/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100415.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 73
Headlines
21ST CENTURY: Court Approves Settlement in Consolidated Suit
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Suit in Texas
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Suit in Florida
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Gets Leave to Amended Complaint
ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
BIOSANTE PHARMA: Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending
CCO HOLDINGS: Charter Agrees to Settle Wisconsin "Goodell" Suit
CCO HOLDINGS: Defends Second Amended "Bodet" Suit in Louisiana
CCO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Lebryk" Suit in Illinois
CCO HOLDINGS: Bankruptcy Court Says Causes of Action Released
COCO RESOURCES: Lawsuits Follow Eden Church Road Explosion
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Customer Data Breach Notices Being Mailed
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Court Okays $8 Million Settlement in "Elias"
EPL INTERMEDIATE: $900,000 "Santana" Suit Settlement Approved
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Agrees to Settle "Amezcua" Suit in California
EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Delgado" Settlement Gets Preliminary Nod
FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit in NY
FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
GENTA INC: Appeal of Dismissed Shareholder Complaint Pending
GEORGE BROWN UNIVERSITY: Business Student Class Certified
IMMERSION CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in California
MDL 2047: Seven Families Awarded $2.6 Mil. in Chinese Drywall Case
ORACLE CORP: No Date Yet in Oral Arguments for Appeal
PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in MO
STONE ENERGY: Court Okays Settlement Pact in Consolidated Suit
TALON INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
TRAILER BRIDGE: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
UNITED AGRI-PRODUCTS: Moves to Dismiss Atrazine Class Action
UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending
VAXGEN INC: Plaintiffs Intend to Dismiss Suits in California
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal of "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending
WALGREEN CO: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
WILLIAM LYON: Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Fee Award
*********
21ST CENTURY: Court Approves Settlement in Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
approved the settlement entered into by 21st Century
Holding Co., and plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
From July 27, 2007, to August 7, 2007, several securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the Company's securities during the various class
periods specified in the complaints.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of the class
on Jan. 22, 2008.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to accurately project the
company's business and financial performance during the putative
class period. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages and claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On March 18,
2008, a verified shareholder derivative complaint was filed
against certain current or former officers and directors of the
company in the District Court.
On Nov. 7, 2008, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint with leave to amend by Dec. 8, 2009 or the allegations
dismissed would be deemed dismissed with prejudice without
further order of the Court.
Lead plaintiffs did not seek to amend the consolidated complaint
and the defendants have answered.
On July 29, 2008, the District Court granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's shareholder derivative
complaint without prejudice. On Aug. 27, 2009, the derivative
plaintiff filed an amended shareholder derivative complaint. On
March 30, 2009, following various motions by the parties, the
Court entered an order granting defendant's renewed motion to
stay the shareholder derivative action pending resolution of the
class action.
On Sept. 4, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to
the Court by lead plaintiffs, the derivative plaintiff and the
defendants, setting forth the terms of a settlement of the Class
Litigation and Derivative Litigation which proposes that a
payment of $2.4 million be made to the lead plaintiffs and the
derivative plaintiff. The Stipulation of Settlement was
preliminarily approved by the Court on Oct. 19, 2009. The
company expects that this settlement amount will be funded by its
directors and officers insurance.
At a settlement hearing held on January 29, 2010, the Court
approved the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
Headquartered in Lauderdale Lakes, Fla., 21st Century Holding
Company -- http://www.21stcenturyholding.com/-- is an insurance
holding company, which, through its subsidiaries and contractual
relationships with the independent agents and general agents,
controls substantially all aspects of the insurance underwriting,
distribution and claims processes. The company is authorized to
underwrite fire, allied lines, homeowners' property and casualty
insurance, commercial general liability insurance, commercial
multi peril, inland marine, personal automobile insurance and
commercial automobile insurance in various states with various
lines of authority through the wholly owned subsidiaries,
Federated National Insurance Company (Federated National) and
American Vehicle Insurance Company (American Vehicle). 21st
Century markets and distributes its own and third party insurers'
products and other services in Florida, through contractual
relationships with a network of approximately 1,500 independent
agents and a select number of general agents.
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Company, along with other defendants, has
filed a motion to dismiss a putative class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, according
to Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s March 30, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
In September 2009, plaintiff Toni Hollinger filed a putative
class action against several county mutual insurance companies
and reinsurance companies, including Affirmative Insurance
Company.
The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in unfair
discrimination and violated the Texas Insurance Code by charging
different policy fees for the same class and hazard of insurance
written through county mutual insurance companies.
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss contesting jurisdiction
and the merits of plaintiff's claims.
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers. The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and
Wisconsin), including its franchised stores in Florida and
distributing its own insurance policies through 8,000 independent
agents or brokers in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois,
California, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina
and New Mexico).
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Company, has filed a motion to dismiss a
putative class action filed in Palm Beach County, Florida,
according to Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s March 30,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
In October 2009, plaintiff Dalton Johnson filed a putative class
action against Affirmative Insurance Company.
The complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to apply a
statutorily-permitted fee schedule for hospital emergency care
and services enacted into law in January 2008, thereby exhausting
prematurely the PIP benefits available to Affirmative's insureds.
Affirmative has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers. The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and
Wisconsin), including its franchised stores in Florida and
distributing its own insurance policies through 8,000 independent
agents or brokers in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois,
California, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina
and New Mexico).
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Gets Leave to Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in January 2010,
granted plaintiff Valerie Thomas leave to amend her complaint to
assert a putative class action against Affirmative Insurance
Company, according to Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s
March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
The complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to provide a
statutory 5% premium discount to insureds who had anti-theft
devices installed as standard equipment on their vehicles even
when the insureds did not disclose the existence of such devices
to Affirmative. The case has been consolidated with several
identical class actions against other insurance companies.
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the class action
complaints in their entirety.
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers. The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and
Wisconsin), including its franchised stores in Florida and
distributing its own insurance policies through 8,000 independent
agents or brokers in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois,
California, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina
and New Mexico).
ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit styled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB
Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709, remains pending in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, according to ALP Liquidating Trust's March 29,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Effective Sept. 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (Partnership)
completed its liquidation by contributing all of its remaining
assets to ALP, subject to all of the Partnership's obligations
and liabilities. Arvida Company, an affiliate of the general
partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator (Administrator)
of ALP.
The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.
Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity
with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with
Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have
filed a motion to expand the class to include other homes in
Weston.
The motion to expand the class has not yet been heard. The
Arvida defendants intend to oppose the motion.
The matter hearing on a motion to certify the class was scheduled
on Dec. 21-22, 2009.
The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.
The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not
settle. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on a motion to
certify the class on April 13, 2010. The Arvida defendants have
filed their answer to the amended complaint.
