/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 44 Headlines CAPITAL ONE: N.J. Suit Complains About Payment Protection Plan COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Says Being Sold for Inadequate Price FUTURE FORD: Accused in Calif. of Unlawful Business Practices GE HEALTHCARE: Update on CT Scanner Suit from Plaintiffs' Counsel HOSPIRA INC: Ruling on Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit Pending MASTERCARD INC: Appeals to Approved Antitrust Suit Deal Pending MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending MASTERCARD INC: July 16 Trial Set for Overcharges Suit Deal OGE ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Rehearing of Nixed Class Status OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Price II Class Rehearing Bid OGE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Defend Oklahoma Royalties Suit OGE ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Cause in OCC Billing Suit Pending SIPC OFFICIALS: Sued for Not Paying Madoff Insurance Claims SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Face Dioxin Exposure Suits in VA SOLUTIA INC: Suit Over Contamination Ongoing in Illinois SOLUTIA INC: Final Appealable Ruling in ERISA Suit Entered SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Accused in D.C. of Misleading Students SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores' Suit v. Syngenta Crop in Discovery UNITED STATES: Congress Doesn't Act on Indian Trust Fund Deal WELLPOINT INC: Defending Suits Over 2001 AICI Demutualization WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Dentists' Suit Pending WELLPOINT INC: Wants Out-of-Network Reimbursement Suit Dismissed YELP! INC: Unlawful Sales Practice Complaint Now Available ********* CAPITAL ONE: N.J. Suit Complains About Payment Protection Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One Bank sold a "payment protection" plan to customers that is "so restricted in terms of the benefits" that it is "essentially worthless," a class action claims in Camden, N.J., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Carr, et al. v. Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 191 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Feb. 25, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/CapitalOne.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market St., Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-985-9177 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Says Being Sold for Inadequate Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Coca-Cola Enterprises, a bottler and distributor, is selling itself too cheaply to its controlling shareholder, Coca-Cola Co., in a self- dealing stock swap that will leave CCE shareholders holding "stock that will be worth considerably less than the shares they currently own," in a class action in Fulton County Superior Court, Atlanta. A copy of the Complaint in Lang v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No. 2010CV182035 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/01/CocaCola.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Molly A. Havig, Esq. Mary Kathryn King, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP 1230 Peachtree St., NE 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-873-3900 - and - John F. Harnes, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP 11 Grace Ave., Suite 306 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: 516-773-6090 - and - James S. Notis, Esq. Mark C. Gardy, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 440 Sylvan Ave., Suite 110 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: 201-567-7377 FUTURE FORD: Accused in Calif. of Unlawful Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that in a state class action, a man claims a Ford dealer demanded he return the truck he bought, due to "financing issues," then paid him $3,750 for the truck he had traded in, though it already had sold his old vehicle for $10,000. Pasquale Salerno says he bought a 2006 Ford F-150 pickup from the Future Ford dealership in Sacramento in November 2009. Mr. Salerno says he traded in his 2002 truck and paid $400 down. About a week later, Mr. Salerno says, Future Ford told him to return his newly purchased truck due to "financing issues." When he asked for his old truck back, he says the dealer told him "it is the custom of Future Ford to return the trade in value given for the vehicle" and that his truck had been "wholesaled." The dealership paid him $3,750 for his old truck, plus the $400 down payment, Mr. Salerno says in his Superior Court class action. Mr. Salerno claims a Future Ford employee told him, "Sorry, but we didn't even make any money when we wholesaled it." But Mr. Salerno says he found out that Future Ford actually resold the truck for $10,000. "Even more problematic," he says, "Future Ford's finance department actually knew that financing was not deemed complete . . . and willfully chose to immediately place the truck on the sales lot." Mr. Salerno seeks damages for consumer law violations. A copy of the Complaint in Salerno v. Future Ford, Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2010-00070701 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/FordSacto.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: J.L. Sean Slattery, Esq. John P. Pearson, Esq. DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP 2002 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Suite No. 100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: 858-793-6244 GE HEALTHCARE: Update on CT Scanner Suit from Plaintiffs' Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on behalf of people who have received excess radiation as a result of medical imaging conducted on GE CT scanners continues. GE has asked the Court to dismiss the case and is claiming that the patients' hair loss and subcellular damage are not a "present injury." The injured patients seek to create a medical monitoring fund to provide annual or semi-annual testing to: (1) provide earlier detection of cancerous tumors resulting from the radiation; and (2) provide early detection to allow quick and decisive treatment. The patients appreciate the efforts of the imaging industry to include safeguards which would prevent over radiation of patients, but are puzzled why such safety measures are just now being considered. The patients are hopeful that the hearings held on Friday, February 26, 2010, by the Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health) will help reveal why GE and other CT manufacturers failed to include safeguards into their machines which would have ensured patient safety. They also hope that the Committee uncovered why it has taken the overexposure of hundreds of patients to garner the industry's attention to this serious public health matter. The law firms representing the patients are: -- Watson, McKinney & Artrip, LLP, -- Owen, Patterson & Owen, and -- Cusimano, Keener, Roberts, Knowles & Raley, LLC. The Class Action Reporter previously reported about this litigation on Dec. 21, 2009. HOSPIRA INC: Ruling on Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A ruling on a class-action suit brought by former Abbott Laboratories employees alleging they lost benefits when the company spun off Hospira, Inc., in 2004, is pending. Hospira has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging generally that the spin-off of Hospira from Abbott resulted in a mass termination of employees so as to interfere with the future attainment of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned: Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc. Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement in Abbott benefit plans, disgorgement of profits and attorneys fees. On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an additional claim against Abbott and Hospira for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Hospira has been dismissed as a defendant with respect to the fiduciary duty claim. By Order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class action status to the lawsuit. As to the sole claim against Hospira, the court certified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD [Hospital Products Division] /creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations." Hospira denies all material allegations asserted against it in the complaint. The trial of this matter has concluded, but the court has not rendered a decision. In 2008, Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that Hospira indemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may incur in connection with this litigation. Hospira denies any obligation to indemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against Abbott in this litigation. The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul William Mollica, Esq. Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-263-0272 Hospira is represented by: James F. Hurst, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-558-5230 MASTERCARD INC: Appeals to Approved Antitrust Suit Deal Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's final approval of the settlement agreements in the lawsuit "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation" are pending. MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee." Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint ("MDL Complaint") adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more"; and (ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of second tier currency conversion surcharges." The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard paid $72,480,000 to be used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action and $13,440,000 to settle the Schwartz matter. On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreements. The settlement agreements are subject to final approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals. The hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements was held on March 31, 2008, and Judge Pauley reserved decision on final approval. On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the MDL action. With regard to other state court currency conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements in principle with the plaintiffs for a total of $3,557,000, which has been accrued. Settlement agreements have been executed with plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota and Illinois actions, but such an agreement has not been executed with plaintiffs in the Missouri action. On Nov. 3, 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement agreements. On Nov. 20, 2009, the same plaintiff in the New York state cases filed notice of appeal of final settlement approval in the MDL action. Within the time period for appeal in the MDL action, twelve other such notices of appeal were filed. The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William H. Pauley, III. The plaintiffs are represented by:: David J. Bershad, Esq. Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387 Fax: 212-868-1229 E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com - and - Christopher Burke, Esq. Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Sheldon V. Burman, Esq. Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC 110 East 59th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 935-1600 MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the second consolidated class-action complaint over MasterCard International Incorporated's interchange fees remains pending. On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc. Visa International Service Association and a number of member banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately 50 similar complaints (the majority styled as class actions although a few complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut. On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720. On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry. Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these claims: (i) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain unfair competition law claims under state law based upon the same conduct. These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were brought in the individual merchant complaints. On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage claims. On May 14, 2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims. Fact discovery has been proceeding and was generally completed by Nov. 21, 2008. Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' class certification motion on Nov. 19, 2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion. On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The allegations and claims in this complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action complaint described above although plaintiffs have added additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks alleging, among other things, that the networks and banks have continued to fix interchange fees following each network's initial public offering. On March 31, 2009, MasterCard and the other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint. The parties have fully briefed the motion and the court heard oral argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009. The parties are awaiting decisions on the motions, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its customers. Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it license to its customers. The Company conducts its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated. MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- A class-action complaint alleging violations related to MasterCard Inc.'s initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006, remains pending. On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's IPO and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3) constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration from the member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member banks for MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust litigations pending against it. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. On Sept. 