/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100617.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 118
Headlines
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Court Sets Hearing, Conference & Discovery Dates
CALIFORNIA: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Prisoners' Complaints
CANWEST GLOBAL: Tentative C$7.5 Mil. Settlement with Freelancer
CHINA ORGANIC: Settles Shareholder Action for $600,000
CLEAR CHANNEL: Seeks Hearing Date for Reconsideration Motion
DYNEX CAPITAL: Plans to Seek Decertification of Pentlong Class
DYNEX CAPITAL: Still Facing Teamsters' Second Amended Complaint
EXXONMOBIL OIL: Kan. App. Ct. Affirms Royalty Class Certification
FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued for Not Paying for All Hours Worked
GENZYME CORP: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in Mass.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Agrees to $8MM Securities Class Suit Settlement
HANSEN NATURAL: Moves to Dismiss Consumer Claims in Calif. Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Awaits Outcome of Certification Motion in Canada
HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets July 12 Hearing for Dismissal Request
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: May Be Liable in ERISA Suit vs. Hilton
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Murchison Plaintiffs Seek Fee Payment
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Settles "Caesars" Lawsuit With Tribe
HCA INC: Sued in Tenn. for Not Paying Wages to Workers
ILLINOIS SCHOOL OF HEALTH: Sued for Fraudulent Misrepresentation
JOS. A. BANK: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
JOS. A. BANK: Defends Racial Discrimination Suit in California
KRISPY KREME: Approval of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement Pending
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Zicam Class
MBIA INC: Still Facing Appeal of Consolidated Securities Suit
MBIA INC: Court Denies Dismissal Motion of NY Securities Suit
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Junks Consolidated Class Action
MDC PARTNERS: IMS Reaches $860,000 Class Action Settlement
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit in Arizona
MGIC INVESTMENT: Opposes Request to Amend Wisconsin Class Suit
MICROCHIP TECH: Named a Defendant in Suit by SST Stockholders
MRV COMMS: Settles Calif. Securities Class Suits for $10 Million
NATIONAL PENN: Faces RICO Class Suit With Zions
NBTY INC: Rexall Case Management Conference Continues
NEWPAGE: Retiree Benefits Litigation Moving at Glacial Speed
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Amended FLSA Complaint
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
OHIO VALLEY HEALTH: Healthcare Providers Sue to Collect Fees
ORLEANS PARISH: Hearing Tomorrow on $6.8 Mil. Payment to Teachers
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Stay on Royalty Owner Class Action Gone
PLANTRONICS INC: Court Okays Pact in Bluetooth Headset Suit
POLO RALPH: Settlement in Two California Suits Approved
POLO RALPH: Settles Suit by Former Employees for $4 Million
POPULAR INC: Moves to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Class Suit
POPULAR INC: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Class Suit v. Unit
PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Moves to Dismiss Madison County Litigation
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Moves to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Texas
ROTO-ROOTER: Ohio Sex Bias Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
ROYAL DSM: Settles EPDM Federal Antitrust Lawsuit for $25 Million
SENTRY INSURANCE: Accused in Va. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Discrimination Suit in New York
SOUTHWEST WATER: Court Decision on Dismissal Motion Pending
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Customers' Suit in D. N.J. Alleges Overcharges
ULTA SALON: Agrees to Settle Suit by General and Salon Managers
ULTA SALON: Faces Wage Violations Suit in California
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Nev. Suit Wants Bogus Trauma Charges Refunded
VODAFONE GROUP: New York Court Dismisses Securities Suit
WET SEAL: Final Hearing for $300,000 Settlement Set in July
WET SEAL: Defends Suit by Employees is County of Orange
WET SEAL: Discovery in San Francisco Employees' Suit Ongoing
WET SEAL: Awaits Approval of $200,000 Settlement Agreement
YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Consolidated ERISA Class Action in Kansas
*********
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Court Sets Hearing, Conference & Discovery Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California scheduled a class certification hearing for
November 4, 2010, with respect to a complaint filed in a
purported securities class action lawsuit against ARCA biopharma,
Inc., the Company said in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.
On February 9, 2007, Nuvelo, Inc., now known as ARCA biopharma,
Inc., and certain of Nuvelo's former and current officers and
directors were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the
clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo announced on
December 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of
Nuvelo's common stock during the period between January 5, 2006
and December 8, 2006. Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo
misled investors regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the
drug's likelihood of success. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and injunctive relief. Three additional lawsuits were
filed in the Southern District of New York on February 16, 2007,
March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007, respectively. On April 10,
2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases, appoint
lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel were filed.
On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four
cases to the Northern District of California. The Court granted
Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of
California in July 2007. Plaintiffs have filed motions for
consolidation, lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the
Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on
November 9, 2007. Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs
consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on February 4, 2008. On
June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing
plaintiff's complaint, and granting leave to amend.
On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging similar claims. On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 15, 2009, the
Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On August 17,
2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion. ARCA filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint on October
1, 2009. The parties exchanged initial disclosures on October 13,
2009, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.
A case management conference was held on March 25, 2010. The
Court scheduled, amongst other things, a class certification
hearing for November 4, 2010, a fact discovery cutoff date of
March 31, 2011 and a further case management conference for April
14, 2011.
Based on plaintiff's amended complaint, ARCA believes that any
attorneys' fees, loss or settlement payment with respect to the
suit will be paid by its insurance provider. However, it is
possible that ARCA could be forced to incur material expenses in
the litigation and, in the event of an adverse outcome, ARCA's
business could be harmed.
ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known
as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical
conditions.
CALIFORNIA: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Prisoners' Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Doyle, writing for McClatchy Newspapers, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's effort to block a court-ordered release
of some 40,000 inmates from overcrowded state prisons.
The decision to hear the case in the new term that starts Oct. 4
means at least four justices think Schwarzenegger's appeal is
important enough to merit review. It's good news for the
governor, who contends California-based judges overstepped their
power.
"We are pleased the U.S. Supreme Court will hear our appeal,"
said Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman, Rachel Arrezola. "We continue
to believe federal judges do not have the authority to order the
early release of prisoners in our state."
Arrezola added that "California should be able to take action on
its own to keep its citizens safe without interference from the
federal courts."
Following a lengthy trial, a special panel of three federal
judges determined in August that serious overcrowding in
California's 33 prisons was the "primary cause" for violations of
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment.
The three-judge panel ordered release of enough prisoners so the
inmate population would come within 137.5 percent of the prisons'
total design capacity. That amounts to between 38,000 and 46,000
inmates being released.
The judges also postponed implementation of the order pending the
state's appeal.
The Supreme Court's review next fall will potentially be among
the first heard by Elena Kagan, if the Obama administration's
solicitor general wins Senate confirmation to the court. Kagan's
confirmation hearing starts June 28.
The review of the case, called Schwarzenegger v. Plata, will be
closely watched in other states, which also face prison
overcrowding problems.
"If the Supreme Court were to decide to reverse the three-judge
panel, it would have far-reaching effects," said Donald Specter,
an attorney with the Berkeley, Calif.-based Prison Law Office.
"It would reduce the ability of (other) courts to order the
reduction of prison populations."
Specter added that he was "not that surprised" that the Supreme
Court decided to hear the case, given its importance and the
direct appeal made by California.
The Prison Law Office has been representing Marciano Plata, a
former Salinas Valley State Prison inmate who was recently
released, as well as other inmates in the long-running class-
action lawsuit. Their original lawsuit, filed in 2001, alleged
prison health services were inadequate.
In a highly detailed, 184-page opinion, the three-judge panel
concluded that state prison medical care was "woefully and
constitutionally inadequate." In some cases, the judges noted
inmates have waited for years to receive medical care.
Since reaching an all-time population record of more than 160,000
in October 2006, the state's adult prison institutions have
operated at almost double their intended capacity.
"The state's prisons have become places of extreme peril to the
safety of persons they house . . . while contributing little to
the safety of California residents," the three judges concluded.
The Schwarzenegger administration appealed, citing what officials
called in a legal brief "profound practical consequences and
public importance." The administration further characterized the
three-judge panel's inmate-release order as "unprecedented" and
said it went well beyond the court's authority.
The Supreme Court must decide whether the three-judge panel had
the legal jurisdiction to order release of inmates in this case
and, if so, whether the inmate release itself was warranted.
CANWEST GLOBAL: Tentative C$7.5 Mil. Settlement with Freelancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Canwest Global Communications
says a tentative settlement in a copyright class action suit has
been reached between a freelance writer and Canwest Publishing.
The proposed settlement with Heather Robertson was announced on
Monday and was presented to the Court yesterday.
The settlement does not terminate Robertson's lawsuit against the
remaining defendants in her class action concerning electronic
rights of freelance writers.
The other defendants are Proquest Information and Learning LLC,
CEDROM-SNI Inc., Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., and Rogers
Publishing Limited.
Under the settlement, Kathy Shwiff at Dow Jones Newswires
reports, Robertson would receive C$7.5 million and she would vote
in favor of a plan to allow Canwest Publishing Inc. to exit from
bankruptcy protection. Members of the class involved in the
lawsuit also would give Canwest a license and release related to
their freelance works.
Ms. Shwiff recalls that the class-action lawsuit led by Robertson
was among the first concerning electronic rights of freelance
writers. She sued several media companies after they put
freelance articles in their online databases without permission
from the authors.
CHINA ORGANIC: Settles Shareholder Action for $600,000
------------------------------------------------------
China Organic Agriculture, Inc., headquartered in Liaoning
Province, China and engaged in the trading and distribution
of agricultural products, has agreed to a settlement in the
shareholder class action lawsuit commenced against it in
December 2008.
Counsel for the Company and counsel for the Plaintiff Class
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement which has
been submitted for approval by the Court. Under the terms of the
settlement, eligible class members would receive a total of
$300,000 in cash together with shares of China Organic
Agriculture's common stock having a value of $300,000 in exchange
for a release of all claims which class members have or may have
against the Company, its directors, officers, affiliates,
shareholders and agents, except claims arising out of or related
to the settlement.
Qian Qi, the newly elected Chief Executive Officer of the Company
commented, "The decision to settle this action reflects
management's desire to focus on the Company's business and avoid
the distractions that would result from mounting a defense to
this lawsuit. Although we believe that the Company and its
personnel did nothing improper, it is well worth it to pay the
amount of the settlement and put this matter behind us and focus
on growing our Company."
About China Organic Agriculture
China Organic Agriculture --
http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is based in China and
is primarily engaged in the acquisition, trading and distribution
of agricultural products.
CLEAR CHANNEL: Seeks Hearing Date for Reconsideration Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., wants a district court in
California to set a hearing date for argument on their motion for
reconsideration of a class certification order, which has been
pending since 2008, the company disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.
Clear Channel is a co-defendant with Live Nation (which was spun
off as an independent company in December 2005) in 22 putative
class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country.
These actions generally allege that the defendants monopolized or
attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock concerts" in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claim that
they paid higher ticket prices for defendants' "rock concerts" as
a result of defendants' conduct. They seek damages in an
undetermined amount.
