/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100527.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 103 Headlines ARGENTINA: Bondholders Win Key Ruling from Judge Griesa AT&T WIRELESS: Settles Unblocking Class Action Lawsuit BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage Violation Suit in Fresno County BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Gift Card Holders Suit in California BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Aug. 5 BP PLC: JPMDL Will Consider Consolidation of Suits in July CAMERON INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over Deep Horizon Incident CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Complains About Unwanted Text Messages CHICAGO: High Court Lets Firefighter Race Bias Case Move Forward COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL: Payday Lender Class Action Waiver Invalid FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Suit vs. Jersey Central Pending FIRSTENERGY CORP: June 3 Hearing Set in Motion to Dismiss FIRSTENERGY CORP: Motion to Stay Pennsylvania Suit Pending FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Allegheny Merger FIRSTENERGY CORP: Wants Suit in Geauga County Dismissed FORCE PROTECTION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.C. GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Calif. for Misleading Advertising GOOGLE INC: WiFi Data Capture Lawsuit Filed by Oregon Residents METLIFE AUTO: Use of Decision Point Software Draws Fire in Ill. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Phony Police Gear Suit NOVAGOLD INC: Aug. & Sept. Shareholder Settlement Hearings Set PROTECTION ONE: Del. & Kan. Lawsuits Settled for $3.25 Million QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Class Status Granted to Volleyball Suit RELIANCE STANDARD: High Court Sets Fee Standard in ERISA Cases RIGEL PHARMA: Awaiting Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues UNISOURCE ENERGY: Court Dismissed "Right of Way" Suit vs. Unit VERIZON WIRELESS: Suit Complains About Extended Warranty Program ********* ARGENTINA: Bondholders Win Key Ruling from Judge Griesa ------------------------------------------------------- Eight plaintiff class-action groups holding defaulted Argentine bonds obtained a key ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P. Griesa in the long-running $2.43 billion case. On May 20, Judge Griesa accepted Argentina's declaration that, contrary to the terms it presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its planned bond exchange, it will not change the terms of the exchange once the bondholders tender their bonds. "Now, any class member who wishes to enter into the bond exchange can do so with the certainty that Argentina gave up the right to reduce the terms of the offering," said plaintiffs' attorney Guillermo Gleizer of Diaz Reus, an international law firm with offices in Miami and New York. In early 2004, the bondholders took legal action against the Republic of Argentina seeking payment on eight separate series of defaulted global bonds and accumulated interest, and in 2009 won a series of judgments that cumulatively total $2.43 billion plus interest. "Our goal in court was to ensure that the Republic of Argentina treated all bondholders equally -- not to halt the bond exchange," said: Michael Diaz, Jr. DIAZ REUS Miami Tower at International Place 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-375-9220 E-mail: mdiaz@diazreus.com "With this ruling, the bond exchange can now go forward in a fair and impartial manner. Judge Griesa has successfully balanced the rights of property holders to accept the exchange offer with the rights of class members to be protected from changes in those terms." Miami-based Diaz Reus -- http://www.diazreus.com/-- is a full- service international law firm focusing on trade and business transactions, complex commercial, civil, and criminal litigation and arbitration matters. The firm operates offices in Miami, Florida; Shanghai, China; Frankfurt, Germany; Caracas, Venezuela, and Mexico City, Mexico; as well as affiliate offices in Colombia and Brazil. AT&T WIRELESS: Settles Unblocking Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ AT&T has settled a long-running class action lawsuit filed against it for failing to provide unlock codes for its handset lineup between March 12, 1999 and April 2, 2010 which covers all handsets offered by the carrier with the lone exception being the iPhone. While the settlement will not provide for financial compensation, it is supposed to provide unlock codes for customers that meet the following criteria: Customers with postpaid accounts who have completed a minimum of 90 days of active service and are in good standing and those with prepaid accounts who have a receipt or other proof of purchase of the handset. Those who own handsets for which AT&T has an exclusive period of less than 10 months (which would exclude the iPhone) will have to wait until the 10-month period expires before an unlock code can be received. In order to opt out of the settlement or object to it, June 4, 2010 is the postmark date for filing. The final approval hearing will be held on July 2, 2010. More details about (1) Meoli, et al. v. AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC, et al., (2) Mendoza, et al. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, et al., No. JCCP 4332, pending in Alameda County (California) Superior Court; (3) Pickering v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, Case No. 2004 CA 005060, and (4) Graber v. AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC, et al. Case No. 2004 CA 004650, pending in Palm Beach County (Florida) Circuit Court, are available at: http://www.attlockinglawsuits.com/index.htm The settlement pact also he settlement also provides that AT&T will pay $5.7 million in legal fees. Class Counsel is: Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Defense Counsel is: Seamus C. Duffy, Esq. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Ste. 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a class action complaint against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., is pending approval. On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, Case Number BC310146, and on March 16, 2004, filed an amended complaint, alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay; (2) failure to allow meal breaks; (3) failure to allow rest breaks; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) civil penalties; (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit; (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and, (8) disgorgement of illicit profits. On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action. During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding arbitration of the action. On March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of Plaintiff's attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records and to pay Plaintiff minimum wage. To the company's knowledge, the Agency has not responded to either of these notices. The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis. In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject to approval from the arbitrator and/or the court. No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has entered into a settle to resolve a class action complaint filed by an employee on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010. On April 6, 2009, an employee filed a class action complaint in Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 30-2009, 00259460, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees. The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay plaintiff and other alleged class members regular wages and overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated wage scale and secret payment of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and restitution of wages and injunction for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2010, the parties agreed in principle to settle this case, subject to approval of the court. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage Violation Suit in Fresno County -------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend a class action complaint alleging failure to pay wages for on-call time. The complaint was filed on Feb. 4, 2009, in the Fresno County, California, Superior Court, by an employee, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees, Case Number 09 CE CG 00374DRF. The class action complaint was served on the company in the second quarter of 2009. The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages for on-call time, for violation of California Business and Professional Code section 17200, and for penalties for unpaid wages. The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages, restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs. On Aug. 14, 2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which two other employees joined the action as plaintiffs. The parties have begun discovery, the company has filed an answer to the amended complaint. No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Gift Card Holders Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has settled a class action complaint filed in the Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, relating to the company's gift cards, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010. On July 16, 2009, an individual, on behalf of himself and allegedly other recipients or holders in California of the company's gift cards, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, alleging causes of action for unlawful and deceptive trade practices and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for failing to redeem or replace a gift card and deducting a dormancy fee, for violation of California Business and Professions Code and for declaratory relief. The complaint seeks restitution, an injunction against the alleged unfair practices, and attorneys' fees. Discovery has begun. In November 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint for the causes of action alleged in the original complaint but without the allegation of violation of California Business and Professions Code. The company answered the amended complaint, denying the allegations and raising affirmative defenses. In March 2010, the parties settled this case for a nominal amount. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of the plaintiffs in a wage violations suit against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., to file a second amended complaint remains pending, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010. On Aug. 25, 2009, a former employee of the company filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, Case Number BC420459, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees, namely the company's California restaurant assistant managers, kitchen managers and managers. The complaint alleges the company's California restaurant assistant managers are not exempt for compensation purposes and alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay wages timely, penalties for unpaid wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll records and for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The complaint also seeks unspecified damages, restitution, an injunction against unfair practices, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging the class to be all California assistant kitchen managers, kitchen managers, and managers and adding to plaintiff's claims for penalties alleged to be due under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. On Oct. 8, 2009, plaintiff's attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, alleging failure by the company to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay wages due on plaintiff's and other employees' termination, failure to pay wages timely, failure to provide accurate wage statements and failure to keep accurate payroll records. On Dec. 8, 2009, the Agency responded that it does not intend to investigate the allegations. Discovery has begun. In January 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to file a second amended complaint; however, as of March 30, 2010, this motion has not been heard. In January 2010, on the company's motion, the Court ordered the venue of the case moved to Orange County. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Aug. 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Massachusetts Hochstadt, et al., ) ) v. ) Case No. 08-12139-DPW ) Boston Scientific Corp., et al. ) Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing To: All persons who were participants, beneficiaries or alternate payees ("Participants") of the Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time between May 7, 2004 and January 26, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period") and on whose behalf the Plan held Boston Scientific stock during the Class Period (the "Proposed Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above- captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement and that a settlement for $8.2 million in cash has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock in the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, at 2:30 p.m., on August 5, 2010, to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the proposed Plan of Allocation, the application of Plaintiffs' Co- Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and the application for a case contribution award for the Named Plaintiff. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Motion For Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Named Plaintiff's Case Contribution Award, and Scheduling of Final Fairness Hearing, you may obtain a copy of this document by contacting the Administrator: Boston Scientific ERISA Litigation Settlement c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC Administrator Post Office Box 808061 Petaluma, CA 94975-8061 (877) 571-8670 http://www.gilardi.com/BostonScientificERISA Inquiries, other than requests for the form of Notice, may be made to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel: Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 - and - Lori Feldman, Esq. Milberg LLP One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Any objections must be filed by July 8, 2010. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator. By Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts BP PLC: JPMDL Will Consider Consolidation of Suits in July ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that there will be no quick decision from a federal judicial panel on whether to consolidate more than 130 lawsuits filed over the Gulf oil spill. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rejected requests from attorneys to issue a ruling this month. The panel said in an order released Monday it will consider the oil spill cases in July. Potential class-action lawsuits claiming economic damages began appearing in Gulf Coast states soon after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank a month ago. Plaintiffs include fishermen, the seafood industry, property owners, restaurants, tourism businesses and others. Many plaintiffs attorneys want the cases consolidated before a New Orleans federal judge. BP favors Houston. CAMERON INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over Deep Horizon Incident ---------------------------------------------------------- Cameron International Corporation is facing a suit seeking class action status in relation to the Deepwater Horizon incident, according to the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. A blowout preventer originally manufactured by the company was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when it experienced an explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in loss of life, a discharge of hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico and the ultimate loss of the rig. This event and its causes are being jointly investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of the Interior. The company has been named as one of a number of defendants in a number of suits seeking damages for personal injury and damages suffered as a result of the discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. The legal actions involving claims against the company arising out of this incident of which the company is aware at the time of preparation of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q are: -- Acy J. Cooper and Ronnie Lewis Anderson vs. BP p.l.c., et. al., including Cameron International Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist. of Louisiana), filed on April 28, 2010, requesting class action status on behalf of all Louisiana residents who suffer legally recognizable damages; -- Stephen Stone and Sara Stone vs. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., et. al., including Cameron International Corporation (Harris Cty. Dist. Ct., 234th Jud. Dist.), filing date unknown, seeking damages for personal injury; and -- James F. Mason, individually and on behalf of K&J Inc. vs. Transocean Ltd., et. al., including Cameron International Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct., Southern Dist. of Alabama), filed April 29, 2010, seeking damages for business interruption and diminution of property values. Cameron International Corporation -- http://www.c-a-m.com/-- is a leading provider of flow equipment products, systems and services to worldwide oil, gas and process industries. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Complains About Unwanted Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) disclosed this week that a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and two other defendants was filed in the District Court of Central Region, by a plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber of the Company, in connection with allegations that the defendants unlawfully sent commercial messages to certain recipients. The plaintiff did not estimate the total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class action. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- is the leading Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.313 million subscribers (as at March 31, 2010) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Through its broad customer service network Cellcom Israel offers its customers technical support, account information, direct to the door parcel services, internet and fax services, dedicated centers for the hearing impaired, etc. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CHICAGO: High Court Lets Firefighter Race Bias Case Move Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that a class of 6,000 African-Americans who sued the city of Chicago for race bias in its hiring of firefighters did not bring untimely discrimination charges, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday. In Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974 (U.S.) -- see http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Lewis_et_al._v._City_of_Chicago -- the justices unanimously held that when an employer institutes a practice having an illegal discriminatory -- disparate -- impact, it may be challenged each time the employer uses it. "Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in a statement. Payton, who argued the case, added, "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test." The Court's decision reverses a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held the claims were time-barred. The Supreme Court case goes back to 1995 when Chicago gave a written test to about 26,000 applicants for firefighter positions. In January 1996, the city announced it would begin filling those jobs by drawing from the top tier of scorers -- those who scored at least 89 of a possible 100 points -- whom the city called "well qualified." Those who scored below 65 were told they had failed the exam. Those who scored from 65 to 88 were called "qualified" and were told they were unlikely to be hired but their names would be kept on a list of eligible applicants. The city selected its first class in May 1996 and filled nine more classes during the next several years. The well-qualified group was 76 percent white and 11.5 percent black. In March 2007, a group of "qualified" black applicants filed discrimination charges, claiming that the city's practice of selecting only those who scored 89 or above caused a disparate impact on African-Americans. The district court certified a class of 6,000 "qualified" African-Americans. The city conceded that its practice was unlawful, but it argued that the class claims were time-barred because they were not filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of when the claims accrued -- which the city said was January 1996, when the tests were scored and the results announced. The court rejected that argument and, after a bench trial, the judge ruled for the class, awarding back pay and ordering the city to hire 132 class members. That ruling was reversed by the 7th Circuit. In reversing the circuit court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "The City is correct that if the adoption of the cutoff score in 1996 gave rise to a freestanding claim, petitioners waited too long to bring such a claim. But it does not follow that no new violation could occur when the City implemented that decision down the road." Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he wrote, requires a complaining party to show that the employer "uses" a particular practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Reacting to the decision, some lawyers for employers said it would create practical problems for employers in assessing their potential liability for certain job practices. For example, employers first face risk exposure in adopting an employment practice that could have an unlawful disparate impact, noted Debra Friedman, a partner at Philadelphia's Cozen O'Connor. And second, whether or not the adoption of that practice is challenged, they face exposure because its subsequent use can be challenged. However, Scalia said it was not the Court's task to assess the consequences of the approaches urged by the firefighters or the city. "Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted," he wrote. In enacting the disparate-impact provisions in Title VII, Scalia added, "Congress allowed claims to be brought against an employer who uses a practice that causes disparate impact, whatever the employer's motives and whether or not he has employed the same practice in the past. If that effect was unintended, it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix." Deputy Corporation Counsel Benna Ruth Solomon represented Chicago in the Supreme Court. The Chicago case was being closely followed by civil rights and employment groups because of recent decisions that they viewed as hostile to minorities or employees. Last term in Ricci v. DeStefano, a 5-4 Court ruled in favor of white firefighters who sued New Haven, Conn., for discarding the results of a promotion exam because it had a disparate impact on minority firefighters. And in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., a 5-4 Court ruled in 2007 that Lilly Ledbetter's pay discrimination charges were time-barred. Congress responded with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2008. COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL: Payday Lender Class Action Waiver Invalid --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a court says payday lenders cannot require customers to waive their ability to join class action lawsuits in order to receive loans. The Wisconsin District 3 Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that such requirements, typically in fine print, violate the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The court says the ability to file or join class action lawsuits is often the only effective way to protect consumers from unfair practices. The case involves Cottonwood Financial, which runs a payday lender called The Cash Store. Borrower Darcie Estes received $1,400 cash at high interest rates and ended up paying back $4,500. Estes defaulted still owing $1,000. Because of the provision in the loan agreement, Estes was prevented from filing a lawsuit alleging violations of the consumer act. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Suit vs. Jersey Central Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the decertification of the class in a consolidated suit against Jersey Central Power & Light Company remains pending, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including Jersey Central Power & Light Company's (JCP&L) territory. Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU, Inc., and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability, and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of actions. The class was decertified twice by the trial court, and appealed both times by the Plaintiffs, with the results being that: (1) the Appellate Division limited the class only to those customers directly impacted by the outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, NJ, based on a common incident involving the failure of the bushings of two large transformers in the Red Bank substation which resulted in planned and unplanned outages in the area during a 2-3 day period, and (2) in March 2007, the Appellate Division remanded this matter back to the Trial Court to allow plaintiffs sufficient time to establish a damage model or individual proof of damages. On March 31, 2009, the trial court again granted JCP&L's motion to decertify the class. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to take an interlocutory appeal to the trial court's decision to decertify the class, which was granted by the Appellate Division on June 15, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 25, 2009, and JCP&L filed an opposition brief on Sept. 25, 2009. On or about Oct. 13, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of their appeal of the trial court's decision decertifying the class. The Appellate Division heard oral argument on Jan. 5, 2010, before a three-judge panel. JCP&L is awaiting the Court's decision. FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. FIRSTENERGY CORP: June 3 Hearing Set in Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- A June 3, 2010, hearing has been set for the argument on the motion of FirstEnergy Corp. to dismiss a putative shareholder class action in Maryland over its proposed merger with Allegheny Energy Inc., according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege that the merger consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to disclose material information about the merger to its shareholders. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger and they have demanded jury trials. The Allegheny Energy defendants moved to consolidate the Maryland lawsuits and filed motions to dismiss and answers to each of the Maryland complaints. The court consolidated the Maryland lawsuits and an amended complaint has been filed. The Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy, and Merger Sub filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2010. The Maryland court has set a hearing for argument on the motions to dismiss for June 3, 2010. By order dated April 26, 2010, the Maryland court certified a plaintiff class that consists of all holders of Allegheny Energy shares at any time from Feb. 11, 2010, to the consummation of the proposed merger. FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Motion to Stay Pennsylvania Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp.'s motion to stay the consolidated lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court in relation to its proposed merger with Allegheny Energy Inc., remains pending, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege that the merger consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to disclose material information about the merger to its shareholders. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger and they have demanded jury trials. The Pennsylvania state court has consolidated the lawsuits filed in that court. The Allegheny Energy defendants and FirstEnergy have moved to stay the Pennsylvania lawsuits and the plaintiff has moved for leave to take expedited discovery. The Pennsylvania state court will hear argument on both motions on May 27, 2010. FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Allegheny Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend a putative shareholder class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in relation to its proposed merger with Allegheny Energy Inc., according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege that the merger consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to disclose material information about the merger to its shareholders. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger and they have demanded jury trials. By stipulation dated April 14, 2010, no response is due to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania until June 10, 2010. FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Wants Suit in Geauga County Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. seeks the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in connection with the reduction of a discount, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On Feb. 