This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company, for defense and
indemnity. Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a
purported reservation of rights. The Partnership has also
engaged other counsel in connection with this lawsuit.
ALP Liquidating Trust engages in liquidating the assets of
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. Arvida/JMB Partners transferred all of
its remaining assets to the trust at the time of its liquidation
in 2005. Previously, Arvida/JMB Partners was engaged in the
development of resort and primary home communities for the middle
and upper income segments in the State of Florida, as well as in
Atlanta, Georgia, and Highlands, North Carolina. ALP Liquidating
Trust was founded in 1987 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.
BIOSANTE PHARMA: Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the settlement of a consolidated shareholder
class action complaint concerning the proposed merger between
Cell Genesys, Inc. and BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., remains
pending in the California Superior Court in San Mateo County,
according to BioSante's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.
On July 1, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
concerning the company's then proposed merger with Cell Genesys,
was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County naming
Cell Genesys, its officers and directors, and the company as
defendants. On July 6, 2009, a second putative shareholder class
action lawsuit naming the same parties and containing essentially
identical allegations was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County. On July 8, 2009, a third putative shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County, which also named the same parties and contained
essentially identical allegations as the two prior lawsuits.
On July 15, 2009, the Court consolidated these three lawsuits
into one action and appointed interim lead counsel.
On Aug. 13, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and/or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties
owed to Cell Genesys stockholders in connection with the then
proposed merger, including by failing to engage in a fair sales
process, failing to obtain a fair price for the sale of Cell
Genesys, and failing to provide Cell Genesys stockholders with
material information regarding the merger. Plaintiffs sought an
order certifying the lawsuit as a class action, injunctive relief
to enjoin the merger or, in the event the then pending merger was
completed, a rescission of the merger or rescissory damages.
Plaintiffs further sought an accounting for all damages and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, on Sept. 18, 2009, the company and Cell Genesys
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs'
counsel in the San Mateo County action pursuant to which the
company, Cell Genesys, the other named defendants and the
plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuits subject to court
approval.
If the Court approves the settlement, the lawsuits will be
dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding, Cell Genesys agreed to pay to plaintiffs' counsel
an amount not more than $240,000 as is approved by Court order
for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the San
Mateo County action and to make additional disclosures in a
current report on Form 8-K, without admitting in any way that the
certain disclosures are material or otherwise required by law.
Cell Genesys filed the Form 8-K on Sept. 21, 2009.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, plaintiffs' counsel
conducted confirmatory discovery to confirm the fairness and
adequacy of the settlement. The parties filed a stipulation of
settlement with the Court and moved the Court for preliminary
approval and issuance of a notice of settlement to the potential
class members, after which the parties intend to seek final
settlement approval and dismissal of the action with prejudice.
As a result of the company's merger with Cell Genesys, the
company assumed Cell Genesys's rights and obligations relative to
this lawsuit.
Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.biosantepharma.com/
-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing
products for female sexual health, menopause, contraception and
male hypogonadism. The company primary products include gel
formulations of testosterone and estradiol. It is also engaged
in the development of its calcium phosphate nanotechnology (CaP),
primarily for aesthetic medicine, vaccines and drug delivery. The
Company's principal products include LibiGel, Bio-T-Gel and Pill-
Plus. The company's CaP products in development include BioLook,
BioVant, BioOral and BioAir. In October 2009, BioSante
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cell Genesys, Inc. announced the
completion of the merger of Cell Genesys, Inc. with and into
BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with BioSante Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. as the surviving company. Pursuant to the merger, BioSante
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has acquired all of the outstanding shares
of Cell Genesys, Inc.
CCO HOLDINGS: Charter Agrees to Settle Wisconsin "Goodell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., and Charter Communications, LLC,
entered into an agreement to settle a lawsuit alleging violations
of wage and hour statutes, according to CCO Holdings, LLC's March
30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On Aug. 28, 2008, a lawsuit captioned Marc Goodell et al. v.
Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc., was
filed against Charter and Charter LLC in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former
broadband, system and other types of technicians who are or were
employed by Charter or Charter LLC in the states of Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri or California. Plaintiffs allege that
Charter and Charter LLC violated certain wage and hour statutes
of those four states by failing to pay technicians for all hours
worked.
On March 16, 2010, the parties tentatively settled this dispute
subject to court approval.
CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com./-- operates
broadband communications businesses in the United States with
approximately 5.5 million customers at Dec. 31, 2008. CCO
Holdings Capital Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCO
Holdings. The company offers residential and commercial
customers cable video programming (basic and digital video),
Internet services, and telephone services, as well as broadband
services (such as Charter OnDemand, and digital video recorder
(DVR)) service. The company sells its cable video programming,
Internet, telephone, and broadband services primarily on a
subscription basis. CCO Holdings also sells advertising to
national and local clients on advertising supported cable
networks.
CCO HOLDINGS: Defends Second Amended "Bodet" Suit in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., and Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC, defend a second amended complaint filed by Gerald
Paul Bodet, Jr., according to CCO Holdings, LLC's March 30, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
In March 2009, Mr. Bodet filed a putative class action against
Charter and Charter Holdco in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The suit is Gerald Paul Bodet,
Jr. v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications
Holding Company, LLC.
In January 2010, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which
also named Charter Communications, LLC as a defendant.
In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the
defendants violated the Sherman Act, the Communications Act of
1934, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act by forcing
subscribers to rent a set top box in order to subscribe to cable
video services which are not available to subscribers by simply
plugging a cable into a cable-ready television.
Defendants' response to the Second Amended Complaint was due on
April 2, 2010.
CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com./-- operates
broadband communications businesses in the United States with
approximately 5.5 million customers at Dec. 31, 2008. CCO
Holdings Capital Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCO
Holdings. The company offers residential and commercial
customers cable video programming (basic and digital video),
Internet services, and telephone services, as well as broadband
services (such as Charter OnDemand, and digital video recorder
(DVR)) service. The company sells its cable video programming,
Internet, telephone, and broadband services primarily on a
subscription basis. CCO Holdings also sells advertising to
national and local clients on advertising supported cable
networks.
CCO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Lebryk" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., continues to defend a suit
captioned Derrick Lebryk and Nicholas Gladson v. Charter
Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company,
LLC, CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC, according
to CCO Holdings, LLC's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.
In June 2009, Derrick Lebryk and Nichols Gladson filed a putative
class action against Charter, Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Sherman
Act based on similar allegations as those alleged in matter
Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. v. Charter Communications, Inc. and
Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC.
CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com./-- operates
broadband communications businesses in the United States with
approximately 5.5 million customers at Dec. 31, 2008. CCO
Holdings Capital Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCO
Holdings. The company offers residential and commercial
customers cable video programming (basic and digital video),
Internet services, and telephone services, as well as broadband
services (such as Charter OnDemand, and digital video recorder
(DVR)) service. The company sells its cable video programming,
Internet, telephone, and broadband services primarily on a
subscription basis. CCO Holdings also sells advertising to
national and local clients on advertising supported cable
networks.
CCO HOLDINGS: Bankruptcy Court Says Causes of Action Released
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
has held that the causes of action of the plaintiffs in three
suits against Charter Communications, Inc., were released by the
Third Party Release and Injunction under Charter's Plan of
Reorganization, according to CCO Holdings, LLC's March 30, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
The company is aware of three suits filed by holders of
securities issued by the company or its subsidiaries.
Key Colony Fund, LP. v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Paul W.
Allen (sic), was filed in February 2009 in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas and asserts violations of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud claims. Key Colony
alleges that it purchased certain senior notes based on
representations of Charter and agents and representatives of Paul
Allen as part of a scheme to defraud certain Charter noteholders.
Clifford James Smith v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Paul
Allen, was filed in May 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. Mr. Smith alleges that he
purchased Charter common stock based on statements by Charter and
Mr. Allen and that Charter's bankruptcy filing was not necessary.
The defendants' response to the Complaint was given in February
2010.
Herb Lair, Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund et al. v. Neil
Smit, Eloise Schmitz, and Paul G. Allen, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on June 1,
2009. Mr. Smit was the Chief Executive Officer and Ms. Schmitz
is the Chief Financial Officer of Charter.
The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of plaintiffs who
acquired Charter stock between Oct. 23, 2006 and Feb. 12, 2009,
allege that they and others similarly situated were misled by
statements by Ms. Schmitz, Mr. Smit, Mr. Allen and/or in Charter
SEC filings.
The plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
In February 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York held that these plaintiffs' causes of action
were released by the Third Party Release and Injunction under
Charter's Plan of Reorganization.
CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com./-- operates
broadband communications businesses in the United States with
approximately 5.5 million customers at Dec. 31, 2008. CCO
Holdings Capital Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCO
Holdings. The company offers residential and commercial
customers cable video programming (basic and digital video),
Internet services, and telephone services, as well as broadband
services (such as Charter OnDemand, and digital video recorder
(DVR)) service. The company sells its cable video programming,
Internet, telephone, and broadband services primarily on a
subscription basis. CCO Holdings also sells advertising to
national and local clients on advertising supported cable
networks.
COCO RESOURCES: Lawsuits Follow Eden Church Road Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyana Williams at WAFB.com reports that two class action
petitions have been filed after the massive explosion in Denham
Springs, La.
The plaintiffs say the fire cut into their quality of life.
Lawyers say some of the people living down Eden Church Road,
close to Coco Resources Warehouse, have some valid claims,
ranging from physical side effects to being out of a home.
The explosions happened March 30th. One of the petitions was
filed on the 31st. It says one woman is suffering after inhaling
fumes from the fire. It also says another woman was forced to
leave her home for several days. It turns out, if lawyers can
show the company was negligent, these suits have grounds.
Plumes of black smoke and fire erupting from Eden Church Road are
burned in the memories of many people. Gigi Hess, 70, says just
days before all the explosion she had thoughts of what if. "And
I said what would we do if there was an explosion? Just out the
clear blue. But I believe God was warning me then something was
about to happen," Hess said. She lives about 50 yards from the
explosion.
From her backyard, she can see crews cleaning up after the
chemical fire. Her yard has been roped off. Her fence and
gutters burned. She says she wasn't allowed to return home for a
week. Her neighbor wasn't so fortune. He lost his home. She
and several others have signed on to a class action petition for
damages. The lawsuit says Coco Resources failed to provide
timely notice and warning of the discharge and release of
dangerous and hazardous chemicals.
"Were they negligent with this particular type of product and
burning of this particular type of chemical, so they could have
avoided this? Then you look at what are the damages of the
people that live nearby especially on Eve Drive," said Julie
Baxter. Baxter is a lawyer with the Rhorer Law Firm. She says
if lawyers can show these residents' problems are due to the
negligence of the company, they have a valid case.
"And I hope they don't want to build back, cause if they do I'm
going to fight it," said Hess.
The petition seeks damages for loss of quality of life, loss of
enjoyment of life and any future medical expenses due to the
release of those chemicals.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Customer Data Breach Notices Being Mailed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began this week in the United States,
including Puerto Rico and recognized territories of the U.S., as
ordered by the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, to alert people who provided their personal
information or made mortgage payments to Countrywide about a
proposed settlement reached with Countrywide Financial
Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Bank, FSB,
Full Spectrum Lending Division, and Bank of America Corporation
in a class action lawsuit about stolen personal and financial
information.
The lawsuit claims that a senior financial advisor formerly
employed by Countrywide took confidential information from
millions of consumer records and sold it to third parties. The
lawsuit further alleges that Countrywide did not adequately
protect confidential personal and financial information of its
clients. Countrywide denies that it did anything wrong, and the
settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication
that any law was violated.
The Class includes everyone in the United States who: (1)
received a letter from Countrywide anytime from August 2, 2008,
to and including November 2, 2008, notifying them that their
personal information was involved in an alleged theft committed
by a Countrywide employee; or (2) who obtained a mortgage from
Countrywide or whose mortgage was serviced by Countrywide prior
to July 1, 2008. Countrywide, for this purpose, does not include
Bank of America.
Notices informing Class Members about their legal rights will be
mailed, and are scheduled to appear in newspapers in the United
States and its recognized territories, leading up to a hearing on
July 19, 2010, when the Court will consider whether to grant
final approval to the settlement.
The Court has appointed:
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Barnow and Associates, P.C.
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-621-2000
- and -
Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq.
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
The Duvall Foundry
1050 30th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 337-8000
E-mail: bfinkelstein@finkelsteinthompson.com
as Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel to represent the Class.
Those affected by this settlement can submit a claim for
benefits, if eligible, or they can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement and its terms. The deadline for
exclusions and objections is June 24, 2010. The earliest
deadline to claim any of the benefits is September 7, 2010.
A toll-free number, 1-866-940-3612, has been established in the
case (called In Re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, No. 3:08-MD-01998-TBR, MDL 1998),
along with a Web site at http://www.CWdataclaims.com/where
notices, claim forms, and the settlement agreement may be
obtained. Those affected may also write to:
Countrywide Data Settlement
PO Box 2730
Portland, OR 97208
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corp. continues to defend a class action
employee suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
On June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws. The plaintiff's claim was for $8
million.
