/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100621.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 120 Headlines 21ST CENTURY: Pays $2.4 Million Settlement From D&O Policy ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus" Litigation ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends "Bucio" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Batiz" Suit in California ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated "Diaz" Suit in Los Angeles ADDUS HOMECARE: Underwriters Seek Indemnification in Class Suit AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 24,000 Entertainment Centers APPLE INC: Accused of Making False and Misleading Advertisements BP PLC: Braud & Gallagher Files Suit on Toxic Chemical Dispersants CENTERLINE HOLDING: Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Still Pending CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Voluntary Dismissal of Class Suits CHINA ORGANIC: Approval of "Provo" Suit Settlement Still Pending CONVERTED ORGANICS: Parties Discuss Discovery in Leeseberg Suit COOPER COMPANIES: No Approval Yet of $27 Million Settlement COWEN GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Transfer & Remand Motions COWEN GROUP: Unit Faces Class Action Suits Over "Fuqi" Offering DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Naito" Suit over Delta Tucker Merger DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Meehan" Complaint in Virginia EASTERN LA REGIONAL: Settles Suit on Autism Treatment Funding EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Will Defend vs. IPO Suit if Appeal Filed FIRST DATA: Awaits Outcome of Dismissal Motion of ATM Suit GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit HEALTHMARKETS INC: Discovery in Calif. "Privacy" Suit Ongoing HILTON LOS ANGELES: Faces Suit for Hiring Low-Wage Workers HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Judge Cuts $2.2MM From Lawyers' Fees HOVNANIAN ENT: Additional Portions of Complaint Dismissed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Lawyers Continue to Follow Case JONES SODA: Court to Schedule Oral Argument on Appeal LPL FINANCIAL: Sued for Broker's Misrepresentations META FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in "Guardian Angel" Suit MICHAEL FOODS: Motions to Dismiss Complaints Still Pending MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Judge Rejects Md. Speed Cameras Class Suit NEUROMETRIX INC: Appeal on Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending NEXCEN BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss "Granatelli" Suit in New York NOVA SCOTIA: Supreme Court to Webcast Pollution Suit Hearing NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of "Jones" Suit ONVIA INC: Awaits Briefing Schedule on Appeals to Settlement ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Class Suit Seeks to Stop Dimensional Merger PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Seeks to Dismiss Consumer Class Suits PINNACLE GAS: Delaware Court Consolidates Class Action Lawsuits PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Counsel Gets $138,000 After Suit Dismissal QUEBEC: Superior Ct. Rejects Class Suit Bid on Noise Pollution QUICKLOGIC CORP: Objectors File Appeals on Settlement Approval RADIO ONE: Shareholders File Appeal on Settlement of IPO Cases ROSS FIALKOW: Accused of Selling Unregistered Securities SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Settles Missouri Data Privacy Class Action SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif. TLC VISION: Units Face RICO Class Suit in South Carolina TORO COMPANY: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact TORO COMPANY: Faces Suit in Canada Over Lawnmower HP Labels TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Grants Dismissal Motion UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Illinois UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuit Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Proceedings in Israel Class Action Stayed VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Complains About Defective Headlamps ********* 21ST CENTURY: Pays $2.4 Million Settlement From D&O Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- 21st Century Holding Company has settled a consolidated securities class action complaint and a shareholder derivative complaint in Florida, according to its May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. From July 27, 2007, to August 7, 2007, several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the Company's securities during the various class periods specified in the complaints. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of the class on January 22, 2008, Case No. 07-61057. The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to accurately project the Company's business and financial performance during the putative class period. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages and claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On March 18, 2008, a verified shareholder derivative complaint, Case No. 08-cv-60374, was filed against certain current or former officers and directors of the Company in the District Court. On November 7, 2008, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class litigation with leave to amend by December 8, 2009 or the allegations dismissed would be deemed dismissed with prejudice without further order of the District Court. Lead plaintiffs did not seek to amend the consolidated complaint and the defendants answered. On July 29, 2008, the District Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's shareholder derivative complaint without prejudice. On August 27, 2009, the derivative plaintiff filed an amended shareholder derivative complaint. On March 30, 2009, following various motions by the parties, the District Court entered an order granting defendant's renewed motion to stay the shareholder derivative action pending resolution of the class action. On September 4, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to the Court by lead plaintiffs, the derivative plaintiff and the defendants, setting forth the terms of a settlement of the Class Litigation and Derivative Litigation which proposed that a payment of $2.4 million be made to the lead plaintiffs and the derivative plaintiff. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or its officers and directors. The Company's insurance carriers agreed to fund the $2.4 million settlement payment. The Stipulation of Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 19, 2009. At a settlement hearing held on January 29, 2010, the District Court approved the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement. On March 15, 2010, counsel for Plaintiffs acknowledged receipt of $2.4 million in settlement funds paid under the Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy. Headquartered in Lauderdale Lakes, Fla., 21st Century Holding Company -- http://www.21stcenturyholding.com/-- is an insurance holding company, which, through its subsidiaries and contractual relationships with the independent agents and general agents, controls substantially all aspects of the insurance underwriting, distribution and claims processes. The company is authorized to underwrite fire, allied lines, homeowners' property and casualty insurance, commercial general liability insurance, commercial multi peril, inland marine, personal automobile insurance and commercial automobile insurance in various states with various lines of authority through the wholly owned subsidiaries, Federated National Insurance Company (Federated National) and American Vehicle Insurance Company (American Vehicle). 21st Century markets and distributes its own and third party insurers' products and other services in Florida, through contractual relationships with a network of approximately 1,500 independent agents and a select number of general agents. ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus" Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a class action suit captioned Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services. The consolidated cases were filed on July 12, 2005, before the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. On Jan. 8, 2009, a judge of the L.A. Superior Court certified the Augustus case as a class action. No further updates were reported in the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia, Canada. The company operates through five segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting. ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends "Bucio" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a purported class action suit, Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services. The consolidated suit was filed on April 7, 2006, before the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. No further updates were reported in the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia, Canada. The company operates through five segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting. ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Batiz" Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a purported class action, Batiz/Heine v. American Commercial Security Services. The consolidated suit was filed on June 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court of California, Central District. The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. No further updates were reported in the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia, Canada. The company operates through five segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting. ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a purported class action suit, Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and ABM Industries. The suit, filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S District Court of Washington, Western District, relates to alleged violations of federal or state wage-and-hour laws. The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to state law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. No further updates were reported in the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia, Canada. The company operates through five segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting. ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated "Diaz" Suit in Los Angeles --------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in the consolidated cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking. The cases were filed on Dec. 5, 2006, in the L.A. Superior Court. The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. No further updates were reported in the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia, Canada. The company operates through five segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting. ADDUS HOMECARE: Underwriters Seek Indemnification in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Addus Homecare Corporation disclosed in its May 14, 2010, Form 10- Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, that underwriters of its initial public offering is seeking indemnification with respect to a class action filed against the company. On March 26, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock in connection with the Company's IPO. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Company's registration statement was materially false or omitted the following: (1) that the Company's accounts receivable included at least $1.5 million in aging receivables that should have been reserved for; and (2) that the Company's home health segment's revenues were falling short of internal forecasts due to a slowdown in admissions from the Company's integrated services program due to the State of Illinois' effort to develop new procedures for integrating care. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. In addition, on April 16, 2010, Robert W. Baird & Company, on behalf of the underwriters of the IPO, notified the Company that the underwriters are seeking indemnification in respect of the above-referenced action pursuant to the underwriting agreement entered into in connection with the IPO. Addus HomeCare Corp. provides home health care and related services such as rehabilitation and disease management. The company offers long-term home care for the elderly, which primarily includes in-home support services such as bathing, dressing, medication assistance, and other social activities. Additional offerings include short-term skilled home nursing and therapy (for patients recovering from a health condition) and adult day care. Addus serves more than 20,000 patients from around 120 offices in 16 states. Investment firm Eos Capital Partners owns a controlling stake in Addus HomeCare, which completed an IPO in 2009. AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 24,000 Entertainment Centers -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with American Signature Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 24,000 Entertainment Centers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The recalled entertainment centers' shelves can detach and fall onto consumers when the entertainment centers are moved. American Signature has received four reports of the shelf above the television collapsing, causing two injuries. Injuries include a child who was struck on her fingers and an adult who required stitches to his mouth. There were also two reports of minor property damage. The recall involves entertainment centers with model names "Arts and Crafts", "Vineyard Manor", "Lake Cottage", "Studio One", "West Indies" and "Plantation Cove" were sold in various colors including dark brown, natural, black and white with fixed or adjustable shelves. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10742.html The recalled products were manufactured in China, Malaysia and Thailand and sold through Value City Furniture, Rooms Today and American Signature Furniture stores from October 2002 through December 2009 for about $1,650. The individual shelf was also sold separately for about $70. American Signature is sending free repair kits to consumers who purchased the recalled entertainment centers. Consumers should not move the entertainment centers until they install the free repair kit. If the entertainment center must be moved, remove the center shelf above the television first. Consumers should contact the store where they purchased the entertainment center if they do not receive the repair kit. For more information, contact the store where the entertainment center was purchased. Consumers can find the location of American Signature Furniture stores at (866) 274-6631 or Value City Furniture stores at (866) 823-7867, contact American Signature toll-free at (877) 793-3423 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firms' Web sites at http://www.vcf.com/or http://www.asfurniture.com/ APPLE INC: Accused of Making False and Misleading Advertisements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Logan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 10-cv-02588 (N.D. Calif. June 11, 2010), asserts violations of the California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Mr. Logan says that between January 27, 2010, and June 7, 2010, the defendants repeatedly represented, promised, and advertised that iPad 3G owners could purchase a wireless data service plan that provided unlimited data at a cost of $29.99 per month, and that the unlimited data plan would be available on a pre-paid, no-contract basis, so that iPad 3G owners could activate unlimited 3G data service only when needed. Based on the defendants' representations, Mr. Logan says he purchased an iPad 3G, which retails at a $130 premium over standard iPad models fitted only with Wi-Fi, but on June 2, 2010, the defendants announced that they were canceling the unlimited data plan as of June 7, 2010. Mr. Logan says the cancellation of the no-contract, unlimited data plan had a significant impact on the value of his iPad 3G, as well as the manner in which it can be used. Whereas before iPad 3G owners (who purchased the iPad 3G before June 7) can switch from an unlimited plan (paying $29.99 per month) to a 250-megabyte plan (for $14.99 per month), or opt to have no 3G plan at all, they are now (after June 7, 2010) forced to keep an unlimited plan continuously to avoid losing it, because customers who activate an iPad 3G on or after June 7, 2010, are excluded entirely from the unlimited data plan. Apple Inc. is the designer of the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. AT&T is the exclusive United States provider of iPad 3G wireless data service. Mr. Logan says he would not have purchased his iPad 3G had he known that eventually the no-contract data plan, and its switch-on-and-off feature would be cancelled. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 888 Turquoise Street San Diego, CA 92109 Tel: (858) 488-1672 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com - and - Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 2811 Sykes Court Santa Clara, CA 95051 Tel: (408) 459-0305 E-mail: jack@westonfirm.com - and - Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS 28 West Flagler St., Suite 555 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 789-0072 E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com elizabeth@beckandlee.com BP PLC: Braud & Gallagher Files Suit on Toxic Chemical Dispersants ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 17, 2010, by the Law Firm of Braud and Gallagher, LLC. The lawsuit, more than likely the first of many, alleges that BP and Nalco Holding Company intentionally sprayed "COREXIT(R) 9500" dispersant into the Gulf of Mexico with full knowledge of its dangerous toxicity. It is alleged that the dispersant was sprayed entirely to lessen BP's financial exposure and cleanup efforts. When administered the dispersant, COREXIT(R) 9500, attaches to the oil causing both the oil and the chemical to sink below the surface of the water eventually settling to the sea floor. Studies have demonstrated this process will permanently alter the biosystem and food chain in the Gulf. "The oil spill itself was bad enough and resulted from negligence, but this spraying of COREXIT(R) is intentional," stated C. Arlen Braud, II, Esq., at Braud and Gallagher, L.L.C. COREXIT(R) is four times as toxic as the oil itself. Oil is toxic at 11 ppm, but COREXIT(R) is toxic at only 2.61 ppm. Mr. Braud went on, "This chemical has been banned in the UK for over a decade, yet a UK company is pouring millions of gallons into the Gulf of Mexico, turning it into a toxic soup and that is despicable." COREXIT(R) was banned from use in the United Kingdom because it did not pass the "Rocky Shore Test" which assures that it does not cause a deleterious effect or ecological change; in layman's terms, kill off the entire food chain. COREXIT(R) 9500 was used to clean up after the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics it has had a negative effect on the health of those who were exposed. CNN reports that the average life expectancy of the workers who cleaned up the Exxon Valdez spill is 51 years and most of those workers are now deceased. Braud & Gallagher, LLC. is a Law Firm that practices extensively in Admiralty and Maritime Law, toxic torts and class actions throughout the Gulf Coast Region. The case is Parker v. Nalco Co., 10-cv-01749 (E.D. La.). CENTERLINE HOLDING: Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Centerline Holding Company is still awaiting decision on an appeal filed by Centerline Investor Group regarding the dismissal of its consolidated complaint alleging violations of federal securities law, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010. On January 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative class actions was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and trustees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, five other, essentially duplicative putative class actions were also filed in the same court. The complaint in each case asserted that the Company and other defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion the Company's December 2007 transaction with Freddie Mac. On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group, which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for these cases. Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's announcement of the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the Company's business model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007 through December 28, 2007. The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 27, 2008 and the motion was granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on January 12, 2009. Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12, 2009, and the Defendants filed their reply to the opposition motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009. On August 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to replead. On September 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed briefs in this appeal and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held on April 7, 2010. No decision has yet been rendered by the Second Circuit. Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/-- provides real estate financial and asset management services, including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments, supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for commercial real estate. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Voluntary Dismissal of Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Centerline Holding Company is seeking the voluntary dismissal of putative class and derivative actions in New York following the effectiveness of a settlement relating to the company's 11.0% Preferred Shares, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010. On January 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative class and derivative action, entitled Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468- VCP, was filed against the Company, its Board of Trustees and The Related Companies, L.P., in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit concerned the Company's sale of a new issue of convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from them as well as injunctive relief against all defendants. Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New York and in the Delaware Chancery Court. Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by allegedly violating the federal securities laws. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against the Company in any of those cases. The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case are: * On January 18, 2008, Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No. 100861-08, was filed against the Company and its board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court; * On January 25, 2008, Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al., No. 08-cv-00912, was filed against the Company and its board of trustees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; * On January 30, 2008, Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No. 3511, was filed against the Company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. in the Delaware Court of Chancery; * On February 22, 2008, Kanter v. Ross, et al., No. 08-cv-01827, was filed against the Company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; * On February 27, 2008, Broy v. Centerline Holding Company et al., No. 08-cv-01971, was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and trustees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; * On April 10, 2008, Kastner v. Schnitzer et al., Index No. 601043-08, was filed against the Company and its board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and * On April 10, 2008, Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al., Index No. 601044-08, was filed against the Company and its board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court. On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, was filed against the Company and its board of trustees in Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08-cv-912 (SAS) and Broy v. Blau, 08-cv-1971 (SAS), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was styled both as a derivative suit and as a class action on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who qualified to purchase the Company's 11.0% Preferred Shares pursuant to the rights offering but who did not do so. In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants reached a basis of settlement which would require a reduction in the rate payable on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by TRCLP and its affiliates to 95% and an increase in the conversion price from $10.75 to $12.35. A Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009, and a fairness hearing for approval of the settlement was held May 18, 2009. At that time, the District Court entered a Final Judgment approving the Settlement, which was to become effective once the Delaware Court of Chancery dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters with prejudice. Prior to dismissal of the Off and Ciscerk matters, TRCLP as the holder of a majority of the 11.0% Preferred Shares, consented to an amendment and restatement of the certificate of designation for those series of shares to reflect the changes and the amendment and restatement was adopted on March 5, 2010. On December 16, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the Off matter with prejudice and on April 12, 2010, that court dismissed the Ciszerk matter with prejudice. On April 14, 2010, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the effectiveness of the Carfagno settlement. Attorneys for the defendants are currently seeking voluntary dismissal of the remaining derivative actions on the basis of res judicata. Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/-- provides real estate financial and asset management services, including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments, supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for commercial real estate. CHINA ORGANIC: Approval of "Provo" Suit Settlement Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Court approval of a settlement of a class action lawsuit against China Organic Agriculture, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. On December 12, 2008, Lance C. Provo, "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated", filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against China Organic Agriculture, Inc., past officers and directors of the Company, and one current director of the Company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements or concealed materially adverse facts causing members of the class to purchase the Company's stock at inflated prices, and engaged in other improper actions, including divesting the Company of its sole productive asset and acquiring a luxury retreat for the use of the Defendants. The suit alleges that the Defendants' actions violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10(b) 5 under the Exchange Act. The suit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and disgorgement. The Company has reached a preliminary settlement regarding the class action lawsuit for $300,000 in cash and $300,000 worth of stock. Court approval of the settlement is pending. China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is engaged in the business of rice production, processing and distribution. China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the company's wholly owned subsidiary. It operates in three segments: Ankang, the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao, the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo Vineyard, the segment for wine production. CONVERTED ORGANICS: Parties Discuss Discovery in Leeseberg Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Converted Organics, Inc., participated in a conference to discuss discovery issues in connection with a class action lawsuit, captioned Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al., v. Converted Organics Inc., according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On December 11, 2008, Converted Organics received notice that a complaint had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59 persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006, captioned Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the redemption of Converted Organics' Class A warrants in November 2008. The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to the redemption of the Class A warrants. In February 2009, Converted Organics filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint. On October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has properly stated a claim for actual damages resulting from Converted Organics' alleged breach of contract but that Leeseberg has failed to state claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and the Court dismissed such claims. On November 6, 2009, Converted Organics filed its answer to the Complaint with the Court. On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a conference, and began discussing discovery issues. Converted Organics Inc. -- http://www.convertedorganics.com/-- operates processing facilities that use food waste as raw material to manufacture all-natural soil amendment products combining nutritional and disease suppression characteristics. In addition to its sales in the agribusiness market, the company sells and distributes its products in the turf management and retail markets. As of Dec.31, 2008, the company operated two facilities: Woodbridge facility and Gonzales facility. The company derives revenue from two sources: tip fees and product sales. Waste haulers pay the tip fees to the company for accepting food waste generated by food distributors, such as grocery stores, produce docks, fish markets and food processors, and by hospitality venues, such as hotels, restaurants, convention centers and airports. In March 2010, the company acquired a line of poultry-based organic fertilizer products. COOPER COMPANIES: No Approval Yet of $27 Million Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Companies, Inc., is awaiting approval of an agreement settling a class action for $27.0 million, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against the company, A. Thomas Bender, its Chairman of the Board and a director, Robert S. Weiss, its Chief Executive Officer and a director, and John D. Fruth, a former director. On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated this action and two related actions under the heading In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2006. The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular Sciences, Inc., in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular. In addition to the company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, the consolidated complaint named as defendants several of the company's other current officers and directors and former officers. On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to state a valid claim. On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. In addition to the company, the amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth, Steven M. Neil, the Company's former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision's former President and Chief Operating Officer. The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, contending that the defendants made misstatements concerning the Biomedics(R) product line, sales force integration following the merger with Ocular, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and financial projections. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the company improperly accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by improperly allocating $100 million of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that the Company lacked appropriate internal controls and issued false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications. On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part Cooper and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications, the company's financial projections and the Company's accounting of assets acquired in the Ocular merger. The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged false statements concerning the Biomedics product line, sales force integration and the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses. On Nov. 28, 2007, the Court dismissed all claims against Mr. Fruth. On Dec. 3, 2007, the company and Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Neil and Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint. On April 8, 2008, the Court granted a motion by Mr. Neil for judgment on the pleadings as to him. On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court reaffirmed that the plaintiffs' financial projection claims had been dismissed in its earlier rulings. On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class consists of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Cooper common stock between July 28, 2004, and Nov. 21, 2005. Discovery in this matter has closed. Cooper and the individual defendants filed summary judgment motions on Dec. 21, 2009. On March 4, 2010, the Court denied in substantial part the motions for summary judgment. On May 4, 2010, the company announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action lawsuit for $27.0 million. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval, the timing of which is not set at this time. Headquartered in Pleasanton, California, The Cooper Companies, Inc. -- http://www.coopercos.com/-- manufactures and markets specialty healthcare products through its CooperVision and CooperSurgical units. CooperVision, Inc., develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of contact lenses for the worldwide vision correction market. It has manufacturing facilities in Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico; Norfolk, VA; Rochester, NY; Adelaide, Australia; and Hamble and Hampshire, UK. CooperSurgical, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets medical devices, diagnostic products and surgical instruments and accessories used primarily by gynecologists and obstetricians. Its major manufacturing and distribution facilities are in Trumbull, CT, Pasadena, CA, and Stafford, TX. COWEN GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Transfer & Remand Motions --------------------------------------------------------------- Cowen Group, Inc., according to its May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, is awaiting the outcome of motions to transfer and remand a putative class action, which its wholly owned subsidiary, Cowen and Company LLC, is involved in. On March 5, 2010, Cowen and Company was named as a defendant, along with several other underwriters, in a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, in connection with an August 2008 follow-on offering for CardioNet, Inc. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectuses for CardioNet's March 2008 IPO (in which Cowen and Company did not participate) and subsequent follow-on offering (in which Cowen and Company did participate) were false and misleading and failed to disclose, among other things, that CardioNet incorrectly reported revenue and failed to disclose certain risks relating to Medicare reimbursement rates for CardioNet's services. On April 5, 2010, Cowen and Company and the other defendants moved to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and, on April 7, 2010, moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to California state court. The motions to transfer and remand remain pending. Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is an investment bank that provides research, sales and trading, and investment banking services to companies and institutional investor clients in the healthcare, technology, media and telecommunications, alternative energy and consumer sectors. COWEN GROUP: Unit Faces Class Action Suits Over "Fuqi" Offering --------------------------------------------------------------- Cowen Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary Cowen and Company LLC is facing two putative class actions in New York for its role as underwriter in a Fuqi International, Inc., follow-on offering, according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In March 2010, Cowen and Company was named, along with several other underwriters, as a defendant in two putative class actions filed in the Southern District of New York in connection with a July 2009 follow-on offering for Fuqi International, Inc. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus for Fuqi's follow-on offering was false and misleading and contained materially inaccurate financial statements that overstated the company's gross profit and net income. Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is an investment bank that provides research, sales and trading, and investment banking services to companies and institutional investor clients in the healthcare, technology, media and telecommunications, alternative energy and consumer sectors. DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Naito" Suit over Delta Tucker Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- DynCorp International Inc., faces a putative class action complaint, captioned Shawn K. Naito v. DynCorp International Inc. et al., C.A. No. 5419-VCS, relating to its planned merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc., according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010. On April 11, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc. and Delta Tucker Sub, Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. On April 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was commenced against the company, its directors, Cerberus, and Cerberus' acquisition entities in the Delaware Court. The Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of the public stockholders of the company, and seeks, among other things, equitable relief, to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, and fees and costs. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the proposed Merger in which the consideration is unfair and inadequate, failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value, and putting their own interests above those of the company's stockholders. The complaint further alleges that Cerberus, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. On May 7, 2010, the company filed an answer, denying the material substantive allegations of the complaint. On May 10, 2010, Cerberus and its acquisition entities filed an answer, denying the material substantive allegations of the complaint. On May 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint to assert certain alleged failures of disclosure in the company's preliminary proxy statement previously filed with the SEC. The motion was granted by the Court on May 18, 2010. The proposed amended complaint continues to challenge the Board's discharge of its fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the Merger. On June 2, 2010, the company and its directors, as well as Cerberus and its acquisition entities, filed answers denying the material substantive allegations of the amended complaint. The plaintiff on May 17, 2010, filed a motion for preliminary injunction of the Merger. The court was slated to adjudicate that motion on June 17, 2010. DynCorp International Inc. -- http://www.dyn-intl.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiary DynCorp International LLC, is a global government services provider in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international development. DynCorp operates major programs in logistics, platform support, contingency operations, and training and mentoring to reinforce security, community stability, and the rule of law. DynCorp is headquartered in Falls Church, Va. DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Meehan" Complaint in Virginia --------------------------------------------------- DynCorp International Inc., faces a putative class action complaint, captioned Kevin V. Meehan v. Robert McKeon et al., C.A. No. 1:10CV 446, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010. On April 11, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc. and Delta Tucker Sub, Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. On April 30, 2010, the company, its directors and Cerberus' acquisition entities were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia. In the complaint, the plaintiff purports to represent a class of stockholders and seeks, among other things, equitable relief, including to enjoin the company and Cerberus' acquisition entities from consummating the Merger, in addition to fees and costs. The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to engage in an honest and fair sale process. The complaint further alleges that the company and Cerberus' acquisition entities aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. On May 17, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Section 14a of the Exchange Act, challenging disclosures and alleged omissions in the company's proxy statement. On May 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to expedite the case. On May 21, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, on May 24, filed a motion asking the court to abstain from proceeding with the case in favor of the substantively similar and earlier-filed action in Delaware. On May 27, 2010, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery. The Federal Court was slated to consider the company's dismissal and abstention motions for June 18, 2010. In addition, following denial of the plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery, the plaintiff's counsel agreed to coordinate his discovery efforts with the plaintiffs in the Delaware action. DynCorp International Inc. -- http://www.dyn-intl.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiary DynCorp International LLC, is a global government services provider in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international development. DynCorp operates major programs in logistics, platform support, contingency operations, and training and mentoring to reinforce security, community stability, and the rule of law. DynCorp is headquartered in Falls Church, Va. EASTERN LA REGIONAL: Settles Suit on Autism Treatment Funding ------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court on June 10, 2010, issued an Order granting preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement in the class action lawsuit, Benito R., et al. v. Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center, et al., which was filed on behalf of hundreds of children with autism against the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center earlier this year, after ELARC terminated funding for Developmental, Individual Difference, Relationship-based treatment services. Among other things, the Judge's Order requires notice to be mailed to all members of the class, including every parent of a child diagnosed with or provisionally diagnosed with autism served (or, if possible, who will be served) by the East Los Angeles Regional Center so that they know what is required of ELARC under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement requires, among other things, that ELARC continue funding and paying for all DIR or DIR/Floortime treatment programs for all eligible children who have been diagnosed, or provisionally diagnosed with autism. It also enjoins ELARC from: 1) failing to make DIR treatment programs available to Class Members; 2) classifying, characterizing, identifying or labeling DIR treatment programs as "experimental," "non-medical therapy," "specialized recreation," or "social recreational" as those terms are used in the Trailer Bill; 3) asking, pressuring, conditioning or otherwise requiring a Class Member to give up, barter, or otherwise reduce or terminate another service in order to receive DIR treatment services; and (4) engaging in any sort of retaliatory behavior against any Class Member or person associated with a Class Member. Earlier this year, the Court issued a preliminary injunction to reinstate funding for DIR treatment services. The Class Plaintiffs in this action are represented, on a pro bono basis, by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and by Public Counsel Law Center. Additional information about the Class Notices for this case can be found on ELARC's Web site, beginning on June 15, http://www.elarc.org/ The Settlement Agreement and the Superior Court Order are also available at http://www.publiccounsel.org/ EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Will Defend vs. IPO Suit if Appeal Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- eGain Communications Corporation said it will continue to defend itself in the consolidated initial public offering securities litigation if its settlement is overturned on appeal, according to its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010. Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action complaints were filed against the Company, and certain of its then officers and directors and underwriters connected with its initial public offering of common stock. The class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which those securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations of "laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO shares. The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between September 23, 1999, and December 6, 2000. Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over 1,000 actions were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig. In 2003, the Company and the other issuer defendants (but not the underwriter defendants) reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to its liability and that of its officers and directors. The settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of liability. On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters proceeded. In October 2004, the Court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class certified by the District Court could not be certified. In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit's holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement could be approved. On June 25, 2007, the district court entered a stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer settlement. Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed. In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as issuers. Under the settlement, which remains subject to final Court approval, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company would bear no financial liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive complete dismissals from the case. On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 10, 2009, the Court held a final settlement approval hearing. On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving the settlement. Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to the certification of a settlement class (which occurred as part of the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the Court for permission to appeal from the order certifying the settlement class, and on October 29 and November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge the Court's approval of the settlement. On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement dismissing all claims involving the Company. If the settlement and final judgment were to be overturned on appeal and litigation were to proceed, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the action vigorously. Based in Mountain View, Calif., eGain Communications Corporation provides multichannel customer service and knowledge management software for in-house or on-demand deployment, used by global enterprises and fast-growing businesses. The Company was incorporated in Delaware in September 1997. FIRST DATA: Awaits Outcome of Dismissal Motion of ATM Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- First Data Corporation is awaiting a decision on its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in a class action suit filed against the Company, which alleged violations of antitrust laws, according to its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010. On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial institutions. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to the court. Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and October 2004. On August 3, 2007, Concord EFS, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing that there are pro-competitive justifications for the ATM interchange. On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order granting the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding that the claims raised in this case would need to be addressed under a "Rule of Reason" analysis. On February 2, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which was dismissed by the Court on September 4, 2009. On October 16, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on November 13, 2009 and the Court scheduled a hearing for this motion on May 14, 2010. The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com/-- operates electronic commerce, payment services and customer account management businesses. FDC has four main business segments: First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment, known as All Other and Corporate. GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire ----------------------------------------------------------- GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend an amended consolidated complaint in the matter Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2010. Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others, including certain investors in the company. On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the actions. The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the federal class action on Oct. 29, 2008. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Dec. 22, 2008. The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act. The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and Prospectus for the company's July 24, 2008, initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of its business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd. Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on Feb. 5, 2009. On Sept. 22, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion. Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order, which the Court approved on Nov. 16, 2009. The case management order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011. The suit is Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312 (New Hampshire) (Laplante, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher Cole, Esq. Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green 1000 Elm St., P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 Tel: (603) 668-0300 E-mail: ccole@sheehan.com - and - Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy 53 State St, 13th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: mblauner@shulaw.com Representing the defendants are: W. Daniel Deane, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm St., 14th Flr Manchester, NH 03101-2031 Tel: (603) 628-4047 E-mail: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com - and - William H. Paine, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 526-6000 E-mail: william.paine@wilmerhale.com GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend a putative securities class-action suit captioned, Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2010. On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District against the company, certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters of the company's July 24, 2008, initial public offering. The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The state class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of the company's business relationship with LDK Solar. Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the State Court should deem just and proper. The company removed the state class action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008. The state class action was consolidated with the federal class action on Nov. 25, 2008. On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court. On May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal case. At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal class action. With the denial of the motion to dismiss the federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order to the State Court on Nov. 6, 2009. On Jan. 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's Business and Commercial Dispute Docket. GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry. The company's products and solutions are used for production of solar grade polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers, production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules. GT Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design and integration know-how with its equipment. The company offers its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are to customers outside the United States. HEALTHMARKETS INC: Discovery in Calif. "Privacy" Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a putative class action lawsuit against HealthMarkets, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, according to HealthMarkets, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2010. On December 18, 2008, HealthMarkets and its subsidiary The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company were named as defendants in a putative class action brought by Jerry Hopkins (Jerry T. Hopkins, individually and on behalf all those others similarly situated v. HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, Case No. BC404133. Plaintiff alleges invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code Section 630, et seq., negligence and the violation of common law privacy arising from allegations that the defendants monitored and recorded the telephone conversations of California residents without providing them with notice or obtaining their consent. Mr. Hopkins seeks an order certifying the suit as a California class action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. On December 3, 2009, plaintiff Jerry Hopkins was dismissed as the class plaintiff and Jerry Buszek was substituted in his place. On March 10, 2010, defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. HealthMarkets, Inc. (NYSE:UCI) offers health and life insurance through its MEGA Life and Health Insurance, Chesapeake Life Insurance Company, and other subsidiaries. Its targeted customers are the self-employed, association groups, and small businesses. Other services include third-party administrative and distribution services for health care providers and other insurers. The company changed its name from UICI to Health Markets in 2006 after being acquired by a consortium led by the Blackstone Group. HILTON LOS ANGELES: Faces Suit for Hiring Low-Wage Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class-action lawsuit filed against the Hilton Los Angeles Airport by two housekeepers claims the hotel was skirting the city's living-wage ordinance by using a subcontractor to hire lower-paid, temporary workers, attorneys said on June 16, 2010, according to Southern California Public Radio. Howard Fine at Los Angeles Business Journal reports that the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court late Tuesday, alleges the Hilton used a temporary employment agency to hire workers and pay those workers less than the city's living wage, which is $10.30 per hour for employees who get health benefits or $11.55 per hour for those who don't. According to Business Journal, the lawsuit also alleges the temporary employment agency, Norma's Corp., did not make required contributions to social security, unemployment and disability benefits. The suit seeks back pay and unspecified damages. "This suit is bringing attention to the ways that this hotel and employment agency have jointly reaped profits from the exploitation of low-wage workers," Southern California Public Radio quotes attorney Marc Coleman as saying. "Breaking the law to keep workers locked in poverty is harmful to them, the greater community and the city. The Hilton must be held accountable." Hilton officials could not be reached for comment. Southern California Public Radio relates that an official reached by the Los Angeles Times said she had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. Business Journal recalls the LAX Hilton was the most vocal opponent of the city's move to extend the living wage law to 13 airport area hotels in 2006. The city claimed that since the hotels were benefiting from a city asset -- the nearby Los Angeles International Airport -- they should be subject to the living wage law, which applies to city contractors. After an attempt to overturn the city's action through referendum fizzled in 2007, all the other hotels eventually settled with the city and agreed to abide by the living wage law. However, the Hilton sued in court to overturn the law, ultimately losing its challenge on appeal. The case is Sorto, et al. v. Hilton Los Angeles Airport, Hilton Hotels Corp., et al., Case No. BC439727 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. June 15, 2010), and the Plaintiffs are represented by: Randy Resnick, Esq. Virginia Keeny, Esq. Cindy Panucco, Esq. HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RESNICK, LLP 128 North Fir Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103-3645 Telephone: 626-585-9600 - and - Mark Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC COLEMAN 211 East Ocean Boulevard, SUite 420 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: 562-432-8188 E-mail: marc@marccolemanlaw.com HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Judge Cuts $2.2MM From Lawyers' Fees -------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Law Journal's Henry Gottlieb reports a judge ruled June 15 that a class action settlement requiring Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey to make billing reforms is fair and reasonable, but he cut $2.2 million from the fee award to the plaintiffs lawyers. Superior Court Judge Stephen Bernstein reduced the fee award to Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., to $4.3 million. Law Journal relates Horizon was prepared to pay $6.5 million in legal fees to class action lawyers when the case settled. But after an appeal by nine doctors groups who objected to the deal, the case was remanded to the Essex County judge who had approved it in 2007. Law Journal says Horizon was the biggest winner in Sutter v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Esx-L-385-02, a class action suit brought on behalf of doctors who alleged the giant insurer denied legitimate claims and, when it did pay, paid slowly, increasing providers' administrative costs. Horizon agreed in the settlement to ease the administrative burden on doctors, allow physicians to turn away new Horizon patients, publish a complete schedule of fees for typical services and seek timely reimbursement of any overpayments to doctors. But the nine medical groups objected on grounds that the settlement, as approved by Judge Bernstein, was flawed because it provided equitable relief only and that the fee was excessive. They also argued that all the reforms were mandated by statute. They also said the fee was too high, even though Horizon was willing to pay it. Last year, a state appeals court ordered Judge Bernstein to reconsider the fairness of the overall settlement and make a thorough review of whether the fee award was reasonable. When Judge Bernstein approved the fee in 2007, he found it represented 16.7% of the value of the case to doctors, which he found to be within the range of reasonable fees in class actions. But the appeals court said he also should have used the lodestar method, in which the attorneys' fees and hours are added to the equation. On remand, Judge Bernstein found that the 5,056 hours expended by the lawyers was warranted. But he rejected Mazie Slater's argument that he should consider the firm's effective rates -- its traditional recovery levels for contingency work. Law Journal says the judge approved a blended rate of $550 per hour for work by Eric Katz and partner David Mazie and $100 per hour for work by law clerks, for a total of $2.7 million. The judge added a 35% multiplier for the difficulty of the case and the risk the firm took in pursuing it and added the $600,000 in out-of-pocket costs expended. Judge Bernstein reiterated his view that the settlement was fair. The central question was whether plaintiff's economic expert, Teresa Waters of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, was correct when she pegged the value of the key portions of the settlement at $35 million or more -- $1,747 per doctor over the five-year life of the settlement. The key saving, Ms. Waters found, would be the reduction in the number of hours doctors' billing clerks would have to spend handling Horizon claims after the reforms. "The Sutter settlement entails real change to Horizon's business practices, requiring an investment of money, personnel and resources," Judge Bernstein said in his opinion, according to Law Journal. "While objectors contend that the business reforms stipulated in this settlement have no value because they are already mandated by statute, this Court finds that the settlement's significant reforms are not adequately provided for in any existing law." "Because Horizon has now posted complete fee information on its physician website, class members have immediate access to their reimbursement rates and can download these reimbursement rates into their practice's management systems for ease of use and reference," the judge said. Judge Bernstein also brushed aside the argument that the settlement had no value because it was made redundant by a subsequent nationwide Blue Cross class action settlement that provided for the same reforms. In that settlement approved in federal district court in Miami last year, Love v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, 03-Civ.21296, the class received monetary benefits, not just equitable relief as in Sutter. Judge Bernstein, according to Law Journal, noted that the Love settlement did not exist when Sutter settled and "it would be improper to allow objectors to argue in hindsight that they have received nothing of value because of a subsequent settlement." "It could be equally argued that the Love settlement may not have been as valuable had they not copied provisions from the Sutter settlement," the judge added. Mr. Katz at Mazie Slater says Judge Bernstein's decision was a "very well-reasoned opinion that details how terrific the settlement was," but he is disappointed the fee was cut. He says he will not appeal. Charles Gormally at Brach Eichler in Roseland, N.J., who represents the objector -- medical societies for podiatrists, ophthalmologists and other specialists -- says no decision on an appeal has been made, according to Law Journal. HOVNANIAN ENT: Additional Portions of Complaint Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed additional portions of the second amended complaint against a subsidiary of Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. A subsidiary of the company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action suit filed on May 30, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida captioned Randolph Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., alleging violations of the federal securities acts, among other allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007. The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of certain home purchasers in southwestern Florida and sought damages, rescission of certain purchase agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on Dec. 14, 2007. Following oral argument on the Motion in September 2008, the court dismissed the amended complaint with leave for the Plaintiffs to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Oct. 31, 2008. The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The Court dismissed portions of the second amended complaint. The Court dismissed additional portions of the second amended complaint on April 28, 2010. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs, constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes, attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned residential developments. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Lawyers Continue to Follow Case ----------------------------------------------------------- According to Daryl-Lynn Carlson at The Financial Post, lawyers say the number of product liability class actions launched against medical-device manufacturers is on the rise in Canada. The growth has been fuelled by one particular case that has both lawyers and the medical-device industry watching with interest, after a judge took the initiative to add his own twist in a decision to certify a lawsuit as a class action. The case, Serhan Estate v. Johnson and Johnson, involves SureStep blood glucose monitoring devices manufactured by Johnson subsidiaries LifeScan Inc. In 2004, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity determined that he would certify the case as a class action based on the doctrine of waiver of tort, even though the plaintiffs in the case had not raised it in their claim. Justice Cullity saw it as the most practical recourse, writing that, "if proven, [it] could entitle the plaintiff to a remedy on the basis of the doctrine." The key to any tort claim is proving damages, which can be difficult because medical devices impact people differently. The concept of waiver of tort eliminates that challenge. It permits a plaintiff who has suffered little or no damage from a faulty device to seek restitution through the disgorgement of the defendant's profits in selling the device instead of trying to prove traditional damages. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal Justice Cullity's ruling. Ms. Carlson reports that products liability lawyers continue watching the case closely to see whether the waiver of tort issue will be clarified at trial, although the case has been delayed pending settlement discussions. According to Ms. Carlson, Kathryn Chalmers, a lawyer at Stikeman Elliott in Toronto, noted there have since been a number of medical-device class actions based on the waiver of tort doctrine. "In waiver of tort, there's a big question whether this is something that is a standalone cause of action," she said. "So will this eliminate the necessity of proving that the plaintiffs suffered damage?" Ms. Chalmers asked. Several other class actions, including a pharmaceutical case and an action filed against a credit card company, have settled before going to trial with restitution based on the waiver of tort premise. Ms. Carlson relates Ms. Chalmers said that defense lawyers in particular are hoping the Serhan case doesn't settle so they can learn what a court will decide during trial. "Waiver of tort has never been explored at the higher levels of court to at least see what it is," she said. Ms. Carlson also reports that Paul Martin at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin pointed out that in the United States, LifeScan Inc. pleaded guilty 10 years ago to federal charges and paid US$60 million in criminal and civil fines for selling the SureStep meters and test strips after submitting false information about defects to the FDA. As defense counsel, Mr. Martin said, actions such as the Serhan matter, which might still go to trial in Canada, make it difficult to explain this country's class action environment to Americans. "It's extremely difficult to get these kinds of cases certified in the U.S.," Mr. Martin said. "So in your typical coordinated cross- border defense, there is a real education process in many respects." One of the first medical devices to be subjected to multi-jurisdictional class actions was the silicon breast implant manufactured by several companies. Those cases, launched in the 1990s, have been largely concluded, although there are a few government- related actions still going on. Ms. Carlson also reports that Tim Buckley, defense counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto, recently concluded what he hopes will be the last of defense work for BristolMyers Squibb regarding implants. He said it's very difficult for plaintiffs to establish that there are common issues to be tried in a medical-device class action, because everybody reacts to an implant or device differently. "There's a real range of differences in these cases. With the breast implants, there was the silicone ingredient so maybe someone can argue there is commonality," Mr. Buckley said. "But take a defibrillator or a heart implant, that's very different and it's very difficult to have a common issue at trial with respect to those types of implants and I think the attempts to try these cases will be very difficult." Ms. Carlson also writes that Andrew Bernstein, defense counsel at Torys in Toronto, acknowledged that the law regarding waiver of tort in many areas, including medical devices, is "still extremely unsettled," but it has made certification of class actions easier. "Waiver of tort helps plaintiffs answer the defense argument that the case should not be certified because causation and damages are individual issues. The defense bar is now in the process of reacting to waiver of tort," he said. JONES SODA: Court to Schedule Oral Argument on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Briefing on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit against Jones Soda Co. has concluded and parties are now preparing for oral argument, according to Jones Soda's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010. On September 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, its then serving chief executive officer, and its then serving chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case was entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period March 9, 2007, to August 2, 2007. Six substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the same court, some of which alleged claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period November 1, 2006, to August 2, 2007. Some of the subsequently filed complaints added as defendants certain current and former directors and another former officer of the Company. The complaints generally alleged violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and omissions about our financial results and business prospects. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On October 26, 2007, these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a single action entitled In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL. On March 5, 2008, the Court appointed Robert Burrell lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities case. On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint, which purports to allege claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period of January 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the Company and Peter van Stolk, its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board, and former director. The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and business prospects. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 7, 2008. After hearing oral argument on February 3, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety on February 9, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend their complaint on March 25, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 7, 2009, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and Mr. van Stolk. On August 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009 judgment. The parties' briefing on the appeal was completed on March 4, 2010. The court has not yet scheduled a date for oral argument on the appeal. Jones Soda Co. -- http://www.myjones.com/-- develops, produces, markets and distributes a range of beverages, which includes Jones Pure Cane Soda, a carbonated soft drink; Jones 24C, a water beverage; Jones GABA, a tea juice blend; Jones Organics, a ready- to-drink organic tea; Jones Naturals, a non-carbonated juice and tea, and Whoop Ass Energy Drink, a citrus energy drink. The company sells and distributes its products primarily throughout the United States and Canada through its network of independent distributors, national retail accounts, as well as through licensing and distribution arrangements. It also sells various products online. LPL FINANCIAL: Sued for Broker's Misrepresentations --------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a pair of Nebraska investors filed a class-action lawsuit against LPL Financial, saying that one of the company's brokers misled them about the costs and benefits of annuities. J.L. Spray, one of the investors' attorneys, said in court documents that broker Bob Bennie made multiple misrepresentations about the $366,500 in annuities he sold to Richard and Carol Ripley. The AP notes Mr. Bennie, who used to lead the Lancaster County Republican Party, has helped organize tea party events in the state this year. Michael Rhodes, with the law firm defending LPL, says LPL believes the lawsuit has no merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. LPL officials declined to discuss details. Boston, Mass.-based LPL Financial is a diversified financial services company and independent broker/dealer supporting more than 12,000 financial advisors nationwide. LPL is also an enabling partner to a broad range of banks and credit unions, as well as broker/dealers at leading financial services companies. META FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in "Guardian Angel" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has certified the class in a class action complaint filed by Guardian Angel Credit Union against MetaBank and Meta Financial Group Inc., according to Meta Financial's Form 10-Q/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010. Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank certificates of deposit continue to be addressed. In all, nine cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, two have been dismissed, and three have been settled for payments that the Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the costs of litigation. Of the four remaining cases, two are class action cases. On May 5, 2010, in one of these two cases, Guardian Angel Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC, District of NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the class. Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.bankmeta.com/-- is a holding company. The company through banking subsidiaries MetaBank and MetaBank West Central (MetaBank WC), provides a range of financial services. The principal business of MetaBank consists of attracting retail deposits from the general public and investing those funds primarily in one- to four-family residential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real estate, agricultural operating and real estate, construction, consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's market area. The company operates in areas, including the Iowa counties of Adair, Buena Vista, Dallas, Guthrie, Pocahontas, Polk and Sac, and the South Dakota counties of Brookings, Lincoln and Minnehaha. The company also has a wholly owned subsidiary, First Midwest Financial Capital Trust. The MetaBank has four market areas and the Meta Payment Systems division: Northwest Iowa, Brookings, Central Iowa, and Sioux Empire. MICHAEL FOODS: Motions to Dismiss Complaints Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Foods, Inc., is awaiting a decision on its motions to dismiss two amended complaints against the company, according to its May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods Inc. and approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and processed-egg products. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg- industry associations. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Michael Foods currently has two motions to dismiss pending before the Court: (1) a motion to dismiss the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael Foods, Inc.; and (2) a motion to dismiss the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael Foods, Inc. and subsidiary Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products, Inc. Michael Foods is also a party to various other motions, filed by multiple defendants, to dismiss portions of the complaints. A decision on these motions is not expected until July 2010 or later. Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried). It has other operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales. The spuds come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and mashes potatoes. The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy products. Michael's customers include food processors, foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90% of the company. MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Judge Rejects Md. Speed Cameras Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Hayley Peterson at The Washington Examiner reports that Judge David Boynton of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, dismissed on June 15, 2010, a two-year-old class-action lawsuit against speed cameras in Montgomery County, Rockville, Chevy Chase Village and Gaithersburg, calling off a two-week trial set to begin July 12. The Class Action Reporter published on May 26, 2010, a notice of the July 12 Speed Camera Trial. Timothy Leahy, Esq., at Byrd & Byrd, LLC, filed suit in May 2008 saying the jurisdictions have been operating their speed camera programs illegally by paying their camera contractors on a per- ticket basis. In March 2009, Judge Boynton permitted Mr. Leahy to pursue the claim as a class-action suit -- involving anyone who has received a ticket from Montgomery's cameras. According to the Examiner, Montgomery gives 40% of its ticket revenues -- or $16.25 per ticket -- to its contractor, Affiliated Computer Services. Maryland law prohibits per-ticket payments to camera operators to avoid financial incentive for issuing more tickets. Judge Boynton ruled in each case that the jurisdictions, rather than the camera contractors, operate the systems. "The message is clear," said Patrick Lacefield, spokesman for Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, according to the Examiner. "Slow down." He said the county had been confident it would prevail. "We're the operators of the system because we are the final authority when a citation is issued," Mr. Lacefield said, according to the Examiner. Montgomery generates about $1.2 million in camera ticket revenue per month. The Examiner notes that Montgomery's contract with ACS says the compensation rate is based on ACS providing "digital speed camera vehicles, equipment and personnel to service the technology six days a week for two eight-hour shifts per day." ACS also is responsible for recording, printing and mailing citations as well as collecting ticket payments. After two ACS employees verify a camera ticket and accompanying license plate photo, a police officer in the relevant jurisdiction will approve the citation for ACS to print and mail, according to the contract. Mr. Leahy declined to comment following Boynton's ruling Wednesday, the Examiner says. According to the Examiner, Mr. Lacefield said the speed camera program in Montgomery won't be swayed by a legal challenge. "There is broad public support for speed cameras," he said. "If people don't like tickets they should slow down." NEUROMETRIX INC: Appeal on Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal on the dismissal of a consolidated amended class action complaint against Neurometrix, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the same defendants. These two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed, which alleged, among other things, that between October 27, 2005, and February 12, 2008, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information to the investing public. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages. On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 6, 2010. The appeal is currently pending. NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- is a science- based health care company transforming patient care through neurotechnology. The company provides innovative products for preservation and restoration of nerve and spinal cord function, and pain control. NEXCEN BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss "Granatelli" Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- NexCen Brands, Inc., is awaiting the outcome of its motion to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint filed in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010. A total of four putative securities class actions were filed in May, June and July 2008 in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York against NexCen and certain of its former officers and a current director for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. On March 5, 2009, the court consolidated the actions under the caption, In re NexCen Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08- cv-04906, and appointed Vincent Granatelli as lead plaintiff and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel. On August 24, 2009, plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by misleading investors in the Company's public filings and statements during a putative class period that begins on March 13, 2007, when the Company announced the establishment of the credit facility with BTMU Capital Corporation, and ends on May 19, 2008, when the Company's stock fell in the wake of the Company's disclosure of the previously undisclosed terms of a January 2008 amendment to the credit facility, the substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, the Company's inability to timely file its periodic report and the expected restatement of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, initially filed on March 21, 2008. The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and also asserts that the individual defendants are liable as controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff seeks damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 14, 2009, and the Company filed a reply on January 27, 2010. The court has rescheduled the hearing on the motion to dismiss for June 8, 2010. NexCen Brands, Inc. -- http://www.nexcenbrands.com/-- is a global brand management and franchising company. The company is focused on managing, developing and acquiring intellectual property (IP) and IP-centric businesses. It owns, licenses, franchises and markets a portfolio of brands including Bill Blass, Waverly, The Athlete's Foot, Shoebox New York, Great American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble Slab Creamery, Pretzel Time and Pretzelmaker. It licenses and franchises these brands to a network of retailers, manufacturers and franchisees that includes segments of retail distribution from the luxury market to the mass market in the U.S. and in over 50 countries around the world. The company's franchise network consists of approximately 