/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100510.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 90 Headlines AMERICAN HONDA: Nev. Suit Complains About Defective Radios CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suits Over Billing Practices CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Suits CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Opposes Certification in "Demmick" Suit CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suit Over Roaming Service CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal of Dismissal Pending CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Ruwe" Still Stayed Pending FCC Ruling CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Sued for Improper Royalty Calculations CONAGRA FOODS: Microwave Popcorn Flavoring Lawsuit Filed CORRECTIONS CORP: Class in Violence Suit Can Seek Certification E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in PFOA Suit E.I. DUPONT: June 2010 Trial Date in NJ Suits to be Rescheduled E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Suit Over Zinc Smelter in Va. EARL BRADLEY: Lawyers Seek Class Action Status in Sex Abuse Case FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in California FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchasers Suits in Penn. HUMANA INC: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling HUMANA INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Certification Plea KLEAN KANTEEN: Recalls 1,302,000 Sport Cap 2.0 Water Bottle Spouts MICHIGAN: Mich. Sup. Ct. Remands Public Defender Lawsuit NIRVE SPORTS: Recalls 725 Chopper-Style Bicycles OFFICE DEPOT: Appeal of Lead Plaintiff on Suit Dismissal Pending PRICELINE.COM: Brevard Cty. Opts Out of Class Action Litigation ROBERTA ROLLER: Recalls 9,200 Children's Kimono Robe SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 1,350 2010 Epic & Era Bicycles TYCO INT'L: May 6 Hearing Set for "Stumpf" Settlement Approval TYCO INT'L: Court Dismisses Key Claims in Suit Against ADT Unit UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint VERISIGN INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed ********* AMERICAN HONDA: Nev. Suit Complains About Defective Radios ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Honda sold 2007-2009 model cars with defective radios and refuses to fix them under warranty, in Las Vegas Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Koven v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00638 (D. Nev.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/05/Honda.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Adams, Esq. Assly Sayyar, Esq. ADAMS LAW GROUP, LTD. 8681 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 280 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Tel: 702-838-7200 E-mail: james@adamslawnevada.com assly@adamslawnevada.com CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, CNA Holdings LLC, remains a defendant in putative class actions seeking recovery for alleged damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. During the period between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a defendant in these putative class actions: (a) Cox, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County, Tennessee) (class was certified); (b) Couture, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 200-06-000001-985 (Quebec Superior Court, Canada); (c) Dilday, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 15187 (Chancery Ct., Weakley County, Tennessee); (d) Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967239 (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, Canada); (e) Gariepy, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 30781/99 (Ontario Court General Division, Canada); (f) Shelter General Insurance Co., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 16809 (Chancery Ct., Weakley County, Tennessee); (g) St. Croix Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 1997/467 (Territorial Ct., St. Croix Division, the US Virgin Islands); and (h) Tranter v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 46565/97 (Ontario Court General Division, Canada). In addition, between 1994 and 2008 CNA Holdings was named as a defendant in numerous non-class actions filed in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas, the US Virgin Islands and Canada of which ten are currently pending. In all of these actions, the plaintiffs have sought recovery for alleged damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing. Damage amounts have generally not been specified but these cases generally do not involve (either individually or in the aggregate) a large number of homes. As of March 31, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2009, the company had remaining accruals of $54 million and $55 million, respectively, of which $1 million and $1 million, respectively, is included in current Other liabilities in the unaudited consolidated balance sheets with the remainder recorded in noncurrent Other liabilities. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the company recorded $11 million in plumbing claim recoveries. Celanese Corporation -- http://www.celanese.com/-- as a global leader in the chemicals industry, makes products essential to everyday living. The compan's products, found in consumer and industrial applications, are manufactured in North America, Europe and Asia. Net sales totaled $5.1 billion in 2009, with approximately 73% generated outside of North America. Known for operational excellence and execution of its business strategies, Celanese delivers value to customers around the globe with innovations and best-in-class technologies. Based in Dallas, Texas, the company employs approximately 7,400 employees worldwide. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suits Over Billing Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership remains a defendant in various purported consumer class actions, brought on behalf of customers throughout the country, relating to its advertising, sales, billing and collection practices, as well as Attorney General investigations regarding such issues. No additional information were disclosed in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on Oct. 4, 1994. Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon Wireless. The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S. subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the partnership. Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the world's leading telecommunications providers. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership remains a defendant in various purported collective actions, class actions and other matters brought on behalf of employees and former employees relating to the payment of wages, including claims for overtime pay. No additional information were disclosed in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on Oct. 4, 1994. Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon Wireless. The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S. subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the partnership. Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the world's leading telecommunications providers. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Opposes Certification in "Demmick" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership continues to oppose class certification in the matter Demmick, et al. v. Cellco Partnership. The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action, Demmick, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, filed May 11, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that: (i) while the company charge one rate for after-allowance minutes on the primary line in its Family SharePlan and a different, higher rate on the secondary lines, the company has an undisclosed policy of billing all after- allowance minutes at the higher per minute rate applicable to the secondary lines, and (ii) the company improperly billed for in-network calls that should have been provided without charge to certain subscribers. Plaintiffs assert violations of the Federal Communications Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, as well as claims of breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The parties have completed class discovery. Plaintiffs have moved for, and the company has opposed, class certification. No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on Oct. 4, 1994. Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon Wireless. The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S. subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the partnership. Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the world's leading telecommunications providers. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suit Over Roaming Service ----------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership continues to defend a class action relating to the company's roaming service advertised as free. The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action, Cowit et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, filed July 22, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, alleging that all roaming charges assessed by the company under the America's Choice I plan were improper; that the company improperly charge roaming for in-network calls advertised as "free"; and that the company failed to disclose that roaming service is unavailable under the America's Choice II plan. The second amended complaint asserts claims of breach of contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On Sept. 11, 2007, the trial court denied the company's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims. On July 7, 2008, the court certified a nationwide class of America's Choice II subscribers who allegedly were promised but did not receive "free" roaming service, but denied certification of the remaining putative classes. The parties appealed the trial court's class certification order. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order on April 3, 2009, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied the parties' petitions for review. No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on Oct. 4, 1994. Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon Wireless. The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S. subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the partnership. Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the world's leading telecommunications providers. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal of Dismissal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a statewide class action relating to wireless phone use remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The company and various other wireless service providers and phone manufacturers are defendants in a statewide class action relating to wireless phone use, Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed April 19, 2001. Plaintiff alleges that wireless phones are defective because defendants fail to include a proper warning about alleged adverse health effects, fail to encourage the use of a headset and fail to include a headset with the phone. Plaintiff also alleges that the sale of wireless phones without a hands-free device facilitates the violation of certain state laws restricting the use of wireless phones without a hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring defendants to provide headsets to all class members. On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court dismissed all claims on preemption grounds. Plaintiff's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is pending. No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on Oct. 4, 1994. Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon Wireless. The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S. subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the partnership. Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the world's leading telecommunications providers. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Ruwe" Still Stayed Pending FCC Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- A putative statewide class action against Cellco Partnership remains stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission. The company is a defendant in a putative statewide class action, Ruwe v. Cellco Partnership, et al. (formerly Gellis v. Cellco Partnership, et al.), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 12, 2007. Plaintiff in Ruwe challenges the legality of the company's $5 minimum late payment fee and $15 reconnect fee on behalf of a class of California subscribers. Plaintiff asserts violation of California Civil Code Section 1671, claims of deceptive practices under California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unfair business practices under California Business and Professional Code Section 17200 and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks money damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The court has denied the company's motions to dismiss the complaint on the ground that state regulation of the late fee and reconnect fee are preempted by federal law. On May 27, 2009, the company moved the court to stay the action pending proceedings before the FCC. The court granted the company's motion to stay the matter pending the outcome of proceedings before the FCC on whether state-law challenges to late fees are preempted by federal law. No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on Oct. 4, 1994. Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon Wireless. The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S. subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the partnership. Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the world's leading telecommunications providers. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Sued for Improper Royalty Calculations ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Chesapeake Appalachia, NiSource, and Columbia Energy Group cheat property owners of royalties, a class action claims in Abingdon, Va., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Davis, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00023 (W.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/05/GasnOil.pdf The Plaintifs are represented by: Thomas L. Pruitt, Esq. PRUITT & CHILDRESS, PC 1080 Walnut St. P.O. Box 1259 Grundy, VA 24614 Telephone: 276-935-7900 E-mail: tlpruitt@pnc-law.com - and - Larry D. Moffet, Esq. DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A. 265 North Lamar Blvd., Suite R P.O. Box 1396 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: 662-232-8979 E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com - and - David Stellings, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson St., 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 212-355-9500 E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6518 Hwy. 100, Suite 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: 615-515-3393 E-mail: cb@barrettandassociates.net - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 404 Court Square North P.O. Drawer 987 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: 662-834-2376 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawoffice.com - and - Mary E. McAlister, Esq. P.O. Box 354 Madison, MS 39130 Telephone: 601-506-9125 E-mail: mcalister_m@bellsouth.net CONAGRA FOODS: Microwave Popcorn Flavoring Lawsuit Filed -------------------------------------------------------- Wendy R. Fleishmann and Elizabeth Alexander of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Ken McClain of the Kansas City, Missouri law firm, Humphrey Farrington and McClain, P.C., announced that Agnes Mercado, of Queens County, New York, has filed a personal injury lawsuit against ConAgra Foods, Inc., Givaudan Flavors Corp. and numerous diacetyl manufacturers. In April, 2010 Ms. Mercado was diagnosed with a severe lung disease as a result of her exposure to ConAgra's microwave popcorn which contained butter flavorings with added diacetyl. The disease is associated with inhaling butter flavoring vapors and has been identified as bronchiolitis obliterans -- literally, an obliteration of the lung's airways. Breathing tests can identify difficulty in moving air in and out of the lungs, called lung obstruction. In the case of bronchiolitis obliterans, that obstruction is "fixed," meaning it doesn't respond to normal asthma medications. About her injury, Ms. Mercado stated, "I have always taken good care of myself and never would have thought that something as seemingly harmless as eating microwave popcorn would have hurt me so badly." The lawsuit charges that Ms. Mercado sustained a severe lung disease after consuming microwave popcorn containing the butter flavoring chemical diacetyl. The chemical is used for the aroma and taste in butter, some cheeses and snack and bakery products. Wendy Fleishman stated, "The product diacetyl has destroyed our client's health. It should never have been added to microwave popcorn or any other food." Ken McClain stated, "Unfortunately, my firm represents consumers who have been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans. The hazards were unknown by consumers for far too long." The complaint further alleges that exposure to butter flavoring containing added diacetyl may cause other health problems including asthma, bronchiectasis, chronic obstructed bronchitis, pulmonary disease, emphysema, lung impairment as well as several others. Legal Resources for Individuals Affected by Popcorn Lung Disease Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured by the chemical diacetyl. If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please visit: http://www.butterflavoringlunginjury.com/ There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case. About Plaintiff Counsel Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. With offices in New York, San Francisco, and Nashville, Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes representing persons injured by contaminated foods. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation for the past seven years. To learn more about Humphrey Farrington & McClain, please visit their Web site at http://www.hfmlegal.com/ CORRECTIONS CORP: Class in Violence Suit Can Seek Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge allowed a group of inmates to seek class-action status for a lawsuit accusing the Corrections Corporation of America and 11 employees of failing to protect prisoners at the Idaho Correctional Center, a prison that's so violent it's reportedly dubbed "gladiator school." Former inmate Marlin Riggs sued the CCA in Ada County Court, claiming he told prison staff members that other inmates had threatened him, but they told him to get back to his cell and stop wasting their time. Mr. Riggs said he was beaten by a gang of inmates and found "lying in a pool of blood." He also claimed he was confined and denied medical treatment for 15 days after the beating. Mr. Riggs said employees of CCA, the Nashville-based contractor hired to run the prison, ignored video evidence of more than 200 assaults that took place in the same part of the prison in 2008. The CCA tried to block Mr. Riggs from turning his damages claim into a class action. It argued that Mr. Riggs is no longer an inmate and is seeking monetary damages, even though the class claims seek only an injunction. U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill allowed Mr. Riggs to proceed with his bid for class certification, saying similar failure-to- protect cases could be consolidated for possible early mediation. Judge Winmill suggested that Riggs' case be tried before a jury first, as his evidence of ongoing problems at the prison "would clearly be relevant to the class claims for injunctive relief." A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for May 27. A copy of the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill's April 28, 2010, Order in Riggs, et al. v. Valdez, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00010 (D. Idaho), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/Boise%20ruling.pdf E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in PFOA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs in a purported class action against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company are appealing the final judgment entered in favor of the company to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In the second quarter 2006, three purported class actions were filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain DuPont plants. One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court by three individual plaintiffs on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but was removed on DuPont's motion to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In September 2008, the U.S. District Court ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action. Plaintiffs' appeal of the ruling was denied. In the second quarter 2009, the plaintiffs added a claim based on public nuisance and moved for again class certification. In the third quarter 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in DuPont's favor dismissing all claims brought by the three plaintiffs, including public nuisance and class certification, except for medical monitoring. In the fourth quarter 2009, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the medical monitoring claims. The court entered final judgment for DuPont in January 2010. In the first quarter 2010, plaintiffs' appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation. E.I. DUPONT: June 2010 Trial Date in NJ Suits to be Rescheduled --------------------------------------------------------------- A June 2010 trial date in two purported class actions against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company in New Jersey will be rescheduled, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. A purported class action was filed in federal court in New Jersey on behalf of individuals who allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey. A second purported class action was filed in state court on behalf of customers serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont's motion. The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb. In December 2008, the court denied class action status in both cases, but ordered additional briefing on certain issues. In October 2009, the Court granted class certification for certain sub-classes regarding public and private nuisance claims, while denying class certification for all other claims. The court also certified a legal question related to strict liability. In April 2010, the Court allowed plaintiffs in both cases to add a claim under RCRA alleging "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the environment." The June 2010 trial date will be rescheduled. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation. E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Suit Over Zinc Smelter in Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company continue to defend a suit relating to its operation of a zinc smelter in spelter, West Virginia, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a class action against DuPont that seeks relief including the provision of remediation services and property value diminution damages for 7,000 residential properties in the vicinity of a closed zinc smelter in Spelter, West Virginia. The action also seeks medical monitoring for an undetermined number of residents in the class area. The smelter was owned and operated by at least three companies between 1910 and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950. DuPont performed remedial measures at the request of the EPA in the late 1990s and in 2001 repurchased the site to facilitate and complete the remediation. The fall 2007 trial was conducted in four phases: liability, medical monitoring, property and punitive damages. The jury found against DuPont in all four phases awarding $55.5 million for property remediation and $196.2 million in punitive damages. In post trial motions, the court adopted the plaintiffs' forty- year medical monitoring plan estimated by plaintiffs to cost $130 million and granted plaintiffs' attorneys legal fees of $127 million plus $8 million in expenses based on and included in the total jury award. In June 2008, DuPont filed its petitions for appeal with the West Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of a number of issues associated with the trial court's decisions before, during and after the trial. The Court issued its decision on March 26, 2010, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court. The Court reversed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of statute of limitations and ordered a new jury trial on the sole issue of when the plaintiffs possessed requisite knowledge to trigger the running of the statute. If the jury determines that plaintiffs had or should have had requisite knowledge more than 2 years prior to filing their case, then the trial court must set aside the verdict and render judgment in DuPont's favor. Otherwise, the Court conditionally affirmed the verdict, but reduced punitive damages to $97.7 million. DuPont intends to petition the Court for a rehearing. As of March 31, 2010, the company had recorded accruals of $55 million, although given the uncertainties inherent in litigation, there can be no assurance as to the final outcome. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation. EARL BRADLEY: Lawyers Seek Class Action Status in Sex Abuse Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cris Barrish at The News Journal reports that lawyers who have filed lawsuits against alleged pedophile pediatrician Earl B. Bradley and other defendants, including Beebe Medical Center and the Medical Society of Delaware, are now seeking class-action status for their cases and those of other possible victims. Attorneys Bruce L. Hudson, Ben T. Castle and Craig A. Karsnitz made the request in a lawsuit filed late Monday on behalf of Jane Doe 30, a 12-year-old girl Bradley allegedly abused. Hudson, who said he represents about 40 alleged victims, said that if the court approves his petition, he would send out notices to the 7,000 patients treated by Bradley during the 16 years he practiced in the Lewes and Milford areas. The lawsuits Hudson has filed claim dereliction of duty by Beebe, the medical society and some doctors for failing to report their knowledge or suspicions of Bradley to Delaware's medical disciplinary board, and for negligence in their oversight of Bradley. A class action allows plaintiffs with similar claims against defendants to join together in pursuit of damages, allowing courts to consolidate multiple cases into one. Many more lawsuits are anticipated in the case of Bradley, who faces 529 counts of raping or sexually abusing more than 103 children he treated over an 11-year period ending in December. Since his arrest Dec. 16, it has come to light that Bradley, 56, was the subject of at least four separate investigations for inappropriate contact with girls he treated dating back to 1994, when he practiced in Philadelphia. Yet Bradley, who came to Delaware when Beebe hired him late in 1994, was never disciplined or arrested until state police locked him up nearly five months ago. Beebe investigated a 1996 report by a nurse who worked with him that he used catheters to draw urine from girls, kissed and hugged them and conducted questionable vaginal exams. Police and prosecutors in Delaware also investigated him in 2005 and 2008 but did not charge him with any crimes. Bradley's half-sister, Lynda Barnes, who worked for a period as his office manager, also reported him to the medical society late in 2004. In court documents since his arrest, police have written that Bradley recorded video of his crimes against children, including forced intercourse and oral sex with girls as young as 3 months old. Police seized video files from his BayBees Pediatrics office near Lewes that they say showed hundreds of attacks. In last week's court filing, Hudson and his partners in the lawsuits wrote that Beebe does not object to a class action, which must be approved by Superior Court. Beebe officials said last month that the spate of lawsuits could lead the hospital to seek bankruptcy protection from creditors, and on Tuesday hospital attorney Michael M. Mustokoff agreed with Hudson's assessment. "We have talked to some of the plaintiffs' lawyers and we think it's a good thing with the number of potential complaints out there and the magnitude of what Bradley has done," Mustokoff said. "This will bring some order and structure to the process." "We will notify them of what's going on, ask if they were harmed or believed they were, and inform them they might have a legal right to be compensated," Hudson said. "They would contact us and we would investigate" whether they would be included in the class action. Chase T. Brockstedt, a Lewes attorney who has filed one lawsuit and is planning to file another soon, said he's not certain if his clients would join a class action. "One of the pros would be the management of the cases. It's going to potentially eliminate extreme results, one way or the other," Brockstedt said. "The downside is that if a class gets certified and everyone is made equal, you may have someone with a different kind of damages, unless there's a mechanism to address that. Everybody is going to be suffering different levels of emotional distress." FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- Ferro Corporation continues to defend a suit captioned Competition Collision Center, LLC v. Crompton Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-040431278, pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco On May 6, 2004, the company was named in an indirect purchaser class action in California seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to alleged violations of the antitrust laws by the company and others participating in the plastics additives industry. The suit is currently in its early stages, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ferro Corporation -- http://www.ferro.com/-- is a leading global supplier of technology-based performance materials for manufacturers. Ferro materials enhance the performance of products in a variety of end markets, including electronics, solar energy, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, building and renovation, appliances, automotive, household furnishings, and industrial products. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Ferro has approximately 5,200 employees globally and reported 2009 sales of $1.7 billion. FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchasers Suits in Penn. ----------------------------------------------------------- Ferro Corporation continues to defend five indirect purchaser class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On Aug. 4, 2005, the company was named an indirect purchaser class action lawsuit captioned In Re Indirect Purchaser, Plastic Additives Litigation, D.R. Ward Construction, et al., v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-04157-LDD, MDL No. 1684, filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In June 2008, the Company was named in four more indirect purchaser class action lawsuits: (1) Defren v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:08-CV-03702-LDD, filed June 12, 2008; (2) Zebrowski v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:08-CV-04161-LDD, filed June 23, 2008; (3) Burg v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:08-CV-04162-LDD, filed June 30, 2008; and (4) Miller v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:08-CV-03701-LDD, filed June 18, 2008. The four indirect purchaser cases filed in 2008 have been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suits allege violations of the antitrust laws by the company and others participating in the plastics additives industry. The suits are currently in their early stages. No further details were repored in the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ferro Corporation -- http://www.ferro.com/-- is a leading global supplier of technology-based performance materials for manufacturers. Ferro materials enhance the performance of products in a variety of end markets, including electronics, solar energy, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, building and renovation, appliances, automotive, household furnishings, and industrial products. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Ferro has approximately 5,200 employees globally and reported 2009 sales of $1.7 billion. HUMANA INC: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has reversed the ruling granting class certification in the matter Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT, according to Humana Inc.'s April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., has been named as a defendant in Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT, a class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 5, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana Military. The Sacred Heart Complaint alleges, among other things, that, Humana Military breached its network agreements with a class of hospitals, including the seven named plaintiffs, in six states that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided to beneficiaries of the Department of Defense's TRICARE health benefits program. The Complaint alleges that Humana Military breached its network agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals based on negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services performed on or after Oct. 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (CMAC rates). Humana Military denies that it breached the network agreements with the hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these claims. The Complaint seeks, among other things, the following relief for the purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs of the litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper. Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred Heart Health System Inc. requests damages and other relief the court deems just and proper for its individual claim against Humana Military for fraud in the inducement to contract. On Sept. 25, 2008, the district court certified a class consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers in TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of Nov. 18, 1999, excluding those network providers who contractually agreed with Humana Military to submit any such disputes with Humana Military to arbitration. On Oct. 9, 2008, Humana Military petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal on an interlocutory basis. On Nov. 14, 2008, the Court of Appeals granted Humana Military's petition. On Nov. 21, 2008, the district court stayed proceedings in the case pending the result of the appeal on the class issue or until further notice. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals was held on Jan. 14, 2010. On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's class certification order, and Humana Military is awaiting a trial schedule for the proceedings. Humana Inc. -- http://www.humana.com/-- is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, and is one of the nation's largest publicly traded health and supplemental benefits companies, with approximately 10.4 million medical members and 7.2 million specialty members. Humana is a full-service benefits solutions company, offering a wide array of health, pharmacy and supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government programs and individuals. HUMANA INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Certification Plea -------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter Southeast Georgia Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., have withdrawn their motion for class certification, according to Humana Inc.'s April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On March 2, 2009, in a case styled Southeast Georgia Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., the named plaintiffs filed an arbitration demand, seeking relief on the same grounds as the plaintiffs in the Sacred Heart litigation. The arbitration plaintiffs originally sought certification of a class consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers who had contracts with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services and whose agreements provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. Humana Military submitted its response to the demand for arbitration on May 1, 2009. The plaintiffs have subsequently withdrawn their motion for class certification, and Humana Military is awaiting a trial schedule for the proceedings. Humana Inc. -- http://www.humana.com/-- is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, and is one of the nation's largest publicly traded health and supplemental benefits companies, with approximately 10.4 million medical members and 7.2 million specialty members. Humana is a full-service benefits solutions company, offering a wide array of health, pharmacy and supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government programs and individuals. KLEAN KANTEEN: Recalls 1,302,000 Sport Cap 2.0 Water Bottle Spouts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Klean Kanteen Inc., of Chico, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1.2 million Sport Cap 2.0 water bottle spouts in the United States and 102,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The water bottle spouts can break or crack, posing a choking hazard to children and adults. The firm has received six reports of incidents of the water bottle spouts breaking or cracking in children's mouths as they were drinking from the bottles. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Sport Cap 2.0 water bottle spouts that are made of black plastic and have an attachment loop. "Klean Kanteen" is stamped into the side of the cap. A Picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10218.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through outdoor sports stores, including LLBean, and grocery and specialty stores nationwide, and on the Web at http://www.llbean.com/from April 2009 through April 2010 for $5 for the spout and between $15 and $28 when sold with a stainless steel water bottle. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and contact Klean Kanteen to receive a free mailing envelope to return the water bottle spout and to receive a free replacement. For additional information, contact Klean Kanteen toll-free at (877) 546-9063 anytime, or visit the firm's website at http://www.kleankanteen.com/safetynotice/ MICHIGAN: Mich. Sup. Ct. Remands Public Defender Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Despite the extensive fanfare surrounding the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to hear Duncan v. Michigan, No. 139345, the law firm of Warner Norcross & Judd reports, the Court's remanded the case involving constitutional challenges to the State's court- appointed defense counsel program on procedural grounds. In Duncan, the government moved to dismiss the plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the funding and administration of the court-appointed defense counsel programs in Berrien, Genesee, and Muskegon counties on governmental immunity and other grounds. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Ingham County Circuit Court denied the government's motion for summary disposition on the pleadings and granted the motion for class certification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a lengthy decision. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, but after oral argument, the Court vacated the trial court's order granting class certification and remanded the matter to the Ingham Circuit Court for consideration of the motion in light of Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., 484 Mich. 483 (2009). The Court further affirmed denial of the government's motion for summary disposition, albeit for different reasons. Citing the fact that the case is still at the pleadings stage, the Court concluded that the motion for summary disposition was premature. The Court's order deprives the Court of Appeals' decision of precedential and law-of-the-case effect, preserving the government's arguments for summary disposition after discovery. NIRVE SPORTS: Recalls 725 Chopper-Style Bicycles ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Nirve Sports Ltd., of Huntington Beach, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 725 Chopper-style bicycles: Red Star 100, Skulls 285 and Cannibal Chopper 340. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The bicycle stem on the handlebars can crack and cause the rider to lose control, posing a risk of serious fall and injury. Nirve Sports has received reports of cracked handlebar stems, which all occurred during assembly of the bicycle. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves three models: Red Star, Skulls and Cannibal chopper-style bicycles with the model names printed on the chain guard. Red Star has a black finish; Skulls bear a skull graphic and come in grey and black; and Cannibal bears a dragon graphic and comes in a black finish. Serial numbers are located on the bottom of the bicycle between the pedals. The recall involves the following models, SKUs and Serial Numbers: Name of Model SKU# Serial Number Ranges ------------- ---- -------------------- Red Star 3421 L8E0600576-L8E0600675 Skulls 3433 L9E0200751-L9E0200810 L9E0201891-L9E0201900 L9E0201966-L9E0201972 L9E0400061-L9E0400120 L9E0500226-L9E0500285 L9E0700641-L9E0700700 L9E0701241-L9E0701255 L9E0701301-L9E0701315 Cannibal 3434 L080405181-L080405240 L8E0901311-L8E0901370 L9E0300491-L9E0300560 L9E0202337-L9E0202344 L9E0400196-L9E0400255 L9E0601206-L9E0601265 L9E0602346-L9E0602365 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10221.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold though Nirve Sports showroom, online and authorized dealers nationwide from December 2008 through April 2009 for about $300 to $600. Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycles and return them to the place of purchase for free repair. For additional information, contact Nirve Sports toll-free at (888) 296-4783 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.nirve.com/ OFFICE DEPOT: Appeal of Lead Plaintiff on Suit Dismissal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Office Depot, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor program funds. Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as: * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007; and * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038), filed on Nov. 5, 2007. On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits. On March 21, 2008, the court entered an order consolidating the cases. The lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 2, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to state a claim. On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On Feb. 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this decision. No further updates were reported in the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2010 The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-14348, (S.D. Fla.) (Hurley, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: David J. George, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Alleghney Building 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-338-2266 Representing the defendants is: Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. Hogan & Hartson 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-459-6500 Fax: 305-459-6550 E-mail: aflindsay@hhlaw.com PRICELINE.COM: Brevard Cty. Opts Out of Class Action Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- FloridaToday.com reports that Brevard County officials may opt out of a class-action lawsuit seeking repayment for unpaid tourist taxes from Internet travel companies. Why? Because the county filed its own similar lawsuit last fall -- and Brevard lawyers believe they can win a separate, larger multi-million-dollar judgment. Monroe County leaders hope to assemble all 59 Florida counties that charge a tourist bed tax in their class-action court fight against Priceline, Expedia, Orbitz and other online travel agencies. On April 9, Brevard attorneys learned their county was listed as a potential plaintiff. But this morning, County Attorney Scott Knox will recommend that the Brevard County Commission decline this legal avenue. On average, class-action recoveries average less than 10 percent of actual damages, according to a memo from Knox's office. "Generally speaking, you can pretty well guess that the class- action members are not going to get as much as if they would file their own individual case," Knox said. In October, the county filed suit in federal court in Orlando against "the Priceline defendants" (Priceline.com and Travelweb), "the Travelocity defendants" (Travelocity.com and Site59.com), "the Expedia defendants" (Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire), and "the Orbitz defendants" (Orbitz and Trip Network, which does business as CheapTickets). County attorneys allege that the Internet travel companies buy Space Coast hotel rooms at a wholesale rate. Then the companies sell the rooms to customers at more-expensive retail rates. "In their transactions with consumers, the defendants charge the applicable hotel room tax, but do not remit any such taxes to the taxing authority," the complaint states. Each defendant owes more than $75,000 in unpaid taxes, and the total underpayment exceeds $1 million, the complaint states. Brevard's hotel bed tax finances construction and maintenance of Space Coast Stadium, improves beaches and promotes local tourism. U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell is presiding over the case, which is scheduled to remain in the discovery phase through mid- October. Settlement mediation will begin in late October. If needed, a jury trial -- expected to last 10 days -- is scheduled to start April 4, 2011. ROBERTA ROLLER: Recalls 9,200 Children's Kimono Robe ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Roberta Roller Rabbit by Roberta Freymann, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Roberta Roller Rabbit Children's Kimono Robe, Lounge Sets and Slumber Short Sets. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The recalled sleepwear fails to meet the federal children's sleepwear flammability standard, posing a burn hazard to children. No injuries or incidents have been reported This recall involves long sleeved children's kimono robes, lounge sets and slumber short sets. The garments were sold in sizes 0 (12months), 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. A yellow label at the inside neck reads "Roberta Roller Rabbit." Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10220.html The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold though Roberta Roller Rabbit retail stores in New York, N.Y.; East Hampton, N.Y. and Santa Monica, Calif. from January 2005 through February 2010 for $50.00. Consumers should stop using the recalled robes and lounge sets immediately and return them to a Roberta Roller Rabbit retail store for a store credit. For additional information, contact Roberta Roller Rabbit toll-free at (877) 449-0604 between 9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at http://www.RobertaRollerRabbit.com/ SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 1,350 2010 Epic & Era Bicycles ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,350 2010 26" Epic and 26" Era Bicycles. The shock absorber mount can break and the shock absorber can make contact with the wheel spokes, posing a fall hazard to the rider. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves alloy seat stays on the following 2010 Specialized Bicycle 26" Era and 26" Epic bicycles: 2010 Epic Marathon Carbon, 2010 Epic Marathon Frame, 2010 Epic Expert Carbon, 2010 Epic Expert, 2010 Epic Comp Carbon, 2010 Epic Comp, 2010 Era FSR Expert Carb, 2010 Era FSR Expert and 2010 Era FSR Comp. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10219.html The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through authorized dealers nationwide from September 2009 through October 2009 for between $2,000 through $5,500. Consumers should immediately stop riding these bicycles and contact a specialized dealer for a free repair. For additional information, contact Specialized Bicycle toll-free at (877) 808-8154 between 9:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Mountain Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's web site at http://www.specialized.com/ TYCO INT'L: May 6 Hearing Set for "Stumpf" Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- A May 6, 2010, hearing has been set to consider preliminary approval of the settlement resolving the matter Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd., according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2010. The matter arose from Tyco's July 2000 initial public offering of common stock of TyCom Ltd, and alleged that the TyCom registration statement and prospectus relating to the sale of common stock were inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose facts necessary to make the registration statement and prospectus not misleading. The plaintiffs alleged that Tyco, among others, violated the disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint further alleged the defendants violated securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, executive compensation, TyCom's business prospects and Tyco's and TyCom's finances. On May 6, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hear arguments on a motion requesting preliminary approval of settlement of the Stumpf matter. The proposed settlement is subject to final court approval and the Court has not yet set a date for the final approval hearing. If the settlement received final court approval, it will be subject to the liability sharing provisions of the Separation and Distribution Agreement with Covidien and Tyco Electronics. Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a diversified company that provides vital products and services to customers around the world. Tyco is a leading provider of security products and services, fire protection and detection products and services, valves and controls, and other industrial products. Tyco had 2009 revenue of more than $17 billion and has more than 100,000 employees worldwide. TYCO INT'L: Court Dismisses Key Claims in Suit Against ADT Unit --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, has dismissed a number of the plaintiff's key claims in a class action suit against ADT Worldwide, according to Tyco International Ltd.'s April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2010. In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer connect fees that ADT Worldwide had charged to its authorized dealers upon purchasing customer accounts. The investigation related to accounting practices employed by the company's former management, which were discontinued in 2003. Although the Company settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related parties have filed lawsuits against the company, including a class action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging breach of contract and other claims related to ADT's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003. In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in ADT's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiff's key claims. Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a diversified company that provides vital products and services to customers around the world. Tyco is a leading provider of security products and services, fire protection and detection products and services, valves and controls, and other industrial products. Tyco had 2009 revenue of more than $17 billion and has more than 100,000 employees worldwide. UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corp. continues to defend a putative class action complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, pending in the Worcester Superior Court in Worcester, Massachusetts. Fitchburg Gas is the company's wholly owned distribution utility that provides both electric and natural gas service in the greater Fitchburg area of north central Massachusetts. A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on Jan. 7, 2009. On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 Storm. On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. The company anticipates that the court will decide whether the lawsuit is appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of 2010, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of natural gas in Maine. Unitil has three retail distribution utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern). Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas. Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in December 2008. Unitil also provides energy brokering and advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers throughout the northeastern United States through its non- regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its subsidiary, Usource, LLC. VERISIGN INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement resolving a consolidated complaint against VeriSign, Inc., according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On May 15, 2007, a putative class action styled Mykityshyn v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County, naming VeriSign and certain current and former officers and directors, alleging false representations and disclosure failures regarding certain historical stock option grants. The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned VeriSign's common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998 Option Plan. The complaint also seeks to enjoin the company from granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, costs and attorneys fees. The identical case was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County under a separate name (Pace. v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007, and on October 3, 2007 (Mehdian v. Bidzos, et al.). On Dec. 3, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County. The current directors and officers named in this consolidated class action are D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H. Moore and Louis A. Simpson. VeriSign and the individual defendants dispute all of these claims. Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to amend in August 2008. By stipulation and Court order, plaintiff's obligation to file an amended consolidated class action complaint has been continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the action. The parties have reached an agreement to resolve all of the option grant related matters. The Federal Action is subject to approval of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 5, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement of the Federal Action. A hearing for final approval is scheduled for June 2, 2010. The parties have agreed that upon final approval of the settlement and dismissal of the Federal Action the parallel state court proceedings will be dismissed. The settlement amount is not significant. VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is the trusted provider of Internet infrastructure services for the networked world. Billions of times each day, VeriSign helps companies and consumers all over the world engage in communications and commerce with confidence. VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denying the company's motion to dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07 3537FMC, is still pending. Also named defendants in the complaint are: -- Endemol USA, -- Verisign, Inc., -- M-Qube, Inc., and -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc. The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million grand prize. At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold briefcase. The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to reveal that night's "Lucy Case." The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal gambling: consideration, chance and prize. Viewers of the program enter the promotion via text message for which they incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet. The potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random, and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes. The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show, the plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against gambling. The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as follows: (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which offers the "Lucky Case Game"; (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its rules and conditions; (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which offers the "Lucky Case Game"; (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal"; (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the "Lucky Case Game"; (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message entries to the "Lucky Case Game"; (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by entrants in the promotion; (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the promotion; (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly select and contact the potential prize winner amongst the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case"; (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to winning entrants; and (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky Case Game." The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game," and who did not win a prize. The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual capacities, and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or incurred premium text message charges in connection with entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won any prize. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: 1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal gambling; 2. the extent of each defendants' participation in conducting the promotion; 3. whether defendants' conduct violated California Business and Professions Section 17200; 4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately caused injury to plaintiffs and the class; 5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages, restitution, disgorgement, or other monetary remedies; 6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws ch. 137, Section 1: 7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover the amount of premium text messages paid to enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and 8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing the "Lucky Case Game." The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying the class; -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution; -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages; -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages; -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion; -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling; -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the class as may be just and proper; and -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the case, but this request was denied by the District Court. The case is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of the defendants' petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial of their dismissal motion. A motion to dismiss ruling in Herbert is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The suit is Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07 3537FMC, (C.D. Calif.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Phone: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com William A. Pannell, Esq. William A. Pannell, P.C. 3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404-353-2283 E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com - and - Kevin T. Moore, Esq. Kevin T. Moore, P.C. 6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E. Building C, Suite 201 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 770-396-3622 E-mail: kaw30328@aol.com VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- A purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned Cheryl Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 03647-FMC-VBK, remains stayed. Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf of herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump." The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied by the District Court. No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The suit is Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK, (C.D. Calif.) (Cooper, J.). Representing the plaintiff are: Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq. Milberg LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-617-1200 Fax: 213-617-1975 E-mail: mfurukawa@milberg.com - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Phone: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com Representing the defendants are: Ronald L. Johnston, Esq. Arnold and Porter 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-243-4000 E-mail: ronald_johnston@aporter.com - and - Chad S. Hummel, Esq. Manatt Phelps & Phillips 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Phone: 310-312-4000 E-mail: chummel@manatt.com ********* 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 * * *