On April 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered an order granting in part the company's
motion to dismiss the suit and to compel compliance with the
company's mandatory dispute resolution program, directing that
the parties arbitrate the claims, and striking the class action
waiver which was part of the dispute resolution program.
In the arbitration, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or
for Summary Disposition. The motion was denied and the parties
exchanged discovery documents.
No further updates were reported in the company's March 29, 2010,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Dynamics Research Corporation -- http://www.drc.com/-- is a
provider of engineering, technical, information technology (IT)
and management consulting services and solutions to federal and
state governments. The company operates in two business
segments: Systems and Services, and Metrigraphics.
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Court Okays $8 Million Settlement in "Elias"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, gave its preliminary approval to the agreement resolving
the purported class-action lawsuit against EPL Intermediate,
Inc., for $8 million, according to the company's March 30, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2009.
On April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez
and Javier Rivera filed the purported class action suit against
EPL on behalf of all putative class members composed of former
and current general managers and restaurant managers from April
2000 to present. The suit alleges certain violations of
California labor laws, including alleged improper classification
of general managers and restaurant managers as exempt employees.
The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid
wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of
alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as certain injunctive relief.
The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a
recent California Supreme Court decision. The matter is now
proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties are conducting
limited discovery on the issue of class certification.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is expected to be
filed in April 2009, and briefing completed. The hearing on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was set for Sept. 18,
2009.
The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter for $8
million which was accrued for in the fourth quarter of 2009.
The Court has granted preliminary approval of the classwide
settlement and set a hearing for final approval on April 1, 2010.
The company funded the settlement on Jan. 14, 2010.
Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.
EPL INTERMEDIATE: $900,000 "Santana" Suit Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The $900,000 settlement in a purported class-action suit filed on
behalf of all assistant shift managers against EPL Holdings,
Inc., has received preliminary approval from the court, according
to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
30, 2009.
In April 2007, Dora Santana filed a purported class action in
state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of all "Assistant
Shift Managers."
Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off
the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on
behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all Assistant
Managers from April 2003 to present.
Written discovery is completed on the limited issue of class
certification.
The Court has ordered that plaintiffs file their motion for class
certification no later than Aug. 15, 2009.
The parties have agreed to settle this matter for approximately
$900,000 and have executed a Memorandum of Understanding. This
amount was accrued for as of Dec. 30, 2009.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb.
25, 2010, and the parties currently await a formal court order
setting the class notification deadlines as well as the hearing
for final court approval.
Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Agrees to Settle "Amezcua" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc., has agreed to settle Salvador Amezcua's
purported class-action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, according to the
company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
30, 2009.
On Oct. 18, 2005, Salvador Amezcua, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported class-action
complaint against EPL.
Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the named class
representative on Aug. 16, 2006.
This action alleges certain violations of California labor laws
and the California Business and Professions Code, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure
to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from
earnings and unfair competition.
Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the
company has appealed that decision. The Court of Appeal issued
its ruling on April 27, 2009, affirming the trial court ruling on
the arbitration issue.
This lawsuit, according to the company, was deemed related to and
was included as part of the settlement in the suit filed by
former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez and Javier Rivera.
Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.
EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Delgado" Settlement Gets Preliminary Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed by
Jeannette Delgado against EPL Intermediate, Inc., has received
preliminary approval from the court, according to the company's
March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2009.
On May 30, 2008, former assistant manager Jeannette Delgado filed
a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly
(i.e. non-exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles
County alleging violations of certain California labor laws and
the California Business and Professions Code including failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods and unfair business practices. By statute, the purported
class extends back four years to May 30, 2004.
The plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
This lawsuit was served on the company in early September 2008.
The parties have agreed to settle this matter for approximately
$1.5 million and have executed a Settlement Agreement. This
amount was accrued for as of Dec. 30, 2009.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb.
25, 2010, and the parties currently await a formal court order
setting the class notification deadlines as well as the hearing
for final court approval.
Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.
FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend a class action alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.
In February 2007, the company and its U.S. pension plan, the Foot
Locker Retirement Plan, were named as defendants in a class
action in federal court in New York.
The Complaint alleged that the company's pension plan violated
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, including,
without limitation, its age discrimination and notice provisions,
as a result of the company's conversion of its defined benefit
plan to a defined benefit pension plan with a cash balance
feature in 1996.
No further updates were reported in the company's March 29, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.
Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a
global retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785
primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008. The company,
through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is
an athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include
Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports
and Footaction. The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects
Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates,
including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and
Internet Web sites. The Foot Locker brand is the Company's
principal brand.
FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend the suit captioned Pereira
v. Foot Locker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 29,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.
Certain of the company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under state wage and hour laws,
including allegations concerning classification of employees as
exempt or nonexempt, unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and
uniforms.
In Pereira v. Foot Locker, one of the class actions, plaintiff
alleged that the company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In September 2009,
the court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.
Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a
global retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785
primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008. The company,
through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is
an athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include
Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports
and Footaction. The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects
Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates,
including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and
Internet Web sites. The Foot Locker brand is the Company's
principal brand.
GENTA INC: Appeal of Dismissed Shareholder Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a class action
complaint styled Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08,
against Genta Inc. reamins pending, according to the company's
March 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
In September 2008, several shareholders of the company, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint against the Genta, the Board of Directors, and
certain of its executive officers in Superior Court of New
Jersey.
The complaint alleged that in issuing convertible notes, the
Board of Directors, and certain officers breached their fiduciary
duties, and the company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary
duty.
On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
motion of the company to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division.
On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
judgment based on a claim of new evidence, which was denied on
June 12, 2009.
The plaintiffs also asked the Appellate Division for a temporary
remand to permit the Superior Court judge to resolve the issues
of the new evidence plaintiffs sought to raise.
By order dated June 25, 2009, and filed on July 6, 2009, the
Appellate Division granted the motion for temporary remand, and
directed the issues on remand to be resolved in 30 days.
A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion was held on July 31, 2009, at
which time the Court permitted letter briefing on the issues
raised during that hearing.
The plaintiffs submitted a letter brief on Aug. 3, 2009, and the
company submitted a letter brief on Aug. 5, 2009.
Following briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court denied the
motion for relief from judgment on Aug. 28, 2009. Thus, this
matter will proceed in the Appellate Division.
Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was due Oct. 28,
2009, and the company's responsive brief was due Nov. 30, 2009.
Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was filed on Oct.
28, 2009, and the company's responsive brief was filed on Jan.
27, 2010.
Genta Incorporated -- http://www.genta.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company engaged in pharmaceutical (drug)
research and development. The company focuses on the
identification, development and commercialization of drugs for
the treatment of cancer and related diseases. Genta's research
portfolio consists of two major programs: Deoxyribonucleic Acid
(DNA)/Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) Medicines and Small Molecules.
