls 43,000 Commercial Ice Cube Machines ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Scotsman Group LLC, of Vernon Hills, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 43,000 Scotsman(r) Commercial Modular Cube Ice Machines (Modular Cubers). Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The solenoid, an electrical component in the product, can fail and result in an electrical arc that can pose a fire hazard. The company has received four reports of fires and 37 reports of burned or melted components, resulting in replacement of machines and component parts. No injuries have been reported. The recalled machines are designed to be installed on top of ice storage bins or ice dispensers, and typically are used in commercial establishments. Model numbers begin with C0322, C0330, C0522, C0530, C0630, C0830, C1030, C1448, C1848, C2148, EH130, EH222, EH330, or EH430, and serial numbers of the recalled machines within these model designations begin with 05, 06, 07, 08 or 09. Model and serial numbers are on the back of all machines and, depending on the model, behind the machine's front panel either in the lower right corner of the machine or on the left side of the sheet metal wall that separates the larger (equipment) compartment from the smaller (ice-making) compartment. Pictures pictures of the recalled product are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10147.html Scotsman(r) commercial flake and nugget ice machines, commercial undercounter cube ice machines, and residential ice machines are not involved in this recall. The recalled equipment was manufactured in the United States and sold exclusively at commercial food service equipment distributors and dealers nationwide from September 2006 through December 2009 for between $4,000 and $14,000. Customers should stop using the recalled ice cube machines immediately and contact the company to schedule a free repair. For additional information, contact Scotsman at (800) 541-0520 between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web site at http://www.scotsman-ice.com/ SOUTHWESTERN BELL: 5th Cir. Won't Revive Texas Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that exclusive contracts to provide phone, TV and Internet services to apartment complexes and other multi-unit buildings don't violate federal antitrust laws, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled, affirming dismissal of a class action over the so- called "Triple Play" services. There are "too many competitive forces" involved in those contracts to be "sufficiently isolated and thus economically significant" under the Sherman Antitrust Act, according to the three-judge panel in Houston. Residents of a San Antonio apartment complex filed the class action on behalf of people in five states who live in multi-unit buildings that give AT&T the exclusive right to provide Triple Play services of phone, television and Internet. Class members said the agreements ran afoul of the Sherman Act because they constitute an "illegal restraint on trade and an attempt to monopolize the Triple Play services market." For that to be the case, however, the class had to prove that a multiple dwelling unit, or MDU, constitutes a "geographic market" as defined in the Act. The district court ruled that the class failed to prove this, and the New Orleans-based appeals court agreed. "It is undisputed that MDUs compete with each other for a tenant's business," Judge Thomas Reavley wrote for the court. "Accordingly, an MDU owner has an incentive to provide the lowest cost and highest quality services to attract a tenant's business. It is therefore in the interest of each service provider to provide lower-cost and higher-quality services than its competitors in order to attract the MDU's business." Also, before tenants sign a lease, they are free to shop around for the best available Triple Play services offered, the court noted. "Therefore, the cost and quality of Triple Play services likely play a factor in where a tenant chooses to live. If a tenant does not like the services of a particular MDU, that tenant can make other living arrangements," Judge Reavley wrote. The judge added that the average lease "rarely lasts more than a year," so a tenant is never locked in to a specific contract for long. "[G]iven the competition that exists between MDU owners, the competition that exists between service providers, and given the highly mobile nature of today's society," he wrote, "we cannot hold that a single MDU is so segregated as to be economically significant and thus represents a plausible geographic market." A copy of the Honorable Thomas Reavley's Feb. 22, 2010, decision in Wampler, et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, et al., No. 09-50208 (5th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50208-CV0.wpd.pdf The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: BINGHAM & LEA, P.C. 319 Maverick St. San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: 210-224-1819 - and - PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSON LLP 2161 N.W. Military Drive, Suite 400 San Antonio, TX 78213 Telephone: 210-222-9494 The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: MAYER BROWN LLP 700 Louisiana St., Suite 3400 Houston, TX 77002-2730 Telephone: 713-238-3000 - and - CLARK & CLARK 3624 North Hills Drive, Suite 205 A Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: 512-241-1800 - and - THE LAW OFFICES OF R. DAVID FRITSCHE 921 Proton Road San Antonio, TX 78258 Telephone: 210-227-2726 TERRA INDUSTRIES: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Terra Industries is selling itself too cheaply to Yara International, for $4.1 billion or $41.10 a share, shareholders say in Baltimore City Court. A copy of the Complaint in Clark v. Terra Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-10-001302 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore City), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/24/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Yelena Trepetin, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153 Telephone: 410-332-0030 TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Acceleration Lawsuit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a personal injury lawsuit seeking general and punitive damages against Toyota Motor Corporation for severe injuries he suffered in an accident that resulted from significant safety defects in a Toyota vehicle on behalf of retired U.S. Army Colonel Harry Williams of Woodbridge, Virginia last week. On January 23, 2009, Col. Williams was driving a 2009 Toyota Camry near the Jefferson Davis Highway in Woodbridge, Va., when it suddenly accelerated and crashed. Col. Williams, age 50, served our nation on active duty in the U.S. Army for 26 years until his retirement in June 2008. During his service, Col. Williams earned two Master's Degrees and received several awards and honors. Since his retirement, Col. Williams has served as Chief of the Congressional Inquiry Division with the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison at Headquarters, Department of Army, in the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. "The crash was a life-altering experience, causing major trauma to my neck and back as well as a traumatic brain injury," Col. Williams stated. "My job requires me to be sharp, focused and eloquent. This incident has caused me difficulties in