On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
Central District of California. On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs
filed motions for class certification in five "template" cases
involving five regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York,
Chicago and Denver. Defendants opposed that motion and, on
October 22, 2007, the district court issued its decision
certifying the class for each regional market. On February 20,
2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Class
Certification Order, which is still pending. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on September 25,
2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature and ordered
the entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues its en banc
opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a
case that may change the standard for granting class
certification in the 9th Circuit.
On April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion adopting a
new class certification standard which will require district
courts to resolve Rule 23 factual disputes that overlap with the
merits of the case. In response, Defendants asked the court to
set a hearing date for argument on their Motion for
Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order.
In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between Clear
Channel and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with
Clear Channel's spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live
Nation agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for
legal actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the
spin-off in which Clear Channel is a defendant if those actions
relate in any material respect to the business of Live Nation.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify
Clear Channel with respect to all liabilities assumed by Live
Nation, including those pertaining to the claims in the class
action.
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company
with three primary business segments: radio broadcasting, outdoor
advertising and live entertainment. Clear Channel Communications
is the operating subsidiary of San Antonio, Texas-based CC Media
Holdings, Inc.
DYNEX CAPITAL: Plans to Seek Decertification of Pentlong Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLS Capital, Inc., a subsidiary of Dynex Capital Inc., plans to
seek the decertification of a class alleging illegal collection
of certain taxes in Pennsylvania, Dynex related in a Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.
GLS Capital, Inc., and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania are
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Between 1995
and 1997, GLS purchased delinquent county property tax
receivables for properties located in Allegheny County. In its
initial pleadings, the Pentlong plaintiffs alleged that GLS did
not have the right to recover from delinquent taxpayers certain
attorney fees, lien docketing, revival, assignment and
satisfaction costs, and expenses associated with the original
purchase transaction, and interest, in the collection of the
property tax receivables. During the course of the litigation,
the Pennsylvania State Legislature enacted Act 20 of 2003, which
cured many deficiencies in the Pennsylvania Municipal Claims and
Tax Lien Act at issue in the Pentlong case, including confirming
GLS' right to collect attorney fees from delinquent taxpayers
retroactive back to the date when GLS first purchased the
delinquent tax receivables.
In August 2009, based on the provisions of Act 20, GLS filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Brief in the Court of
Common Pleas seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' remaining
claims regarding GLS' right to collect reasonable attorneys fees
from the named plaintiffs and purported class members; namely,
its right to collect lien docketing, revival, assignment and
satisfaction costs from delinquent taxpayers; and its practice of
charging interest on the first of each month for the entire
month. Subsequently the plaintiffs abandoned their claims with
respect to lien docketing and satisfaction costs and the issue of
interest.
On April 2, 2010, the Court of Common Pleas granted GLS' motion
for summary judgment with respect to its right to charge attorney
fees and interest in the collection of the receivables, removing
these claims from plaintiffs' case. While the Court indicated at
that time that it lacked sufficient information to rule on the
remaining aspects of the motion related to the reasonableness of
attorney fees and lien costs, during a status conference between
the parties and the judge on April 13, 2010, the judge invited
GLS to renew its motion for summary judgment on the issue of GLS'
right to recover lien assignment and revival costs from
delinquent taxpayers.
With relation to the claim regarding the reasonableness of
attorney fees recovered by GLS, no motion is currently pending.
However, Dynex said, GLS plans to seek decertification of the
class once the lien cost issue is decided by the court because
GLS believes the class action vehicle will no longer be
appropriate if the only issue before the court is a challenge to
the reasonableness of attorneys fees charged in each individual
case.
Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized
as a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and
securities consisting principally of single-family residential
and commercial mortgage loans.
DYNEX CAPITAL: Still Facing Teamsters' Second Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., continues to face a second amended complaint
filed by a Teamsters pension fund in New York alleging violations
of federal securities law, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary,
and the former president and current Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Dynex Capital, Inc., are defendants in
a putative class action alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund. The complaint was filed on February 7,
2005, and purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12 and MERIT
Series 13 securitization financing bonds, which are
collateralized by manufactured housing loans.
After a series of rulings by the District Court and an appeal by
Dynex and MERIT, on February 22, 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the litigation against
Dynex and MERIT. Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August
6, 2008, with the District Court, which essentially restated the
same allegations as the original complaint and added Dynex's
former president and current Chief Operating Officer as
defendants. Teamsters seeks unspecified damages and alleges,
among other things, fraud and misrepresentations in connection
with the issuance of and subsequent reporting related to the
Bonds.
On October 19, 2009, the District Court substantially denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Teamsters' second amended
complaint. On December 11, 2009, the Defendants filed an answer
to the second amended complaint. The Company has evaluated the
allegations made in the complaint and believes them to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against them.
There have been no further material developments in this case
through March 31, 2010, the Company disclosed.
Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized
as a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and
securities consisting principally of single-family residential
and commercial mortgage loans.
EXXONMOBIL OIL: Kan. App. Ct. Affirms Royalty Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, formally Mobil Oil Corporation, asked
the Kansas Court of Appeals to review certification of a class of
Mobil's oil and gas lessors in the Kansas Hugoton Field. The
plaintiffs allege that Mobile shortchanged them when making
royalty payments. Mobil contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in certifying a class because it failed to rigorously
analyze the requirements of K.S.A. 60-223, that choice-of-law
issues and variations in the circumstances surrounding execution
of individual leases defeat the predominance of any common issues
of law or fact, and that these individual issues would make
management of a class action difficult if not impossible.
Concluding there was no abuse of discretion by the district
court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification and
remanded for further proceedings.
A copy of the Opinion dated June 11, 2010, in Farrar, et al. v.
Mobil Oil Corporation, No. 103,009 (Kan. App.), is available at
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inksco20100611240
The lessors are represented by:
David G. Seely, Esq.
Thomas D. Kitch, Esq.
Gregory J. Stucky, Esq.
Charles E. Millsap, Esq.
Daniel E. Lawrence, Esq.
FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, L.L.C.
1900 EPIC Center
301 N. Main
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 267-7361
E-mail: dseely@fleeson.com
tkitch@fleeson.com
gstucky@fleeson.com
cmillsap@fleeson.com
dlawrence@fleeson.com
- and -
Erick E. Nordling, Esq.
KRAMER, NORDLING & NORDLING, LLC
209 East 6th Street
Hugoton, KS 67951-2613
Telephone: (620) 544-4333
ExxonMobil is represented by:
Shannon H. Ratliff, Esq.
RATLIFF LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
600 Congress Avenue, Suite 3100
Austin, TX 78701-2984
Telephone: (512) 493-9600
E-mail: sratliff@ratlifflaw.com
- and -
Richard C. Hite, Esq.
Arthur S. Chalmers, Esq.
HITE, FANNING, & HONEYMAN, L.L.P.
100 North Broadway, Suite 950
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 265-7741
E-mail: hite@hitefanning.com
FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued for Not Paying for All Hours Worked
-------------------------------------------------------
Streeta Wright, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Family Dollar, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-25151 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 11, 2010), accuses the discount retailer
of failing to pay current and former employees for actual hours
worked and failing to pay overtime wages due, in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terrence Buehler, Esq.
TOUHY, TOUHY, BUEHLER & WILLIAMS LLP
55 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 372-2209
- and -
Robert H. Rosenfeld, Esq.
ROBERT H. ROSENFELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
33 North Dearborn St., Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 704-2200
- and -
Lannie A. Pollans, Esq.
LANNIE A. POLLANS & ASSOCIATES, LTD
19 South LaSalle St., Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 251-4333
GENZYME CORP: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Genzyme Corporation filed a consolidated
amended complaint in March 2010, that extended the class period
from October 24, 2007, through November 13, 2009, the company
disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
In July 2009 and August 2009, two purported securities class
action lawsuits were filed against Genzyme and its President and
Chief Executive Officer. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of
those who purchased the company's common stock during the period
from June 26, 2008, through July 21, 2009, and allege violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Each of the lawsuits is premised upon allegations that the
company made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions by failing to disclose instances of viral contamination
at two of the company's manufacturing facilities and the
company's receipt of a list of inspection observations from the
FDA related to one of the facilities, which detailed observations
of practices that the FDA considered to be deviations from GMP.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of
costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. In November 2009,
the lawsuits were consolidated in In Re Genzyme Corp. Securities
Litigation and a lead plaintiff was appointed. In March 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint that
extended the class period from
October 24, 2007 through November 13, 2009. The company intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
Genzyme Corporation is a biotechnology company. Genzyme operates
in four segments: Genetic Diseases, Cardiometabolic and Renal,
Biosurgery and Hematologic Oncology. The company is headquartered
in Cambridge, Mass.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Agrees to $8MM Securities Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc., has agreed to settle a securities class
action lawsuit for $8.25 million, the Company said in a Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Since November 2003, the Company has been defending a class
action securities lawsuit purportedly brought on behalf of a
class made up of all purchasers of its stock between July 14 and
October 28, 2003. The lawsuit names Gilead and six current and
former executives of Gilead as defendants. The lawsuit alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC,
by making certain alleged false and misleading statements.
On May 12, 2006, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California executed orders dismissing in its
entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
On August 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded
the case to the district court.
On February 6, 2009, Gilead filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States,
requesting that the court review the judgment of the court of
appeals. In April 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition.
On February 13, 2009, Gilead filed a further motion to dismiss
the fourth consolidated amended complaint on alternative grounds.
On June 3, 2009, the district court granted in part and denied in
part the Company's motion to dismiss and gave plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint.
On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs filed a fifth consolidated amended
complaint. Gilead filed a motion to dismiss the fifth
consolidated amended complaint, which the district court heard on
October 9, 2009. In an order dated October 13, 2009, the court
granted in part and denied in part Gilead's motion to dismiss.
On November 16, 2009, Gilead filed an answer to the fifth
consolidated amended complaint.
In March 2010, Gilead agreed to settle the dispute. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, which will require the district
court's approval, the plaintiffs will dismiss the action and
release all claims against Gilead and each of the individual
defendants. In exchange, Gilead agreed to pay $8.25 million to
the class members. The proposed settlement amount will be paid in
full by Gilead's insurance carriers. Further, Gilead and the
individual defendants continue to deny that they committed any
act or omission giving rise to any liability and violation of
law.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapeutics
for the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases. The
Company is headquartered in Foster City, Calif.
HANSEN NATURAL: Moves to Dismiss Consumer Claims in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corp. has sought to dismiss consumer claims with
respect to a class action filed in California against the Company
and its subsidiaries, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.
In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a class of consumers yet to be defined filed an
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, City and
County of San Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries
for unfair business practices, false advertising, violation of
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly
in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior Court
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act, and
filed motions for dismissal or transfer.
On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice.
On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit filed a memorandum opinion reversing the opinion of
the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act claims; the plaintiff has filed a motion for a
decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification on April 22, 2010. The District Court
heard all three motions on May 27, 2010.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations and plans a vigorous defense. Discovery has just
begun.
Hansen Natural Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201,
Corona, California 92880. Hansen, through its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of
beverages in the United States and Canada.