GEORGE BROWN UNIVERSITY: Business Student Class Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
Macleans.ca reports that a class action lawsuit alleging a
Toronto college misled students about what they would get out of
a business program has received certification from a judge to
proceed.
Two former students of George Brown College's international
business management program allege it didn't have the ability to
confer the industry designations it promised. They launched the
lawsuit in October 2008, seeking $10 million in damages and an
Ontario Superior Court judge has now certified it as a class
action suit representing 119 former students.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
The students say they paid as much as $11,000 to attend the
eight-month program. The calendar said the program would provide
students with "the opportunity to complete three industry
designations/certifications" in addition to a graduate
certificate from the college, according to the students'
statement of claim.
Upon completion they learned they wouldn't be receiving the
industry designations referred to in the course calendar, the
students allege. In his decision, Justice George R. Strathy said
most students would have read the calendar description and that
the prominence given to the industry designations would suggest
they were significant.
"A class action will provide access to justice to a vulnerable
group of students, many of whom are from different lands and
culture," Strathy wrote. "Class members may lack the individual
resources, initiative and sophistication to pursue legal action
on their own and may be intimidated by the legal process."
Of the 119 former students, 78 were international students who
don't live in Canada -- most of them coming from either China or
India.
IMMERSION CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Immersion Corporation faces a consolidated complaint captioned In
Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, according to the company's
March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On Sept. 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks,
four additional class action complaints were filed, one of which
was later voluntarily dismissed.
The securities class action complaints names the company and
certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as
defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based
on the company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial
statements. The various complaints assert claims covering the
period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory
damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.
On Dec. 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.
On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. According to the company, the lead
plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint following its
restatement of financial statements to which defendants will then
have an opportunity to file responsive pleadings.
Immersion Corporation -- http://www.immersion.com/-- is a
provider of haptic technologies that allow people to use their
sense of touch while operating a variety of digital devices. The
company develops and manufactures or licenses a range of hardware
and software technologies and products. It focuses on marketing
and business development in the target application areas, which
include automotive, consumer electronics, gaming, and commercial
and industrial controls; medical simulation, and mobile
communications. The company manages these application areas
under two segments: the Touch Line of Business and the Medical
Line of Business. In March 2009, the company announced the sale
of its CyberGlove business to Shackleton Advisors. In July 2009,
the Company announced that Revware, Inc. purchased its
MicroScribe business. In March 2010, CAE Healthcare, a division
of CAE Inc., acquired part of Immersion`s medical simulation
business unit.
MDL 2047: Seven Families Awarded $2.6 Mil. in Chinese Drywall Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cain Burdeau and Michael Kunzelman at The Associated Press report
that a federal judge awarded seven Virginia families $2.6 million
in damages last week for homes ruined by sulfur-emitting drywall
made in China, a decision that could affect how lawsuits by
thousands of other U.S. homeowners are settled.
It remains to be seen how the plaintiffs can collect from Chinese
companies that do not have to respond to U.S courts, although
some have talked about getting orders to seize U.S.-bound ships
and cargoes from the drywall companies.
Thousands of homeowners, mostly in Florida, Virginia,
Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, have reported problems with
the drywall, which was imported in large quantities during the
housing boom and after a string of Gulf Coast hurricanes.
The drywall has been linked to corrosion of wiring, air
conditioning units, computers, doorknobs and jewelry, along with
possible health effects.
U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon ruled that the drywall needs to
be removed and the plaintiffs' homes need to gutted because of
the ruinous effects of corrosion. He said all electrical wiring,
the heating and air conditioning system, appliances, carpet,
cabinetry, trim work and flooring damaged by corrosion would have
to be removed.
A copy of the slip opinion is available at:
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/drywall/Orders/Germano.FFCL.pdf
Fallon's decision was the first in a series of federal lawsuits
brought against manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and
homebuilders by thousands of homeowners, all of them claims that
Fallon is presiding over. Separately, thousands of plaintiffs are
pursuing claims in state courts.
Last week's ruling could set the standard for what needs to be
done to make a tainted home fit for living in. Fallon's
guidelines went further than those put out by the Consumer
Protection Safety Commission earlier this month. The CPSC called
for removing the tainted drywall, electrical wiring, fire alarm
systems and gas pipes.
"We got everything we asked for," said Richard Serpe, an attorney
for the Virginia plaintiffs. "This becomes a roadmap for any
court that is going to consider how the litigation should go from
here."
Fallon's ruling covered only property damage and did not look at
possible health effects. The first cases with medical claims
won't be considered by the court until late 2010 or early 2011.
It was far from certain who would pay for the damages. Civil
judgments in U.S. courts aren't enforced in China. Plaintiffs are
suing American drywall suppliers, distributors and homebuilders,
too.
Phillip A. Wittmann, a New Orleans lawyer representing
homebuilders and drywall installers, said homebuilders have been
proactive and gutted tainted homes they built.
"The homebuilders are really the only class of defendants doing
anything for the homeowners," Wittman said.
In this case, the plaintiffs sued Chinese drywall manufacturer
Taishan Gypsum Co., which hasn't responded to lawsuits and did
not have a lawyer representing it at the February trial.
Plaintiffs lawyers have said they would try to seize the
company's U.S.-bound vessels and shipments if the company
continues to ignore the litigation.
So far, only one Chinese manufacturer -- Knauf Plasterboard
Tianjin Co. -- has responded to U.S. suits. A separate trial was
held last month against Knauf. Fallon has not ruled in that
case. Also, homebuilders are suing Knauf Plasterboard and Knauf
Gips KG, a German company, for damages, Wittman said.
In a statement, Knauf Plasterboard said Fallon's findings in the
Virginia case were "distinct from the cases against KPT." The
company said it would work with federal and state regulators and
others "in evaluating the concerns about drywall manufactured in
China."
Fallon said that Chinese drywall "has a significantly higher
average concentration of strontium and significantly more
detectable levels of elemental sulfur" than U.S.-made drywall. He
added that the "level of corrosive sulfur gases emitted by
Chinese drywall ... exceed the safe level established by
recognized standards, peer reviewed literature."
The Taishan drywall was not tested under American engineering
standards and Venture Supply Inc., the Norfolk, Virginia-based
buyer, "relied on a representation that Chinese testing was
equivalent to the U.S. testing standards," the ruling said.
The ruling noted that Chinese tests were done by a Chinese
government agency and not by an independent testing laboratory.
The Chinese government agency issued "certificates of quality"
based on a protocol that "predates the production of the drywall
shipped to the United States by at least two years," the ruling
said.
Taishan and the owners of Venture Supply Inc. could not be
reached for comment. A telephone number listed on Venture's Web
site was disconnected.