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims contained in the supplemental complaint. On Nov. 25, 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave to file an amended complaint. On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs repleaded their complaint directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint. The causes of action in the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. On March 31, 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court heard oral argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion. On July 2, 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs' theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert reports on Dec. 14, 2009 countering the plaintiffs' assertions of liability and damages. Briefing on dispositive motions, including summary judgment motions, is scheduled to be completed on Oct. 25, 2010. No trial date has been scheduled. The parties have also entered into court-recommended mediation, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its customers. Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its customers. The Company conducts its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated. MASTERCARD INC: July 16 Trial Set for Overcharges Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- A July 16, 2010, hearing on final approval of the settlement of putative class-action complaints alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard International Incorporated, according to MasterCard Inc.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19 different states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes of consumers. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold. MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints. However, there are outstanding cases in New Mexico and California. The parties are awaiting a decision on MasterCard's motion to dismiss in New Mexico. In December 2008, MasterCard reached an agreement in principle to resolve the California state court actions for a payment by MasterCard of $6,000,000. The parties are negotiating a settlement agreement that will be subject to court approval. On Sept. 14, 2009, the parties to the California state court actions executed a settlement agreement which the parties believe would resolve the actions, subject to approval by the California state court. On Jan. 5, 2010, the court executed an order preliminarily approving the settlement. MasterCard Incorporated -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its customers. Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it license to its customers. The Company conducts its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated. OGE ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Rehearing of Nixed Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ No ruling on the motion for a rehearing of the denied class certification in the matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price I), has been made, according to OGE Energy Corp.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Sept. 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the company were served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on non-Federal lands. On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class certification. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In its amended petition (the "Fourth Amended Petition"), OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of the Company's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants. The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition seeks class certification and alleges that approximately 60 defendants, including two of the Company's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas. The Fourth Amended Petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and the parties fully briefed these same issues. A hearing on class certification issues was held April 1, 2005. In May 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming entitlement to participate in the putative class action. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene. The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the parties in 2005, and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law on class certification were filed in 2007. On Sept. 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On Feb. 10, 2010 the court heard arguments on the rehearing. OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy services provider offering physical delivery and related services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south central United States. The Company conducts its activities through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E). OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Price II Class Rehearing Bid --------------------------------------------------------- No ruling on the motion for a rehearing of the denied class certification in the lawsuit, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price II), has been made, according to OGE Energy Corp.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (ill Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a new class action petition in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas naming the same defendants and asserting substantially identical legal and/or equitable theories as in the Fourth Amended Petition of the Price I case. OG&E and Enogex Inc. were not named in this case, but two subsidiary entities of the Company were named in this case. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured the Btu content of natural gas obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and the parties fully briefed these same issues. A hearing on class certification issues was held April 1, 2005. In May 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming entitlement to participate in the putative class action. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene. The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law on class certification were filed in 2007. On Sept. 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On Feb. 10, 2010 the court heard arguments on the rehearing. OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy services provider offering physical delivery and related services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south central United States. The Company conducts its activities through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E). OGE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Defend Oklahoma Royalties Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ OGE Energy Corp.'s subsidiary, Enogex, continues to defend a purported class action over royalties in Oklahoma, according to Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On July 22, 2005, Enogex along with certain other unaffiliated co-defendants was served with a purported class action which had been filed on Feb. 7, 2005, by Farris Buser and other named plaintiffs in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs own royalty interests in certain oil and gas producing properties and allege they have been under-compensated by the named defendants, including Enogex and its subsidiaries, relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered during the transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs' wells. The plaintiffs assert breach of contract, implied covenants, obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and fraud causes of action and claim actual damages in excess of $10,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages in excess of $10,000. Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on Nov. 18, 2005, subject to the plaintiffs' right to conduct discovery and the possible re-filing of their allegations in the petition against the Enogex companies. On Sept. 19, 2005, the co-defendants, BP America, Inc. and BP America Production Company, filed a cross claim against Products seeking indemnification and/or contribution from Products based upon the 1997 sale of a third-party interest in one of Products natural gas processing plants. On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition against Enogex and its subsidiaries. Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on Aug. 2, 2006. The hearing on the dismissal motion was held on Nov. 20, 2006 and the court denied Enogex's motion. Enogex companies filed an answer to the amended petition and BP's cross claim on Jan. 16, 2007. Based on Enogex's investigation to date, the Company believes these claims and cross claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue defending this case. OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy services provider offering physical delivery and related services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south central United States. The Company conducts its activities through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E). OGE ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Cause in OCC Billing Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A motion asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) to dismiss the cause in the billing practices complaint against OGE Energy Corp.'s electric utility, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E), is pending. On June 19, 2006, two OG&E customers brought a putative class action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain charges on OG&E's electric bills. The plaintiffs claim that OG&E improperly charged sales tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers. The plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges, contending that such fees are more than is allowed under Oklahoma law. OG&E's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial judge. OG&E filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking the court to direct the trial court to dismiss the class action suit. In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the complaint of billing practices is determined by the OCC. In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the OCC asking the Commission to modify its order which authorizes OG&E to collect the challenged franchise fee charges. On March 10, 2009, the Oklahoma Attorney General, OG&E, OG&E Shareholders Association and the Staff of the Public Utility Division of the OCC all filed briefs arguing that the application should be dismissed. On Dec. 9, 2009 the OCC issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' request for a modification of the OCC order which authorizes OG&E to collect and remit sales tax on franchise fee charges. In its Dec. 9, 2009 order, the OCC advised the plaintiffs that the ruling does not address the question of whether OG&E's collection and remittance of such sales tax should be discontinued prospectively. On Dec. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion at the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking the court to deny OG&E's writ of prohibition and to remand the cause to the District Court. On Dec. 29, 2009, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared the plaintiffs' motion moot. On Jan. 27, 2010, the OCC Staff filed a motion asking the OCC to dismiss the cause and close the cause at the OCC. If the OCC Staff's motion is granted, the plaintiffs would be required to file a new cause in order to ask for prospective relief. In its motion, the OCC Staff stated that the plaintiff's counsel advised the OCC Staff counsel that the plaintiffs have no desire to seek a determination regarding prospective relief from the OCC. According to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, it is unknown whether the plaintiffs will attempt to continue the District Court action. OG&E believes that the lawsuit is without merit. OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy services provider offering physical delivery and related services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south central United States. The Company conducts its activities through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E). SIPC OFFICIALS: Sued for Not Paying Madoff Insurance Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, three Madoff investors who took out more money than they put into the giant Ponzi scam say the Securities Investor Protection Corp. is cheating them by denying them "the prompt replacement of securities in their accounts, up to $500,000 in value, based upon their November 30, 2008 statements (their 'Statutory Balances')." The class objects that the SIPC and its trustee, Irving Picard, "refuse to pay SIPC insurance to any customer whose withdrawals exceeded his deposits, regardless of the amount of time the customer maintained the account." The class says it's no fair that the SIPC has limited claims to the amount they deposited with Bernard Madoff -- minus any withdrawals -- rather than basing it on the phony account statements the jailed conman sent them days before his arrest -- up to the limit of $500,000. The class claims that Mr. Picard and the directors of the SIPC, who are charged with unwinding the case, conducted a "fraudulent investor's insurance scheme" causing them billions of dollars in damages, "to enrich SIPC and its members at the expense of the customers." "The class members are Madoff customers who, as a result of SIPC's deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and scope of insurance provided to investors, have been denied their full SIPC insurance and have lost their entire investments. But for the promise of SIPC insurance, the customers would not have invested their funds with Madoff," the complaint states. "In direct contradiction of their repeated representations to the customers and in violation of their statutory mandate, defendants have caused their designated trustee in the Madoff case, Irving H. Picard, to refuse to pay SIPC insurance to any customer whose withdrawals exceeded his deposits, regardless of the amount of time the customer maintained the account. In addition, as to those customers who have received some payment from SIPC, the payment is not equal to the customers' statutory balances up to $500,000. Rather, in breach of the representations the defendants made to the customers and in defiance of the plain language of SIPA, the payment is based upon the customers' net investment over generations of account holders." The named plaintiffs -- Lissa Canavan, Leslie Goldsmith and Judith Kalman -- say that in refusing to credit them with the account balances shown