HANSEN NATURAL: Awaits Outcome of Certification Motion in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corp. is awaiting the outcome of a certification
motion in a putative class action filed in Canada alleging the
mislabeling of energy drink products, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative
class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the
City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its
former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in
Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of the energy drink products. The
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in
violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act
(Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).
The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative
class in the amount of CDN$20 million, together with punitive
damages of CDN$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The
plaintiff's certification motion materials have not yet been
filed.
In accordance with class action practice in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion. The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.
Hansen Natural Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201,
Corona, California 92880. Hansen, through its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of
beverages in the United States and Canada.
HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets July 12 Hearing for Dismissal Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hear on July 12, 2010, a motion to dismiss filed
by Hansen Natural Corp. and other defendants in a consolidated
class action alleging securities violations, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action
complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.
On July 14, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions and appointing lead counsel and the Structural
Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On
August 28, 2009 lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint for
Violations of Federal Securities Laws. The Consolidated Class
Action Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9,
2006 through November 8, 2007. It names as defendants the
Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J.
Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements
with Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and its sales of "Allied" energy drink
lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis
of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleges that
the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007
did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated
Class Action Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.
On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On January 8,
2010, lead plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants' motion
to dismiss. Defendants' reply brief was filed on February 8,
2010. The Court has scheduled a hearing on defendants' motion to
dismiss for July 12, 2010.
Hansen Natural Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201,
Corona, California 92880. Hansen, through its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of
beverages in the United States and Canada.
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: May Be Liable in ERISA Suit vs. Hilton
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., is monitoring a lawsuit filed
against Hilton Hotels Corporation after the hotel chain informed
the company that it may be liable to certain ERISA claims,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.
In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation spun-off its gaming
operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation. In connection
with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered an Employee
Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December
31, 1998, whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable,
liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton
Hotels Retirement Plan based on the accrued benefits of Hilton
employees and Park Place employees. Park Place changed its name
to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and the Company acquired Caesars
in June 2005. In 1999 and 2005, the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia certified two nationwide class
action lawsuits against Hilton alleging that the Hilton Plan's
benefit formula was back loaded in violation of ERISA, and that
Hilton failed to properly calculate Hilton Plan participants'
service for vesting purposes. In May 2009, the Court issued a
decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs and Hilton are undertaking Court-mandated efforts to
determine an appropriate remedy.
The Company received a letter from Hilton in October 2009
alleging potential liability under the ERISA claims and under the
terms of the Allocation Agreement. The Company may be responsible
for a portion of the liability resulting from the claims. The
Company is monitoring the status of the lawsuit, remedy
determination, and its potential liability, if any.
Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's for $31 billion.
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Murchison Plaintiffs Seek Fee Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc., which was dismissed in June 2009, is seeking
the payment of attorney's fees, according to the company's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On January 9, 2009, S. Blake Murchison and Willis Shaw filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United Stated District
Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 09-00020-
SLR, against Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. and its board of
directors, and Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. The lawsuit was
amended on March 4, 2009, alleging that the bond exchange offer
which closed on December 24, 2008 wrongfully impaired the rights
of bondholders. The amended complaint alleges, among others,
breach of the bond indentures, violation of the Trust Indenture
Act of 1939, equitable rescission, and liability claims against
the members of the board. The amended complaint seeks, among
other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, declaratory
relief that the alleged violations occurred, unspecified damages
to the class, and attorneys' fees.
On April 30, 2009 the defendants stipulated to the plaintiffs'
request to dismiss the lawsuit, without prejudice, which the
court entered on June 18, 2009.
Plaintiffs requested the court to award it attorneys' fees. On
March 31, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' request for fees and
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit United
States Courts of Appeals.
Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's for $31 billion.
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Settles "Caesars" Lawsuit With Tribe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, that it has reached a settlement in principle
with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe regarding a class action
lawsuit.
In April 2000, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe granted Caesars
Entertainment, Inc., the exclusive rights to develop a casino
project in the State of New York. On April 26, 2000, certain
individual members of the Tribe purported to commence a class
action proceeding in a "Tribal Court" in Hogansburg, New York,
against Caesars seeking to nullify Caesars' agreement with the
Tribe.
On March 20, 2001, the "Tribal Court" purported to render a
default judgment against Caesars in the amount of $1,787 million.
Prior to the Company's acquisition of Caesars in June 2005, it
was believed that this matter was settled pending execution of
final documents and mutual releases. Although fully executed
settlement documents were never provided, on March 31, 2003, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York dismissed litigation concerning the validity of the
judgment, without prejudice, while retaining jurisdiction to
reopen that litigation, if, within three months thereof, the
settlement had not been completed.
On June 22, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York against the
Company by certain trustees of the Catskill Litigation Trust
alleging the Catskill Litigation Trust had been assigned the
"Tribal Court" judgment and seeks to enforce it, with interest.
According to a "Tribal Court" order, accrued interest through
July 9, 2007, was approximately $1,014 million.
On September 28, 2009, the Court entered summary judgment against
the Tribe and dismissed the action, ruling that although
alternative grounds were presented in the motion, the subject
matter of the action was asserted in a prior action and settled
by an oral agreement to end that matter with prejudice.
On October 27, 2009, the Tribe filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Company has a settlement in principle with the Tribe that is
subject to definitive documentation, Harrah's disclosed.
Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's for $31 billion.
HCA INC: Sued in Tenn. for Not Paying Wages to Workers
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that HCA makes employees work
through breaks and doesn't pay them for it in at least four of
its 163 hospitals, a class action claims in Nashville Federal
Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Gonzalez, et al. v. HCA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00577 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/14/EmployHCA.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Russell, Esq.
Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER, PLC
101 North Highland Ave.
Jackson, TN 38301
Telephone: 731-664-1340
E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
- and -
Kendall S. Zylstra, Esq.
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: 215-277-5770
Email: jwells@faruqilaw.com
kzylstra@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Gary Lynch, Esq.
Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LTD
36 N. Jefferson St.
P.O. Box 7635
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: 724-656-1555
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
ILLINOIS SCHOOL OF HEALTH: Sued for Fraudulent Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Allen, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Illinois School of Health Careers, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2010-CH-25098 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 11, 2010),
asserts violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, the Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Practices Act, fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, promissory
estoppel and unjust enrichment. Ms. Allen relates that ISHC not
only failed to provide enrollees of its Patient Care Technician
Program the services promised, including adequate instruction,
training, skills and facilities, but also misrepresented that its
graduates would be immediately qualified to take the state board
exams to become Certified Nursing Assistants and that the PCT
Program would only take 32 weeks to complete. It turned out
that the school's PCT Program has never been been an Illinois
approved Certified Nursing Assistant Program, making it
impossible for PCT Program graduates to become Certified Nursing
Assistants and thus obtain employment in hospitals or urgent
care centers, and that the PCT Program could not be completed
within 32 weeks.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
JOS. A. BANK: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., continues to await approval from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland of the
settlement agreement resolving a consolidated class action
complaint, according to the company's June 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 1, 2010.
On July 24, 2006, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and Robert N. Wildrick, then the company's Chief
Executive Officer and now its Chairman of the Board, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe,
Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN.
On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland by Tewas
Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN. The
Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those
in the class action and purported to assert the same claims and
seek the same relief.
On Nov. 20, 2006, the class action and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-
01892-WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively
closed.
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was appointed the lead
plaintiff in the Class Action and filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.
R. Neal Black, then the company's Executive Vice President for
Merchandising and Marketing and now its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and David E. Ullman, the company's Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, were added as
defendants.
On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during
the Class Period. The Class Action seeks unspecified damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.
The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not granted.
In late October 2009, the company and MLAF agreed to settle the
Class Action for an amount that is within the limits of the
company's insurance coverage. The company and MLAF have also
agreed that the definitive settlement documents will reflect
that, at the time of the settlement, the substantial discovery
completed did not substantiate any of the claims against the
individual defendants.
The Stipulation of Settlement entered into by the company and
MLAF includes a statement that, at the time of the settlement,
the substantial discovery completed did not substantiate any of
the claims asserted against the individual defendants.
The U.S. District Court for Maryland has preliminarily approved
the Stipulation and the settlement set forth therein, subject to
further consideration at a settlement hearing scheduled for
July 8, 2010.
At the settlement hearing, the U.S. District Court for Maryland
is expected to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
Class Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved.
JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--
designs, manufacturers and sells men's classically-styled
tailored and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and
accessories. The company sells its full product line through 473
stores in 42 states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide
catalog and an e-commerce website.
JOS. A. BANK: Defends Racial Discrimination Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., defends a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on
allegations of racial discrimination.
On Nov. 12, 2009, Casey J. Stewart, a former employee of the
company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case number CV 09 5348
JL) alleging racial discrimination by the company with respect to
hiring and terms and conditions of employment.
The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
case as a class action, declaratory and injunctive relief, an
order mandating corrective action, reinstatement, back pay, front
pay, general damages, exemplary and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.
No further updates were reported in the company's June 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.
JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--
designs, manufacturers and sells men's classically-styled
tailored and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and
accessories. The company sells its full product line through 473
stores in 42 states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide
catalog and an e-commerce website.
KRISPY KREME: Approval of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement entered into by Krispy
Kreme Doughnuts Inc., to resolve a wage and hour suit remains
pending.
The company is a defendant in a wage/hour suit pending in the
Superior Court of Alameda County, California, in which the
plaintiffs seek class action status and unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of approximately 35 persons.
In January 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the litigation and the company recorded a provision of
$950,000 for the settlement of this matter, which is included in
company Stores direct operating expenses and accrued liabilities
in the accompanying balance sheet.
No further updates were reported in the company's June 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 2, 2010.
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. -- http://www.KrispyKreme.com/-- is
a retailer and wholesaler of doughnuts. The company's principal
business, which began in 1937, is owning and franchising Krispy
Kreme doughnut stores where over 20 varieties of doughnuts are
made, sold and distributed and where a broad array of coffees and
other beverages are offered.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Zicam Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Vicini at Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court said
on Monday that it would hear an appeal by Matrixx Initiatives of
a ruling that reinstated a class-action shareholder lawsuit over
its Zicam cold treatment.
A federal judge initially dismissed the lawsuit. But a U.S.
appeals court based in San Francisco concluded that plaintiffs
had shown enough of a case to survive the company's motion to
dismiss and ruled last year that the lawsuit could go forward.
The lawsuit, filed in 2004 on behalf of investors who bought
Matrixx stock between Oct. 22, 2003 and Feb. 6, 2004, alleged
that Matrixx violated federal securities law by failing to
disclose that Zicam caused a loss of the sense of smell in some
users.
In appealing to the Supreme Court, Matrixx's attorneys said the
appeals court used the wrong standard in allowing the case to
proceed because the adverse event reports involving Zicam were
not alleged to be statistically significant.
They said other appeals courts have ruled that drug companies
have no duty to disclose adverse event reports until they provide
statistically significant evidence the events may be caused by,
and are not simply randomly association with, the use of a
particular drug.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in Matrixx's
appeal and then issue a ruling in the case during its upcoming
term that begins in October.