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and Ohio Edison Company seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount was approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court has not yet ruled on that motion to dismiss. FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related services. Its seven electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity. FORCE PROTECTION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- Force Protection, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suit captioned In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division. On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits was filed against the company and certain of its former and current directors or officers, on behalf of a proposed class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock during the period between Aug. 14, 2006, and Feb. 29, 2008. The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations include, but are not limited to, allegations that the defendants violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal controls, and financial results. The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10, 2008. On Sept. 29, 2009, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, and the parties are engaging in discovery. No updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Force Protection, Inc. -- http://www.forceprotection.net/-- is a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability solutions, including blast- and ballistic-protected wheeled vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones. The company's specialty vehicles, including the Buffalo, Cougar and related variants, are designed specifically for reconnaissance and urban operations and to protect their occupants from landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs, commonly referred to as roadside bombs). The company also develops, manufactures, tests, delivers and supports products and services aimed at further enhancing the survivability of users against additional threats. In addition, the company provides long-term life cycle support services of its vehicles that involve development of technical data packages, supply of spares, field and depot maintenance activities, assignment of highly-skilled field service representatives, and advanced on and off-road driver and maintenance training programs. GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Calif. for Misleading Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Generex Biotechnology Corp. claims people who take its CraveNX "diet aid spray" will lose up to 2 lbs. a week without exercising or changing their diet, but that's nonsense, according to a class action in Riverside County Court, Calif. A copy of the Complaint in Solis v. Generex Biotechnology Corporation, et al., Case No. 10009068 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/24/CCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Robert E. Borg, Esq. Michael E. Velarde, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP Newport Center Dr., Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: 949-706-6464 GOOGLE INC: WiFi Data Capture Lawsuit Filed by Oregon Residents --------------------------------------------------------------- FindLaw.com reports that Google has been sued in a class action case by two Oregon citizens for collecting their Wi-Fi data. The named members of the class, Vicki Van Valin and Neil Mertz, allege that when Google's Street View vehicles roamed their neighborhood, they captured data using a packet sniffer. Plaintiffs have requested that Google refrain from destroying any data that has been collected. The data decking lawsuit alleges that the vehicles were equipped with a packet sniffer, which captured users' MAC addresses and various data including but not limited to emails, video, audio and documents. The lawsuit alleges that Google has violated federal wiretap laws, which would entitle class members to $100 per day for each day their data was captured, or $10,000 per violation for each plaintiff, if the plaintiffs were to succeed. It seems that by way of its blog, Google may have admitted to behavior relating to some of the allegations: . . . we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e., non-password-protected) Wi-Fi networks, even though we never used that data in any Google products . . . we will typically have collected only fragments of payload data . . . In addition, we did not collect information traveling over secure, password- protected Wi-Fi networks. However, as the New York Times blog reports, this controversy is bigger than the admission: Google is now saying . . . that its previous claims were wrong . . . the company has indeed been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from non-password protected Wi-Fi networks in Europe, in the United States and other major regions around the world. Time will tell whether Google's actions are held to have violated wire tap laws. The company may also face claims of violating privacy laws here and abroad. However, it must be remembered that in the US, violation privacy rights generally requires that the victim have a reasonable expectation of privacy. How reasonable it is to expect privacy in unencrypted Wi-Fi transmissions may be less clear than one would imagine. Google wrapped up the blog post with an apology: "We are profoundly sorry for this error and are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake." METLIFE AUTO: Use of Decision Point Software Draws Fire in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holleran at The St. Clair Record reports that a Swansea, Ill., medical provider says an insurance company has wrongly taken an unknown amount of money from it and others after unfairly refusing to pay portions of medical charges. Back Doctors filed a putative class action lawsuit May 13 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against MetLife Auto and Home. Kevin T. Hoerner and Brian T. Kreisler of Belleville, Paul M. Weiss and Jeffrey A. Leon of Freed and Weiss in Chicago and Richard J. Burke of Freed ad Weiss in St. Louis will be representing them. Back Doctors claims MetLife consistently uses a biased computer software called Decision Point to limit and exclude coverage on parts of medical expenses incurred after a covered occurrence. For example, if a person sustains injuries in an automobile collision, MetLife will sometimes use the software to exclude or deny portions of coverage without first determining whether the denied charges are unreasonable, according to the complaint. "Rather, Decision Point software, such as that used on Plaintiff's claims, simply compares the line-item charge billed for a medical procedure to internal fee schedules imbedded (sic) within the software," the suit states. "Insurers such as Met select a particular 'percentile' payment benchmark (e.g. the 85th percentile), and any amount of the charge that exceeds that payment benchmark is capped and excluded from coverage." Met does not disclose which percentile benchmark it uses and does not take into account what could be considered a reasonable charge for medical services, the complaint says. Therefore, when Met uses a code 41/x41 to reduce its insured's claims, it simply reduces the claim without explaining to its clients what it