my work and has negatively impacted my cognitive abilities, impaired my ability to concentrate and speak eloquently, and affected my mood and short-term memory." "The complaint charges that Toyota for years was aware that its vehicles were susceptible to sudden unintended acceleration, leading to fatal accidents," stated plaintiffs' counsel Robert J. Nelson. "Yet, Toyota never made any significant changes to improve the acceleration and electrical systems of its vehicles, in spite of the availability of several safe and inexpensive modifications." Allegations Against Toyota The complaint charges that beginning in the late 1990s, Toyota manufactured, distributed, and sold vehicles with an electronic throttle control system ("ETC"). Unlike that of traditional throttle control systems, where a physical linkage connects the accelerator pedal to the engine throttle, in the ETC system, the engine throttle is controlled by electronic signals sent from the gas pedal to the engine throttle. A sensor at the accelerator detects how far the gas pedal is depressed and transmits that information to a computer module which controls the engine throttle. When Toyota first introduced the ETC, it continued to include a mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine throttle control. Beginning with the 2002 model year, Toyota began manufacturing and selling vehicles without such a mechanical linkage. Further, Toyota's ETC system fails to include a failsafe measure, known as brake-to-idle override, used by other vehicle manufacturers. The brake-to-idle override instructs the ETC system to automatically reduce the engine to idle whenever the brakes are applied without success. "The complaint charges that the lack of a brake-to-idle override failsafe in the Camry that Col. Harry Williams was driving played a direct role in the crash and injuries he suffered," commented Nelson. The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles as two of the primary defendants, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., are both California corporations with their headquarters located in Los Angeles. The complaint seeks general damages as well as punitive damages against Toyota for its failure to recall its vehicles due to a known, significant safety defect and refusal to take any steps to prevent sudden unintended acceleration accidents in order to increase its profits. Description of the Accident Retired Army Col. Harry Williams is a safe driver with an excellent driving record of more than 30 years. Prior to the accident, Col. Williams rented a 2009 Toyota Camry from Enterprise-Rent-A-Car. On January 23, 2009, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Col. Williams, wearing his seat belt, was driving at a safe rate of speed, proceeding eastbound on Cardinal Drive in Woodbridge, Virginia. As he reached the intersection of Cardinal Drive and Jefferson Davis Highway, the Camry suddenly accelerated at a high rate of speed. Col. Williams was unable to stop the vehicle by braking. The Camry hit a 2005 Dodge Caravan that was attempting to make a left hand turn from Neabsco Road onto southbound Jefferson Davis Highway. As a result of the collision, Col. Williams suffered a loss of consciousness and sustained serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, as well as neck, back, and leg injuries. Residual symptoms of the traumatic brain injury continue to affect all aspects of Col. Williams' daily life. The members of the legal team representing the Plaintiff in Williams v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01366 (C.D. Calif.) (Wu, J.), are: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Robert J. Nelson, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. With offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes representing persons injured and families of loved ones who died in auto accidents. Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation. Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured in accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles that suddenly accelerated. If you would like to learn more about your legal rights visit: http://www.usautoinjurylaw.com/cases/defects/acceleration/toyota-lexus.htm or call the Firm toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Todd Walburg. There is no charge or obligation for Lieff Cabraser to review of your case. VESTIN REALTY: Gets Favorable Ruling in San Diego Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the manager of Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. (VRTA), and Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRTB), said that the California Superior Court ruled in favor of Vestin in its San Diego class action lawsuit, according to the Feb. 12, 2010, Form 8-K filings of VRTA and VRTB with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The lawsuit alleged that Vestin had engaged in a "roll up" when the companies merged the two funds into real estate investment trusts in 2006. The lawsuit claimed that the dissenters, those who voted against the mergers that created VRTA and VRTB, were entitled to roll-up rights. Michael V. Shustek, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of both REITs, said "We are obviously very pleased with the court's decision. When we began the merger process, Vestin engaged experienced and respected legal and accounting firms and followed the Securities and Exchange Commission procedures diligently. We were always confident in our position that the mergers were not roll ups and the court agreed with us" "This case continued for three and a half years and has been a significant expense to our shareholders." "There is currently pending in Nevada a related case alleging essentially the same core claims that were made in the class action lawsuit. While the plaintiffs in the Nevada case opted out of the class action in favor of pursuing their own lawsuit, the claims arise from the same core argument - that the mergers resulted in a "roll up", giving the plaintiffs special rights. Now that a court has heard all of the evidence and ruled in favor of Vestin, the company intends to continue to vigorously defend the Nevada lawsuit." Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that invests in commercial real estate loans. As of September 30, 2009, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. had assets of approximately $28.8 million. Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. is managed by Vestin Mortgage, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Vestin Group, Inc., which is engaged in asset management, real estate lending and other financial services through its subsidiaries. Since 1995, Vestin Mortgage Inc. has facilitated more than $2.0 billion in lending transactions. Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that invests in commercial real estate loans. As of September 30, 2009, Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. had assets of approximately $110.7 million. Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. is managed by Vestin Mortgage, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Vestin Group, Inc., which is engaged in asset management, real estate lending and other financial services through its subsidiaries. Since 1995, Vestin Mortgage Inc. has facilitated more than $2.0 billion in lending transactions. ********* 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 * * *