MBIA INC: Still Facing Appeal of Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in consolidated private securities actions have filed
an opening brief in relation to their appeal from the dismissal
of their class action complaint against MBIA, Inc., the company
disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
The company was named as a defendant, along with certain of its
current and former officers, in private securities actions that
were consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation; (Case No. 05 CV 03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed
October 3, 2005). The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The lead plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period from August 5, 2003, to March 30, 2005.
The lawsuit asserts, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws arising out of the Company's allegedly
false and misleading statements about its financial condition and
the nature of the arrangements entered into by MBIA Corp., in
connection with a health care transaction loss. The plaintiffs
allege that, as a result of these misleading statements or
omissions, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices throughout the Class Period.
The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on various grounds. On February 13, 2007, the Court
granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety,
on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the
other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other
defendants. On November 12, 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds, but remanded the case to allow
the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on February
18, 2009. The defendants filed their renewed motion to dismiss
on April 17, 2009, and on September 24, 2009, the Court granted
that motion and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 27, 2010.
MBIA, Inc. -- http://www.mbia.com-- is engaged in providing
financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit
protection, as well as investment management services to public
finance and structured finance issuers, investors and capital
market participants on a global basis.
MBIA INC: Court Denies Dismissal Motion of NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in New York denied MBIA, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a consolidated amended class action complaint in a shareholder
class action lawsuit but granted the request as to individual
defendants, the company disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.
On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action
complaint in a shareholder class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Lead plaintiff, the
Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, seeks to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased MBIA stock between July 2,
2007 and January 9, 2008. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Among other things, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued false and misleading statements with respect to
the Company's exposure to CDOs containing RMBS, specifically its
exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities, which allegedly
caused the Company's stock to trade at inflated prices.
On March, 31, 2010, the Court denied in part and granted in part
MBIA's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted in
full as to Messrs. Chaplin and Dunton.
MBIA, Inc. -- http://www.mbia.com-- is engaged in providing
financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit
protection, as well as investment management services to public
finance and structured finance issuers, investors and capital
market participants on a global basis.
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Junks Consolidated Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas issued on March 26, 2010, an order dismissing the
consolidated case involving McDermott International, Inc., MII's
former Chief Executive Officer Bruce Wilkinson and Chairman of
the Board and Chief Financial Officer Michael S. Taff, according
to a Form 10-Q filed by the company with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
The Order granted the plaintiffs leave to request to amend their
complaint and, on April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
with the District Court for leave to amend the complaint. The
defendants had until May 21 to file their opposition to that
motion.
The Consolidated Case consists of three complaints filed
separately in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on November 17, 2008, December 5, 2008 and
January 20, 2009, by alleged purchasers of MII common stock
during the period from February 27, 2008 through November 5,
2008.
Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading information or concealing material adverse information
relating to the operational and financial status of three ongoing
construction contracts in the company's Offshore Oil and Gas
Construction segment for the installation of pipelines off the
coast of Qatar. Each complaint seeks relief, including
unspecified compensatory damages and an award for costs and
expenses.
The three cases were consolidated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In May
2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint,
which, among other things, added Robert A. Deason (JRMSA's former
President and Chief Executive Officer) as a defendant in the
proceedings.
In July 2009, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge.
On February 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation on the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had
failed to state a claim for relief under the securities laws and
therefore recommended to the District Court that motion to
dismiss be granted.
Houston-based McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering
and construction company with specialty manufacturing and service
capabilities and is the parent company of the McDermott group of
companies.
MDC PARTNERS: IMS Reaches $860,000 Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Media Solutions Partners LLC, majority owned by MDC
Partners, Inc., reached a settlement of a class action lawsuit
filed by a former employee.
The former employee is seeking payment for all current and former
employees of IMS. This payment is on the basis of allegations
that IMS failed to properly pay overtime compensation or to
provide duty-free meal periods and rest periods. IMS believes
these claims are without merit but has nonetheless negotiated and
reached a class action settlement in a maximum amount of
$860,000. Members of the class action settlement had until May
20, 2010, to opt out of this settlement. At December 31, 2009,
IMS accrued $875,000 as a liability relating to this litigation
for settlement and legal costs.
MDC Partners Inc. (NASDAQ: MDCA) (TSE: MDZ.A) --
http://www.mdc-partners.com/-- is a leading provider of
marketing communications services to customers globally. MDC has
operating units in the United States, Canada, Europe, Jamaica and
the Philippines. MDC's subsidiaries provide a comprehensive
range of marketing communications and consulting services,
including advertising, interactive marketing, direct marketing,
database and customer relationship management, sales promotion,
corporate communications, market research, corporate identity,
design and branding and other related services. On May 6, 2010,
MDC Partners Inc. acquired a 75% equity interest in Integrated
Media Solutions Partners LLC.
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a second
amended complaint in a consolidated stockholder class action
lawsuit filed in Arizona, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On October 3, 10, and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class
action lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local
449 Pension Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case
No. 2:08-cv-01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of stockholders who purchased securities of the
Company during the period between October 30, 2003 and
approximately September 24, 2008. The Court consolidated these
actions into a single proceeding and on May 18, 2009 an amended
complaint was filed alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising out of the Company's restatement of its consolidated
financial statements in 2008.
On December 2, 2009, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice, and on January 18, 2010, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On February 19, 2010, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety
on various grounds. The Company will continue to vigorously
defend the claims in these consolidated matters.
Scottsdale, Arizona-based Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. sells
prescription skin medications, and offers aethestic dermal
treatments.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Opposes Request to Amend Wisconsin Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corp. is opposing a motion for leave to amend a
complaint with respect to a consolidated class lawsuit filed in
Wisconsin, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.
Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County
Employees' Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
June 22, 2009.
Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to
summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears
the allegations are that the Company and its officers named in
the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
(i) loss development in the Company's insurance in force, and
(ii) Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization (C-BASS)
joint venture, including its liquidity. The Company's motion to
dismiss the Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010.
On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed
Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that MGIC and
two of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and
by failing to properly account for the Company's investment in C-
BASS. The Amended Complaint also names two officers of C-BASS
with respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-
BASS. The purported class period covered by the Complaint begins
on February 6, 2007, and ends on August 13, 2007. The Amended
Complaint seeks damages based on purchases of MGIC stock during
this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as a
result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
On April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. With limited
exceptions, the Company's bylaws provide that its officers are
entitled to indemnification from the Company for claims against
them of the type alleged in the Amended Complaint.
MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG) -- http://mtg.mgic.com/
-- is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is the parent
company of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC). It
offers mortgage insurance, and risk management products and
services to mortgage lenders as well as structured finance
services to investors.
MICROCHIP TECH: Named a Defendant in Suit by SST Stockholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated has been named as a defendant
in a suit captioned In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 1-09-CV-157437, relating to the
company's merger with Silicon Storage Technology Inc. (SST),
according to the company's June 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010.
On March 16, 2010, plaintiffs - stockholders of SST, purporting
to act on behalf of all public stockholders of SST - filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in Santa Clara
California Superior Court which generally alleges that the
directors of SST breached fiduciary duties owed to SST
stockholders when approving the merger transaction with
Microchip.
The Amended Complaint alleges that by approving the merger with
Microchip, the directors prevented the SST stockholders from
receiving full value for their shares. The Amended Complaint
also names Microchip as a defendant, claiming that Microchip
aided and abetted in the purported breaches of fiduciary duties
by the SST director defendants.
The Amended Complaint seeks alternative relief either to enjoin
the transaction with Microchip or to rescind the deal or obtain
compensatory damages, in the event the merger was consummated
while the litigation was pending.
Given that the merger closed on April 8, 2010, plaintiffs'
request to enjoin the transaction has been rendered moot.
Microchip Technology Incorporated -- http://www.microchip.com/--
is a leading provider of microcontroller and analog
semiconductors, providing low-risk product development, lower
total system cost and faster time to market for thousands of
diverse customer applications worldwide. Headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona, Microchip offers outstanding technical support
along with dependable delivery and quality.
MRV COMMS: Settles Calif. Securities Class Suits for $10 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc., settled securities class action
lawsuits filed in California for $10 million, the Company said in
a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California were consolidated. Claims are
asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in
the complaints are based on facts disclosed in the Company's
press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's
financial statements could not be relied on due to the Company's
historical stock option practices and related accounting. The
complaints seek to recover from the defendants unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, to require the Company to
undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control
procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found
to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options
and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the
defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the
profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options
and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other
professional fees and other equitable relief.
In April 2010, the parties to the securities class action
lawsuits filed a stipulation and agreement of settlement of $10
million with the court, which settlement amount the Company
expects to be covered by its director and officer insurance
policies. The Company and plaintiffs in the federal and
California state derivative lawsuits have attended two mediations
but have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these
claims. Motions to dismiss the complaints in both the federal
and state derivative lawsuits are currently pending in those
courts.
MRV Communications, Inc. -- http://www.mrv.com/-- is a supplier
of communications equipment and services to carriers, governments
and enterprise customers, worldwide. The company is a supplier
of optical components, primarily through its wholly owned
subsidiaries: Source Photonics and Fiberxon. The company conducts
its business along three principal segments: the network
equipment group, the network integration group and the optical
components group.
NATIONAL PENN: Faces RICO Class Suit With Zions
-----------------------------------------------
On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a punitive
class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961,
et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including
National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345). The complaint
essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent
telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from
Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the
telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including
National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred
to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class.
National Penn plans on vigorously defending this lawsuit,
according to a Form 10-Q filed by National Penn Bancshares, Inc.,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.
National Penn Bancshares, Inc., with $9.2 billion in assets, is
the fourth largest bank holding company based in Pennsylvania.
Headquartered in Boyertown, National Penn operates 127 offices.
It has 124 community banking offices in Pennsylvania and one
office in Maryland through National Penn Bank and its HomeTowne
Heritage Bank, KNBT and Nittany Bank divisions. National Penn
also has two offices in Delaware through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Christiana Bank & Trust Company.
NBTY INC: Rexall Case Management Conference Continues
-----------------------------------------------------
Rexall Sundown, Inc., a subsidiary of NBTY, Inc., has agreed to a
six-month continuance of the case management conference relating
to a class-action lawsuit brought in California Superior Court,
County of San Francisco in 2002 on behalf of all California
consumers who bought various nutrition bars, according to a Form
10-Q filed by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.
Plaintiffs in the Class Action lawsuit, captioned Jamie Pesek, et
al. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., et al., allege misbranding of
nutrition bars and violations of California unfair competition
statutes, misleading advertising and other similar causes of
action. Plaintiffs seek restitution, legal fees and injunctive
relief.
Since December 2007, with Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings pending, the Court
has stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on relevant
cases before the California Supreme Court. Although the
California Supreme Court has resolved some of those cases, others
remain pending as of this date. Accordingly, the case remains
stayed.
The Court held a case-management conference on August 5, 2009.
At that time, the parties requested, and the Court agreed, to
keep the stay in place for at least another six months. The
Court scheduled a subsequent CMC for February 25, 2010, but
canceled that conference upon being informed by the parties that
the California Supreme Court had not yet acted.
The Court has set another CMC for May 21, 2010, and instructed
the parties to report back before that date as to the status of
the cases before the California Supreme Court.