in Mr. Madoff's last statements, the eight directors of the SIPC are trying to "claw back" money the investors withdrew before Mr. Madoff's crimes were uncovered. They contend SIPC president and chief executive Stephen P. Harbeck and his board of directors should be held personally liable for "cheating customers of their promised insurance" and payments of up to $500,000 each. They accuse the SIPC board of fraud, bad faith failure to pay insurance claims and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In a written statement, Mr. Harbeck expressed disappointment that "certain attorneys" are "exploiting the plight of these victims to incorrectly direct their anger and frustration at SIPC." "Sadly, this frivolous litigation will have the effect of making it harder for SIPC to focus all of its time and attention on aiding the Madoff victims," Mr. Harbeck said. "That being said, SIPC is not now and never was an FDIC-like 'insurance' entity. "SIPC has filed two extensive briefs with the court, which explain our position in detail. At this time, we are awaiting the court's ruling on the matter." Mr. Madoff is serving a 150-year federal prison sentence. The SIPC is pursuing a case against Mr. Madoff in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. A copy of the Complaint in Canavan, et al. v. Harbeck, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 7856 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Feb. 24, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/SIPCMadoff.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq. BECKER & POLIAKOFF, LLP 21 East Front St., Suite 400 Redbank, NJ 07701 Telephone: 908-303-4568 SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Face Dioxin Exposure Suits in VA ---------------------------------------------------------- Solutia, Inc., continues to face purported class action lawsuits alleging exposure to dioxin in Putnam County, West Virginia, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a named defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility, which is now closed. The relevant production activities at the facility occurred during Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the facility and well prior to the creation of the Flexsys joint venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was subsequently transferred to us in the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value, medical monitoring and other equitable relief. Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County, West Virginia. The largely identical complaints allege that the residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin particles from the Nitro facility. Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of their alleged damages in their complaints. In 2009, over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named Solutia, Flexsys, Monsanto and Pharmacia as defendants. Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals, heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers. Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a lesser extent, by using distributors. SOLUTIA INC: Suit Over Contamination Ongoing in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- Solutia, Inc., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit alleging contamination in St. Clair County, Illinois, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia, Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging the contamination of their property from PCBs, dioxins, furans, and other alleged hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including our W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois). The proposed class is comprised of residents who live within a two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their property. In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009, against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property damages as a result of the same PCB's, dioxins, furans, and other alleged hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget. Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals, heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers. Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a lesser extent, by using distributors. SOLUTIA INC: Final Appealable Ruling in ERISA Suit Entered ---------------------------------------------------------- A final appealable ruling on the consolidated class-action suit that claims Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan discriminated against employees on the basis of their age has been entered, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. According to the Class Action Reporter dated June 18, 2008, since October 2005, current or former participants in the Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class action complaints alleging that the Pension Plan is discriminatory based upon age and that the lump sum values of individual account balances in the Pension Plan have been, and continue to be, miscalculated. Two of these cases are: 1. "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan," and 2. "Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan." The two are still pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Those two cases have been consolidated with similar cases against Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Company Pension Plan, and Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc. Those two cases that were consolidated with the Solutia suits are: -- "Walker, et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al." and -- "Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et al." The plaintiffs seek to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief (including money damages awarded by the creation of a common fund) on behalf of themselves and the nationwide putative class of similarly situated current and former participants in the Pension Plan. A consolidated class action complaint was filed by all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated case on Sept. 4, 2006. The complaint alleged three separate causes of action against the Pension Plan: -- the Pension Plan violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by terminating interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55; -- the Pension Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of ERISA; and -- the Pension Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age. In September 2007, the second and third of these claims were dismissed by the court. By consent of the parties, the court certified a class in September 2007 with respect to the Pension Plan on plaintiffs' claim that the Pension Plan discriminated against employees on the basis of their age by only providing interest credits on prior plan accounts through age 55. On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered a summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Plan on the sole remaining claim against the U.S. Plan. The District Court entered its final appealable judgment in the case on Sept. 29, 2009. Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals, heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers. Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a lesser extent, by using distributors. SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Accused in D.C. of Misleading Students --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that Southeastern University scams its students, leading them to believe the university is accredited and offers medical technology programs that have qualified teachers and state-of-the-art equipment, a class action claims in Federal Court. Students say the university made promises it couldn't fulfill and collected "substantial amounts of money in tuition, books and costs" -- as much as $41,500 from one student. The students say they were told that they would make significant salaries upon graduation. They say they were led to believe they would eligible to sit for a certification exam and that the school had "learning resources that include interactive classrooms and science/medical software programs." They claims the school "promised potential consumers of the Medical Technology program that they would receive an education in two years, that they would train on state of the art equipment, that they would be placed in a practical externship program, and that they would be instructed by qualified teachers." All of these claims are bogus, the students say. They say the school isn't accredited and lacks "the ability to prepare students academically, or professionally." For the class, the seven named plaintiffs, all of the Capital Area, seek punitive damages for fraud, breach of contract and unfair trade practices. A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Southeastern University, Case No. 10-cv-00294 (D. D.C.) (Friedman, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/SEUniv.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Hermina, Esq. HERMINA LAW GROUP Laurel Lakes Executive Park 8327 Cherry Lane Laurel, MD 20707 Telephone: 301-206-3166 SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores' Suit v. Syngenta Crop in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint by Holiday Shores Sanitary District in Madison County, Illinois, against Syngenta AG's Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., is in discovery. The Holiday Shores filed a class action complaint against Syngenta Crop in July 2004, purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of all Illinois community water systems who have, allegedly, suffered contamination of their water sources at any measurable level on account of the product Atrazine, a herbicide manufactured since the late 1950s by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and its predecessors in interest, Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., Ciba-Geigy and Geigy Chemical Corporation. The Holiday Shores Complaint alleges that the product Atrazine and/or its degradent chemicals are harmful to humans as consumed through dietary water, and that run-off from the soil where Atrazine has been applied has damaged the water district's property and contaminated its surface waters, used as a source of drinking water for the district. It alleges claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict liability and violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and seeks monetary damages, including the cost of purchase, installation, maintenance and operation of charcoal filtration systems, alleged diminution in property value and remediation, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The complaint was served on Syngenta on Aug. 27, 2004. Syngenta succeeded in having the lawsuit removed from state to federal court but, on Plaintiffs Motion, the federal court on March 28, 2005, remanded the lawsuit back to state court. Syngenta filed a Motion to Dismiss which was argued on Oct. 25, 2005, and on July 7, 2008, was denied by the court (except as regards those parts of the motion which sought dismissal of the punitive damage and remediation claims - those claims have been dismissed although plaintiff may attempt to re-assert the punitive damage claim at a later date). Since the denial of that motion, Holiday Shores amended its complaint to add seven additional CWS as named plaintiffs and has stipulated that its purported class will consist of no more than ninety-nine CWS. While plaintiffs' counsel has threatened to bring similar lawsuits in other states, no such lawsuits have yet been filed. The case is now in the discovery phase and the company has filed answers to interrogatories as well as produced the first of millions of pages of documents, according to its Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Syngenta AG is an agribusiness that is involved in the discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of products designed to improve crop yields and food quality. UNITED STATES: Congress Doesn't Act on Indian Trust Fund Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella at The National Law Journal reports that for the second time, the Justice Department and the lawyers representing a class of Indians in a long-running federal suit in Washington, D.C., have agreed to push back the deadline needed to secure congressional authorization for a $1.41 billion settlement. The original deadline for congressional approval of the settlement was Dec. 31. But Congress failed to act, and so the deadline was extended to Feb. 28. Now, the lawyers have agreed to a new deadline: April 16. The Justice Department issued this statement: "In order for the agreement to remain valid after its existing February 28, 2010 legislative enactment deadline, the parties have agreed to extend that deadline through Friday, April 16, 2010." A lawyer for lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell: Keith M. Harper, Esq. KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2018 Telephone: 202.508.5844 was not immediately reached for comment. D.C. solo practitioner Dennis Gingold declined to comment about the extension. Neither extension required court approval. The Cobell settlement, announced at a press conference in early December, requires Congress to pass legislation authorizing payment to the plaintiffs. Justice and Interior department officials, and the plaintiffs lawyers, too, have urged Congress to act swiftly on the legislation. By April, the plaintiffs lawyers had hoped to be close to final approval on the deal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The settlement would end the 13-year-old case, which demands an accounting of the government's handling of accounts set up for the collection and dispersal of billions of dollars in payments flowing from natural resources on Indian land. The plaintiffs lawyers have agreed to a cap of $100 million in legal fees. Judge James Robertson, who is presiding over the Cobell case, has the final say on fees. See http://is.gd/9rVFx A petition for certiorari, which the plaintiffs filed just days after the settlement was announced, is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. See http://is.gd/9rVzQ WELLPOINT INC: Defending Suits Over 2001 AICI Demutualization ------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint, Inc. is defending several putative class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (AICI) demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. The suits are captioned as Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary E. Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc,. et al.; Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al; and Jeffrey D. Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs. In Gold, cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut. The State has appealed this denial to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The company filed a cross-appeal. Oral argument was held in November 2008, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. In the Ormond suit, the company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on March 31, 2008. The court dismissed the claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law and for unjust enrichment. On Sept. 29, 2009, a class was certified in the Ormond suit. The class consists of all ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut who received cash compensation in connection with the demutualization. The class does not include employers located in Ohio and Connecticut that received compensation under the Plan. On Nov. 4, 2009 a class was certified in the Mell suit. That class consists of persons who were employees or retirees who were continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored by the City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001, and Nov. 2, 2001. The company is seeking an appeal of this class certification order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Dentists' Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a putative class action relating to Out-of-Network reimbursement of dental claims (American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Blue Cross of California) is pending. The lawsuit was filed in March 2002, by the ADA and three dentists who are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to sue on behalf of a nationwide class of all non-participating dental providers who were paid less than their actual charges for dental services provided to WellPoint dental members. The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California and other WellPoint affiliates and subsidiaries improperly set usual, customary and reasonable payment for OON dental services based on HIAA/Ingenix data. The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the HIAA/Ingenix databases fail to account for differences in geography, provider specialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure. The complaint further alleges that WellPoint was aware that this data was inappropriate to set usual, customary and reasonable rates. The dentists sue as assignees of their patients' rights to benefits under WellPoint's dental plans and assert that WellPoint breached its contractual obligations in violation of ERISA by routinely paying OON dentists less than their actual charges and representing that its OON payments were properly determined usual, customary and reasonable rates. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The company filed a motion for summary judgment. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Wants Out-of-Network Reimbursement Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint, Inc.'s motion to dismiss eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement is pending. The cases have been made part of a WellPoint-only multi-district litigation called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation and are pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc., WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received out-of-network services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges. The plaintiffs in that case allege that the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, and federal regulations by relying on databases provided by Ingenix in determining out-of-network reimbursement. The second lawsuit (AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in March 2009 by the American Medical Association, or AMA, four state medical associations and two individual physicians on behalf of a putative class of out-of-network physicians. The third lawsuit (Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class action on behalf of all persons or entities who have paid premiums for out-of-network health insurance coverage. The fourth lawsuit (JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in April 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class action on behalf of all persons who have paid premiums for out- of-network health insurance coverage. The fifth lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was brought in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative class action on behalf of all persons who received out-of-network services. The sixth lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of Health v. Blue Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network chiropractor as a putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network chiropractors. The seventh suit (North Peninsula Surgical Center v. WellPoint,Inc., et al.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of- network surgical center as a putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network surgical centers. The eighth lawsuit (American Podiatric Medical Association, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association, California Psychological Association and an out-of- network clinical psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of out-of-network podiatrists, chiropractors and psychologists. The ninth lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network providers who are not medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy. The tenth lawsuit (Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of all non-medical doctor health care providers. The eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of all non- medical doctor health care providers. A consolidated complaint has been filed for the eleven cases. The company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to enjoin the claims brought by the M.D.s and D.O.s based on prior litigation releases. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. YELP! INC: Unlawful Sales Practice Complaint Now Available ---------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Feb. 26, 2010, edition of the Class Action Reporter, two law firms, Beck & Lee from Miami, Fla., and The Weston Firm in San Diego, Calif., filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court alleging unfair business practices by local business review and rating Web site operator Yelp. A copy of the Complaint in Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01340 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/01/Yelp.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 888 Turquoise St. San Diego, CA 92109 Telephone: 858-488-1672 - and - Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS Courthouse Plaza Building 28 West Flagler St., Suite 555 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-789-0072 ********* 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 * * *