/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100414.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 72 Headlines ADECCO INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Six Stockholder Suits Over Planned Merger CONSTAR INT'L: Dismissed as Defendant in Securities Lawsuit DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Falsely Advertising Walnuts as Cure-All DOMINGUEZ INTERSTATE: Charged with Labor Code Violations E.I. DUPONT: Lead Plaintiff Incentive Awards Debated in W.Va. ETREBY COMPUTER: Accused of Leaking Confidential Health Info FOX NETWORKS: Sued for Disability Discrimination FRIENDLY FRANCHISEE: Sued for Non-Payment of Wages and Overtime GREYSTONE HOMES: Construction Defects in "Stevenson Ranch" Alleged HITACHI LTD: Seventh Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed HOME DEPOT: Faces Third Amended ERISA-Violations Suit HOME DEPOT: California Court Okays Settlement in Five Lawsuits INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over ITG Merger JELD-WEN: Notice of Settlement with Century Window Purchasers LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle San Diego "Stephens" Suit LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle "Kohlenberg" Suit MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused in Nev. of Misleading Shareholders PARTNERSHIP FOR STRONG FAMILIES: Did Not Pay Overtime, Suit Says SPARK NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over Great Hill Buyout Proposal SPARK NETWORKS: Faces "Shaffer" Suit in California over Buyout STERLING CHEMICALS: Continues to Defended vs. Ex-Employees Suit SUNSHINE MAKERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Prisoner Wages VERTRO INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in Consolidated Suit WELLS FARGO: Minority Neighborhood Borrower Class Certified ZUMIEZ INC: $1.35 Million Settlement Gets Court Preliminary Nod ZUMIEZ INC: Certification Hearing in "Berg" Suit Set for May 28 * Mocked Celebrities File Class Action Suit on "South Park" ********* ADECCO INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Carlos Lopez and Javier Contreras, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Adecco, Inc., et al., Case No. BC435346 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), accuses the employment agency of failing to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages, and failing to provide meal and rest periods, in violation of California labor laws. Mr. Lopez worked as a non-exempt hourly "employee" for Adecco, Inc., et al., from October 13, 2008, through May 5, 2009. Mr Contreras is currently working as a non-exempt hourly "worker" for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and are represented by: Craig L. Chisvin, Esq. Laureen Charles, Esq. CHISVIN & ASSOCIATES 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 820-4488 CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Six Stockholder Suits Over Planned Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- CKE Restaurants, Inc., faces putative stockholder class action lawsuits over its planned merger with Western Acquisition Holdings, Inc., according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 25, 2010. On Feb. 26, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Western Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Parent), and Western Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the company, with the company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. In connection with the Merger Agreement, six putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara. Delaware Actions On March 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named Pieces of Eight Master Fund LP v. CKE Restaurants, Inc. et al., Case No. 5290, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, each of the company's directors, and THL, asserting that the company and its directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger and asserting that THL aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. On March 12, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named Richard F. Warnock SEP IRA et al. v. Allumbaugh et al., Case No. 5340, was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against the company, each of its directors, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The complaint also names Parent and Merger Sub as defendants and charges both parties with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. California Actions On March 3, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named Hendricks v. CKE Restaurants, Inc. et al., Case No. 1342245, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the company, its directors, and THL. The lawsuit alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The Complaint also names the company and THL as defendants and charges them with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On March 5, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named Inglima v. Allumbaugh et al., Case No. 1342293, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the Company, each of its directors, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The complaint also names the Company, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants and charges them with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Also on March 5, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named Curtis v. Allumbaugh et al., Case No. 1342349, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the company, each of its directors, THL, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The complaint also names THL, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants and charges them with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On March 11, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, named McDonald v. CKE Restaurants, Inc. et al., Case No. 1342415, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the company, each of its directors, and THL. The lawsuit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger. The complaint also names the company and THL as defendants and charges both parties with aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates, franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are primarily located in the Western United States. The Hardee's restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. CONSTAR INT'L: Dismissed as Defendant in Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has approved the stipulation dismissing Constar International, Inc., from a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit, according to the company's March 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The company and certain of its present and former directors, along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative securities class action suit, captioned In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV- 05020. This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints: -- Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc., et al., Case No. 03-5020, filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and -- Frejek v. Constar International Inc., et al., Case No. 03-5166, filed on Sept. 15, 2003. A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. They seek class-action certification and an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses. Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters, the company has incurred certain indemnification and contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to this lawsuit. The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The company filed objections to the Report and Order. The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling. On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting the company's Rule 23(f) Petition. The parties have briefed the appeal, and oral argument was held on July 13, 2009. At the company's request, the Special Master and the District Court have agreed to stay all further proceedings before the District Court pending the outcome of the appeal, with the exception of certain limited discovery. In connection with the company's emergence from Chapter 11 and in accordance with the Plan, all such claims are to be subordinated pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and treated as equity interests. The Plan further provides that all pre- petition equity interests in Constar will be extinguished, as will any claims relating to, or arising in connection with, such equity interests (or the purchase or sale of such interests), including all indemnification and contribution obligations referred to above. The company and the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation to dismiss Constar from the action based on the Plan. This stipulation dismissing Constar from the action was approved by the District Court on November 4, 2009. The suit is In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020 (E.D. Pa.) (Ludwig, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com - and - Andrew J. Brown, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERGHAD HYNES & LERACH, LLP 401 B. Street, STE. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com - and - Darren J. Check, Esq. SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Steven B. Feirson, Esq. Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Scott A. Thompson, Esq. DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Phone: 215-994-2749 Fax: 215-994-2222 E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com michael.kichline@dechert.com scott.thompson@dechert.com DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Falsely Advertising Walnuts as Cure-All ----------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Wise, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Case No. BC435297 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), charges the marketer of the Diamond Brand of walnuts of falsely claiming in its marketing campaigns that its brand of walnuts is a cure-all for ailments from heart disease to arthritis, in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. Mr. Wise says that because of these false claims, Diamond sells Diamond Walnuts for $8 per pound, which is twice the cost of generic walnuts. The Plaintiff demands a jury trial and is represented by: James M. Lee, Esq. LEE TRAN & LIANG 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-3737 - and - Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Roger E. Borg, Esq. Michael E. Velarde, Eswq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 DOMINGUEZ INTERSTATE: Charged with Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Abel Torres and Alfonso Salgado, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Dominguez Interstate Carwash, Inc., Case No. BC435345 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), asserts violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order 9, and the Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code. Messrs. Torres and Salgado accuse the "employment agency" of failing to pay reporting time pay, obliging workers to pay for uniforms as a condition of employment, failing to provide workers with a suitable place to eat, failing to pay wages for work performed, not providing rest periods, unlawful wage deductions, and not paying earned wages on time. The Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and are represented by: Craig L. Chisvin, Esq. Laureen Charles, Esq. CHISVIN & ASSOCIATES 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 820-4488 E.I. DUPONT: Lead Plaintiff Incentive Awards Debated in W.Va. ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien at LegalNewsline.com reports from Clarksburg, W.Va., that when Harrison County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Bedell asked for any objections to $127 million being paid to attorneys in a class action lawsuit against DuPont during a 2008 hearing, no class member in attendance responded. Two months later, those same attorneys asked Bedell if he would authorize $75,000 payments to the 10 lead plaintiffs in the case. Despite the company's objection, Bedell eventually ordered $50,000 for each of the lead plaintiffs. The payments will come out of the attorneys fees. Those payments are termed "incentive awards," but DuPont called them incentives for collusion. "It is common. It is nothing that is promised," said Hill, whose firm Hill Peterson Carper Bee & Deitzler teamed with several other firms on the once-$381 million case. "In fact, the lead plaintiffs are specifically promised nothing." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last year that incentive awards are fine, as long as the figure isn't tied by a prior agreement to the amount recovered. DuPont initially succeeded in opposing the awards, but Bedell changed his mind after a motion to reconsider. DuPont contended state law did not recognize the awards and that it is improper to pay a witness. "The class representatives may have had a greater interest in maximizing the amount of attorneys fees and expenses awarded to Plaintiffs' counsel than in maximizing the amount of recovery paid to absent class members," DuPont's attorneys wrote. "These payments create a powerful incentive for improper collusion between class representatives and the class counsel who pays them." DuPont, however, did not appeal the incentive awards to the West Virginia Supreme Court, which cut the $196 million punitive damages award in half on March 23 before shipping the case back to Harrison County for a jury trial to determine if the lawsuit was filed before the statute of limitations had expired. The lawsuit alleged DuPont released arsenic, cadmium and lead into the environment around its Harrison County smelter. DuPont will pay $140 million in medical monitoring costs for the class members if it is found that the lawsuit was filed timely. The 10 class representatives were subjected to multiple physical examinations, blood tests and depositions. The plaintiffs attorneys said in court documents that the representatives spent several hundred hours of their lives on the case. Hill said any class member could have objected to the amount of attorneys fees being paid, not just the representatives. DuPont said the lack of objections meant the notice drafted by the attorneys and the manner it was delivered was inadequate, a claim the plaintiffs attorneys disputed. "All class members have the opportunity to have an input on this," Hill said. "The incentive awards are just a recognition. They're not always awarded. "It's a