By agreement of the parties, the May 21, 2010 CMC has been
continued for six months. The California Supreme Court still has
not resolved the outstanding issues pending before it.
NBTY is a vertically integrated VMS manufacturer and marketer,
with a strong U.K. retail presence that constitutes about 23% of
the company's fiscal 2009 net sales. S&P believes the company's
vertical integration and manufacturing efficiency allow it to
produce low-cost products. NBTY's three-tier distribution
strategy, which includes retail, wholesale, and direct-response
channels (including mail order and internet sales), provides
diversification and lowers distribution risk. However, it is
S&P's opinion that the VMS market remains highly competitive and
fragmented in all distribution channels, and is currently
characterized by heavy promotional and discount activity. NBTY
has historically grown through acquisitions. Since 1986, it has
acquired and integrated nearly 30 companies, and has made larger
acquisitions in recent years, including Rexall Sundown, Solgar,
and Leiner Health Inc. The acquisitions strengthen its existing
customer relationships and enable it to gain some key new ones,
diversify its product mix, and gain significant manufacturing and
distribution capacity. NBTY has customer concentration with one
national retailer accounting for about 30% of wholesale sales.
However, NBTY also gained a sizable new customer through its
Leiner acquisition. The company has been successful integrating
its acquisitions.
NEWPAGE: Retiree Benefits Litigation Moving at Glacial Speed
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Shuda at the Wauau Daily Herald reports that NewPage
retirees continue to wait to find out how a class-action case
against their former employer will proceed.
How long the proceedings will take remains unknown, said:
Stephen M. Pincus, Esq.
STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & CORDES
Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412.281.8400
E-mail: spincus@stemberfeinstein.com
who represents the United Steelworkers of America, a plaintiff.
"There are motions before courts in Wisconsin and Ohio to
determine where the case should be heard," said Pincus, who
recently met with retirees in Wisconsin Rapids and Appleton.
Bill Clendenning, a Grand Rapids resident and former Wisconsin
Rapids millworker, filed the lawsuit Dec. 24, along with the
union and fellow retired millworkers from Niagara and Kimberly.
The class-action lawsuit alleges that unlawful changes to the
retiree benefits program were made under the direction of Stora
Enso North America, which owned some of the affected mills from
2000 through 2007.
By 2012, NewPage will pay no health insurance premiums for its
former employees who retired after 1985 and are older than 65,
according to a Nov. 11 letter sent to retirees and obtained Dec.
18 by Gannett Wisconsin Media.
The company will reduce the amount it pays into retiree health
insurance plans by 33 percent this year, according to the letter.
In 2011, that reduction will rise to 66 percent, and in 2012,
NewPage will completely stop the payments.
Meanwhile, the Miamisburg, Ohio-based papermaker filed a
countersuit Jan. 31, stating its retirees do not have a vested
interest in their retirement benefits, according to papers
associated with the countersuit.
Local NewPage spokeswoman Shannon Semmerling did not return a
message left Friday on her cell phone. Various company leaders
previously have said the papermaker does not comment on pending
litigation.
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Amended FLSA Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc., seeks to dismiss a Second Amended
Complaint filed by delivery drivers who allege violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a Form 10-Q filed by the
company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2010.
On May 12, 2009, a lawsuit against the Company, entitled Jeffrey
Wass, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:09-CV-2254-
JWL-KGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas. A First Amended Complaint, entitled Jeffrey
Wass and Mark Smith, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., was filed
on July 2, 2009. The Complaint was brought by Plaintiffs Wass and
Smith individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees
who work or previously worked as delivery drivers for NPC. The
First Amended Complaint alleged a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid wages and
excessive deductions owed to plaintiffs and similarly situated
workers employed by NPC in 28 states, and as a class action under
Colorado law on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly
situated workers employed by NPC in Colorado to recover unpaid
minimum wages and excess payroll deductions and certain costs
relating to uniforms and special apparel. The First Amended
Complaint alleged among other things that NPC deprived plaintiffs
and other NPC delivery drivers of minimum wages by providing
insufficient reimbursements for automobile and other job-related
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items.
On March 2, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting NPC's
motions for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims brought by
plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint, with the exception of
a claim for the reimbursement of uniform costs under Colorado
law. The Order provided that the claims failed to state a claim
under the FLSA and Colorado law and, therefore, would be
dismissed with prejudice unless plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that cured the deficiencies in the First Amended
Complaint. The Order also operated to moot plaintiffs' then-
pending motion for conditional collective action certification.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 22, 2010,
which alleges a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
plaintiffs and similarly situated workers employed by NPC in 28
states, and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and similarly
situated workers employed in states in which the state minimum
wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. The Second Amended
Complaint contends that NPC deprived delivery drivers of minimum
wages by providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items. NPC filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on April 8, 2010, which motion is currently
pending before the Court. As a result, at this time the Company
is not able to predict the outcome of the lawsuit, any possible
loss or possible range of loss associated with the lawsuit or any
potential effect on the Company's business, results of operations
or financial condition. However, the Company believes the lawsuit
is wholly without merit and will defend itself from these claims
vigorously.
NPC International, Inc., headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas,
is the largest Pizza Hut franchisee, operating about 1,151 Pizza
Hut units in twenty-eight states with a significant presence in
the Midwest, South and Southeastern United States. Annual
revenues are approximately $900 million.
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Odyssey
Healthcare are selling the company too cheaply to Gentiva Health
Services, for $27 a share or $1 billion, shareholders claim in
Dallas County Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Pompano Beach & Firefigthers'
Retirement System v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
CC-10-03561-E (Dallas Cty. Ct.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/14/SCAJune14.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
Karl Rupp, Esq.
Daniel Hill, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
3232 McKinney, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: 214-744-3000
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Carolina C. Torres, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631-367-7100
OHIO VALLEY HEALTH: Healthcare Providers Sue to Collect Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
J.W. Johnson, Jr., at the Wheeling News-Register reports that
Ohio Valley Health Services & Education Corp. officials should
not have been surprised by a class-action lawsuit over non-
payment of medical claims to area health care providers, Wheeling
Hospital Chief Executive Officer Ronald Violi said Monday.
Violi said while Jan Jennings, interim chief executive officer
and president of OVHS&E, took over only four months ago, the
outstanding amount of money owed to Wheeling Hospital and its
affiliates is something that should have been at the top of his
list.
"This is something that has been ongoing for at least the five
years that I've been here, and as long as 10 years," Violi said.
Wheeling Hospital and its affiliates Belmont Community Hospital,
Wheeling Pediatrics and the Women's Health Specialists of
Wheeling Hospital filed a class-action lawsuit in Ohio County
Circuit Court that alleges OVHS&E's health system, known as OV
Health System Parties, owes $4.5 million to area health care
providers. The lawsuit names as defendants OVHS&E, Ohio Valley
Medical Center, East Ohio Regional Hospital and the Health Plan
of the Upper Ohio Valley.
Wheeling Hospital and its affiliates specifically are owed
$250,000 by OV Health System Parties through mid-April, the
lawsuit indicates.
The amounts owed are for employees of OVHS&E, Ohio Valley Medical
Center and East Ohio Regional Hospital who received medical
services at other facilities. The lawsuit alleges OV Health
System Parties failed to adequately fund the health system plan
"because they are presently experiencing severe financial
difficulties."
According to the lawsuit, "the class members have not been paid
for the health care services they provided because the OV Health
System Parties and the Health Plan, which administers the OV
Health System Parties' employee health plans, have breached
separate contractual obligations to pay for those services."
Violi said Wheeling Hospital has continued to provide health care
to OVHS&E employees even though the money is owed.
"Every day of the week, 365 days a year, we see and treat their
employees, and we are glad to help them," he said.
Jennings said the actual amount owed by the OV Health System
Parties to health care providers is $3.1 million, not $4.5
million as claimed in the lawsuit. However, Violi said that even
if that is the case, the numbers are too large to ignore.
"They said that in the scheme of things the money they owe us
isn't that much," he said. "To me, that is quite a bit of money."
Jennings said OV Health System Parties plans to have all its
debts paid by the end of July. Violi could not say whether the
lawsuit would continue if OVHS&E does pay the outstanding amount
owed.
ORLEANS PARISH: Hearing Tomorrow on $6.8 Mil. Payment to Teachers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios at The Louisiana Record reports that Judge
Sidney Cates IV will rule June 18 on the distribution of
settlement funds in a class action suit filed by teachers against
the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) in which $6.8 million is
at stake.
Angelyn Mills, Diane Nzinga and the United Teachers of New
Orleans filed a class action suit against the OPSB in Orleans
Parish District Court in 2003 after they were denied pay raises
mandated by Louisiana State Act 1341 which amended Louisiana
Revised Statute 17:1202.
Act 1341 cut down on the amount of sick leave given to teachers
and imposed additional requirements on teachers applying for
extended sick leave in exchange for a pay raise for all Parish
School Boards in Louisiana with the monies saved by the
amendments.
New Orleans attorney Charles Samuel III is representing the
class. New Orleans attorneys John Etter and Regina Bartholomew
are representing the OPSB. New Orleans attorney Donesia Turner
began as defendant counsel but withdrew in July 2005.
As part of a settlement agreement on April 25, 2005, the OPSB
authorized the payment of the full sum of $6,844,433.67 that was
saved as a result of Act 1341 to eligible members of the class.
The payments were to be made in two installments, the first at
the first payroll of September 2005 and the second with the last
payroll of December 2005.
In November 2009, the OPSB filed a memorandum in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement and
distribution of funds, looking to be refunded $2.4 million of the
unclaimed settlement funds.
The motion stated that less than 60 percent of eligible class
members claimed compensation and, as a result, the "3,057
claimants who submitted a proof of claim form would improperly
receive a windfall and be paid forty percent or more above the
amount each person is owed.
After a hearing in December 2009, Cates signed a consent judgment
itemizing the partial distribution of settlement funds for
different categories of the eligible class members. The OPSB was
opposed to the consent judgment.
Orleans Parish Case 2003-01560
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Stay on Royalty Owner Class Action Gone
--------------------------------------------------------------
The stay in effect as of December 31, 2009, with respect to the
action styled Gobel, et al., v. Petroleum Development
Corporation, Case No. 09-C-40 in the U. S. District Court,
Northern District of West Virginia, lapsed in February 2010, the
company related in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
David W. Gobel, individually and as representative of the class
of all similarly situated individuals and entities, filed the
Royalty Owner Class Action on January 27, 2009, alleging that the
Company failed to properly pay royalties. The allegations state
that the Company improperly deducted certain charges and costs
before applying the royalty percentage. Punitive damages are
requested in addition to breach of contract, tort, and fraud
allegations.
The parties to the Action have filed briefs on Gobel's Motion to
Remand to state court. The Company is awaiting a ruling from the
court on that motion.
Petroleum Development Corporation, headquartered in Denver,
Colorado, is a natural gas oriented exploration and production
company.
PLANTRONICS INC: Court Okays Pact in Bluetooth Headset Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
signed an order approving the final settlement of the lawsuit
entitled In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation
brought against Plantronics, Inc., according to the company's
June 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2010.