1,900 retail stores. NexCen Brands operates in three segments: Consumer Branded Products, Retail Franchising and Quick Service Restaurant Franchising (QSR). NOVA SCOTIA: Supreme Court to Webcast Pollution Suit Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------ Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post in Nova Scotia, reports that a hearing that will determine whether a lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments will be certified as a class action will be broadcast via the Internet, beginning this week. This is a first for the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, the Post says. Details of the live broadcast were released Wednesday by the Nova Scotia judiciary. According to the Post, legal arguments to have the proposed suit declared a class action due to health issues related to the legacy of the Sydney tar ponds and coke ovens will be heard in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court beginning Monday. The parties involved have agreed to the webcast. Nine days have been set aside for the matter. Ms. King notes that Ray Wagner of Wagners, one of the two law firms representing the residents, originally sought to have the hearing held in Sydney, Nova Scotia. According to Ms. King, Mr. Wagner said recently he was satisfied with the new arrangement, saying it's important for the people of Sydney to see what is being argued. The proceedings will be presided over by Justice John D. Murphy. The motion will be heard at the Law Courts on Upper Water Street in Halifax beginning Monday at 9:30 a.m. The live webcast can be accessed through the Courts of Nova Scotia Web site at http://www.court.ns.ca/ "Webcasting these proceedings live on the Internet will enable the plaintiffs, most of whom are in Cape Breton, to view what goes on in the courtroom without having to travel to Halifax," John Piccolo, director of communications for the Nova Scotia Judiciary, said in a news release. "It is also more convenient for them and less of a draw on court resources than doing it by videoconferencing link between the Halifax Law Courts and the courthouse in Sydney." The province's Court of Appeal broadcast one of its hearing on the Internet for the first time in February 2009. The recent fatality inquiry into the death of Howard Hyde was the most recent court- related hearings to be webcast in Nova Scotia. The Post relates the proposed suit would bring more than 400 claimants under one umbrella for a single trial. If the action is certified, it will represent everyone in the class, which would be about 30,000 people. The claim was filed on behalf of people who live or lived in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the former Sydney steel plant, former coke ovens operations, and tar ponds. It seeks compensation for property damage, funds to establish a medical mechanism to monitor the risks posed by the toxic emissions and compensation for exposure to pollution. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of "Jones" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri has approved a settlement of a class action lawsuit against Novastar Financial, Inc., according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010. On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported class action case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the Company, certain former and current officers of the Company, and unnamed members of the Company's "Retirement Committee". Plaintiff, a former employee of the Company, seeks class action certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006, until November 15, 2007, and whose accounts included investments in the Company's common stock. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the Company's common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in the 401(k) plan to be made in the Company's common stock. On November 12, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the Court on February 11, 2009. On April 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification. On May 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the Company permission to appeal the class certification order. On November 9, 2009 the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiff. The settlement provides for payment by the Company's insurer of $0.9 million. The Court approved the settlement on April 22, 2010. NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage securities. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. ONVIA INC: Awaits Briefing Schedule on Appeals to Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Onvia, Inc., relates in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010, that a briefing schedule has yet to be set in relation to appeals filed against approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in New York. In 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against Onvia, certain former executive officers, and the lead underwriter of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, Credit Suisse First Boston. The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000, and December 6, 2000. In 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed. The complaint charged defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that failed to disclose and contained false and misleading statements regarding certain commissions purported to have been received by the underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in connection with their allocation of shares in the offering. The complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as attorneys' fees. This action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases, which do not include Onvia. The Court indicated that its decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide strong guidance for the parties in the remaining cases. The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's case, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Onvia. On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. A group of three objectors to the settlement filed a petition to the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final approval order. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition. Six notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have also been filed by different groups of objectors, including the objectors that filed the petition. The time to file additional notices of appeal has run. The briefing schedule for the appeals has not been set. Onvia, Inc. -- http://www.onvia.com/-- provides information products and research tools that help companies plan, market, and sell to targeted markets in the United States. Its products and services provide access to company's Onvia Online Database of project specific information, as well as offer specialized tools for analyzing information relevant to customer's businesses. ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Class Suit Seeks to Stop Dimensional Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Orchard Enterprises, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit over its planned merger with Dimensional Associates, LLC, according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On March 25, 2010, a putative class action civil suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, the individual directors of the Company, Dimensional Associates, LLC, and Orchard Merger Sub, Inc., in connection with the proposed merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of March 15, 2010, as amended, among the Company, Dimensional and Merger Sub. The complaint asserts, purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, other than those affiliated with Dimensional Associates, LLC, claims of breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of Delaware law against the directors and against Dimensional, as the controlling stockholder of the Company, and Merger Sub, its wholly owned subsidiary. No specific claim is made against the Company, although it is named as a defendant. The complaint seeks equitable relief and does not specify the amount of any damages sought. The Company has engaged Delaware counsel to represent the Company and Bradley Navin, the Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company. The Special Committee of the board created on October 19, 2009, has engaged separate Delaware counsel to represent the directors who are members of the Special Committee. On May 5, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and on May 6, 2010, plaintiff filed two motions seeking expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction with the Delaware Court of Chancery. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion to expedite proceedings for May 21, 2010. No date has been set for the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in digital media services, controlling and distributing more than 1.8 million music and audio recordings and approximately 5,000 titles of video programming and other materials through hundreds of digital stores (Amazon, eMusic, Hulu, iTunes, Rhapsody, YouTube) and mobile carriers (Orange, Telefonica, Verizon, 3) worldwide. The Company performs four basic business activities: license or acquire digital rights and, in some instances, physical rights to music and video content from labels and other content providers; ingest, manage and deliver this content to its digital retail and other clients; develop and manage a global digital retail channel network to exploit its controlled catalogue and then proactively market to this channel network, and drive additional value to its content suppliers, digital retailers and other clients. PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Seeks to Dismiss Consumer Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Pacific WebWorks, Inc., intends to oppose class certification of four similar lawsuits filed by different plaintiffs alleging violations of consumer laws, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010. During November 2009, three lawsuits were filed against Pacific WebWorks in various jurisdictions. The legal actions allege similar claims related to procedures the Company uses to sell its products in its ordinary course of business. On November 9, 2009, Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. A second action was filed on November 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano. A third action was filed by Lisa Rasmussen on November 20, 2009, in the Superior Court of Washington, Snohomish County. All plaintiffs in these cases are being represented by the same legal firm and each complaint seeks class action certification. The complaints allege that Pacific WebWorks violated consumer protection and federal RICO laws, committed fraud and used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which Pacific WebWorks charges for purchases of its products. Each action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable costs and attorney fees. In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained the law firm of Snell and Wilmer as legal counsel to vigorously defend the Company in these lawsuits. Discovery is beginning on the class certification phase in the Illinois, Washington and California lawsuits. The Company's legal counsel intends to oppose class certification and move to dismiss all claims. On January 5, 2010, another similar lawsuit was filed by Song Que Hahn, a California resident, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On February 8, 2010, the Company's legal counsel filed a motion to strike the class allegations and a motion to dismiss all claims, except the breach of contract claims. On March 9, 2010, Song Que Hahn filed an opposition to the Company's motions and counsel intends to refute the arguments presented in the oppositions. Pacific WebWorks, Inc. -- http://www.pacificwebworks.com/-- is an application service provider and software development firm that develops business software technologies and services for business merchants and organizations using Internet and other technologies. The company specializes in turnkey applications allowing small to medium sized businesses to expand over the Internet. Its product family provides tools for Website creation, management and maintenance, electronic business storefront hosting and Internet payment systems for the small to medium sized business and organization. The company has four wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Intellipay, Inc., TradeWorks Marketing, Inc., FundWorks, Inc. and Pacific WebWorks International, LTD. PINNACLE GAS: Delaware Court Consolidates Class Action Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating two putative stockholder class action lawsuits under the caption In re Pinnacle Gas Resources Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5313-CC (Del. Ch.), according to Pinnacle Gas Resources Inc.'s May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits related to the Company's planned merger have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Powder Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Powder Acquisition Co., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Powder Holdings. Powder Holdings is controlled by an investor group led by Scotia Waterous (USA) Inc. and includes certain members of the Company's management team. On April 2, 2010, the Company filed a preliminary proxy statement relating to the merger, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 24, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption In re Pinnacle Gas Resources Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5313-CC (Del. Ch.) and appointing co-lead counsel. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that Pinnacle Gas' directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, taking actions designed to deter higher offers from other potential acquirers and failing to maximize the value of Pinnacle to its stockholders. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that DLJ, as a controlling stockholder of Pinnacle, violated fiduciary duties to Pinnacle stockholders and that Powder and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the other defendants. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief prohibiting the Merger, and costs of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees. Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pinnaclegas.com/-- is an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of domestic onshore natural gas reserves. The company focuses on the development of coalbed methane (CBM) properties located in the Rocky Mountain region, and is a holder of CBM acreage in the Powder River Basin. In addition, the company owns over 94% of the rights to develop conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas in zones below its existing CBM reserves. Substantially all of its undeveloped acreage as of Dec. 31, 2008, was located in the northern end of the Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming and southern Montana. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Counsel Gets $138,000 After Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to NorthJersey.com, Craig Kozan, Esq., at Witham and Kozan P.A., was able to net $138,000 in attorney fees after a judge dismissed the Gerard Ward vs. Prudential, et al. class action lawsuit without having to go to trial. Judge Daniel M. Waldman with the Monmouth County Superior Court granted the motion on June 1. "(Judge Waldman) agreed with me that the lawsuit was frivolous and entered an order awarding the defendants approximately $138,000 in attorney's fees, to be paid by the plaintiffs and their attorneys," Mr. Kozan said. NorthJersey.com reports Mr. Kozan explained that the lawsuit began due to Prudential Insurance "demutualizing," or becoming a publicly traded company in 2000. According to Mr. Kozan, a Prudential life insurance policy held by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey covering its employees became demutualized in 2000. The policy was previously capitalized, or funded, by the payment of premiums from its policyholders, and when it went to a publicly traded company, it became capitalized by the sale of shares to stockholders, Mr. Kozan said. The report relates Mr. Kozan was hired to represent the Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Association, the Port Authority Police Sergeants Benevolent Association, and the Port Authority Police Detectives Endowment Association, which were the three unions that had negotiated benefits as part of their contracts in the 1970s, including life insurance. The PANYNJ decided to send out $2,000 to its then active employees after Prudential paid the equivalent of $14 million in premiums since 1951, which led to the lawsuit from employees that retired before the demutualization happened and didn't receive this $2,000 bonus. "The retirees' theories included that the unions owed their retired, former members a fiduciary duty, like a stockbroker owes to its clients," Mr. Kozan said. Mr. Kozan said that Prudential had originally been named as a defendant, but was let out of the case early on, since Prudential had followed the rules regarding the disbursement of funds resulting from its demutualization. The discovery process took almost four years, according to Mr. Kozan. After the case was dismissed, Mr. Kozan filed a motion for attorney fees and sanctions, arguing that the lawsuit was "frivolous" from the outset. QUEBEC: Superior Ct. Rejects Class Suit Bid on Noise Pollution -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed a motion for authorization to institute a class action filed by residents living alongside the Laurentian Autoroute in Quebec City, in Canada. The individuals, according to an article posted at law firm Fasken Martineau, had asked the Superior Court to authorize a class action against the Quebec government on behalf of a group of about a thousand people living near the Laurentian Autoroute who complained of noise pollution caused by highway traffic. Fasken Martineau says the group was seeking an injunction against the Quebec government; more specifically, they were petitioning the court to order the Ministere des Transports to take measures to reduce noise levels below 55 dBALeq per 24 hours (equivalent continuous noise over a 24-hour period). The group was also seeking C$10,000 per year in damages. Fasken Martineau says the petitioners argued that traffic noise constitutes an abnormal neighborhood annoyance within the meaning of article 976 of the Civil Code of Quebec. They maintained, moreover, that the Ministere des Transports' inaction constituted a civil fault under article 1457 of that code. According to Fasken Martineau, the court agreed that the requirement of article 1003(a) of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure was met, namely that the claims presented by the members of the group share common factual elements and points of law. The court was not convinced, however, that the motion met the requirement of article 1003(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely that obtaining powers of attorney or proceeding by joinder of actions would be difficult or impracticable. Indeed, the petitioners knew the people in the neighborhood and had circulated petitions. This is why, the court emphasized, that there was no doubt as to the group's ability to manage the recourse, Fasken Martineau says. The requirement of article 1003(d) was therefore met. According to Fasken Martineau, the main problem with the class action (and reason for which it failed) was that it did not meet the condition of article 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure -- which holds that the facts alleged in the motion for authorization to institute a class action must seem to justify the conclusions sought. According to the engineering firm study filed by the petitioners, 42% of residents suffered an annoyance level equal to or greater than the 55 dBA standard. They cited a Ministere des Transports policy which states that protection measures are called for in cases of high acoustic annoyance levels. Here, though, only 9% of the sector's residents were exposed to such levels. Another consideration, Fasken Martineau says, is the fact that setting priorities for government action is a political decision for which the government is accountable to its constituents. In other words, the courts bear no judgment on the government's budgetary decisions. And the petitioners were not accusing the government of bad faith, fraud, abuse of right, discrimination or violation of any fundamental right. "What they did argue was that the government had failed to take appropriate measures to mitigate noise. The Superior Court refused to encroach on the government's jurisdiction and dismissed the motion," Fasken Martineau says. "It remains to be seen whether the petitioners will be appealing this matter. They have until mid-June to decide. "What is surprising is that this judgment, which deals with the theory of neighborhood annoyances, makes no mention whatsoever of the Supreme Court of Canada's Barrette v. Ciment du Saint-Laurent. "It would seem that, in the wake of the Court of Appeal's decision in the matter of Entreprises Auberge du parc ltee v. Site historique du Banc-de-peche de Paspebiac, petitioners have met with nothing but failure in their attempts to apply the theory of neighborhood annoyances following the Supreme Court decision." QUICKLOGIC CORP: Objectors File Appeals on Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Quicklogic Corporation discloses in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010, that certain objectors have filed appeals to the approval of a settlement of a securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's officers and directors. The complaint alleges excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in" arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14, 1999, and December 6, 2000. Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out of each company's public offering. These actions, including the action against QuickLogic, have been coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities Litigation. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including QuickLogic, was submitted to the court for approval. On August 31, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the appellate Court overturned the certification of classes in the six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement. Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and amended complaints, in the six test cases. On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion and order granting final approval of the settlement, plan of allocation and class certification. Under the terms of the settlement, the insurers are responsible for paying the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company bears no financial liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, have received complete dismissals from the case. Certain objectors have filed appeals. QuickLogic Corporation, a fabless semiconductor company, develops and markets programmable solutions that enable customers to add features to their mobile, consumer, and industrial products. It offers customer specific standard products (CSSPs), field programmable gate arrays, and application solutions, as well as associated design software and programming hardware. The company was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. RADIO ONE: Shareholders File Appeal on Settlement of IPO Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Radio One, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010, that certain shareholders have filed appeals from an order approving a global settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in New York. In November 2001, Radio One and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned, In re Radio One, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV- 10160. Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s. In the complaint filed against Radio One (as amended), the plaintiffs claimed that Radio One, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings violated Section 11 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs' claim was based on allegations that Radio One's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by the underwriters, and the stock allocation practices of the underwriters. The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that these omissions constituted a deceit on investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits. In October 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to Radio One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003. In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One and most of the Issuers. In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's board of directors approved in principle a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs. The proposed settlement would have provided for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Cases and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the Issuers may have against their underwriters. In September 2003, in connection with the proposed settlement, Radio One's named officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized. In June 2004, Radio One executed a final settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. In 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the court held a Final Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's earlier decision certifying as class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases." Thereafter, the district court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO Cases pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the district court. Accordingly, the settlement was terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and did not receive final approval. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" on or about August 14, 2007. Radio One is not a defendant in the focus cases. In September 2007, Radio One's named officers and directors again extended the tolling agreement with plaintiffs. On or about September 27, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify the classes alleged in the "focus cases" and to appoint class representatives and class counsel in those cases. The focus cases issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the class certification in December 2007. On March 16, 2008, the district court denied the motions to dismiss in the focus cases. In August 2008, the parties to the IPO Cases began mediation toward a global settlement of the IPO Cases. In September 2008, Radio One's board of directors approved in principle participation in a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs. On October 2, 2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion. In April 2009, a global settlement was reached in the IPO Cases and submitted to the district court for approval. On June 9, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be published and mailed to class members. On September 10, 2009, the court held a Final Fairness Hearing. On October 6, 2009, the court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final approval of the settlement. On or about October 23, 2009, three shareholders filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order, challenging the court's certification of the settlement classes. Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement. If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims against Radio One and its officers and directors with prejudice, and its pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance. Radio One, Inc. operates as an urban-oriented multi-media company in the United States. It principally engages in the radio broadcasting operation that primarily targets African-American and urban listeners. As of December 31, 2009, it owned and operated 53 radio stations located in 16 urban markets in the United States. The company also has approximately 37% ownership interest in TV One, LLC, an African-American targeted cable television network; and a 53.5% ownership interest in Reach Media, Inc., which operates the Tom Joyner Morning Show. Further, it owns Interactive One, LLC, an online platform serving the African-American community through social content, news, information, and entertainment; and Community Connect, LLC, an online social networking company. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Lanham, Maryland. ROSS FIALKOW: Accused of Selling Unregistered Securities -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Ross Fialkow Capital Partners LLP, Jay Lawrence Fialkow and Jeffrey P. Ross offered securities in "a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Richard Elkinson, of Framingham, Mass.," in Suffolk County Court, Boston. Beth Healy, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a group of investors alleges that Messrs. Fialkow and Ross failed to do adequate due diligence on Mr. Elkinson, a Framingham man who told investors he was raising money to finance a uniform business. In fact, the business never existed. According to Ms. Healy, Mr. Elkinson was arrested in Mississippi in January on charges that he defrauded 130 people out of $29 million. He is facing an 18-count indictment and is being held at a Rhode Island prison. He also is facing civil charges brought by securities regulators. The lead plaintiff in the class action is Newton resident Sidney L. Sherter, a trustee for three trusts that allegedly lost money in the scheme. The lawsuit says the trusts lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. A spokeswoman for Messrs. Ross and Fialkow said the case has no merit, according to the Globe. A copy of the Complaint in Sherter, et al. v. Ross Fialkow Capital Partners, LLP, et al., Case No. 10-1888 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/16/Securities.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Michelle Blauner, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-439-3939 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com mblauner@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Settles Missouri Data Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ A proposed settlement has been reached with Shadowsoft, Inc. and The Source for Public Data L.P. to resolve a case filed July 21, 2008, over the alleged acquisition and unlawful use of "highly restricted personal information" belonging to some Missouri drivers. The Plaintiffs in the action claimed that the defendants' alleged actions violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Shadowsoft, Inc. and The Source for Public Data L.P. have denied any violation of the law and any liability, but have agreed to settle this action. As part of the settlement terms, the Corporate Defendants have agreed to return the drivers license data at issue. "Due to the limited financial assets of the defendants, the settlement does not include individual monetary compensation to class members," says attorney Mitch Burgess, who represents the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also filed suit against several individuals who are past or present employees of the Missouri Department of Revenue. The Plaintiffs claim that these individual defendants disclosed the highly restricted personal information from the Missouri Department of Revenue in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants remain pending. Class members affected by the settlement, and the continuing litigation against the individual defendants, are all licensed drivers in the state of Missouri whose highly restricted personal information from their motor vehicle record was obtained, disclosed, or used by the defendants, from July 21, 2004, to present, in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. A hearing is scheduled for October 28, 2010, in the United States District Court Western District of Missouri in Jefferson City, to determine if the proposed settlement is fair to all parties. Attorney Mitch Burgess noted that class members may obtain more information about the proposed settlement and pending litigation by contacting his law firm, Burgess & Lamb, P.C., in Kansas City, Missouri or by visiting the firm's Web site and viewing the Mo Drivers Litigation Link at http://www.burgessandlamb.com/ The case is Roberts, et al. v. The Source for Public Data, et al., Case No. 08-cv-04167 (W.D. Mo.), and the Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitch Burgess, Esq. BURGESS & LAMB, P.C. 1000 Broadway, Suite 400 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Telephone: (816) 471-9700 SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- SunPower Corporation is facing a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California, according to SunPower's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2010. Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through November 16, 2009. The cases are captioned Plichta v. SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November 18, 2009); Cao v. SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5488-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November 18, 2009); and Parrish v. SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. C-09-05520-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November 20, 2009). The Cao lawsuit also includes the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant. The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation announcement on November 16, 2009. The complaints allege that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and 2009, seek an unspecified amount of damages, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases were consolidated as Plichta v. SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, on March 5, 2010. Lead plaintiff was scheduled to file a consolidated complaint on or before May 28, 2010. SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWRA and SPWRB) -- http://us.sunpowercorp.com/-- designs, manufactures and delivers high-performance solar electric systems worldwide for residential, commercial and utility-scale power plant customers. SunPower high- efficiency solar cells and solar panels generate up to 50 percent more power than conventional solar technologies and have a uniquely attractive, all-black appearance. With headquarters in San Jose, Calif., SunPower has offices in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. TLC VISION: Units Face RICO Class Suit in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- TLC Vision Corporation's subsidiaries, according to its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010, are being sued for violating the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Charles Benjamin Dickerson filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, against various subsidiaries and affiliates of the Company in connection with laser vision correction surgeries performed at TLC centers. The suit alleges violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and declaratory relief. While the ultimate result of the litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the suit. Based in Chesterfield, Mo., TLC Vision Corporation -- http://www.tlcvision.com/-- is North America's premier eye care services company, providing eye doctors with the tools and technologies needed to deliver high-quality patient care. Through its centers' management, technology access service models, extensive optometric relationships, direct to consumer advertising and managed care contracting strength, TLC Vision maintains leading positions in Refractive, Cataract and Eye Care markets. TORO COMPANY: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin gave its preliminary approval to the agreement entered into by The Toro Company settling a consolidated consumer fraud class action against, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. In June 2004, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers in Illinois and Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit in Illinois state court against the company and other defendants alleging that the horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate. Those individuals later amended their complaint to add additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state statutory and common law claims. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons in the United States who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994 through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the defendants. The amended complaint also sought an injunction, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages under RICO, and attorneys' fees. In May 2006, the case was removed to federal court in the Southern District of Illinois. In August 2006, the company, together with the other defendants other than MTD Products Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Also in August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with MTD and certification of a settlement class. In December 2006, another defendant, American Honda Motor Company, notified the company and the other defendants that it had reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. In May 2008, the court issued a memorandum and order that (i) dismissed the RICO claim in its entirety; (ii) dismissed all non- Illinois state-law claims but with instructions that such claims could be re-filed in local courts; and (iii) rejected the proposed settlement with MTD. The proposed Honda settlement was not under consideration by the court and was not addressed in the memorandum and order. Also in May 2008, the plaintiffs (i) re-filed the Illinois claims with the court; and (ii) filed non-Illinois claims in federal courts in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California with essentially the same state law claims. In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that (i) stated their intent to file lawsuits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; and (ii) sought to have all of the cases transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In August 2008, the MDL Panel issued an order denying the transfer request. Additional lawsuits, some of which included additional plaintiffs, were filed in various federal and state courts asserting essentially the same state law claims. Lawsuits were subsequently filed in federal and state courts throughout the United States, which collectively assert claims under the laws of each state. In September 2008, the company and other defendants filed a motion with the MDL Panel that sought to transfer the multiple actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In early December 2008, the MDL Panel issued an order that (i) transferred 23 lawsuits, which collectively asserted claims under the laws of 16 states, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; (ii) selected the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin as the transferee district; and (iii) provided that additional lawsuits will be treated as "tag-along" actions in accordance with its rules. An initial hearing was held in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in January 2009. At that hearing, the Court (i) appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and (ii) entered a stay of all litigation so that the parties could explore mediation. Formal mediation proceedings were commenced, settlement discussions were conducted, and ultimately all defendants entered into various settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in February 2010. The settlement agreement entered into by the company and certain other defendants provides for, among other things, (i) a monetary settlement, (ii) an additional warranty period for some engines that are subject to the litigation, and (iii) injunctive relief relating to power rating labeling practices. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and certification of a settlement class, and the court granted the motion. The settlement is not final for all purposes until after members of the proposed settlement class receive notice of the settlement, the Court determines that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and applicable appeal periods expire without appeal. The Court has scheduled a hearing in June 2010, at which it is expected that the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products. The company classifies its operations in two business segments: professional and residential. A third segment called other consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing subsidiary. The company's products are advertised and sold at the retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol, Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie. Toro manufactures its products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the United Kingdom. TORO COMPANY: Faces Suit in Canada Over Lawnmower HP Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- The Toro Company faces a class action litigation in Canada over horsepower labels on its lawnmowers, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers in Canada filed class action litigation against the company and other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and equitable relief. Management continues to evaluate this litigation. The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products. The company classifies its operations in two business segments: professional and residential. A third segment called other consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing subsidiary. The company's products are advertised and sold at the retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol, Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie. Toro manufactures its products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the United Kingdom. TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Grants Dismissal Motion --------------------------------------------------------- Trailer Bridge, Inc., obtained a court order dismissing it with prejudice as to claims asserted in a consolidated class action lawsuit in Puerto Rico, according to Trailer Bridge's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010. On April 17, 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico ocean carriers. Company representatives have met with United States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation. The Company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the subpoena. To date, neither the company nor any of its employees has been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and we will continue to cooperate with government officials. Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner Services and the Company. The actions alleged that the defendants inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The actions, which were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs' lead counsel has filed a number of amended class action complaints under seal. The Company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with the court. On April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted the Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the claims of the named plaintiffs. This order will not become final and appealable until a further order or judgment is entered by the Court. Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- provides integrated trucking and marine freight service to and from all points in the lower 48 states and Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic, bringing efficiency, service, security and environmental and safety benefits to domestic cargo in that traffic lane. This total transportation system utilizes its own trucks, drivers, trailers, containers and U.S. flag vessels to link the mainland with Puerto Rico via marine facilities in Jacksonville, San Juan and Puerto Plata. UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., is facing a consolidated second amended complaint in a purported class-action in Illinois on behalf of a purported class of California gasoline retailers, according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On January 12, 2009, Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of 10 defendants in a related action filed in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings, which the JPML granted. On February 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a purported class of California gasoline retailers who indirectly purchase filters from defendants for resale. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., still faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada. Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of 14 defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada. This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14 defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and $15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on. No further updates were reported in the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuit Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec -------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., continues to face a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada. Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada. This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on. No further updates were reported in the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class action claims were filed against the company and certain of its officers, former officers, and a former director. The lawsuits were consolidated as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP. The original actions were: -- Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; -- Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; -- Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); -- Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; -- Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; -- Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; -- Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; -- Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; -- Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW. On Aug. 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel. Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, based on allegations that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding its business and operations during the putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 31, 2008. The court granted that motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling. The proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 2009, followed by a second amended complaint filed on Jan. 19, 2010. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the hearing on that motion was held on May 17, 2010. The motion is currently pending ruling by the court. Although discovery has not yet commenced in this action, on Nov. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to partially lift the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act discovery stay in order to obtain documents produced by the company to the SEC in connection with the SEC's investigation into the restatement of the company's fiscal year 2007 interim financial statements. The company filed its opposition to this motion in January 2010 and at a hearing in February 2010 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the discovery stay. VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the global leader in secure electronic payment solutions. VeriFone provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self- service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets. VeriFone solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Proceedings in Israel Class Action Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a class action complaint pending before the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, have agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action captioned In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP, according to VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. On Jan. 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous financial reports. The company filed a motion to stay the action on March 31, 2008, in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining the company's liability. On Oct. 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. The company's response to the plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on Jan. 18, 2009. The District Court has stayed its proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On Jan. 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the District Court. The Supreme Court instructed the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on the plaintiff's application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to appeal the District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the Supreme Court. VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the global leader in secure electronic payment solutions. VeriFone provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self- service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets. VeriFone solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Complains About Defective Headlamps ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Volkswagen's high intensity gas discharge headlamps turn off intermittently while the car is being driven, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint, Davis v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04397 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/16/VW.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Payam Shahian, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: 310-575-1845 E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23277 Ventura Blvd. Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002 Telephone: 818-225-9040 E-mail: starresq@hotmail.com - and - Dara Tabesh, Esq. 201 Spear St. Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-595-9208 E-mail: dtabesh@hotmail.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, 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 * * *