considers to be a reasonable charge, Back Doctors claims. By using such a code and software to reduce its insured's claims, Met fails to follow its own policy language, according to the complaint. For example, in its policies, Met promises to determine whether a medical charge could be considered reasonable before it refuses payment to its insured, the suit states. "In spite of this representation, Decision Point simply compares the amount charged for a procedure to fee schedules embedded within the program; the fee schedules are purchased from third party Ingenix - who disclaims any and all warranties behind the data being used to determine payment amounts and who concede that such software does not make 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' determinations," the complaint says. Any amount that exceeds the percentile benchmark Met set will not be covered, Back Doctors claims. For example, if Met has set coverage at the 85th percentile, and if the 85th percentile charge is $24 for a particular procedure, but Met is billed $25, it will only pay $24, according to the complaint. "Met is simply disinterested in whether a medical charge submitted to it is reasonable or not," the suit says. "Met simply wants to employ a systematic means to control Policy payments, which assure profitability of its decisions." From year to year, Met's insureds are not sure how much money would constitute a reasonable charge because Met may change its percentile benchmarks annually, the complaint says. "This is not because what constitutes a 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' charge has changed, nor has what is 'usual' or 'customary' changed, but rather Met's financial circumstance (or 'bottom line'), or litigation 'climate' in which it operates," the suit states. "Met saved untold dollars on claims that it should have paid under the express terms of its policy." In its two-count complaint, Back Doctors alleges breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks a certification of its class action suit, plus unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief the court deems just. A copy of the Complaint in Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metlife Auto & Home, Case No. 10-L-241 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/25/MetLife.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq. Brian T. Kreisler, Esq. BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C. 5111 West Main St. Belleville, IL 62226 Telephone: 618-235-0020 - and - Paul M. Weiss, Esq. Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. FREED & WEISS LLC 111 West Washington St., Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-220-0000 - and - Richard J. Burke, Esq. FREED & WEISS LLC 1010 Market St., Suite 660 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-880-7000 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Phony Police Gear Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to reinstate a class action over "Operation Stinking Badges," a joint federal-New York City policing policy that criminalizes the possession of phony police gear. The policy makes it a crime to possess "any uniform, shield, buttons, wreaths, numbers or other insignia of emblem in any way resembling that worn by members of the police force." Lead plaintiffs Lateif Dickerson, Clyde Davison, Jr. and Jimmy Hogans claimed their arrests, incarcerations and prosecutions under the policy violated their constitutional rights. They filed a class action on behalf of those nabbed under "Operation Stinking Badges," which was inspired by the 1948 movie "The Treasure of Sierra Madre." There was no evidence that the men used the phony NYPD badges to gain entry to 26 Federal Plaza, and the charges against them were later dropped or dismissed. The men sued Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, New York City and officers Chris Pappas, Thomas Mahoney, Karlene Torres and Raymond Brockmann for allegedly violating their First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights. A federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the claims lacked merit, and the federal appeals court agreed. "One of the plain purposes of the statute is to prohibit persons from bringing into secure facilities unauthorized badges that may later be used to impersonate a police officer and gain further unimpeded access to restricted areas," Judge Robert Sack wrote for the three-judge panel. "It was this initial prohibited act that the plaintiffs were arrested for engaging in here." A copy of the decision in Dickerson, et al. v. Napolitano, et al., Docket No. 09-2167-cv (2nd Cir.), is available at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?6326 The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Jason J. Rozger, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP 80 Pine St. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212-509-1616 Defendants-Appellees Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Pappas, and Mr. Mahoney are represented by: Sarah E. Light, Esq. Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. Preet Bharara, Esq. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 St. Andrews Plaza New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-637-2200 Defendants-Appellees City of New York, Ms. Torres and Mr. Brockmann are represented by: Ellen Ravitch, Esq. Stephen J. McGrath, Esq. Jennifer Rossan, Esq. Michael A. Cardozo, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT Room 6-140 100 Church St. New York, NY 10007-2601 Telephone: 212-788-0303 NOVAGOLD INC: Aug. & Sept. Shareholder Settlement Hearings Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Hearings in Canada and the United States will be held in August and September to consider approval of a C$28 million (US$26.6 million) settlement for the benefit of NovaGold shareholders. The settlement will resolve three lawsuits: (A) In re NovaGold Resources Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File 1:08-CV-7041 (DLC) (JCF) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; (B) Philip Elliott and William Kormos v. NovaGold Resources Inc., et al., Court File No. CV-09-13833 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and (C) Linda M. Elliott v. NovaGold Resources Inc., et al., Court File No. VLC-S-S-097866 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. If you purchased NovaGold Resources Inc. common stock on the American Stock Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange, or by any other means during the period from October 25, 2005 to and including January 16, 2008, your rights may be affected by class action lawsuit(s) and you may be entitled to a payment from a proposed class action settlement. The U.S. Court will consider the Settlement at a hearing to be held on September 10, 2010. The British Columbia Court will consider the Settlement at a hearing on August 6, 2010. The Ontario Court will consider the Settlement at a hearing on August 4, 2010. The Garden City Group, Inc., maintains a Web site at http://www.novagoldclassaction.com/to provide additional information about this matter. The Plaintiffs' lawyers are: U.S. Lead Counsel: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 888-753-2796 E-mail: info@labaton.com Ontario Class Counsel: Jay Strosberg, Esq. SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP 600 - 251 Goyeau