"The sulfur gases released by Chinese drywall cause offending
odors in homes, making them hard if not impossible to live in,"
Fallon said.
During the February trial, the plaintiffs gave emotional
testimony about how their lives had been damaged because of the
defective drywall that gives off a rotten-egg smell.
William Morgan and his wife, Deborah, moved to Williamsburg,
Virginia, after he retired from the Norfolk police department.
They quickly realized something was wrong with their "dream
house." Fixtures and mirrors turned black. Their lights
malfunctioned. Their smoke detector system and water heater
failed.
The problems drove them from their house into a rental home,
leaving them in a financial mess that forced the couple to file
for bankruptcy protection last year. Fallon awarded the Morgan
family $481,613.
"I'm tickled to death with the decision, but as far as the
mechanics of doing what needs to be done, I don't know," Morgan
said by telephone.
ORACLE CORP: No Date Yet in Oral Arguments for Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to set a date for oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal
to the dismissal of the consolidated class-action lawsuit against
Oracle Corp., according to the company's March 29, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010.
Stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the company and
its Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001.
Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a
revised second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with
prejudice.
On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The revised second amended complaint named the
company's Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial
Officer, who currently is Chairman of the company's Board of
Directors, and a former Executive Vice President as defendants.
This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's actual and expected financial
performance and the performance of certain of the company's
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants
sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.
Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting
violations.
On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment
against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against
the company's Chief Executive Officer.
On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions. On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a
default judgment against defendants or various other sanctions
because of defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.
A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007. On
April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge.
On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.
On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants.
The order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for sanctions. The court denied plaintiffs' request that
judgment be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged
destruction of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions
were appropriate for several categories of evidence.
The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences
were appropriate for two categories of evidence:
(1) e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
account, and
(2) materials that had been created in connection with a
book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.
The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's
Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and
re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of
the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these
inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary
judgment.
The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.
On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement.
On Oct. 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.
The parties also filed several motions challenging the
admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses.
Opposition briefs were filed on Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs
were filed on Dec. 12, 2008.
A hearing on all these motions was held on Feb. 13, 2009.
On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice.
On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Nov. 30, 2009.
Defendants filed their opposition brief on Feb. 4, 2010, and
plaintiffs filed their reply on March 15, 2010. The court has
not set a date for oral argument on this appeal.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.
The suit is In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.).
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
1438 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-896-1000
Fax: 415-896-2249
E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com
Representing the defendants is:
Dorian Daley, Esq.
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Phone: 650-506-5200
Fax: 650-506-7114
PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Pacific
Premier Bank, continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging
violation of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act, according to
the company's March 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.
In February 2004, the Bank was named in a class action lawsuit
titled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al", alleging
various violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by
charging and receiving fees and costs that were either wholly
prohibited by or in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to
origination fees, interest rates, and other charges.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri. The complaint seeks restitution of all
improperly collected charges, interest thereon, the right to
rescind the mortgage loans or a right to offset any illegal
collected charges and interest against the principal amounts due
on the loans and punitive damages.
In March 2005, the Bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations
was denied by the trial court without comment. The Bank's
"preemption" motion was denied in August 2006. The Bank has
answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have exchanged
and answered initial discovery requests. When the record is more
fully developed, the Bank intends to raise the limitations issue
again in the form of a motion for summary judgment.
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.com/-- is a
bank holding company that operates through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Pacific Premier Bank. The Bank is a state-chartered
commercial bank. Through its branches and its Website at
www.ppbi.net, the Bank offers an array of deposit products and
services for both businesses and consumer customers, including
checking, money market and savings accounts, cash management
services, electronic banking and online bill payment. It offers
an array of loan products, such as commercial business loans,
lines of credit, commercial real estate loans, the United Sates
Small Business Administration loans, residential home loans and
home equity loans. The Bank provides banking services within its
targeted markets in Southern California to businesses, including
the owners and employees of those businesses, professionals, real
estate investors and non-profit organizations, as well as
consumers in the communities served by it.
STONE ENERGY: Court Okays Settlement Pact in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
gave its approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated class action complaint against Stone Energy Corp.,
according to the company's March 29, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana against Stone, David Welch, Kenneth Beer, D. Peter
Canty and James Prince purporting to allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Three similar complaints were filed soon thereafter.
On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were
consolidated, with El Paso Fireman & Policeman's Pension Fund
designated as lead plaintiff. El Paso Fireman & Policeman's
Pension Fund filed a consolidated class action complaint on or
about June 14, 2006.
On or about Dec. 16, 2005, Robert Farer and Priscilla Fisk filed
respective complaints in the Federal Court purportedly alleging
claims derivatively on behalf of Stone. Similar complaints were
filed thereafter in the Federal Court by Joint Pension Fund,
Local No. 164, I.B.E.W., and in the 15th Judicial District Court,
Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana by Gregory Sakhno. Stone was
named as a nominal defendant and David Welch, Kenneth Beer, D.
Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John Laborde, Peter
Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi, David Voelker,
Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard were named as
defendants in these actions.
The parties in the Securities Action and the parties in the
Derivative Actions had reached agreements to settle the
respective proceedings and that the parties' settlement
agreements were subject to Federal Court approval.
On March 23, 2010, the Federal Court held a settlement fairness
hearing to consider the proposed settlements in both the
Securities Action and the Derivative Action. During the
settlement fairness hearing, the Federal Court approved both
proposed settlements.
The Federal Court thereafter entered a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing the federal Derivative
Action, and an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the Securities
Action. As part of the settlement in the Derivative Actions, the
plaintiff in the State Court derivative action has agreed to
dismiss the State Court derivative action voluntarily.
Stone Energy Corporation -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and operation
of oil and gas properties located primarily in the Gulf of
Mexico. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's estimated proved oil
and natural gas reserves were approximately 410.7 billions of
cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe). During the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, it sold all of its Rocky Mountain Region properties to
Newfield Exploration Company. In June 2009, the company
discovered on its deepwater Pyrenees Prospect, located on Garden
Banks Block 293.
TALON INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement of the purported
shareholder class-action suit, Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc.,
et al., according to Talon International Inc.'s March 29, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Talon International was formerly Tag-It Pacific.
On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from
Nov. 14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.
On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation and
its relationship with certain of its large customers during the
purported class period.
The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.
On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.
On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.
Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007. In addition,
the same day the Court granted the company's and the other
defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007 -- the
court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.
On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007. The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007. The Ninth Circuit
held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008.
On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class,
reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and
remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4,
2009. The District Court rescheduled the status conference for
June 15, 2009.
On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement intended to settle the matter and result in its
dismissal with prejudice.