Six class action lawsuits have been filed against the company
alleging that its Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced
hearing loss.
The suits are:
(1) Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc., filed on
Nov. 14, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas;
(2) Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc., filed on
Oct. 20, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California;
(3) Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc., filed on
Oct. 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida;
(4) Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc., filed on Feb. 8,
2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia;
(5) Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc., filed on Jan. 10,
2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas; and
(6) Bruce Schiller, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc., filed on
Oct. 10, 2006, in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles.
The complaints state that they do not seek damages for personal
injury to any individual. The complaints seek various remedies,
including injunctive relief requiring the company to include
certain additional warnings with its Bluetooth headsets and to
redesign the headsets to limit the volume produced, or,
alternatively, to provide the user with the ability to determine
the level of sound emitted from the headset. Plaintiffs also
seek unspecified general, special, and punitive damages, as well
as restitution.
The federal cases have been consolidated for all pre-trial
purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Los Angeles before Judge Fischer.
The California State Court case was dismissed by the plaintiffs.
The parties agreed in principle to settle their claims.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles
signed an order approving the final settlement of the lawsuit
entitled In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation
brought against Plantronics, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and GN Netcom,
Inc. alleging that the three companies failed to adequately warn
consumers of the potential for long term noise induced hearing
loss if they used Bluetooth headsets.
The companies contested the claims of the lawsuit but settled the
lawsuit on a nationwide basis for an amount which the company
believes is less than the cost of litigating and winning the
lawsuit.
On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court signed a judgment in the case
resolving all matters except the issue of outstanding attorneys'
fees, which will be split among the three defendants.
On Oct. 22, 2009, the Court issued an order setting the class
counsel's attorneys' fees and costs and the incentive award at
the maximum amounts agreed to by the parties in their settlement.
The objectors to the settlement have filed a notice of appeal,
and the appeal is in process.
Plantronics Inc. -- http://www.plantronics.com/-- is a world
leader in personal audio communications for professionals and
consumers. From unified communication solutions to Bluetooth
headsets, Plantronics delivers unparalleled audio experiences and
quality that reflect our nearly 50 years of innovation and
customer commitment. Plantronics is used by every company in the
Fortune 100 and is the headset of choice for air traffic control,
911 dispatch and the New York Stock Exchange.
POLO RALPH: Settlement in Two California Suits Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement resolving two class action lawsuits
against Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. has received final approval from
the court, according to the company's June 2, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 3, 2010.
On Oct. 11, 2007, and Nov. 2, 2007, two class action lawsuits
were filed by two customers in state court in California
asserting that while they were shopping at certain of the
company's factory stores in California, the company allegedly
required them to provide certain personal information at the
point-of-sale in order to complete a credit card purchase.
The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of customers in
California who allegedly were injured by being forced to provide
their address and telephone numbers in order to use their credit
cards to purchase items from the company's stores, which
allegedly violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song-Beverly
Act.
The complaints sought an unspecified amount of statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
The company subsequently had the actions moved to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern and Central Districts of
California.
The company commenced mediation proceedings with respect to these
lawsuits and on Oct. 17, 2008, the company agreed in principle to
settle these claims by agreeing to issue $20 merchandise discount
coupons with six month expiration dates to eligible parties and
paying the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement terms on July 17, 2009.
In connection with this settlement, the company recorded a $5
million reserve against its expected loss exposure during the
second quarter of Fiscal 2009.
As part of the required settlement process, the company notified
the relevant attorneys general regarding the potential
settlement, and no objections were registered.
At a hearing on Dec. 7, 2009, the Court held that the terms of
the settlement were fair, just and reasonable and provided fair
compensation for class members.
In addition, the Court overruled an objection that had been filed
by a single customer. The Court then denied the objector's
subsequent motion for the Court to reconsider its order on the
fairness of the settlement. The period within which the objector
had to appeal or otherwise seek relief from the Court's orders
expired in February 2010 without an appeal and the settlement is
effective.
Accordingly, the coupons were issued in February with an
expiration date of Aug. 16, 2010.
Based on coupon redemption experience to date, the company
reversed $1.7 million of its original $5 million reserve into
income during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2010.
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The
company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.
POLO RALPH: Settles Suit by Former Employees for $4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. has agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit filed by four former employees for $4 million, according
to the company's June 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2010.
On May 30, 2006, four former employees of the company's Ralph
Lauren stores in Palo Alto and San Francisco, California filed a
lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging violations
of California wage and hour laws.
The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of employees who
allegedly had been injured by not properly being paid commission
earnings, not being paid overtime, not receiving rest breaks,
being forced to work off of the clock while waiting to enter or
leave stores and being falsely imprisoned while waiting to leave
stores.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, damages for emotional distress, disgorgement of profits,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive and declaratory
relief. Subsequent to answering the complaint, the company had
the action moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On July 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and subsequently denied the company's motion to
decertify the class.
On Nov. 5, 2008, the District Court stayed litigation of the rest
break claims pending the resolution of a separate California
Supreme Court case on the standards of class treatment for rest
break claims.
On Jan. 25, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
to sever the rest break claims from the rest of the case and
denied the company's motion to decertify the waiting time claims.
The District Court also ordered that a trial be held on the
waiting time and overtime claims, which commenced on March 8,
2010.
During trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle all of
the claims in the litigation, including the rest break claims,
for $4 million.
The District Court held a hearing on May 14, 2010 and advised the
parties that it would grant preliminary approval of the
settlement.
Once the Court enters an order granting preliminary approval of
the settlement, the members of the class will have 60 days from
the date of preliminary approval to submit claims or object to
the settlement.
A hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 20, 2010, for the District
Court to determine if final approval of the settlement should be
granted. In connection with this settlement, the company
recorded a $4 million reserve against its expected loss exposure
during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2010.
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The
company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.
POPULAR INC: Moves to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico, according to a Form 10-Q filed
by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) filed a
consolidated class action complaint which includes as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock. The consolidated action purports to be on behalf of
purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24, 2008 and
February 19, 2009 and alleges that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a
series of allegedly false or misleading statements or omitting to
disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the
Corporation not false and misleading. The consolidated action
also alleges that the defendants violated Section 11, Section
12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act by making allegedly
untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts
necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false
and misleading in connection with the May 2008 offering of Series
B Preferred Stock. The consolidated securities class action
complaint seeks class certification, an award of compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
fees.
On January 11, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint.
Headquartered in Puerto Rico, Popular Inc. (Nasdaq: BPOP) --
http://www.popular.com/-- is a full service financial
institution with operations in Puerto Rico, the United States,
the Caribbean and Latin America. With over 300 branches and
offices, the company offers retail and commercial banking
services through its franchise, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
well as auto and equipment leasing and financing, mortgage
loans, consumer lending, investment banking, broker/dealer and
insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the
United States, the company has established a community banking
franchise providing a broad range of financial services and
products to the communities it serves.
POPULAR INC: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Class Suit v. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Popolar Inc.'s principal banking subsidiary in Puerto Rico, Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, may be cleared of a class action alleging
ERISA violations based on recommendations made by a magistrate
judge, according to a Form 10-Q filed by the company with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.
On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the case, In re Popular, Inc.
ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v.
Popular, Inc. et al.; Monta¤ez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and
Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.), filed a consolidated class
action complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to be on
behalf of employees participating in the Popular, Inc. U.S.A.
401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc. Puerto
Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January 24, 2008 to the
date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant to Sections 409
and 502(a)(2) of the ERISA against Popular, certain directors,
officers and members of plan committees, each of whom is alleged
to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their alleged fiduciary obligations by,
among other things, failing to eliminate Popular stock as an
investment alternative in the plans. The complaint seeks to
recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable relief,
including injunctive relief and a constructive trust, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.
On December 21, 2009, and in compliance with a scheduling order
issued by the Court, Popular and the individual defendants
submitted an answer to the amended complaint. Shortly thereafter,
on December 31, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint or,
in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings.
On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss
be denied except with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as
to which he recommended that the motion be granted.
Headquartered in Puerto Rico, Popular Inc. (Nasdaq: BPOP) --
http://www.popular.com/-- is a full service financial
institution with operations in Puerto Rico, the United States,
the Caribbean and Latin America. With over 300 branches and
offices, the company offers retail and commercial banking
services through its franchise, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
well as auto and equipment leasing and financing, mortgage
loans, consumer lending, investment banking, broker/dealer and
insurance services through specialized subsidiaries. In the
United States, the company has established a community banking
franchise providing a broad range of financial services and
products to the communities it serves.
PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Moves to Dismiss Madison County Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison Record reports that a May 19
settlement in a Maryland federal court may put the brakes on two
Madison County class action suits brought over alleged mutual
fund mismanagement.
The defendants in the two suits, including Putnam International
Equity Fund and Putnam Investment Management LLC, filed an order
May 27 preliminarily enjoining the Madison County suits brought
by lead plaintiffs Steve and Beth Dudley.
A defense move to dismiss the two class actions as well as a move
by the plaintiffs to amend their suits had been taken under
advisement by Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder on the
same day that U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland approved the Putnam
settlement.
The defendants claim that, pending final approval of the
settlement in Maryland, any other suits over same claims against
Putnam are barred or restrained.
The Dudleys are leading classes of investors who claim that the
Putnam companies mismanaged their mutual fund investments.
During arguments in Edwardsville on May 19, the defense argued
that Crowder should dismiss the Dudleys' suits due to the
dismissal of a similar case, Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust.
Defense attorneys cited a Fifth District Appellate Court opinion
at length in both their filings and in oral arguments.
Justices at the appellate court held that the Kircher plaintiffs'
claims were barred by the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA).
The plaintiffs argued at the May 19 hearing before Crowder that
the appellate court had used too broad of an interpretation of
their clients' claims when making the Kircher decision.
In arguing for the amendement of the 2003 suits, Robert King of
Korein Tillery told Crowder that his clients' claims were now
"crystal clear" and had been condensed.
Defense counsel James Carroll countered that an amendment would
come too late to fix the seven year-old class actions.
Carroll also argued that the suits should be dismissed on the
same grounds as Kircher's class.
The May 27 notice of the Maryland federal court's order outlines
the relief the class is afforded.
Final approval of that settlement remains pending.
The Dudley cases have bounced back and forth between the federal
court and Madison County.
The cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of remand
before returning to Edwardsville.
The Dudley cases and the Kircher suit were filed by Stephen
Tillery. They are among a number nationally pending over mutual
fund mismanagment claims.
Carroll of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom in Boston,
Rebecca Jackson of St. Louis and others represent the defendants
in the suits.
The Dudley cases are Madison case numbers 03-L-1539 and 03-L-
1540.
The Kircher case is Madison case number 03-L-1255.
The Maryland case is 04-md-15863-JFM.