Street Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4 CANADA Telephone: 877-214-4517 E-mail: novagold@strosbergco.com British Columbia Class Counsel: Reidar Mogerman, Esq. CAMP FIORANTE MATTHEWS #400 - 856 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5 CANADA Telephone: 604-689-7555 E-mail: info@cfmlawyers.ca PROTECTION ONE: Del. & Kan. Lawsuits Settled for $3.25 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- GTCR, one of the country's leading private equity firms, has extended the expiration date of the tender offer by its affiliate Protection Acquisition Sub, Inc. for all outstanding common shares of Protection One, Inc., a national provider of electronic security alarm monitoring services. The offer and withdrawal rights described in the Offer to Purchase have been extended and will now expire at 9:00 a.m., New York City time, on June 4, 2010, unless the offer is further extended or earlier terminated. The offer had been previously scheduled to expire at 9:00 a.m., New York City time, on June 2, 2010. GTCR has also settled the purported class action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and in the District Court of Douglas County in the State of Kansas related to the proposed acquisition of Protection One. Under the terms of the settlement, among other things, GTCR and Protection One have agreed to make certain additional information available to Protection One stockholders and, subject to completion of the transaction and final approval of the settlement, Protection One has agreed to make a settlement payment of $3,250,000 to be distributed pro rata to the public stockholders of Protection One who hold Protection One stock as of the close of business on the day before the expiration of the offer. The settlement payment will be made following receipt of court approvals of the settlement, which will be after the completion of the tender offer and the merger. The payment is separate from the consideration to be paid in the tender offer and the merger and will be paid only to the plaintiff class of stockholders, which excludes the defendants and their affiliates. GTCR and the other defendants specifically deny all the allegations made in the lawsuits and the memorandum of understanding entered into for the settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, negotiation of a final stipulation of settlement and receipt of final required court approvals. The complete terms and conditions of the settlement are set forth in the memorandum of understanding, a copy of which has been filed by GTCR and Protection One with the SEC. About GTCR Founded in 1980, GTCR -- http://www.gtcr.com/-- is a leading private equity firm focused on investing in growth companies in the Financial Services & Technology, Healthcare and Information Services & Technology industries. The Chicago-based firm pioneered the "Leaders Strategy" -- finding and partnering with world-class leaders as the critical first step in identifying, acquiring and building market-leading companies through acquisitions and organic growth. Since its inception, GTCR has invested more than $8 billion in over 200 companies. About Protection One Protection One -- http://www.ProtectionOne.com/-- is one of the largest vertically integrated national providers of sales, installation, monitoring, and maintenance of electronic security systems to homes and businesses and has been recognized as one of "America's Most Trustworthy Companies" by Forbes.com. Network Multifamily, Protection One's wholly owned subsidiary, is the largest security provider to the multifamily housing market. Protection One also owns the nation's largest provider of wholesale monitoring services, the combined operations of CMS and Criticom International. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Class Status Granted to Volleyball Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Eaton-Robb at The Associated Press reports from Hartford, Conn., that a federal judge has granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by members of Quinnipiac (KWIHN'-uh-pee-ak) University's volleyball team alleging gender discrimination in the school's athletic programs. The ruling means if the judge finds Title IX violations he could order remedies for all current and future female athletes at the Connecticut school, not just the five who sued. Title IX is the federal law mandating equal opportunities for female athletes. Quinnipiac last year sought to drop volleyball and add women's cheerleading as a sport, prompting the lawsuit from several players and volleyball coach Robin Sparks. The volleyball team was reinstated after Judge Stephen Underhill issued a temporary injunction, but settlement talks were unsuccessful. A message seeking comment was left with the school's attorney on Monday. RELIANCE STANDARD: High Court Sets Fee Standard in ERISA Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that workers suing over disability and other benefits under the federal law known as ERISA may win attorney fees and costs if they achieve "some degree of success on the merits," a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday. In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 09-448, slip op. http://is.gd/copvv(U.S.), the justices rejected a tougher standard on fee claimants under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act described in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, No. 08-1896, slip op. http://is.gd/copBf(4th Cir.). The lower appellate court had ruled that a claimant must be a "prevailing party" before seeking a fee award. The justices' ruling came in a case brought by Bridget Hardt, who sought long-term disability benefits as a result of job-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Hardt was awarded the benefits, but in March 2006, Reliance informed her that she was ineligible for continued long-term benefits. She sued the insurance company, claiming ERISA violations. The district court ordered Reliance to reconsider its decision based on evidence that the court had found. The order said that, if Reliance did not adequately consider all of the evidence within 30 days, judgment would be entered in favor of Hardt. On reconsideration, Reliance reinstated full benefits to Hardt. When Hardt moved for attorney fees and costs, Reliance objected, arguing she was not a "prevailing party" because the insurance company had agreed to pay the benefits. Hardt incurred $58,920 in attorney fees to recover $55,250 in disability benefits, according to briefs in the case. The district court awarded fees, but the 4th Circuit reversed. In the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the words "prevailing party" do not appear in ERISA's fee-award provision. That provision, he said, "expressly grants district courts 'discretion' to award attorney fees 'to either party.'" Because the Court's "prevailing party" precedents did not apply here, Thomas said a line of fee precedents that do not rely on prevailing-party status should apply, with 1983's Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club being the principal case. Under Ruckelshaus, a fees claimant must show some degree of success on the merits before a court may award attorney fees, Thomas said. That success must be more than "trivial" or a "purely procedural victory." Hardt met the standard, according to the Court, by persuading the