discretionary thing with the trial judge. In some cases, the lead plaintiffs, in the course of representing all other class members, have been put through the mill." Hill said some of the class representatives in another lawsuit against DuPont, filed in Parkersburg, were subjected to jeers in public. But DuPont said the request for incentive awards contradicted testimony by the class representatives. "At trial, Plaintiffs' counsel asked class representative Rebeccah Morlock this question: 'Just so its very clear, are you asking, Ms. Morlock, anything for yourself beyond what you're asking for everybody in this courtroom.' "Ms. Morlock gave this answer: 'No I'm not. I don't want anything.' Now Ms. Morlock wants $50,000 for herself. "Similarly, at trial, class representative Lenora Perrine concluded her testimony by saying that she had been in court everyday to support and be a part of the proceedings voluntarily because 'I know it's not gonna help me much now... but i'm thinking of the young people,' and 'I just felt like that's what I needed to do.' "Now Mrs. Perrine is asking for $50,000 for herself." Tort reform advocate Ted Frank said large incentive awards, like $50,000, keep the class representatives from having the motivation to "act as monitors of the attorneys' fiduciary responsibility to the class." Frank is the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness. His organization files objections to proposed class action settlements, usually where he feels the attorneys are benefitting much more than the class members. "The whole point of a class action is to generate efficiencies that wouldn't be possible in individual actions -- so why are the attorneys taking a one-third contingent fee instead of a much smaller percentage?" Frank said. "Courts determining the adequacy of a class representative should do more to analyze whether the class representative controls the attorney or vice versa." Hill can counter that a judge signed off on the order authorizing the payments. "It's entirely up to the judge to say if they are appropriate. There is a range that is acceptable. There is case law on this," Hill said. "There's a place for it. There are checks and balances on it. If a trial judge makes an award, its appealable. Even though sometimes the appeals process grinds slowly, it grinds." ETREBY COMPUTER: Accused of Leaking Confidential Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------ Demetria Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Etreby Computer Company, Inc. et al., Case No. BC435303 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), asserts violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Civil Code. Ms. Rodriguez says that she received prescription drugs dispensed by California retail pharmacy stores who were contracted with the software developer. Ms. Rodriguez alleges that the software provider and Defendant McKesson Corporation, a switch contractor that transmits prescription claims on behalf of Etreby and its California retail pharmacy clients to prescription drug plan payors, compromised her confidential medical information when it disclosed this information to Target Pharmacy in November 2009 for financial gain. Ms. Rodriguez believes Etreby permitted or was aware of the sale of her and other individuals' personal health information by McKesson to Target Pharmacy and was also aware that the disclosure was for financial gain and not for the purpose of providing health care services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Armond Marcarian, Esq. Marc L. McCulloch, Esq. MARCARIAN LAW FIRM 15260 Ventura Blvd., Penthouse Suite 2250 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 995-8787 FOX NETWORKS: Sued for Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------ Molly Hardy, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Fox Networks Group, Inc., et al., Case No. BC435468 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), accuses the television broadcasting company of failing to pay employees for missed rest breaks, in violation of California Labor Code and Industrial Wage Commission Wage orders, not paying all wages owed to employees, disability discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition of the Business & Professions Code. Ms. Hardy worked as an Executive Assistant for Fox Networks from September 2006 through September 2009, when she allegedly was unlawfully terminated. Ms. Hardy says in June 2007, she decided to seek medical treatment for depression and Fox referred her to a Dr. Bethany Gauvreau, who was hired to treat Fox's employees. In September 2009 while she was undergoing treatment for depression, she alleges that Fox Networks terminated her employment, accusing her of not competently and professionally performing her job duties, "poor attitude", and falsifying her time records. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas T. Hua, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS T. HUA 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 279-5239 E-mail: Nhua@NicholasHuaLaw.com - and - Giacomo Gallai, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GIACOMO GALLAI 433 North Camden Drive, 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 738-4044 E-mail: gg@gallailaw.com FRIENDLY FRANCHISEE: Sued for Non-Payment of Wages and Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Arun Dhiri, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Friendly Franchisee Corporation, Case No. BC434065 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), accuses the administrative services provider of labor code violations including failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to allow rest and meal periods, late payment of termination wages, failure to provide accurate itemized statements of hours worked, and unfair competition in violation of the Business & Professions Code. In addition, Mr. Dhiri, on his own behalf, accuses FFC for unlawful and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, saying that FFC terminated him for complaining to his supervisors about FFC's Labor Code violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq. David A. Cohn, Esq. KESLUK & SILVERSTEIN, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411 Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309 Telephone: (310) 273-3180 E-mail: dsilversteinlaborlawattorney.com dcohn@californialaborlawattorney.com GREYSTONE HOMES: Construction Defects in "Stevenson Ranch" Alleged ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian and Jodi Moriguchi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Greystone Homes Inc., Case No. BC43180 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), asserts breach of express warranty against the home developer and breach of implied warranties of the merchantable quality of properties located within its housing housing development more familiarly known as the "Stevenson Ranch" in Los Angeles County. The Moriguchis relate that the properties constructed by the developer in said project contain various construction defects that require repair and restoration to prevent further damage or to restore the houses to their proper condition. The Moriguchis believe that the defects arose out of deficiencies in the design or specifications of the properties and that the developer failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the properties were free of defects. As a result of Greystone Home's negligence, the Moriguchis relate that they suffered damages in an amount presently unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke P. Ryan, Esq., Megan M. Chodzko, Esq. SHINNICK & RYAN LLP 1810 State St. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-5900 HITACHI LTD: Seventh Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Alec Berezin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated ]v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif. Apr. 9, 2010) accuses the Japanese multinational corporation of participating in a cartel to fix the price of Optical Disc Drive products sold in the United States, resulting in purchasers of ODD products paying more than what they would have paid in a competitive market. Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs., Apr. 8, 2010; coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010; and coverage of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Andrew S. Kingsdale, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSEIN, LLP 275 Battery St., 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: jsaveri@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com bglackin@lchb.com akingsdale@lchb.com - and - Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. Daniel B. Allanoff, Esq. MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, P.C. 1521 Locust St., 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 E-mail: sgreenfogel@mcgslaw.com dallanoff@mcgslaw.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55403 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, P.C. 55 Public Square, Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44113 E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com - and - Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 116 John St., Suite 2310 New York, NY 10038 E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Third Amended ERISA-Violations Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The Home Depot, Inc., faces a third amended complaint alleging Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010. In the second and third quarters of fiscal 2006, three purported, but uncertified, class actions were filed against the company, The Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative Committee and certain of the company's current and former directors and employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA in connection with the company's return-to-vendor and stock option practices. These actions were joined into one case in 2007, and the joint amended complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified damages, costs, attorney's fees and equitable and injunctive relief. The case is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, following the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in July 2008 reversing the District Court's prior decision on standing, affirming its finding that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under ERISA, and remanding the matter to the District Court for further adjudication. On Nov. 9, 2009, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint following their pursuit of administrative remedies. The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is a home improvement retailer. The Home Depot stores sell an assortment of building materials, home improvement and lawn and garden products, and provide a number of services. The Home Depot stores average approximately 105,000 square feet of enclosed space, with approximately 24,000 additional square feet of outside garden area. HOME DEPOT: California Court Okays Settlement in Five Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in California approved The Home Depot, Inc.'s settlement with the plaintiffs in five lawsuits containing multiple class-action allegations that the company failed to provide meal breaks, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010. The complaints were filed by current and former hourly associates from the first quarter of 2004 through the fourth quarter of 2008. The settlement was approved on Jan. 27, 2010. The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is a home improvement retailer. The Home Depot stores sell an assortment of building materials, home improvement and lawn and garden products, and provide a number of services. The Home Depot stores average approximately 105,000 square feet of enclosed space, with approximately 24,000 additional square feet of outside garden area. INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over ITG Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- International Textile Group, Inc., faces a consolidated lawsuit related to the merger of the company and a company formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc. in late 2006, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Three substantially identical lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina related to the merger. The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the second and third lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same attorney. These three lawsuits were consolidated in 2010. The actions name as defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers and directors of Former ITG or the company at the time of the Merger. The plaintiffs raise derivative and direct (class action) claims and contend that certain of the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger. The plaintiffs also make certain related claims against certain of the defendants' former advisors. While the Company is a nominal defendant for purposes of the derivative action claims, the company is not aware of any claims for affirmative relief being made against it. However, the company has certain obligations to provide indemnification to its officers and directors (and certain former officers and directors) against certain claims. International Textile Group, Inc. -- http://www.itg-global.com/- - is a diversified textile manufacturer that produces automotive safety (including airbag fabric and airbag cushions), apparel, government uniform, technical and specialty textiles. ITG's market presence includes operations principally in the United States, China, Germany, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Vietnam and South Africa. The company considers its five primary markets to be automotive safety, including airbag fabric and airbag cushions; bottom-weight woven apparel fabrics, including denim, synthetic and worsted fabrics; government uniform fabrics, including fabrics for military dress uniforms and battle dress uniforms; interior furnishings fabrics and specialty fabrics and services, including commission printing and finishing, narrow fabrics for seat belts and for military and technical uses and technical fabrics used in a variety of government, industrial and commercial applications. JELD-WEN: Notice of Settlement with Century Window Purchasers ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of Ohio If you are the first (original) owner of Century Window Products in your home, you may be eligible to participate in a class action settlement. If you are the first (original) owner of Century Window Products in your home, you may be eligible to participate in a class action settlement. If you qualify, you may apply for benefits, exclude yourself from the settlement (opt-out), or object to the settlement. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT? Century Window Products were manufactured and sold by JELD-WEN between 1986 and 2002. Class Representative Robert Stout has brought a legal action against JELD-WEN, Robert Stout, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JELD-WEN, inc., case number 1:08-cv-0652, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. He has alleged that JELD-WEN breached its limited warranty with regard to the Century windows and doors in his home. JELDWEN denies these allegations and denies that it is liable to Robert Stout under any legal theory. The Court has not decided the lawsuit. The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement does not mean that JELD-WEN has or has not breached its warranty. The settlement includes the following groups of people: Tier 1 includes all persons who are the Original Owner of the Century Window Products in their home and who have, as of March 5, 2010, made a claim pursuant to their Century Limited Warranty for an issue related to the Werzalit frame in those windows and/or doors, who did not receive any replacement product or refund, and who did not sign a release. These persons may be eligible for free replacement products from JELD-WEN, if other conditions are met. Tier 2 includes all persons who are the Original Owner of the Century Window Products in their home and who have, as of March 5, 2010, made a claim pursuant to their Century Limited Warranty for an issue related to those windows and/or doors, who received replacement product or refund and who want replacement windows and/or doors for any reason. These persons may be eligible to purchase replacement products at a discount from JELD-WEN. Tier 3 includes all persons who are the Original Owner of the Century Window Products in their home who have not made a claim pursuant to their Century Limited Warranty and who want replacement windows and/or doors for any reason. These persons may be eligible to purchase replacement products on a sliding- scale discount from JELD-WEN. HOW CAN YOU MAKE A CLAIM? To determine if you are a member of this settlement class and how to make a claim, contact this toll-free number, 1-877-289-4000, or by going to the Settlement Website, at: http://www.centurywindowsettlement.com/ You must act promptly, as you must make a claim by December 6, 2010 to be eligible for any benefits. YOUR OTHER RIGHTS If you are a Class Member but do not want to participate in the settlement or do not want to be legally bound by it, you must request to be excluded by July 7, 2010. Otherwise, you will not be able to bring a breach of warranty action against JELD-WEN in the future. If you exclude yourself, you cannot obtain any benefits from this settlement. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the settlement if you do so by July 16, 2010. A detailed notice, available by calling the number listed below, explains how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a hearing on August 6, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. to consider the fairness of this settlement. The Court will also consider a request from Class Counsel for reasonable attorneys' fees, including expenses. You or your own lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, at your cost. * * * The Claims Administrator can be reached at: Century Window Products Claims Administrator P.O. Box 11501 Columbia, SC 29211 Class Counsel is: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 JELD-WEN is represented by: Stephen G. Morrison NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 1320 Main St., Suite 1700 Columbia, SC 29201 LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle San Diego "Stephens" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. and plaintiffs in the matter Mia Stephens et al v. lululemon athletica inc., have agreed to the general terms of a settlement, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010. On April 2, 2009, three former hourly company employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court, California. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various California Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear lululemon clothing during working hours without reimbursing such employees for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus payments to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards redeemable only for lululemon merchandise. The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages due at the time of termination. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to the general terms of a settlement which has not yet been finalized and which must be submitted to the court for preliminary and final approval. lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in North America. Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica brand name. The company offers a line of apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance, running and general fitness. It offers a line of performance apparel and accessories for both women and men. The company's fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital versatile discs, water bottles and headbands. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Agrees to Settle "Kohlenberg" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiff in the matter Brett Kohlenberg et al v. lululemon athletica inc., have agreed to the general terms of a settlement, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010. On March 26, 2009, a former hourly Company employee filed a class action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, California. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various California Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for certain rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for penalties related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to the general terms of a settlement which has not yet been finalized and which must be submitted to the court for preliminary and final approval. lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in North America. Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica brand name. The company offers a line of apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance, running and general fitness. It offers a line of performance apparel and accessories for both women and men. The company's fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital versatile discs, water bottles and headbands. MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Foods, Inc.'s motions to dismiss two consolidated amended class-action complaint remains pending, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 2, 2010. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against the company and approximately 20 other defendants who are producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and processed-egg products. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry associations. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The company currently has two motions to dismiss pending before the Court: (1) a motion to dismiss the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael Foods, Inc.; and (2) a motion to dismiss the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael Foods, Inc., and subsidiary Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products, Inc. The company is also a party to various other motions, filed by multiple defendants, to dismiss portions of the complaints. A decision on these motions is not expected until June 2010 or later. Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried). It has other operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales. The spuds come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and mashes potatoes. The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy products. Michael's customers include food processors, foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90% of the company. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused in Nev. of Misleading Shareholders -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Ormat Technologies directors propped up the stock price with false and misleading statements, and when they had to restate earnings the stock price dropped by 12.8 percent, shareholders say in Reno Federal Court. Ormat is a geothermal tech company. A copy of the Complaint in Curtis v. Ormat Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00198 (D. Nev.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/09/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Wray, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK WRAY 608 Lander St. Reno, NV 89509 Telephone: 775-348-8877 - and - U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 E. 40th St. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-779-1414 News about Stebelton v. Ormat Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00156 (D. Nev.), making similar claims and filed by D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq., David M. Promisloff, Esq., and Steven D. Resnick, Esq., at Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, appeared in the Mar. 25, 2010, edition of the Class Action Reporter. PARTNERSHIP FOR STRONG FAMILIES: Did Not Pay Overtime, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the Partnership for Strong Families stiffed workers for overtime, according to a class action in Tallahassee Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Montoya v. Partnership for Strong Families, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00128 (N.D. Fla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/09/Employ.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Culliton, Esq. SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC 2108 Delta Way Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: 850-385-9455 E-mail: sean.culliton@gmail.com - and - John C. Davis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. DAVIS 623 Beard St. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: 850-222-4770 E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net - and - Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq. TALBOTT LAW FIRM 245 E. Intendencia St. Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: 850-437-9600 E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com SPARK NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over Great Hill Buyout Proposal ---------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit arising out of the proposal by Great Hill Partners III, LP to purchase all of the shares of the company that it does not already own, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed on March 11, 2010, by L.I.S.T. Incorporated against the company, Adam S. Berger, Jonathan B. Bulkeley, Benjamin Derhy, Thomas G. Stockham, Michael A. Kumin, Great Hill Equity Partners III, LP and Great Hill Partners, LLC in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider of online personals services in the United States and internationally. The Websites enable adults to meet online, participate in a community, and form relationships. The features of the company's Websites include profiles, onsite e-mail centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services, and offline singles events. The Websites include JDate.com, AmericanSingles.com, BlackSingles.com, and ChristianMingle.com. It also operates several international Websites and maintains operations in the United States and Israel. SPARK NETWORKS: Faces "Shaffer" Suit in California over Buyout -------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit styled Mike Shaffer v. Spark Networks, Inc. et al, arising out of the proposal by Great Hill Partners III, LP to purchase all of the shares of the company that it does not already own, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed on March 24, 2010, by Mike Shaffer against Adam Berger, Michael Kumin, Jonathan Bulkeley, Benjamin Derhy, Thomas G. Stockham, the company, Great Hill Partners, LLC and Great Hill Equity Partners III, LP in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider of online personals services in the United States and internationally. The Websites enable adults to meet online, participate in a community, and form relationships. The features of the company's Websites include profiles, onsite e-mail centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services, and offline singles events. The Websites include JDate.com, AmericanSingles.com, BlackSingles.com, and ChristianMingle.com. It also operates several international Websites and maintains operations in the United States and Israel. STERLING CHEMICALS: Continues to Defended vs. Ex-Employees Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Chemicals, Inc., continues to defend a purported class- action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to the company's March 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Feb. 21, 2007 the company received a summons naming it, several benefit plans and the plan administrators for those plans as defendants in a class action, Evans et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a proposed class of retired employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of its former subsidiaries that the company sold in connection with its emergence from bankruptcy in 2002. The plaintiffs are alleging that the company was not permitted to increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the company and Cytec Industries Inc. and certain of its affiliates governing the purchase of its former acrylic fibers business in 1997. During its bankruptcy case, the company specifically rejected this asset purchase agreement and the bankruptcy court approved that rejection. The plaintiffs are claiming that the company violated the terms of the benefit plans and breached fiduciary duties governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and are seeking damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. A trial for this matter was held during the second week of November 2009 but the court has not yet as issued a ruling. The suit is Evans, et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq. Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-781-5200 Fax: 713-781-2235 E-mail: mweber@davis-davislaw.com SUNSHINE MAKERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sunshine Makers pushes its "Simple Green" cleaner as nontoxic and environmentally clean, but it contains 2-butoxyethanol, which has been linked to anemia, birth defects and autoimmune diseases, a class action claims in Santa Ana, Calif., Federal Court. The case is Tilahun v. Sunshine Makers Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00427 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.). TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers ------------------------------------------------------------- Toys "R" Us, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class action case brought by internet retailers, according to the company's March 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010. On July 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer class action commenced in January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005. Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product manufacturers to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum price agreements in violation of antitrust laws. In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a similar action and another class action was commenced making similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants. Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is one of the world's largest toy retailers. Toys "R" Us sells its wares in about 1,500 stores in the US and abroad and through Web sites. In addition to about 585 US namesake stores selling toys, games, and other items for kids, Toys "R" Us sells infant and toddler apparel, furniture, and feeding supplies at some 260 Babies "R" Us stores in more than 40 states. It's owned by KKR, Bain Capital, and real estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, which together took the toy seller private in a $6.6 billion deal. Toys "R" Us acquired troubled toy icon FAO Schwarz in 2009. UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Prisoner Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a class action filed by inmates who say they were underpaid in prison. "[P]risoners have no enforceable right to be paid for their work under the Constitution or international law," Judge Richard Clifton wrote. Current and former inmates who worked in federal prisons sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons and prison officials, alleging Fifth Amendment violations and unfair treatment under international law. The district court ruled for the prison officials and dismissed the complaint, refusing to let the prisoners amend the complaint or add a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. On appeal, the prisoners said they worked for as little as 19 cents an hour, earning between $19 and $145 per month. Such low wages violate their due-process rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the prisoners claimed. The three-judge panel in San Francisco upheld dismissal of the case, ruling that the Constitution "does not provide prisoners any substantive entitlement to compensation for their labor." "We conclude that neither the Fifth Amendment nor international law grants plaintiffs a judicially enforceable right to any level of compensation for work performed in prison," Judge Clifton wrote. "A prisoner has no basis for asserting a violation of due process simply because he is made or allowed to work for low pay as punishment for a crime of which he was lawfully convicted." A copy of the opinion in Serra, et al. v. Lappin, et al., No. 08-15969 (9th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/09/08-15969.pdf The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: John Murcko, Esq. 2831 Telegraph Ave. Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: 510-465-2456 - and - William M. Simpich, Esq. 1736 Franklin St., 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510-444-0226 - and - Stephen Perelson, Esq. 265 Miller Ave. Mill Valley, CA 94941-2817 Telephone: 415-383-1070 The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Gregory G. Katsas, Esq. Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 - and - Joseph P. Russoniello, Esq. United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: 415-436-7200 - and - Michael S. Raab, Esq. Alexander K. Haas, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 VERTRO INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in Consolidated Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against Vertro, Inc., are appealing the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granting final judgment in favor of the defendants, according to the company's March 25, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaints alleged that we and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA. Plaintiffs alleged generally that, during the putative class period, we made certain misleading statements and omitted material information and sought unspecified damages and other relief. The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Nov. 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on Dec. 7, 2009. On Dec. 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Vertro, Inc., formerly MIVA, Inc., -- http://www.miva.com/-- is an Internet company that owns and operates the ALOT product portfolio. The company operated its range of products and services through two divisions: MIVA Direct and MIVA Media as of Dec. 31, 2008. MIVA Direct offers home page, desktop application and Internet browser toolbar products under the ALOT brand. The ALOT Home Page, ALOT Desktop and ALOT Toolbar are designed to make the Internet easy for consumers by providing direct access to affinity content and search results. The products generate approximately two million Internet searches per day. MIVA Media connected buyers and sellers online by displaying advertisements in response to consumer search or browsing activity on select Internet properties. Prior to the MIVA Media Sale, MIVA Media was an auction based pay-per-click advertising network that was operated across North America and in Europe. On March 12, 2009, Adknowledge, Inc. acquired MIVA Media, the media division of the company. WELLS FARGO: Minority Neighborhood Borrower Class Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST WELLS FARGO BANK AND WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE A court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You may be a member of the Plaintiff Class in a lawsuit entitled Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC337821. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges, on behalf of the Class, a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code 51), seeking statutory damages and attorney fees. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo precluded certain loan officers, who were located in predominantly minority neighborhoods, from using a computer program called "Loan Economics" to price loans. Plaintiffs assert that borrowers who applied for their loans in these locations were given higher-priced loans than other borrowers. Wells Fargo denies all of plaintiffs' allegations and denies it has engaged in any wrongdoing. Wells Fargo further contends that its loan officers were not precluded from using Loan Economics. Wells Fargo further claims that the use of Loan Economics by Wells Fargo loan officers is an internal Wells Fargo matter that had no effect on the services provided to borrowers. You are a member of the Plaintiff Class in this lawsuit if you fit within the following description: (1) You obtained a first trust deed-secured home loan ("loan") from Wells Fargo in an amount in excess of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000); (2) Your loan was not a home equity loan; (3) Your loan was funded between the time period May 1, 2002 and December 31, 2005; and, (4) You applied for the loan through a Wells Fargo branch and/or office which is and/or was located within the following area ("area"): (a) all of Los Angeles County, except the area north of the San Gabriel Mountains; and (b) either within, or within one mile (1 mile) from, an area comprised of fifty percent (50%) or more minority population, where "minority population" is defined as "the total population of that geographic area less the population of non-Hispanic whites of that geographic area," as established by the 2000 Census data. To obtain a partial list of Wells Fargo locations, or a map of the subject area, contact Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Class at the telephone and address below; or go to the website http://www.WellsFargoLoanEconomicsClassAction.com/ The Court has restricted the Class to statutory damages of $4,000 per loan. Your participation in the Class waives any further rights you have to actual damages and will preclude you from seeking actual damages in connection with the Unruh Act claims. Therefore, if you fit the above Description of the Class, you can choose whether or not to remain a member of the Class on whose behalf this lawsuit is being maintained. If you remain in the class, your recovery will be limited to $4,000 per loan. If you wish to remain in the Class, then you need not take any action at this time. If you wish to be excluded from the Class, your request for exclusion must be postmarked on or before May 15, 2010, and sent to: Wells Fargo Loan Economics Litigation c/o Dahl, Inc. P.O. Box 2061 Faribault, MN 55021-2061 If you do not exclude yourself from the Class, you are not required to hire your own lawyer, since Class Counsel represents you. However, if you want your own lawyer to speak for you or appear in Court, you must file a Notice of Appearance. Your Notice of Appearance should be filed with the Court on or before May 31, 2010. This notice is not intended to be a complete and comprehensive description of the matters identified and described herein. The full notice is available by (1) calling or writing Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Class at the telephone and address below; or (2) visiting the website at: http://www.WellsFargoLoanEconomicsClassAction.com/ If you have any questions regarding this lawsuit or any portion of this notice, you may contact Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff Class. Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff Class is: CAPPELLO & NOL LLP 831 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: 800-700-1195 Fax: 805-965-5950 DO NOT CALL OR WRITE WELLS FARGO, THE COURT OR THE CLERK''S OFFICE. ZUMIEZ INC: $1.35 Million Settlement Gets Court Preliminary Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- The Alameda County Superior Court gave its preliminary approval to the $1.35 million settlement in the matter Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No. RG08374968, according to the company's March 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010. On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against the company alleging that the company failed to pay all overtime wages owing to him and other employees in California, failed to provide meal breaks as required by California law, failed to provide employees with proper itemized wage statements (pay stubs) as required by California law, and failed to pay terminated employees waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203. On July 16, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an agreement to settle. The claims made settlement agreement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval, but the court denied approval without prejudice and encouraged the parties to restructure and resubmit the agreement to the court for approval. The company and plaintiff's counsel renegotiated the settlement, and resubmitted it to the court for approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 16, 2010, and set a final approval hearing for July 13, 2010. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement will have until June 1, 2010 to do so. The total amount of the renegotiated settlement is $1.35 million. This entire amount will be paid out in settlement awards to the class members, attorneys' fees and costs, claims administration fees and other payments required by the settlement, with no reversion of unclaimed funds to the company. This accrued charge was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended Aug. 1, 2009. Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states. ZUMIEZ INC: Certification Hearing in "Berg" Suit Set for May 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court has set a May 28, 2010, class certification hearing in the putative class action styled Chandra Berg v. Zumiez Inc., Case No. BC408410, according to the company's March 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010. The action was filed against the company on Feb. 25, 2009. The action alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages to present and former store managers in California, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers, failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees for business expenses, failure to provide store managers with accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due at the time of termination, unfair business practices and declaratory relief. The company has filed an answer to the Complaint and discovery is being conducted. Subsequent to Jan. 30, 2010, the company attended a mediation with the plaintiff wherein no settlement was reached. The court has set the date of May 28, 2010 for a hearing on class certification. Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states. * Mocked Celebrities File Class Action Suit on "South Park" ----------------------------------------------------------- Dan Sarto at Animation World Network reports that a slew of celebrities who have felt the mocking scorn of the South Park series gather together to file a class action lawsuit again our favorite tikes in the 200th episode, airing this evening at 10:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on Comedy Central. Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, George Lucas, Rob Reiner and Kanye West are only some of the stars that the series has targeted in their quest to merge social commentary with the darkest and nastiest humor allowed on cable television. A trailer's available at: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/267115/?tab=featured ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy 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 * * *