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Moves to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Repros Therapeutics Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint which alleges that it made
certain misleading statements related to its Proellex(R) drug,
the Company said in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On August 7, 2009, R.M. Berry filed a putative class action
lawsuit naming the Company, Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and
Louis Ploth, Jr., as defendants. The lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. The lawsuit is styled R.M. Berry, on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics,
Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr. Among
other claims, the lawsuit contends that the defendants
misrepresented the side effects of the drug related to liver
function, and the risk that these side effects could cause a
suspension of clinical trials of Proellex(R). The lawsuit seeks
to establish a class of shareholders allegedly harmed by the
misleading statements, and asserts causes of action under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On August 14, 2009, a lawsuit making similar allegations and
naming the same defendants was also filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This suit is
styled Josephine Medina, Individually and On Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.
On September 25, 2009, a lawsuit also making allegations similar
to those in the Berry action, and naming the same defendants, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. That lawsuit is styled Shane Simpson, Paul
Frank and Clayton Scobie, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.
The lawsuits have now been consolidated, and lead plaintiffs
appointed.
On January 27, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint styled In re Repros Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 09 Civ. 2530 (VDG). The
lawsuit names Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul
Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr. as defendants. The allegations in
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint are substantially the
same as those contained in the prior complaints, and focus on the
claim that the defendants deliberately withheld information
concerning the negative side-effects of Proellex(R) related to
liver function. Plaintiffs seek to establish a class action for
all persons who "purchased or otherwise acquired Repros common
stock between July 1, 2009, and August 2, 2009." No discovery
has yet occurred in the matter.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on March 15, 2010. Briefing related to the
motion was expected to be completed on May 10, 2010.
Repros Therapeutics Inc. -- http://www.reprosrx.com/-- is a
development-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of oral small molecule drugs for unmet medical needs.
ROTO-ROOTER: Ohio Sex Bias Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown and Megan Stride at Law360 report that a court has
partially denied Roto-Rooter Services Co.'s bid to nix a putative
$5 million Title VII class action accusing it of denying
promotions to women, rejecting the plumbing giant's statute of
limitations defense and declining to rule on its contention of
improper venue.
Judge Susan J. Dlott denied the company's motion to dismiss Ring
v. Roto-Rooter Services Co., Case No. 10-cv-00179 (S.D. Ohio),
and granted lead plaintiff Debra Ring leave to amend her
complaint, holding that any deficiency regarding the 300-day
statute of limitations will be addressed in the amended suit.
Roto said the complaint failed to state a claim because Ring, who
filed suit in March, didn't plead the dates on which Roto, her
employer, allegedly violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
While Ring vowed to address the issue in an updated complaint,
Roto contended such an amendment would be futile because the
alleged violation - a July 2009 conversation in which a
supervisor told Ring she wouldn't be eligible for promotion -
would not constitute an adverse action under Title VII.
The court disagreed, calling it at least plausible that a jury
could deem the conversation equivalent to a failure to promote.
Whether the conversation really had that effect is an issue Roto
can argue later, Judge Dlott said.
Roto also moved to dismiss for improper venue, contending that
Ring first filed the suit in a Missouri federal court and, in a
"blatant" act of forum shopping, dismissed it upon receiving her
judge assignment.
The court did not address that argument, saying it would take up
the issue together with a separate motion to transfer venue at an
evidentiary hearing in August.
The court has yet to make a ruling on class status.
In the underlying suit, Ring, an office manager for the
Cincinnati-based Roto, said the company maintains and fosters "a
reputation for discriminatory conduct which deters females from
pursuing promotional opportunities."
The company also denies female employees the training and
assignments that would prepare them for promotions and maintains
arbitrary requirements that effectively exclude qualified women
from advancements, Ring alleges.
The suit proposes class certification on behalf of all past,
present and future female employees, and seeks more than $5
million in damages including back pay, front pay, general and
special damages for lost compensation, and other job benefits.
Ring has also asked for an injunction requiring the company to
restore class members to their rightful positions, titles and
compensation levels and to institute an affirmative action policy
for women.
Ring, who works at Roto's St. Louis office, alleges she launched
the suit after several of her job duties were handed over to a
male employee who was better compensated. Ring was denied a
promotion in July 2008 but told a year later that she was
ineligible for future promotions, according to the suit.
Ring joined Roto as an office manager in November 1998 and says
she worked overtime handling duties beyond her job title for
which she received no additional pay or benefits.
An attorney for the plaintiffs expressed satisfaction with
Thursday's ruling, but declined to comment on the upcoming
evidentiary hearing.
"As far as what the court has decided already, we're obviously
pleased because we believe [Ring] did suffer an adverse action,
and she should be able to go forward with her case on that
basis," Erich Vieth, of The Simon Law Firm PC, said Monday.
Legal counsel for Roto-Rooter declined to comment on the record.
Kitrick & Lewis Co. LPA and The Simon Law Firm PC represent the
plaintiffs.
Roto-Rooter is represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.
ROYAL DSM: Settles EPDM Federal Antitrust Lawsuit for $25 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class of businesses that purchased ethylene proplylene diene
monomer ("EPDM") between 1997 and 2001 has reached agreement with
two subsidiaries of Royal DSM N.V., the Life Sciences and
Materials Sciences company, to settle a long- running antitrust
dispute before trial in return for a payment of US$25 million.
The EPDM class action, pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, was vigorously litigated
by both sides; the DSM defendants consistently denied any
wrongdoing in connection with the allegations. In 2006,
competition enforcement authorities in the European Union, the
United States and Canada concluded their EPDM investigations
without bringing any charges against DSM or any of its employees.
The DSM Defendants have now entered into the settlement to
eliminate the burden, expense and risk of further litigation. The
proposed class action settlement is subject to Court approval. If
approved, and following due notice to the class members, the
class action will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims
asserted in the class action against the DSM Defendants will be
released.
Royal DSM N.V. -- http://www.dsm.com/-- creates solutions that
nourish, protect and improve performance. Its end markets include
human and animal nutrition and health, personal care,
pharmaceuticals, automotive, coatings and paint, electrical and
electronics, life protection and housing. DSM manages its
business with a focus on the triple bottom line of economic
performance, environmental quality and social responsibility,
which it pursues simultaneously and in parallel. DSM has annual
net sales of about EUR 8 billion and employs some 22,700 people
worldwide. The company is headquartered in the Netherlands, with
locations on five continents. DSM is listed on Euronext
Amsterdam.
SENTRY INSURANCE: Accused in Va. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sentry Insurance stiffs
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Richmond, Va.,
Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Day, et al. v. Sentry Insurance a
Mutual Co., Case No. 10-cv-00401 (E.D. Va.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/14/EmploySentry.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
CURWOOD LAW FIRM
707 E. Main St., Suite 1025
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: 804-788-0808
E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Discrimination Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc., defends a class action lawsuit alleging
that U.S. store-level employment practices are discriminatory as
to compensation and promotional activities, according to Signet
Jewelers Limited's June 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1,
2010.
Sterling Jewelers is a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers.
The suit was filed in March 2008 by private plaintiffs for an
unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York federal court.
Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/--
formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, with
stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland
and Channel Islands. In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009,
Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states. Its stores trade
nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay),
and regionally under a number of mall-based brands. Destination
superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry
(Jared). In the United Kinfdom, the stores trade as H.Samuel,
Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in High Street
locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian
traffic) or shopping malls. The United Kingdom division operated
558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14 stores in the
Republic of Ireland. The Company operates in two geographical
segments: the United States division (approximately 76% of sales)
and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24% of sales).
SOUTHWEST WATER: Court Decision on Dismissal Motion Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held on May 17, 2010, to consider Southwest Water
Co.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint on the grounds
that it failed to allege a valid claim with respect to a
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, the
Company said in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
On November 26, 2008, an alleged purchaser of Southwest's
publicly traded common stock filed a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California -- Perrin v. SouthWest Water Company, et
al., Case No. CV 08-07844 (Central District of California). The
complaint generally alleges that from May 10, 2005 through
November 9, 2008, Southwest made false statements or omitted to
state facts necessary to make our disclosures not misleading.
Five additional and substantially similar cases were filed in the
same court.
On January 26, 2009, motions for consolidation and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed by the
plaintiffs. On February 12, 2009, the court granted the motion
for consolidation and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the lead
plaintiff on October 15, 2009, filed a consolidated complaint.
On January 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds that it failed to
allege a valid claim and a motion for partial summary judgment on
certain claims alleged in it on the grounds that the plaintiffs
lack standing to bring those claims.
On March 8, 2010, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the
Company's motions. On April 15, 2010, the Company filed reply
briefs in support of its motions.
Southwest Water Company -- http://www.southwestwater.com/-- is
engaged in providing a range of services, including water
production, treatment and distribution; wastewater collection and
treatment; utility operations and maintenance services; and
utility infrastructure construction. The subsidiaries are
segmented into two operating groups, which include the Utility
Group and the Services Group. In January 2009, the company sold
of its wholesale wastewater business in Texas.
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Customers' Suit in D. N.J. Alleges Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Livermore at RecordOnline.com reports that a group of
New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey residents has filed a class
action lawsuit against Suburban Propane, accusing the company of
overcharging for propane and related equipment and services,
stifling competition and mischaracterizing fees.
The lawsuit, filed May 17 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey,
alleges that Suburban charged customers as much as $7 per gallon
for propane, several dollars higher than the going rate.
Dingmans Ferry, Pa., resident Michael Farber joined the lawsuit
after Suburban charged him $5.09 a gallon on Jan. 7 and $5.25 a
gallon on March 3, then tagged him with a $72 tank-rental fee on
April 14, even though he said he owns his tank.
Farber said he's not in it for the money; he'd only see a few
dollars if the suit is successful. He's doing it because he "felt
they needed to have their hand slapped."
"They should be punished for this," Farber said. "There are a
couple of other providers up here, and we just went with Suburban
because they took over the people we were using. When they
started doing what they started doing, it was just crazy."
The suit, which charges violations of New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania consumer law, seeks treble damages on overcharges
going back to May 17, 2004, plus attorneys' fees and civil
penalties.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to try the class action
under New Jersey law, because Suburban Propane is headquartered
there and its consumer protection law is strong, said:
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-256-3200
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
the Minneapolis-based lead law firm for the plaintiffs.
150 unsatisfied customers
Lake George resident Robert Slack, one of three named plaintiffs,
said he became fed up when he came home one day in the beginning
of January and found a bill for more than $2,000 hanging on his
doorknob. Suburban had filled his tank while he was out and
charged him $5.29 a gallon. The average market price for propane
in New York state was less than $2.95 a gallon in January,
according to the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority. Nationally, it was less than $2.70 per gallon in
January, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
When many of Slack's neighbors began complaining about Suburban's
propane charges, Slack decided to create a website to see if
others had the same experience.
"I threw up the website thinking, if this many people in my
geographic area are unhappy, I wonder how many people are unhappy
nationwide," he said. "Right away we started getting complaints."
When the complaints rose to 150, including Michael Farber's,
Slack hired a lawyer.
Higher margins
Lukas, the plaintiffs' lawyer, pointed to Suburban's fiscal year
2009 annual report as evidence that the company is overcharging
residential customers.
"They brag about how residential customers are 40 percent of
their customer base but represent about 60 percent of their
profits," he said.
Residential customers represent 44 percent of Suburban's propane
customers and 61 percent of their margins, the filing said,
"reflecting the higher-margin nature of the residential market."