district court that the insurance company had failed to comply with ERISA guidelines nor had it given the type of review required by the law. She also had obtained a judicial order requiring Reliance to reconsider the evidence adequately or face judgment in Hardt's favor. Hardt's counsel, John Ates of the Law Firm of John Ates in Arlington, Va., had argued that the 4th Circuit's rule encouraged ERISA plan administrators to engage in scorched earth "you sue, you lose" tactics, then give in when they realize a court will force them to abide by the law. The solicitor general of the United States had filed an amicus brief urging the Court to interpret the ERISA fee provision broadly so that claimants who obtain benefits on remand may be awarded fees and costs. Nicholas Rosenkranz of Georgetown University Law Center argued the case for Reliance. Roughly 10,000 ERISA benefit lawsuits are filed annually. RIGEL PHARMA: Awaiting Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to await the ruling on its motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate R788, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for the company's February 2008 stock offering. An additional purported securities class action lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2009. By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action. On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 24, 2009. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 8, 2009. On Dec. 21, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 27, 2010. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate R788. The plaintiffs seek damages, including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the stock offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of its common stock during the period between Dec. 13, 2007 and Feb. 9, 2009, including purchasers in the stock offering. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 16, 2010. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and the company is awaiting a ruling on that motion from the Court. Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases. The company's research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways and related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms. Rigel has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop and market its product candidates. The company has internal product development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and cancer, as well as partnered product development programs relating to asthma and cancer. SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues -------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corp. continues to defend a consolidated class action derivative lawsuit filed before the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County, over the company's acquisition of Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V. Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions were filed against the company. On Jan. 31, 2005, three suits were consolidated into one action, In Re Southern Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 961-N. These three suits were: (1) Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 961-N, (2) Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N, and (3) James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 978-N. The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit. The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the company's common stockholders. The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors and is not entirely fair to the company and its minority stockholders. The suit seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the acquisition, the award of damages to the class, the award of damages to the Company and such other relief that the court deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Southern Copper Corp. -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is an integrated copper producer. The Company produces copper, molybdenum, zinc and silver. All of its mining, smelting and refining facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it conducts exploration activities in those countries and Chile. UNISOURCE ENERGY: Court Dismissed "Right of Way" Suit vs. Unit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has dismissed a putative class action against Tucson Electric Power Co. over right of way matters, according to Unisource Energy Corp.'s May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy. Tucson Electric is a defendant in a putative class action filed on Feb. 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico by members of the Navajo Nation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the rights of ways for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was inadequate. The plaintiffs are requesting, among other things, that the transmission lines on these lands be removed. In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds and in September 2009, the plaintiffs filed responses. On March 31, 2010, the Court granted several of the defendants' motions to dismiss, and, as a result, dismissed the entirety of the plaintiffs' case against all defendants. The Court entered a final judgment dismissing the case on April 16, 2010. UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a holding company that conducts its operations through its subsidiaries. UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium Energy Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy Development Company (UED). The company conducts its business through three segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric. TEP is an electric utility that provides electric service to the community of Tucson, Arizona. UES, through its two operating subsidiaries, UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), provides gas and electric service to 30 communities in Northern and Southern Arizona. UED developed and owns the Black Mountain Generating Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine in Northern Arizona that, through a power sales agreement provides energy to UNS Electric. VERIZON WIRELESS: Suit Complains About Extended Warranty Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon Wireless sold "extended warranties" for $1.99 a month without disclosing that they ran concurrently with the phone manufacturer's warranties for the first year, a class action claims in Trenton, N.J., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Powers, et al. v. Verizon Wireless, Services, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-02619 (D. N.J.) (Cooper, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/24/Verizon.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Wacksman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. WACKSMAN 20 Court St., 4th Floor Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: 201-906-0275 - and - Melissa M. Harnett, Esq. Gregory Scarlett, Esq. Jordan S. Esensten, ESq. WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P. 5567 Reseda Blvd., Suite 330 Post Office Box 7033 Tarzana, CA 91357-7033 Telephone: 818-705-6800 - and - J. Paul Gignac, Esq. Mike Arias, Esq. ARIAS, OZELLO & GIGNAC LLP 4050 Calle Real, Suite 130 Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Telephone: 805-683-7400 ********* 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 * * *