The total settlement proceeds of $5.75 million are to be paid in
full by the company's insurers without any contribution from the
company or individual defendants. The Court set a hearing for
preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 17, 2009.
On Aug. 24, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
Notice has been provided to class members and the Court has set a
final fairness hearing on the settlement for Dec. 7, 2009.
On Dec. 7, 2009, the Court gave final approval to the settlement
and the case was dismissed with prejudice per the terms of the
settlement.
The suit is Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-7352 (C.D. Calif.) (Real, J.).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Wolf Popper
845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-759-4600
- and -
Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Jules Brody, Esq.
Stull Stull & Brody
6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-687-7230
- and -
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Wolf Popper
845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-759-4600
E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com
- and -
Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
Stull Stull and Brody
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-209-2468
E-mail: service@ssbla.com
Representing the defendants is:
Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714-668-6200
E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com
TRAILER BRIDGE: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., motion to dismiss an amended class action
complaint in a multi-district litigation proceeding remains
pending, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers. Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the company's
full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation. The
company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to
the subpoena, and its attorneys are in the process of reviewing
documents for additional submissions.
Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in
one case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have
filed at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley and
the company.
The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the District of
Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.
On Oct. 21, 2009, in connection with this consolidated
proceeding, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel filed an amended class
action complaint under seal.
The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with the
court on Nov. 4, 2009. The motion has been fully briefed and
argued and the parties are awaiting a ruling by the Court.
In June 2009, Horizon Lines and its related companies entered
into a settlement agreement with certain named direct purchaser
plaintiffs on behalf of a purported class of claimants in the MDL
1960 proceeding, while denying any liability for the underlying
claims. The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval
and is subject to various objections. In December 2009, the
Court heard arguments related to the approval of the settlement
and has set this matter for further argument on April 6, 2010.
Additionally, Crowley Liner Services and its related entities
have entered into a settlement agreement with certain named
direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a purported class of
claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying liability for
the underlying claims. The Court is expected to hear argument
related to the approval of the Crowley Settlement on April 6,
2010 as well. The company is not a party to either of the
settlements.
On Oct. 9, 2009, the company received a Request for Information
and Production of Documents from the Puerto Rico Office of
Monopolistic Affairs. The request relates to an investigation
into possible price fixing and unfair competition in the Puerto
Rico domestic ocean shipping business. The company has indicated
to the Puerto Rican authorities that it will cooperate fully with
this investigation.
Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- is a
trucking and marine transportation company with contract and
common carrier authority. Highway transportation services are
offered in the continental U.S., while marine transportation is
offered between Jacksonville, Florida, San Juan, Puerto Rico and
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.
UNITED AGRI-PRODUCTS: Moves to Dismiss Atrazine Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at THe Madison County Record reports that another
defendant in a series of six proposed class actions over alleged
water contamination by a popular weed killer has filed to
dismiss.
Defendant United Agri-Products, along with fellow defendant
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., moved to dismiss the lawsuit
yesterday afternoon.
A copy of the April 6 United Agri-Products motion is not yet
available in the case file, nor is a copy of the Syngenta motion
to dismiss.
According to the notice of hearing filed for the motion, it is a
motion to dismiss suits brought by lead plaintiff Holiday Shores
Sanitary District on the grounds of lack of personal
jurisdiction.
Holiday Shores and seven other named plaintiffs are suing United
Agri-Products and other makers of the herbicide atrazine,
alleging it runs off of fields and contaminates drinking water.
Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that
atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion,
the plaintiffs allege that even smaller amounts cause medical
problems for human beings.
Moves by the defendants in the suits to send the claims of seven
co-plaintiffs in the suit -- Flora, Mattoon, Mount Olive,
Litchfield, Fairfield, Hillsboro and Carlinville -- back to their
home counties remain pending.
The defendants contend that the seven municipalities must bring
their claims in their home counties -- not in Madison County --
because Illinois law dictates that property damage claims be
resolved where injury takes place.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Stephen Tillery, disputes that
argument.
Although Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder heard
arguments on the venue change in February, she has yet to enter
an order deciding the issue.
The 2004 suits are still in the early stages of discovery.
Crowder took over the cases last year from Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack. Stack plans to retire this year.
A Syngenta motion to compel is also set for hearing April 14
along with the motions to dismiss.
The defendants in the suits and their counsel are:
-- Sipcam Agro USA is represented by Geoffrey Bryce.
-- Growmark and Dow Chemical Company are represented by
Shultz. Growmark is a defendant in all of the suits.
-- Syngenta is represented by Kurtis Reeg.
-- United Agri-Products Inc. is represented by Reeg in a
special limited appearance.
-- Drexel Chemical Company is represented by Daniel Cray.
-- Makhteshim-Agan of North America is represented by
Russell Scott.
The atrazine cases are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.
UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging antitrust violations.
The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption, "Precision
Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd." It
alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-
competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of treble
monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws.
Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:
-- Panalpina, Inc.;
-- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
-- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
-- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
-- EGL, Inc.;
-- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
-- Deutsche Bahn AG;
-- Schenker AG;
-- Schenker, Inc.;
-- Deutsche Post AG;
-- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
-- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
-- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.
Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any subsidiary
or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any time during
the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.
They want the court to rule on:
(a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
Services sold in the United States;
(b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;
(c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
combination alleged;
(d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
or combination;
(e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;
(f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
artificially high and non-competitive level;
(g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
combination upon interstate commerce;
(h) the appropriate measure of damages; and
(i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
declaratory and/or injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs pray:
-- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
-- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act;
-- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
with the antitrust laws;
-- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:
(1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
having a similar purpose of effect, and from
adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
device having a similar purpose or effect; and
(2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
such products except to the extent necessary in
connection with bona fide sale transactions between
the parties to such communication;
-- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
service of the initial complaint in this action;
-- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
as provided by law; and
-- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
other, further, and different relief as the case may
require and the court may deem just and proper under the
circumstances.
The suit is Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World
Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042 E.D.N.Y.).
No further updates were reported in the company's March 29, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
New York, NY 10110
Phone: (212) 608-1900
Fax: (212) 719-4677
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
Representing the defendants are:
August C. Venturini, Esq.
Venturini & Associates
230 Park Avenue, Suite 545
New York, NY 10169
Phone: 212-826-6800
Fax: 212-949-6162
E-mail: acv@venturini-law.com
- and -
James Joseph Calder, Esq.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-940-6460
Fax: 212-940-3871
E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com
- and -
Breon S. Peace, Esq.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Phone: 212-225-2059
Fax: 212-225-3999
E-mail: bpeace@cgsh.com
VAXGEN INC: Plaintiffs Intend to Dismiss Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in three putative stockholder class action lawsuits
against VaxGen, Inc., expect to dismiss the suits after the
company's planned merger with OXiGENE Inc., failed to get
sufficient votes to be approved at a special meeting of company
stockholders.