Propane prices are not regulated.
"Most people think of their energy costs as static, and they
assume the government or somebody is looking over their shoulder
and they're not getting screwed, but that's absolutely not true,"
Lukas said. "Propane is an unregulated niche."
Suburban Propane's lawyer:
Robert J. Cleary, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036-8299
Telephone: 212-969-3000
E-mail: rjcleary@proskauer.com
would not discuss the allegations of overcharging, saying he
would lay out Suburban's defense in court.
"Many of the allegations in the complaint are misleading, and
others are just flat-out wrong," he said, but would not go into
detail.
He said that automatic refill customers choose the service as a
convenience, and that the tank policies are common practice
throughout the industry to ensure that they're properly
maintained and safely filled.
Complaints pile up
As the Times Herald-Record reported on June 5, a number of local
residents have complained about Suburban's prices. Several have
filed complaints with the state attorney general's office.
Orange County Legislator Michael Paduch has gotten complaints
about Suburban from many area seniors, and said Suburban has been
"ripping people off all over the place."
Previous Suburban practices have also drawn the attention of the
attorney general.
In June 2009, State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reached a
settlement with Suburban for $450,000 in refunds and fines after
his office found the company was instituting tank rental fees
with little notice, in violation of state law.
ULTA SALON: Agrees to Settle Suit by General and Salon Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., has agreed to settle the
putative employment class action lawsuit alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's
June 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.
In July 2009, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in State
Court in California.
The suit alleges that Ulta misclassified its store General
Managers and Salon Managers as exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Labor Code. The suit seeks to
recover damages and penalties as a result of this alleged
misclassification.
On Aug. 27, 2009, the company filed its answer to the lawsuit,
and on Aug. 31, 2009 the company moved the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On Nov. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
another named plaintiff.
On May 26, 2010, the company and plaintiffs engaged in a
voluntary mediation.
The company relates that although it continues to deny
plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting the Salon
Manager claims behind it, the company agreed in principle to
settle all claims of the putative Salon Manager class.
The settlement, which is not an admission of liability, is
subject to final documentation and Court approval. Counsel for
the plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss without prejudice the claims
of the General Managers.
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/
-- is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the
United States.
ULTA SALON: Faces Wage Violations Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., faces a putative
employment class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
California labor laws, according to the company's June 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.
In May, 2010, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in State
Court in California.
The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be
(or have been) nonexempt hourly employees.
The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the
California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members
of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks,
certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay. The suit
seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these
alleged practices.
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/
-- is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the
United States.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Nev. Suit Wants Bogus Trauma Charges Refunded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green at the Las Vegas Sun reports that a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed against University Medical
Center, claiming the Las Vegas hospital has overcharged thousands
of patients millions of dollars over the years by misclassifying
them as trauma patients.
The suit, filed last week in Clark County District Court, says
that on March 31, Karla Reyes-Sandino of Las Vegas was treated
for 90 minutes at UMC for neck pain after a car accident.
A nurse evaluated the patient and found she did not meet "trauma
field criteria," the lawsuit says.
A CT scan of her brain and spine found them to be normal and she
was discharged in good condition, the lawsuit says.
In April, Reyes-Sandino was billed $11,830, including $8,109 in
"trauma" charges despite her not being assessed as a trauma
patient, the lawsuit says.
"For years, UMC unlawfully billed and collected from emergency
room patients millions of dollars in 'trauma' charges when the
patients were not trauma patients, and/or were misclassified by
UMC as trauma patients and/or did not utilize UMC's trauma
facilities in order to allow UMC to unlawfully ... bill each
patient thousands of dollars in additional medical charges," the
lawsuit charges.
Henderson attorney Jesse Sbaih, who filed the lawsuit, said he's
aware of at least two other patients who had similar experiences
with UMC.
In the case of Reyes-Sandino, Sbaih said UMC eventually agreed to
lower the bill to $7,800 - an amount Sbaih maintains is still
inflated by UMC misclassifying his client as a trauma patient.
Sbaih said that even when an insurance company pays the UMC bill,
patients like Reyes-Sandino are still harmed by UMC's practice.
He said that's because, under a typical auto insurance policy,
money paid by the insurer to UMC reduces the money available for
payment to the patient for her pain and suffering.
The suit asserts claims of violations of the Nevada Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, fraud and unjust enrichment.
UMC has not yet responded to the lawsuit.
VODAFONE GROUP: New York Court Dismisses Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed a purported class action complaint against Vodafone
Group Plc, according to the company's June 2, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.
On Nov. 12, 2007, the company became aware of the filing of a
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by The City of Edinburgh
Council on behalf of the Lothian Pension Fund against the company
and certain of the company's current and former officers and
directors for alleged violations of U.S. federal securities laws.
The complaint alleged that the company's financial statements and
certain disclosures between June 10, 2004, and Feb. 27, 2006,
were materially false and misleading, among other things, as a
result of the company's alleged failure to report on a timely
basis a write-down for the impaired value of Vodafone's German,
Italian and Japanese subsidiaries. The complaint sought
compensatory damages of an unspecified amount and other relief on
behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons who purchased
publicly traded securities, including ordinary shares and
American depositary receipts, of the company between June 10,
2004, and Feb. 27, 2006.
The plaintiff subsequently served the complaint and, on or about
March 27, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially the same claims against the same
defendants on behalf of the same putative investor class.
Thereafter an additional plaintiff, a U.S. pension fund that
purportedly purchased Vodafone ADRs on the New York Stock
Exchange, was added as an additional plaintiff by stipulated
order.
The company believes that the allegations are without merit and
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 6, 2008.
By judgment entered on Dec. 1, 2008, the court dismissed the
amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of
that dismissal arguing that the court overlooked the claims of
the U.S. pension fund, as to which there had been no subject
matter jurisdiction challenge.
On April 9, 2009, the court granted that motion to the extent
that it sought reopening of the action for the purpose of
adjudication of the claims asserted on behalf of the U.S. pension
fund but denied the motion with respect to the dismissal of
Lothian's claims.
On May 20, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claims of the U.S. pension fund on the grounds that
the complaint failed to plead securities fraud with the requisite
specificity, but granted the plaintiff leave to file a motion to
amend its complaint.
The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on
June 26, 2009, which the company opposed.
On Jan. 22, 2010 the Court denied that motion and on Jan. 30,
2010, entered a judgment dismissing the action.
The company has not been served with a notice of appeal within
the time permitted under the relevant civil procedure rules and
now considers the case to be closed.
Vodafone Group Plc -- http://www.vodafone.com/-- is a mobile
communications company operating across the globe providing a
range of communications services. It offers a range of products
and services, including voice, messaging, data and fixed-line
solutions and devices to assist customers in meeting their total
communications needs. Vodafone has a significant global
presence, with equity interests in over 30 countries and over 40
partner markets worldwide. It operates in three geographic
regions: Europe, Africa and Central Europe; Asia Pacific, and the
Middle East, and has an investment in Verizon Wireless in the
United States.
WET SEAL: Final Hearing for $300,000 Settlement Set in July
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a $300,000 settlement
resolving a suit where The Wet Seal, Inc., is a named defendant
is set for July 2010, according to the company's June 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.
On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf
of certain of the company's current and former employees that
were employed and paid by the company on an hourly basis during
the four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006.
The company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
On Nov. 30, 2006, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $300,000 to settle this matter, subject to Superior
Court approval.
On May 18, 2007, the Superior Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
On Feb. 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, subject to appeal.
On April 28, 2008, a notice of appeal of the judgment was filed.
On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the
Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement, and
a final hearing will take place in July 2010.
As of May 1, 2010, the company has accrued an amount equal to the
settlement amount in accrued liabilities in our condensed
consolidated balance sheet.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items. As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/
WET SEAL: Defends Suit by Employees is County of Orange
-------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., defends a complaint pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange,
according to the company's June 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 1, 2010.
On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed on behalf of certain of
the company's current and former employees who were employed and
paid by the company from May 22, 2003 through the present.
The company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
Discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs will be filing their class
certification in mid June 2010 or before.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items. As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/
WET SEAL: Discovery in San Francisco Employees' Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in a complaint against The Wet
Seal, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco, according to the
company's June 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.
On Sept. 29, 2008, a complaint was filed on behalf of certain of
the company's current and former employees who were employed and
paid by the company from Sept. 29, 2004 through the present.
The company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges various violations under the State of
California Labor Code and the State of California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs recently filed an amended
complaint, and the company filed a motion to strike positions of
the third amended complaint on or about Feb. 16, 2010.
The case has been transferred to the complex panel of the San
Francisco Superior Court for case management purposes.
No class certification motion filing deadline has been set by the
court, and discovery is ongoing.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items. As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/
WET SEAL: Awaits Approval of $200,000 Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., continues to await approval of a $200,000
settlement from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange, according to the company's June 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.
On March 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of
certain of the company's current and former employees that were
employed and paid by the company from March 18, 2005, through
March 18, 2009. The company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
On Oct. 23, 2009, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $200,000 to settle this matter, subject to Superior
Court approval.
The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and set a
final approval hearing for June 3, 2010.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items. As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/
YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Consolidated ERISA Class Action in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. is facing a consolidated class action
complaint in Kansas alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
based on similar allegations and causes of action. On
November 17, 2009, Eva L. Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former
participants in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Plan,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from April 6, 2009 to the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J.
Cambra, a participant in the Yellow Roadway Corporation
Retirement Savings Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf
of certain persons participating in the plan (or plans that
merged with the plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present; on
January 15, 2010, Patrick M. Couch, a participant in one of the
merged 401(k) plans, filed a class action complaint on behalf of
certain persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged
with the plan) from March 23, 2006 to the present; and on April
21, 2010, Tawana Franklin, a participant in YRC Worldwide 401(k)
Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from October 25, 2007 to the present.
In general, the complaints allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition. Although
some Company matching contributions were made in Company common
stock, participants were not permitted to invest their own
contributions in the Company stock fund. The complaints allege
that the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the
plans and assets of the plans; imprudently invested in Company
common stock; failed to monitor fiduciaries and provide them with
accurate information; breached the duty to properly appoint,
monitor, and inform the Benefits Administrative Committee;
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse financial
information; breached the duty to avoid conflict of interest; and
are subject to co-fiduciary liability. Each of the complaints
seeks, among other things, an order compelling defendants to make
good to the plan all losses resulting from the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, attorneys' fees, and other injunctive and
equitable relief. Based on the four separate complaints
previously filed, the Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest the claims.
On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint asserts the
same claims as the previously-filed complaints but names as
defendants certain former officers of the Company in addition to
those current officers and directors that have already been
named.
The company anticipates that the fourth complaint (Franklin) will
be consolidated with the other actions. The defendants expect to
move to dismiss the consolidated complaint on or before June 1,
2010.
Headquartered in Overland Park, Kan., YRC Worldwide Inc. (NASDAQ:
YRCW) -- http://www.yrcw.com/-- is a holding company that
through wholly owned operating subsidiaries offers its customers
a wide range of transportation services. These services include
global, national and regional transportation as well as
logistics.
*********
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 * * *