Beginning on Oct. 23, 2009, several putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the company, members of its
Board of Directors, OXiGENE and OXiGENE Merger Sub, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo in connection
with the proposed merger with OXiGENE.
The complaints, styled respectively:
-- Jensen v. Panek et al., Case No. CIV 488075;
-- Ming v. VaxGen, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 489164; and
-- Hawes v. VaxGen, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 489313,
allege, among other things, that the members of the company's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize value for the company's stockholders when negotiating
and entering into the merger agreement with OXiGENE. The
complaints also allege that the company and OXiGENE aided and
abetted those purported breaches.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the
acquisition of the company by OXiGENE or, in the alternative, to
rescind the acquisition should it occur before the lawsuit is
resolved.
On Feb. 3, 2010, the company held a special meeting of
stockholders at which the proposed merger failed to receive
sufficient votes to be approved.
The plaintiffs have informed the company that they expect to
dismiss the action without prejudice in the near future,
according to the company's March 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.
VaxGen, Inc. -- http://www.vaxgen.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical
company. VaxGen is focused on the development, manufacture and
commercialization of biologic products for the treatment of human
disease. The company owns a state-of-the-art biopharmaceutical
manufacturing facility with a 1,000-liter bioreactor that can be
used to make cell culture or microbial biologic products. The
company has ended all product development activities and sold or
otherwise terminated its drug development programs. On March 28,
2008, the Company entered into a Termination of Merger Agreement,
Acknowledgment and Amendment to Loan Agreement and Secured
Promissory Note, or Termination Agreement and Amendment,
terminating immediately the Merger Agreement and amending the
terms of VaxGen's bridge loan to Raven.
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal of "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to a $188 million judgment in the
matter, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to
remain pending.
The case is containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege
that the company forced or encouraged them to work "off the
clock," failed to provide rest breaks or meal periods, or
otherwise failed to pay them correctly. It generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.
A trial was commenced in the matter on September 2006, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the
company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor
of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.
On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees.
The company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the company
filed its Notice of Appeal.
No further developments were reported in the company's March 30,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries. The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.
WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a gender-discrimination
class-action lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
The purported class-action suit was commenced in June 2001 and
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. It was brought on behalf of all past and present
female employees in all of the company's retail stores and
warehouse clubs in the U.S.
The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments. It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.
On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes
of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive
damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes
all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any
time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to
the pay and management track promotions policies and practices
challenged by the plaintiffs.
The class as certified currently includes approximately
1.6 million present and former female associates.
The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.
On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the company's petition for discretionary review of the
ruling.
On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.
On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court. On Dec.
11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of Feb. 6,
2007, and issued a revised opinion. As a result, Wal-Mart's
Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.
Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.
On Feb. 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition. The court of appeals heard oral argument on the
Petition on March 24, 2009.
No further developments were reported in the company's March 30,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries. The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.
WALGREEN CO: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co.'s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's March 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010.
On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the
company and its former and current chief executive officers. The
plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon the
company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24, 2009.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to
reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further
amend the complaint. The District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion on Nov. 11, 2009.
The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of
purchasers of company common stock during the period between June
25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007.
As in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
charges the Company and its former and current chief executive
officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors
by failing to disclose (i) declining rates of growth in generic
drug sales and (ii) increasing selling, general and
administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of 2007, which
allegedly had a negative impact on earnings.
On Feb. 1, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail
drugstore business. As of Aug. 31, 2009, the company operated
7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam. During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009
(fiscal 2009), the company opened or acquired 691 locations.
Total locations do not include 337 convenient care clinics
operated by Take Care Health Systems, Inc. within the company's
drugstores. The company's drugstores are engaged in the retail
sale of prescription and non-prescription drugs and general
merchandise. General merchandise includes, among other things,
household items, personal care, convenience foods, beauty care,
photofinishing, candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers
customers the choice to have prescriptions filled at the
drugstore counter, as well as through the mail, by telephone and
through the Internet. In January 2010, the company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of 12 Eaton
Apothecary pharmacies.
WILLIAM LYON: Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Fee Award
-------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme court affirmed the order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,
denying the fee award sought by the California plaintiff in a
suit against William Lyon Homes, according to the company's March
30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by him. Initially, the
price offered in the Tender was $93 per share, but it was
subsequently increased to $109 per share.
Delaware Actions
Two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,
purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the company,
challenging the Tender Offer and challenging related actions of
the company and the directors of the company.
The suits are:
(1) Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
Action No. 2015-N (filed on March 20, 2006), and
(2) Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2017-N (filed on March 21, 2006).
On March 21, 2006, plaintiff in the Brown action also filed a
First Amended Complaint. The Delaware Complaints name the
company and the then directors of the company as defendants.
These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
had breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in
connection with the Tender Offer and other related corporate
activities. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Tender Offer
and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses
related to the litigation.
On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N
(Consolidated Delaware Action).
On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval. Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer
of $93 per share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of
the offer to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an
amended Schedule TO. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action have determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the
putative Class." A special committee of the company's Board of
Director's also determined that the price of $100 per share was
fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the Company's
shareholders accept the revised Tender Offer and tender their
shares. Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend
the closing date of the Tender Offer from April 21, 2006 to April
28, 2006.
California Action
A purported class action lawsuit challenging the Tender Offer was
also filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange. On March 17, 2006, a complaint captioned
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-CC-00047, was filed.
On April 5, 2006, plaintiff in the Alaska Electrical action filed
an Amended Complaint. The complaint in the California Action
names the company and the then directors of the company as
defendants and alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders.
Plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
Tender Offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.
On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender Offer.
Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the California
Action which was later taken off calendar, and the company filed
a motion to stay the California Action. On July 5, 2006, the
California Court granted the company's motion to stay the
California Action pending final resolution of all matters in the
Delaware Action.
On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
Stipulation of Settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.
On Feb. 16, 2007, plaintiff in the California Action appealed the
fee award in the Consolidated Delaware Action to the Supreme
Court of the State of Delaware. Thereafter, the Delaware Supreme
Court remanded the matter to the Chancery Court for further
proceedings and, on April 2, 2009, the Chancery Court issued its
decision on remand denying the fee award sought by the California
plaintiff. On April 30, 2009, the California plaintiff again
appealed the fee award to the Delaware Supreme Court. On Jan.
14, 2010, the Delaware Supreme court affirmed the order of the
Chancery Court.
William Lyon Homes and subsidiaries -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/
-- are primarily engaged in designing, constructing and selling
single family detached and attached homes in California, Arizona
and Nevada.
*********
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 * * *