/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100623.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 122 Headlines ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $7.4MM Remaining for Settlement AMBAC FINANCIAL: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit ASTRA ZENECA: $103 Million Settlement Reached in AWP Cases AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Still Pending in South Carolina BANNER SUPPLY: Found Negligent; Fla. Jury Awards $2.46MM to Couple BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Faces Nine Suits After Merger Announcement BERLINER COMMUNICATIONS: FLSA Suit in Tennessee Still Pending BP PLC: British Shareholders to Join U.S. Class Suit BP PLC: New York Mulls Class Suit on Pension Fund Losses BP PLC: Seeks Stay of Oil Spill Suits in South Carolina CANADIAN SOLAR: Class Suit Expands to Include More Shareholders CHASE HOME: N.Y. Suit Complains About Insurance Sales Practices CHINA NORTH: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit COMVERGE INC: Recalls 6,300 Thermostat Communication Module DOLLAR GENERAL: Defends "Richter" Complaint in Alabama DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Decertification of Equal Pay Act Class DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Cox" Suit GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations GLOBAL VISION: Partial Settlement in Avacor Hair Regrowth Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Suit HECKMANN CORP: Shuman Files Class Suit on China Water Deal HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal for Class Certification Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Rich" Suit in California HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Blennis" Suit in California HEWLETT-PACKARD: Certification Hearing in Inkjet Suit Postponed HEWLETT-PACKARD: One Suit in Quebec Voluntarily Dismissed HOLTROP & MCINDOO: Recalls 450 Infant Onesies and Rompers HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement INTEGRATED SILICON: Settlement Pact Gets Court Approval KOSS CORP: Securities Class Action Suit Still Pending in Wis. MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyer Asks Court to Reconsider Class Rejection NATIONAL WESTERN: Awaits Court Approval of $17MM Settlement NATIONAL WESTERN: Deferred Annuities Litigation Still Pending NEW LEAF: Still a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65 NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Consolidated Suit NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued for Illegal Deductions for Expenses NOVELL INC: Board of Directors Face Two Suits in Massachusetts NUTREX RESEARCH: Accused in N.J. Suit of False Advertising PLACENTIA-LINDA HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement RAMSEY COUNTY: Settles Prisoners' Tuberculosis Exposure Lawsuit REGAL LAGER: Recalls 3,100 CYBEX 2.GO Infant Carriers RHODE ISLAND: 1st Circuit Reinstates Foster Care Suit SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement SINGAPORE POWER: Faces Class Action for Australian Bushfires SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Testimony, Arguments Phase Conclude STATION CASINOS: Reaches Initial Terms on Global Settlement SUNOPTA INC: Court Okays Ontario and New York Suit Settlements TAM S.A.: Remains Party to Four Class Actions TARGET CORP: Recalls 105,150 Boys' and Girls' Belts TOWERS WATSON: Unit Faces $800 Million Settlement Demand YTB INTERNATIONAL: Remains a Defendant in Illinois Fraud Suit ZYNEX INC: Remains a Defendant in Securities Suit in Colorado ********* ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $7.4MM Remaining for Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., estimates it has $7.4 million remaining for a claims resolution process and legal fees relating to the settlement of a class action lawsuit, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division approved a class action settlement in January 2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced in the manufacturing process. At March 31, 2010, AERT had a total remaining balance in accrued expenses and notes payable of $7.4 million associated with the settlement of the class action lawsuit. The estimate included $6.6 million remaining for the claims resolution process and $0.8 million remaining to be paid for plaintiffs' attorney fees in 2010. The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is completed. Based in Springdale, Arizona, Advanced Environmental Recycling Tech. (NASDAQ:AERT) -- http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets composite building materials that are used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain other industrial or commercial building purposes. AMBAC FINANCIAL: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al., is ongoing in New York, according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., and certain of its present or former officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws or state law. Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the federal securities laws have been filed against the company and certain of its present or former directors or officers. These suits include four class actions filed in January and February of 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that were consolidated on May 9, 2008, under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08-cv-411. On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., case No. 08- cv-6602, was filed in the United States District for the Southern District of New York. On August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action. The consolidated amended complaint includes the allegations presented by the original four class actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry action, and additional allegations. The consolidated amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac's March 2008 offerings. The suit names as defendants the company, the underwriters for the three offerings, the Company's independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and former directors and officers of the company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and that the Registration Statements pursuant to which the three offerings were made contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the securities laws. On August 27, 2009, the company and the individual defendants named in the consolidated securities action moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out of the March 2008 equity units and common stock offering (resulting in the dismissal of the company's independent Certified Public Accountants from the action), and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On March 8, 2010, the company and the individual defendants moved for certification of the order denying in part the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal and moved for reconsideration of the order to the extent reconsideration of any aspect of the order is necessary in order to provide appropriate relief. On April 15, 2010, the Court ordered a Discovery Plan and Proposed Pretrial Schedule, pursuant to which discovery was to commence May 10, 2010, with dispositive motions due by Dec. 2, 2011. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a primarily a holding company. The company, through its subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors worldwide. Ambac's activities are divided into two business segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance, structured finance and other obligations. AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss a putative class- action suit, entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al., on June 1, 2010. On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ambac, and one former officer and director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241. An amended complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009. This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008. The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws. On April 15, 2009, the company and the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss. The additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010. Oral argument was scheduled June 1, according to Ambac's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a primarily a holding company. The company, through its subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors worldwide. Ambac's activities are divided into two business segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance, structured finance and other obligations. ASTRA ZENECA: $103 Million Settlement Reached in AWP Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has reached a proposed $103 million settlement with Astra Zeneca on behalf of consumers and third party purchasers. The class-action lawsuit claimed Astra Zeneca inflated the Average Wholesale Price, which is used as a benchmark for almost all prescription drug sales in the United States. Astra Zeneca agreed to pay $103 million in two different but related settlements stemming from claims brought by HBBS. The settlement adds to a series of victories and verdicts in the AWP cases filed by HBSS that has returned hundreds of million dollars to consumers and third-party payers from an array of pharmaceutical defendants. This proposed settlement provides $13 million for two classes of plaintiffs: third-party payers who paid some or all of their insured's Medicare co-insurance for Zoladex and/or Pulmicort Respules in Massachusetts, and a second class that includes consumers and third-party payers who paid cash or a co-pay for these AZ drugs outside of Medicare in Massachusetts. The settlement also provides $90 million to class members in the US outside Massachusetts who purchased these drugs and fit the same class descriptions. In both the national settlement and the Massachusetts settlement, consumers will receive 11 percent of the settlement fund with the balance going to third-party payers. These settlements follow a trial of Massachusetts's claims resulting in a verdict for the Massachusetts plaintiffs in November 2007. AZ appealed that verdict to the First Circuit. In September 2009 the First Circuit rejected AZ's appeal, leading to the settlement of both Massachusetts claims and national claims. "We began working on AWP cases nearly a decade ago, and over those 10 years we have made lasting positive change in the way big drug companies market and price their products," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. "This settlement is such a case; we are putting millions of dollars back in the pockets of consumers." Joan E. Solsman at Dow Jones Newswires reports that AstraZeneca spokesman Tony Jewell said Friday that although the company denies any liability and wrongdoing, the settlement is the best way to resolve the matter and focus on its core business. "AstraZeneca is committed to adhering to all government laws and regulations concerning drug pricing, including the proper reporting of drug pricing as required by law." Last September, AstraZeneca lost its appeal of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs claiming the price inflation, leading to the class-action settlement. The case was originally filed in 2002 over the price of the company's cancer drug Zoladex. The proposed settlement will need court approval before it becomes final. A court date has yet to be set. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in large, complex litigation. AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Still Pending in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged migration of certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to neighboring properties remains pending, according to the company's May 20, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. The suit was filed in the South Carolina State Court on Nov. 27, 2007, by certain individuals seeking certification as a class- action suit, which has not yet been determined. In essence, the suit claims that property value had been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the company's property. The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The company said at this early stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to responsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages. With respect to the related environmental assessment, the company is in the process of a feasibility study to evaluate possible remedies and at this stage has not been able to determine what measures may have to be undertaken or the likely costs of any such measures. AVX Corp. -- http://www.avx.com/-- is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of a line of passive electronic components and related products. Virtually all types of electronic devices use the Company's passive component products to store, filter or regulate electric energy. AVX's passive electronic component products include ceramic and tantalum capacitors, film capacitors, varistors and non-linear resistors manufactured in its facilities throughout the world and passive components manufactured by Kyocera Corp. of Japan (Kyocera), its majority stockholder, which owns approximately 71% of AVX's outstanding common stock. The Company also manufactures and sells electronic connectors and inter-connect systems, and distributes and sells certain electronic connectors manufactured by Kyocera. The Company has three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera Electronic Devices Resale and Connectors. BANNER SUPPLY: Found Negligent; Fla. Jury Awards $2.46MM to Couple ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Pagliery, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a Florida jury on Friday awarded $2.46 million to a Miami couple who claimed their house was ruined by gas emitted by imported Chinese drywall in the nation's first trial against a domestic distributor. Jurors concluded that Miami-based Banner Supply knowingly sold defective wallboard that was installed in the Coconut Grove, Fla., home of Chevron attorney Armin Seifart and Lisa Gore, who asked for $4.4 million in damages for repairs and the inconvenience of temporarily losing access to their $1.66 million home. "It's a strong victory in favor of consumers," said family attorney Ervin Gonzalez, Esq. at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, Fla. "The American public won't tolerate companies that cheat." Jurors decided Banner was negligent, knowingly sold defective wallboard and violated Florida's deceptive and unfair trade law, and that its product will reduce the home's resale value. The couple's case is considered a bellwether because of the potential for recovery. Chinese companies generally are immune to U.S. court judgments, leaving U.S. companies as the only reliable financial source for plaintiff recovery. The case was strengthened by accusations of a cover-up. Banner signed a secret deal in 2007 with Chinese drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin. The Chinese company agreed to replace Banner's tainted supply with U.S.-made board as long as Banner kept quiet about problems. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Joseph P. Farina unsealed the agreement shortly before the weeklong trial. "It could have been avoided. It should have been avoided. And it would have been avoided if Banner had done the right thing. But they didn't," Mr. Gonzalez said during closing arguments Thursday. "Profits over people; sales over safety," he repeated several times. "It's good for the business to keep it quiet." Because of a domestic wallboard shortage, Banner switched from selling U.S.-made drywall to a Chinese brand using gypsum that was naturally high in sulfur. Testimony in the first Chinese drywall trial wrapped up last Wednesday after the president of Banner denied a cover-up. The Associated Press says jurors deliberated about four hours Thursday and were to be back again Friday. Banner has insisted the Seifarts' claim is too much and that only direct expenses should be paid. Banner vice president Jack Landers has testified his company was "in no way in cahoots with Knauf to hide this from anybody." "I would have gone after Knauf," Mr. Landers said during questioning by his company's attorney, Todd Ehrenreich, Esq., managing partner at Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial's Miami office. "But you can't now, can you?" asked Mr. Ehrenreich. "I can't," Mr. Landers said. Mr. Ehrenreich said an appeal would be considered. "We're very disappointed in the verdict," he said. "That defect was hidden, latent and undetectable," said Mr. Ehrenreich in closing arguments. "It doesn't rear its ugly head until sometimes years later." The jury found that Banner was 55% liable for the Seifarts' problems and that Knauf and two related entities bore the rest of the responsibility. That could reduce the Seifarts' ultimate payout because Knauf was not a defendant in their case, but Gonzalez said he will push to have Banner pay the full $2.4 million. Class action lawsuits filed in 2009 against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., LTD, The Knauf Group, Rothchilt International Limited and the Banner Supply Co., allege that fly ash residue from Chinese power plants was used in drywall, which were in turn used to build Florida homes in 2004 to 2006. According to a complaint provided to the South Florida Business Journal by Jordan Chaikin, Esq., a plaintiff's attorney, "Defendants' drywall was made with waste material from scrubbers on coal-fired power plants, also called 'fly ash.' These materials can leak in the air and emit one of several sulfur compounds including sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide." Banner was defended by: Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. Jan Douglas Atlas, Esq. ADORNO & YOSS 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954.763.1200 E-mail: jbackman@adorno.com jda@adorno.com - and - Peter Spillis, Esq. Todd Ehrenreich, Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 850 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: 305.455.9509 E-mail: pspillis@wwhgd.com tehrenreich@wwhgd.com BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Faces Nine Suits After Merger Announcement -------------------------------------------------------------- After the public announcement of Bell Microproducts Inc.'s proposed merger with Avnet, Inc., between March 30, 2010, and May 6, 2010, a number of putative class actions were filed by alleged shareholders of the company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Those cases are: Sashi K. Gutpa v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al., Case No. 110-cv-168002; Edward Wheeler v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al., Case No. 110-cv-168160; Simon Hung v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al., Case No. 110-cv-168304; Moshe Piller v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al., Case No. 110-cv-168292; Shaun Quinney v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al., Case No. 110-cv-168634; Stephan M. Jackson v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. 110-cv-168841; Robert Josepayt v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. 110-cv-168842; Raymond VJ Schrag Esq. Trustee for Trust Under Will Susan Schleger v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. 110-cv-168852; and John R. Campbell v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. 110-cv-171341. On April 1, 2010, a similar case, John R. Campbell v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. Civ. 493632, was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Mateo. Subsequently, the plaintiff in this case has sought to dismiss this action, and re-filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Furthermore, an individual federal shareholder securities suit, Zwang v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. CV-10-1994, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7, 2010. In addition to asserting claims against the company, the plaintiffs in these actions have also named as defendants in one or more of the complaints, members of the company's board of directors, certain of the company's executive officers and former board members, as well as Avnet, Inc. and AVT Acquisition Corp. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the consideration being offered in the merger is inadequate and that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger and permitting certain terms to be included in the merger agreement, including the termination fee and provisions relating to possible competing proposals. The plaintiffs also allege that the company or Avnet and AVT Acquisition aided and abetted the individual defendants in their actions. In the Campbell action, the plaintiff also alleges that the company's directors approved the merger agreement and the related transactions in order to extinguish their liability in a derivative action previously filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also alleges that because the derivative action will be extinguished before defendants are compelled to compensate the company for the alleged damages they caused, the consideration being paid in connection with the merger is too low. In the Campbell and Zwang actions, plaintiffs also allege that the preliminarily proxy statement filed by the company on April 12, 2010, was materially false and misleading in violation of defendants' fiduciary duty of candor or Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Each action seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, including payment of the plaintiff's expenses and attorney fees. A number of the actions also seek an injunction prohibiting completion of the merger on the agreed upon terms and rescission of the merger agreement. The company has not yet filed responses to any of these lawsuits. Additional or amended putative class actions with similar claims relating to the merger may be filed against the company, the company's directors, Avnet or AVT Acquisition. Based in San Jose, California, Bell Microproducts Inc. (Pink Sheets:BELM) -- http://www.bellmicro.com/-- is an international, value-added distributor of a wide range of high-tech products, solutions and services, including storage systems, servers, software, computer components and peripherals, as well as maintenance and professional services. BERLINER COMMUNICATIONS: FLSA Suit in Tennessee Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Berliner Communications, Inc.'s subsidiaries assert that the claims in the suit entitled Monroe et al. v. FTS USA, LLC and UniTek USA, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, have no merit, and the damages claim is grossly above any potential exposure they may face in the case, according to the company's May 18, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter year ended April 3, 2010. On Feb. 15, 2008, plaintiffs, former employees of FTS USA, a UniTek subsidiary, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the FLSA related to overtime payments. Conditional class certification was granted, and plaintiffs have made a claim for damages of $3.2 million. The Berliner Subsidiaries said they intend to defend the case vigorously. Berliner Communications, Inc. -- http://www.bcisites.com/-- is a self-performing, service vendor to the wireless communications industry, providing a range of services, on a nationwide basis. Its activities include site acquisition and zoning; infrastructure equipment construction and installation; network services; radio frequency and network design and engineering; radio transmission base station installation and modification, and in-building network design, engineering and construction. The company provides some combination of these services primarily to companies in the wireless telecommunications and/or data transmission industries, cable operators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and, to a lesser extent, to utility companies and government entities. Berliner conducts its operations though its wholly owned subsidiary, BCI Communications, Inc. (BCI). The company operates in two business segments: infrastructure construction and technical services, and site acquisition and zoning. BP PLC: British Shareholders to Join U.S. Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Tim Webb, writing for the Guardian in U.K., reports that British shareholders are to join a U.S. class action lawsuit pursuing BP for alleged securities fraud over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. American lawyers have already filed more than 180 lawsuits related to the spill, mostly against the company over the environmental and economic damage caused across the region. BP shareholders -- the majority of them based outside the more litigious U.S. -- have been slower to table their own claims. Robert Schachter, Esq., partner at Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, said that several British institutional investors had contacted him about joining the class action his New York-based firm recently filed. He said he was confident that at least one British investor would be named as a plaintiff next month in order to make it more likely that British institutions would share in any payout. However, BP could challenge the right of British and other non- U.S. investors to recover damages through the US courts. Lawyers will allege that BP's management, led by its chief executive, Tony Hayward, misrepresented the company's true safety record, thereby artificially inflating its share price. When Mr. Hayward took over in 2007, he promised to focus "like a laser" on safety after the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery, which killed 15 workers, and the oil spill from a BP-owned Alaska pipeline in 2006. But U.S. politicians have been hearing evidence that BP engineers did not follow correct drilling procedures before the Gulf of Mexico explosion on April 20. Mr. Hayward admitted last month that the company did not have a proper plan in place to deal with such an accident. BP agreed last week to set up a $20 billion escrow account to fund the clean-up and damages for those affected, such as people working in the fishing and tourism industries. Daniel Becnel, Esq., at Becnel Law Firm, known as the "Tort King" because of his track record securing substantial damages from companies, said that he and other lawyers would pursue those claims against BP not covered by the escrow account in the courts. BP and lawyers such as Mr. Becnel are already wrangling over where the majority of these cases will be heard. BP wants them to be heard in Houston, where its U.S. operations are based. But Mr. Becnel wants most claims to be heard near where those affected live, for example in New Orleans. The amount of oil being captured from the leaking well -- BP is aiming to collect 50,000 barrels a day by the end of the month -- could also expose the company to further litigation. BP has promised that all the profits it generates from the collected oil will go towards the clean-up, but it is not clear if this is in addition to what the company has to pay anyway. Camilo Salas, Esq., a New Orleans-based attorney, said that the faulty well, which was drilled for exploration purposes, should now be classified as a production well and BP stripped of its license to operate the lease. This could lead to a further legal battle over the ownership of what is likely to be a huge oil find. BP has beefed up its in-house legal department by hiring the Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest corporate law firms in the U.S. BP PLC: New York Mulls Class Suit on Pension Fund Losses -------------------------------------------------------- Frank Lombardi and Kenneth Lovett at New York Daily News report that New York is moving toward a lawsuit against BP after state and city pension funds lost millions of dollars as the company's stock tanked. The state pension fund lost $30 million on its slumping BP shares since the April 20 explosion sent oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, officials said. The city's five pension funds appear to have taken an even bigger hit. "We're weighing our legal options, up to and including civil action," said Dennis Tompkins, spokesman for state Controller Thomas DiNapoli. Mr. Tompkins said a class-action lawsuit is one of the options being considered. State officials also are exploring a government crackdown to minimize the risk to shareholders. The $133 billion state fund holds 17.5 million shares of BP, which on June 17 closed at $31.71 a share -- down from $60.48 the day of the disaster. The city's five pension funds, valued at about $100 billion, hold $110 million in BP stock, said Sharon Lee, a spokeswoman for city Controller John Liu. That's less than half of the $228 million the city held a month before the disaster. Ms. Lee refused to provide specifics about the city's BP losses, citing confidentiality restrictions. But officials note the city pension funds sold off 10 million BP shares since the beginning of April, and now hold about 15 million shares. Other pension systems around the country have taken similar beatings. Florida officials said last week they have lost $67 million. New Jersey, however, played the market perfectly. Garden State officials dumped BP stock before the disaster and pocketed $5.5 million. BP PLC: Seeks Stay of Oil Spill Suits in South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- WPDE NewsChannel 15's Joel Allen says BP Plc has asked for a stay on three class action lawsuits filed by Grand Strand area tourism businesses. The suits filed June 6 by attorneys Ed Bell and Tommy Brittain claim the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has adversely affected business and tourism along the South Carolina coast. They say based on news reports of the oil possibly coming ashore, property values along the South Carolina coast have started to decline and other tourism-related businesses have started to suffer revenue loss. BP filed a request in U.S. District court Thursday, asking the court to delay the suit until all of the 200 or so suits arising from the oil spill can be consolidated and brought before one multi-district court. BP's motion says more than 200 cases have been filed in various state and federal courts since the spill happened April 20. A hearing will be held on BP's request in Boise, Idaho on July 29. CANADIAN SOLAR: Class Suit Expands to Include More Shareholders --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit against Canadian Solar, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of CSIQ expands its "Class Period" from May 26, 2009 to June 1, 2010. The longer Class Period allows more CSIQ purchasers to benefit from the ongoing and in-depth investigation by Hagens Berman. CSIQ purchasers are encouraged to provide information at http://www.hbsslaw.com/canadian-solar/ Hagens Berman intends to file a separate suit shortly that will include new and more detailed findings. The original lawsuits were filed after a June 1, 2010 press release in which the company revealed that the SEC issued subpoenas relating to 2009 sales transactions. The complaints allege that Canadian Solar, Arthur Chien and Shawn Qu made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information that made the company's financial statements materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To serve as a lead plaintiff in this class-action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than August 2, 2010. Any investor who purchased during the Class Period may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice. Investors also may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you would like to discuss your legal rights or move to be a lead plaintiff, you may e-mail or call: Reed Kathrein, Esq., Managing Partner HAGENS BERMAN LLP Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: csiq@hbsslaw.com Hagens Berman also welcomes any information you may have that would advance the investigation. To learn more about Hagens Berman, please visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/, or visit its law blog at http://www.meaningfuldisclosure.com/ Hagens Berman LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a shareholder- rights class-action law firm with offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in large, complex litigation. CHASE HOME: N.Y. Suit Complains About Insurance Sales Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Morgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance made homebuyers buy more flood insurance than they needed and more than required by law, a class action claims in Manhattan Federal Court. The case is Warren v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04718 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.). CHINA NORTH: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd., certain of its top officials and a director. The class action (Civil Action No.:10-cv-4775) was filed on behalf of purchasers of China North securities between August 14, 2009 and May 26, 2010, both dates inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. China North is engaged in the exploration and production of crude oil in Northern China. On March 8, 2010, China North disclosed that the Company had determined that its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008, and each interim quarter within that year and for the quarters ended March 31, 2009, June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009 needed to be restated. As further disclosed on April 20, 2010, the total adjustments to the Company's net income for the year 2008 and the first three quarters of 2009 are estimated to be more than $28 million. In addition, it is alleged that senior officers of the Company have embezzled monies from the Company. On May 25, 2010, the Company was delisted from the NYSE AMEX. Thereafter, on May 27, 2010, the Company disclosed the resignation of the Company's Chairman of the Board, CFO, a director, and the placement of the CEO on administrative leave due to preliminarily findings that in 2009, unauthorized cash transfers occurred between the bank accounts of the Company and its subsidiaries and the personal bank accounts of the Company's CEO and a director who is also the mother of the CEO. If you are a shareholder who purchased the securities of China North during the Class Period, you have until August 10, 2010 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by your decision whether or not to serve as lead plaintiff. Shareholders outside the United States may join the action, regardless of where they live or which exchange was used to purchase the securities. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ To discuss this action, contact Nicola Brown at 888-476-6529 toll free or emailing info@Pomlaw.com Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Columbus, Ohio and Burlingame, California, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. COMVERGE INC: Recalls 6,300 Thermostat Communication Module ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Comverge Inc. of Norcross, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 6,300 Programmable thermostat communication module. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The communication module in the thermostat can overheat, posing a risk of fire hazard. Comverge Inc. is aware of 10 incidents of the communication module overheating and damaging the thermostat, in at least one incident there was minor smoke damage to the wall. Comverge Inc. has not received any reports of injuries. This recall involves Comverge Inc. communication modules inside programmable thermostats sold by TXU Energy with a serial number between 1015857 and 1022518. The serial number can be found on the top of the thermostat's plastic housing. The thermostats have "TXU Energy" and "White Rodgers" printed on the front faceplate. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10743.html The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through TXU Energy to customers in North Texas. Consumers should contact Comverge Inc. for a replacement communication module. The company will install a new communication module for consumers free of charge. Consumers should not attempt to disable or replace the communication module. Comverge is directly contacting consumers who own the recalled communication module. For more information, contact Comverge Inc. toll-free at (866) 277-7001 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.comverge.com/recall/ DOLLAR GENERAL: Defends "Richter" Complaint in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ Dollar General Corporation continues to defend the suit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The suit was filed on Aug. 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Aug. 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store managers. The company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On May 30, 2007, the court stayed all proceedings in the case, including the sending of a notice to the class, to evaluate, among other things, certain appeals pending in the Eleventh Circuit involving claims similar to those raised in this action. During the stay, the statute of limitations was tolled for potential class members. The stay was extended on several occasions, the last of which expired on Oct. 31, 2009. On Dec. 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or former Dollar General store managers, and approximately 3,860 individuals opted into the lawsuit. The company believes that its store managers are and have been properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that this action is not appropriate for collective action treatment. The company intends to vigorously defend this action and expects to ask the court to decertify the class at the conclusion of the discovery period. Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock. DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corporation continues to defend a lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. On May 18, 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084- DGL, originally filed on Feb. 9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006. The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store managers who claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages) under those statutes. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court will permit this action to proceed collectively or as a class. However, the company believes that this action is not appropriate for either collective or class treatment and that the company's wage and hour policies and practices comply with both federal and state law. No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock. DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Decertification of Equal Pay Act Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar General Corporation intends to move for the decertification of the Equal Pay Act class in the complaint entitled Janet Calvert v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males because of their sex, and to add allegations that the company's compensation practices disparately impact females. Under the amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act. The company opposed plaintiffs' motion. On Nov. 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers between Nov. 30, 2004 and Nov. 30, 2007. The notice was issued on Jan. 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11, 2008. Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the lawsuit. On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification relating to their Title VII claims. The company filed its response to the certification motion in June 2010, and will move for decertification of the Equal Pay Act class. Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock. DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Cox" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for Dallas County, Iowa, has denied class certification in the suit captioned Julie Cox, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. Case No. LACV-034423, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. On July 30, 2008, the company was served with a complaint in which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleges that the company discriminates against pregnant employees on the basis of sex and retaliates against employees in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Cox seeks to represent a class of "all current, former and future employees from the State of Iowa who are employed by Dollar General who suffered from, are currently suffering from or in the future may suffer from" alleged sex/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as equitable, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 5, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer. As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877 stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. The company offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables, seasonal, home products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter & Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills, Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand selections. The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding common stock. GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- The Gap, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege that the company violated federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by insurance. No specific details regarding the pending lawsuits were disclosed in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. The Gap, Inc. -- http://www.gapinc.com/-- is a global specialty retailer offering clothing, accessories and personal care products for men, women, children and babies under the Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Piperlime and Athleta brands. The company operates stores in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland and Japan. It also has franchise agreements with unaffiliated franchisees to operate Gap and Banana Republic stores in many other countries worldwide. GLOBAL VISION: Partial Settlement in Avacor Hair Regrowth Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- If you bought the Avacor hair regrowth system, you could get a payment from a class action settlement. A proposed settlement is pending in a class action lawsuit relating to the marketing and sale of the Avacor hair regrowth system. The lawsuit is entitled Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG03091195. The defendants include Global Vision Products, Inc., Anthony Imbriolo, David L. Gordon, Robert N. DeBenedictis ("DeBenedictis"), Henry Edelson and Powertel Technologies, Inc. This settlement is with Defendant DeBenedictis only but will release the class's claims against Defendant Edelson as well. ARE YOU AFFECTED? You are a class member if you purchased Avacor from January 1, 2000 through April 12, 2007 while you were a California resident. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? This lawsuit is about whether the defendants violated California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act by making unsubstantiated, false and misleading statements in connection with the marketing and sale of Avacor. The lawsuit also alleges that certain individual defendants used the corporate form of Global Vision Products, Inc. for fraudulent purposes. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Class members who submit a timely and valid claim form will receive $190.00 in cash. DeBenedictis will transfer cash and assets to a Settlement Trust. The cash and assets so contributed by DeBenedictis will be used for the payment of valid and timely class member claims and administrative expenses, including expenses of notice and administration, attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive awards. The settlement also provides for the payment by DeBenedictis of attorneys'' fees and expenses of up to $9,963,000. WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS? You have three options: Remain in the settlement class. If you are a class member and you do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you will be bound by the terms of the settlement and give up your right to sue regarding issues in this case. You will also have the right to file a claim for $190 in cash. Claims must be received by the settlement administrator on or before December 31, 2010. Claim forms, with instructions for filing, are available at http://www.avacorlawsuit.com/ Request to be excluded. The Court will exclude you from the settlement class if you mail a request for exclusion to Defendant's Counsel and Class Counsel at the addresses below. Requests must be received by August 17, 2010. Object to the Settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you may object to it by yourself or through an attorney that you hire at your own expense. Objections must be written and mailed to the Court at Clerk of the Court, Alameda County Superior Court, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, and Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel at the addresses below. Objections received by August 17, 2010, will be considered at the fairness hearing. You will be bound by the terms of the settlement even if your objection is rejected. The Court will determine whether to approve the settlement at a fairness hearing held on September 16, 2010. If you filed an objection through an attorney, your attorney may appear at the hearing to explain your objection. HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about this lawsuit and your rights, visit http://www.avacorlawsuit.com/or contact the toll free hotline 866-820-0118 or write to: Avacor Class Action Settlement P.O. Box 24389 Jacksonville, FL 32241-4389 You can also find additional information about the case at the Court's Web site: http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb. Please do not contact the Court directly concerning this lawsuit. Class Counsel: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 http://www.bursor.com/ Defense Counsel: Michael T. Conway, Esq. LeClair Ryan, LLP 830 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10022 GOLDMAN SACHS: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of shares of common stock of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. during a class period of December 14, 2006, to June 9, 2010. The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and a class of all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Goldman Sachs common stock during the class period. The defendants in the case are The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lloyd C. Blankfein, David A. Viniar and Gary D. Cohn. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning Goldman Sachs' business model and reasons for Goldman Sachs' business success during the class period. If you purchased shares of Goldman Sachs common stock between December 14, 2006 and June 9, 2010, you may, no later than June 25, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's counsel: James S. Notis, Esq. Charles A. Germershausen, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 Telephone: (201) 567-7377 Facsimile: (201) 567-7337 E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com cgermershausen@gardylaw.com HECKMANN CORP: Shuman Files Class Suit on China Water Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- The Shuman Law Firm said a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of purchasers of Heckmann Corporation common stock during the period between May 20, 2008 and May 8, 2009, and all persons or entities who held Heckmann common stock on September 15, 2008 and were eligible to vote on Heckmann's acquisition of China Water and Drinks, Inc. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll-free at 866-974-8626 or e-mail Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com The complaint charges Heckmann and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged material misstatements and omitted material information in the Joint Proxy. The complaint alleges that on May 20, 2008, the Company announced that it had struck a deal to acquire China Water and Drinks, Inc. On October 2, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Proxy and Information Statement/Prospectus, which represented that Heckmann had conducted extensive due diligence on China Water and recommended that Heckmann shareholders vote in favor of the Merger. The defendants allegedly solicited votes from stockholders necessary to complete the Merger by means of the Joint Proxy and other public statements. The Company's stockholders overwhelmingly approved the Merger at an October 30, 2008 special meeting of stockholders. Thereafter, on May 8, 2009, the Company announced its financial results for the first fiscal quarter of 2009, including a net loss for the quarter of $186.2 million and a $184 million impairment charge. The release also reported that the Company had discovered what it believed to be "financial misconduct and the diversion of cash deposits by former management of China Water." On this news the Company's stock price declined, reaching as low as $3.38 per share in July 2009, compared to more than $10 per share shortly after the Merger was announced. If you purchased Heckmann common stock during the Class Period or held Heckmann common stock on September 15, 2008 and were eligible to vote on the Merger, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the Class no later than 60 days from May 6, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members. The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal for Class Certification Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal to a decision denying a class certification motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 processor remains pending. The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel. The company was added to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004. It was initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California, based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois cases. The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa Clara County, California. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave to file a new motion for class certification. On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide class certification for a third time. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi- vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiff's appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's summary judgment ruling in the matter Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., remains pending. The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6, 2007 alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge. The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On Sept. 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. On Nov. 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named plaintiff. On Nov. 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 217-5000 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Darren T Kaplan, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 873-3900 E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com Representing the defendant are: Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com - and - Robert Particelli, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-5000 Fax: 215-963-5001 E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Rich" Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend the suit captioned Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on May 22, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages class. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010, but has been taken off of the calendar. The suit is Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 06-cv-03361 (N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq. GARCIA LAW FIRM One World Trade Center, Suite 1950 Long Beach, CA 90831 Phone: (562) 216-5270 E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com Representing the defendants is: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging labor related violations. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code. Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior Court, claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is pending. Two other purported class actions originally filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, allege similar facts. The Karlbom case is pending in San Diego County Superior Court, and the George case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi- vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA. Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Two other purported class actions, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Oct. 23, 2007, and Azar v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Feb. 20, 2009, are also pending in the same court alleging similar facts. No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi- vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Blennis" Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend the matter styled Blennis v. HP, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 17, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010 but has been taken off of the calendar. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi- vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Certification Hearing in Inkjet Suit Postponed --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, has been postponed, according to Hewlett-Packard Co.'s June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for April 9, 2010 was postponed, and no new date has been scheduled. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi- vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: One Suit in Quebec Voluntarily Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- One purported class action lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. commenced in Quebec has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett- Packard (Canada) Co., pending in Canada are: -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs contend that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. A class authorization hearing for one of the cases pending in Quebec was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 10, 2009; that hearing has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court. In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi- vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products and services. HOLTROP & MCINDOO: Recalls 450 Infant Onesies and Rompers --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Holtrop & McIndoo LLC dba Kiwi Industries, of Albuquerque, N.M., announced a voluntary recall of about 450 Infant onesies and rompers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Snaps on the onesies and rompers can detach from the garment, posing a choking hazard to young children. The firm has received two reports of snaps detaching. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves onesies and rompers sold in eight colors and prints: eggplant with kiwi green binding, floral print with eggplant binding, kiwi green with eggplant binding, pacific blue with kiwi green binding, crisscross print and kiwi green with pacific blue binding. The onesies were sold in sizes 0 to 3 months up to 12 to 18 months. The rompers were sold in sizes 0 to 3 months up to 18 to 24 months. "Kiwi industries" is printed on a tag sewn inside the garment's collar. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10266.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and sold through children's specialty stores nationwide from March 2010 through May 2010 for between $24 and $28. Consumers should immediately stop using the garments and contact Kiwi Industries for an exchange. The firm will provide a postage- free package for the return of the recalled garment. For additional information, contact Kiwi Industries toll-free at (877) 509-4891 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kiwiindustries.com/ Consumers can also email the firm at info@kiwiindustries.com HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER. You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the facilities of Houston Northwest Medical Center. This Notice is to inform you of facts that affect your legal rights. SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities of Houston Northwest Medical Center ("the Hospital"). The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Hospital is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it has failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to the Hospital's facilities. The Hospital denies these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action, the Hospital does not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The named plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton. Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class. The Hospital is represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. DEFINITION OF THE CLASS You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use of any facilities of the Hospital. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The named plaintiffs and the Hospital have reached a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the Hospital will make modifications and alterations to its facilities with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the class. PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT Court Hearing. On August 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, the court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court unless received on or before July 6, 2010. Your written statement should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on which you base your objections. If you provide written objections, you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on August 6, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of the proposed settlement. Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as to Placentia-Linda Hospital will be entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment. All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar class members from asserting any claims against the Hospital concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication, structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Hospital by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at the time of the settlement agreement. FURTHER INFORMATION The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed information, including a copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel: Miguel M. de la O, Es.q David E. Marko, Esq. de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton 3001 SW 3rd Ave. Miami, FL 33129 or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. INTEGRATED SILICON: Settlement Pact Gets Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., obtained preliminary court approval of its settlement agreement in three lawsuits brought by direct purchasers in the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of static random access memory products, according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Thirty-three purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S. Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. federal courts alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of SRAM products. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The U.S. lawsuits seek treble damages for the alleged damages sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. As of August 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from all lawsuits brought by the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs. The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is terminated according to terms specified in that agreement. On January 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from one of the lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct- Purchaser Plaintiffs. The company remains a defendant in three lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs. On September 29, 2008, the court certified a class of direct purchasers. On October 5, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs that remains subject to approval by the court before it becomes final. The court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on March 19, 2010. As part of the agreement, the company will receive a release for all Direct-Purchaser SRAM claims and will not admit any wrongdoing or liability. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high- performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications and automotive electronics. The company's primary products are high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-and medium-density dynamic random access memory. It also designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory, SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card reader-writers, and wireless chipsets. KOSS CORP: Securities Class Action Suit Still Pending in Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------- Koss Corp. continues to face a class action complaint in Wisconsin for allegedly violating securities law, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata Sachdeva. The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b- 5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The complaint is styled David A Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:2010cv00041, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Koss Corporation -- http://www.koss.com/-- is engaged in the design, manufacture and sale of stereo headphones and related accessory products. The company's products are sold through audio specialty stores, the Internet, direct mail catalogs, regional department store chains, discount department stores, military exchanges, prisons and national retailers under the Koss name and dual label. The company also sells products to distributors for resale to school systems and directly to other manufactures for inclusion with their own products. MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyer Asks Court to Reconsider Class Rejection ------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline says ludicrous claims shouldn't have caused U.S. District Joseph Goodwin to reject a class action over economic damages from heart medicine Digitek, according to Fred Thompson, Esq., at Motley Rice. On June 8, Mr. Thompson asked Judge Goodwin to reconsider a May 25 order denying certification of a class action against drug maker Actavis Totowa and distributor Mylan Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Thompson wrote that Judge Goodwin "seized upon a few outrageous damages requests" to find that individual issues predominated over class issues. "None of the items cited by the court have actually been requested in the present class litigation, however, and the claims administration process could easily reject such ludicrous claims should any potential class member attempt to make one," he wrote. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 1, 2010, Steve Korris at LegalNewsLine.com said Judge Goodwin sternly rejected a consumer class action over Digitek heart medicine last week. "There is a big imbalance between common and individual issues," Judge Goodwin wrote in an order denying class certification. "Complex conflict of law questions are involved." Legal Newsline says Mr. Thompson wrote, "Plaintiffs believe the court misunderstood the types of economic damages for which plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of themselves and class members." "In actuality, none of the class representatives has requested the court to provide them compensation for any of the anecdotal items highlighted by defendants and the court -- gas money, eyeglasses, trip insurance, or even enemas," he wrote. "Class representatives need not be legal scholars and, as plaintiffs indicated in their reply brief, many of the class representatives here are unsophisticated," he wrote. "Accordingly, the fact that some of the class representatives may have unrealistic expectations about what kinds of damages can be recovered from a class action does not render them inadequate or their claims atypical," he wrote. Judge Goodwin presides over Digitek suits from federal courts around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation. Litigation began in 2008, after Actavis Totowa discovered 20 pills of double thickness in a batch at its plant in Little Falls, New Jersey. Actavis Totowa recalled the batch, and no plaintiff has produced a double thick pill. Some plaintiffs nevertheless claimed personal injuries and wrongful death. Others claimed only economic damages. Mr. Thompson sought certification of a national economic damages class or single state classes in West Virginia, New Jersey, Kansas and Kentucky. Judge Goodwin denied both. Judge Goodwin declined Mr. Thompson's request to apply New Jersey law nationwide and wrote, "The transactions at issue here relate only minimally to New Jersey." Judge Goodwin wrote that he and colleagues in state courts have taken great care to track Digitek litigation for a just and efficient resolution. "Adding a complex certified class to these already complicated state and federal proceedings makes little sense," he wrote. Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at: Fred Thompson III, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC Charleston Area 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9118 Facsimile: (800) 768-4026 E-mail: fthompson@motleyrice.com NATIONAL WESTERN: Awaits Court Approval of $17MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- National Western Life Insurance Co.'s $17 million settlement agreement with certain California policyholders to resolve a class action lawsuit is still pending court approval, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The Company was a defendant in a class action lawsuit initially filed on September 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The California state court certified a class consisting of certain California policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The court additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging fraud against their agent, and vicariously against the Company. The California Insurance Department had intervened in this case asserting that the Company has violated California insurance laws. The parties to this case had been involved in court-ordered mediation and ongoing negotiations. On February 22, 2010, the Company reported in a Form 8-K filing a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in intervention providing a settlement benefit of approximately $17 million which was included in the Company's legal accrual provision at December 31, 2009. The settlement agreement is subject to final court approval. National Western Life Insurance Company -- https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance company and doing business in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and four United States territories or possessions. The company is also licensed in Haiti, and although not otherwise licensed, accepts applications from and issues policies to residents of various countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Asia. Such policies are underwritten, accepted, and issued in the United States upon applications submitted by independent contractors. It provides life insurance products for the savings and protection needs of approximately 148,000 policyholders and for the asset accumulation and retirement needs of 117,000 annuity contract holders. It offers a portfolio of individual whole life, universal life and term insurance plans, and annuities, including supplementary riders. It manages its business between Domestic Insurance Operations and International Insurance Operations. NATIONAL WESTERN: Deferred Annuities Litigation Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- National Western Life Insurance Co. continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit alleging RICO violations, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, among others, in California, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case is titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation and is in the discovery phase. The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive Trust. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this case and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted claims. National Western Life Insurance Company -- https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance company and doing business in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and four United States territories or possessions. The company is also licensed in Haiti, and although not otherwise licensed, accepts applications from and issues policies to residents of various countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Asia. Such policies are underwritten, accepted, and issued in the United States upon applications submitted by independent contractors. It provides life insurance products for the savings and protection needs of approximately 148,000 policyholders and for the asset accumulation and retirement needs of 117,000 annuity contract holders. It offers a portfolio of individual whole life, universal life and term insurance plans, and annuities, including supplementary riders. It manages its business between Domestic Insurance Operations and International Insurance Operations. NEW LEAF: Still a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65 -------------------------------------------------------------- New Leaf Brands, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65. On January 29, 2009, New Leaf was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products. New Leaf believes this case is without out merit and plans to defend it vigorously. New Leaf believes this suit will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. No further updates were reported in the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. New Leaf Brands, Inc. -- http://www.newleafbrands.com/-- formerly Baywood International, Inc., develops, markets and distributes ready-to-drink (RTD) beverages and nutraceutical products. The Company operates through the combination of a diversified nutraceutical company (LifeTime brand) and a RTD tea company (New Leaf brand). NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NextWave Wireless, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a second amended consolidated complaint in a securities class action lawsuit filed California, according to the company's May 18, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned "Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al., Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of the company's officers. The suit alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to August 7, 2008. A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al. v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008 alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during an extended class period, from November 27, 2006 through August 7, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss that Amended Complaint. On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and currently is awaiting the lead plaintiff's expected Opposition to that Motion. NextWave Wireless Inc. -- http://www.nextwave.com/-- is a holding company engaged in wireless technology that develops, produces, and markets mobile multimedia and consumer electronic connectivity products, including device-embedded software for mobile handsets, client-server media platforms, media sharing software for consumer electronics and pocket-sized mobile broadcast receivers, and manages and maintains wireless spectrum licenses. The company's customers include handset and wireless service providers. NextWave has two segments: Multimedia, consisting of the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary PacketVideo Corporation (PV) and Strategic Initiatives, focused on the management of its wireless spectrum interests. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued for Illegal Deductions for Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Fossum, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02657 (N.D. Calif. June 17, 2010), accuses the mutual insurance company of making unlawful deductions from the commission checks of its Financial Representatives for necessary business expenses, including fees for cubical rent, telephone, computer, faxes, parking, marketing materials, and clerical assistance, in violation of California law; failing to provide itemized wage statements; failing to pay all wages due upon resignation or termination of employment; unlawful conversion of rightfully earned wages for defendants' own use and benefit; and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Mr. Fossum was employed as a Financial Representative of NML from April 27, 2007, until March 19, 2009. The Plaintiff is represented by: V. James DeSimone, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: vjdesimone@gmail.com mseplow@gmail.com - and - Christopher M. Moody, Esq. MOODY & WARNER, P.C. 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 451-4020 E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com "By bringing this lawsuit, our client seeks justice for himself and other Northwestern Mutual employees and to make sure that the company complies with California law which prohibits employers from charging their employees for necessary business expenses. Unlawfully deducting expenses from employee earnings is a form of wage theft," stated attorney V. James DeSimone in a press statement. NOVELL INC: Board of Directors Face Two Suits in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- Novell, Inc.'s Board of Directors face two purported class action lawsuits in connection with the unsolicited, conditional proposal from Elliott Associates, L.P., to acquire the company, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. The two suits are: (1) Waldon v. Hovsepian; and (2) Fitzgerald v. Hovsepian. The suits were filed March 5, 2010, in Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County. The complaints name the company's Board of Directors as defendants, and allege breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the unsolicited, conditional proposal from Elliott Associates to acquire the company for $5.75 per share in cash. The complaints do not define a putative class period. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin further alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and costs and attorneys' fees. Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships, integrate mixed information technology (IT) environments, allowing people and technology to work as one. The company has four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup. NUTREX RESEARCH: Accused in N.J. Suit of False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Nutrex advertises its dietary supplements as "all natural," but uses drugs in them, including an amphetamine, which is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, according to a class action in Passaic County Court. The class sued Nutrex Research, its president and founder Jeffrey A. McCarrell, and its vice president and co-founder Jens Ingenohl, all of Oviedo, Fla. The two men "formulated the product," and sell them as "Lipo-6 Hers," "Lipo-6 Black" and "Ignite," according to the complaint. The class claims Nutrex pushes the products as "sports nutritional supplements" that "burn fat and allow people to lose weight . . . as a result of the cocktail of natural stimulants and other ingredients." But the key ingredient in all the products is a substance called "methylsynephrine," which is "another name for a prescription drug called Oxilofrine," according to the complaint. It adds that Oxilofrine is "a stimulant drug of the amphetamine class" that was developed and "used to treat low blood pressure." Oxilofrine "is a metabolite of methoxymethamphetamine," commonly known as PMMA, which is "an illegal designer drug that is considered a banned substance in numerous countries" and has "been responsible for deaths of numerous people," according to the complaint. The class claims that Oxilofrine "is considered a performance- enhancing drug" and "is classified as a banned substance by both the World Anti-Doping Agency and the United States Anti-Doping Agency." It claims that "testing of [Nutrex's products] by gas chromatography confirms" the presence of Oxilofrine. The fact that "methylsynephrine equals Oxilofrine . . . is common knowledge in the sports nutrition industry, given the suspension of numerous athletes" who took products containing it, and then tested positive for banned substances, according to the complaint. They plaintiffs say that Nutrex knows about the problem, but continues to "falsely advertise" that its products are "all natural," that they do not affect blood pressure and that they do not contain banned substances. The class seeks damages for fraud. A copy of the Complaint in Collucci, et al. v. Nutrex Research, Inc., et al., Docket No. L-2913-10 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/18/Nutrex.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald A. Beshada, Esq. MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP 200 Riverfront Blvd. Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: 862-200-5520 - and - Michael G. Langan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. LANGAN, L.L.C. 200 Riverfront Blvd. Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: 201-300-4738 - and - HARTMANN DOHERTY ROSA BERMAN & BULBULIA, LLC 65 Route 4 East, Suite 6 River Edge, NJ 07661 Telephone: 201-441-9056 PLACENTIA-LINDA HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF PLACENTIA-LINDA HOSPITAL. You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the facilities of Placentia-Linda Hospital. This Notice is to inform you of facts that affect your legal rights. SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities of Placentia-Linda Hospital ("the Hospital"). The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Hospital is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it has failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to the Hospital's facilities. The Hospital denies these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action, the Hospital does not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The named plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton. Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class. The Hospital is represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. DEFINITION OF THE CLASS You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use of any facilities of the Hospital. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The named plaintiffs and the Hospital have reached a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the Hospital will make modifications and alterations to its facilities with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the class. PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT Court Hearing. On August 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, the court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court unless received on or before July 6, 2010. Your written statement should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on which you base your objections. If you provide written objections, you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on August 6, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of the proposed settlement. Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as to Placentia-Linda Hospital will be entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment. All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar class members from asserting any claims against the Hospital concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication, structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Hospital by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at the time of the settlement agreement. FURTHER INFORMATION The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed information, including a copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel: Miguel M. de la O, Esq. David E. Marko, Esq. de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton 3001 SW 3rd Ave. Miami, FL 33129 or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. RAMSEY COUNTY: Settles Prisoners' Tuberculosis Exposure Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: All former inmates of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility who were housed in Dorms 100, 200, or 400 or worked in the kitchen and served meals to Dorm 200 inmates between April 17, 2008, and June 9, 2008 and, for any individual who has not been tested in the contact investigation prior to April 30, 2010, who is still living as of April 30, 2010. You are hereby notified of: The conditional certification of a settlement class consisting of certain persons who were exposed to tuberculosis while at the Ramsey County Correctional Facility between April 17, 2008, and June 9, 2008; The Preliminary approval of a class action settlement under which Ramsey County: 1. will pay a monetary sum to qualified settlement class members. 2. will pay a secondary monetary sum to qualified class members for tuberculosis related complications and side- effects. 3. will provide medical care and treatment or pay/reimburse medical care and treatment expenses to qualified settlement class members. Your rights as a settlement class member to comment on or object to, participate in, or exclude your-self from settlement shall be affected if you delay. The earliest deadline to affect your rights is July 26, 2010. All interested affected persons should immediately request a copy of the Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement from the following attorneys and law firms, who serve as class counsel: Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Esq. SIEBEN, GROSE, VON HOLTUM & CAREY 800 Marquette Avenue, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-333-4500 E-mail: Jeffrey.Montpetit@knowyourrights.com - and - Robert Bennett, Esq. Andrew J. Noel, Esq. FLYNN, GASKINS & BENNETT 333 South 7th Street, Suite 2900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-333-9500 E-mail: Rbennett@Flynngaskins.com Anoel@flynngaskins.com REGAL LAGER: Recalls 3,100 CYBEX 2.GO Infant Carriers ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,700 CYBEX 2.GO Infant Carriers in the United States and 400 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. A shoulder strap slider buckle can break, posing a fall hazard to babies. The firm has received three reports of broken buckles. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves CYBEX 2.GO infant carriers. "CYBEX" is embroidered on the fabric covering on the top of the head support. "2.GO" is printed on an orange tag near the head support. They were sold in the following colors: chili, indigo, purple and slate. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10267.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Baby furniture and baby product stores nationwide, and on various websites, from August 2009 through April 2010 for about $100. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled carriers and contact Regal Lager to receive a free replacement carrier. For additional information, contact Regal Lager at (866) 678-8940 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.regallager.com/recallsor email the firm at info@regallager.com RHODE ISLAND: 1st Circuit Reinstates Foster Care Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Lynn Arditi at The Providence Journal reports that a federal appeals court Friday overturned a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit accusing the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families of widespread abuse and neglect of children in state foster care. The 2007 class-action suit -- filed by the New York- based advocacy group, Children's Rights, and Rhode Island Child Advocate Jametta O. Alston -- will now be reinstated in the federal district court in Providence. In its ruling, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux's ruling that "next friends" Alston had appointed to represent the children on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed had limited or nonexistent relationships with the children, and thus lacked the legal authority to represent them. The federal panel, which included retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, ruled that because the foster children "lack significant ties with their parents" and are in state custody, no "significant relationship" is required. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL-BARTLETT. You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the facilities of Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett. This Notice is to inform you of facts that affect your legal rights. SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities of Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett ("the Hospital"). The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Hospital is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it has failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to the Hospital's facilities. The Hospital denies these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action, the Hospital does not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The named plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton. Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class. The Hospital is represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. DEFINITION OF THE CLASS You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use of any facilities of the Hospital. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The named plaintiffs and the Hospital have reached a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the Hospital will make modifications and alterations to its facilities with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the class. PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT Court Hearing. On August 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, the court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court unless received on or before July 6, 2010. Your written statement should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on which you base your objections. If you provide written objections, you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on August 6, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of the proposed settlement. Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as to Placentia-Linda Hospital will be entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment. All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar class members from asserting any claims against the Hospital concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication, structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Hospital by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at the time of the settlement agreement. FURTHER INFORMATION The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed information, including a copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel: Miguel M. de la O, Es.q David E. Marko, Esq. de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton 3001 SW 3rd Ave. Miami, FL 33129 or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. SINGAPORE POWER: Faces Class Action for Australian Bushfires ------------------------------------------------------------ John Silvester, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers acting for Black Saturday fire victims on June 19, 2010, lodged legal documents in Victoria's biggest class action, alleging a private power company was responsible for a blaze that cost 119 lives. The statement of claim, lodged in the Supreme Court, alleges international electricity provider Singapore Power failed to monitor and maintain the power line that caused the blaze in East Kilmore, in Victoria, Australia. One of the key planks to the case is the allegation that an ageing 1.1-kilometre-line failed because the power company refused to fit a $10 plastic anti- vibration protector to guard against metal fatigue. Lawyers say the action, on behalf of 598 victims, exposes a potential liability in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The total list of litigants could reach 1,300 before the case is heard. The plaintiffs in the action include victims who lost family members or suffered physical injuries, property loss and ongoing psychological damage. The case centers on one giant power pole near Saunders Road, East Kilmore, where the blaze started from a fallen sparking line about 11.45am on February 7, 2009. The joint action by Maurice Blackburn and Oldham Naidoo Lawyers alleges a series of failures and omissions by the Singapore-based power giant. The claims, which are yet to be tested, include: -- The 1966 single-strand power line should have been identified as a major risk because it was one of the longest in Victoria and located in a windy, bushfire-prone area. -- Maintenance of country power lines blew out from being checked every three years to five years after the state's power network was privatized in 1999. -- Visual checks from the base of the 20-metre power pole could not identify rust and wire deterioration. -- Crews failed to identify a structural flaw where a power wire was not sitting correctly inside its housing. -- The power company only fitted the $10 anti-vibration damper to new lines, ignoring older wires that were more likely to break. -- The circuit-breaker system was not adequate for the bushfire-prone area, allowing the broken line to spark on tinder- dry grass. Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy said, "We have heard strong evidence at the [Bushfires] Royal Commission that Singapore Power could have taken a number of steps to prevent the devastating Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire. "Electricity distribution companies are commercial enterprises that have a responsibility to ensure that public safety is not compromised simply in order to keep costs down. Singapore Power's failures have had very tragic consequences." One expert told the royal commission that the power company had a "run to failure" philosophy and questioned its maintenance program. "A run-to-failure policy means simply that you let it go until it fails," said Professor Nick Hastings, an expert in electricity maintenance. Barristers Robert Richter, QC, Tim Tobin, SC, and Lachlan Armstrong have agreed to prosecute the case on a no-win, no-fee basis. The writ seeks the case to be decided by a jury. The legal action is expected to take years to resolve, with lawyers from the two firms to take more than 1,000 statements from victims and to prepare a group of engineers to provide expert testimony. SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Testimony, Arguments Phase Conclude ------------------------------------------------------- The Times-Standard's Matt Drange reports that after months of examining documents and listening to testimony and arguments, the fate of the class-action lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. is in the hands of a Humboldt County jury. The suit, which spans from 2003 to 2009, represents some 32,000 patients who lived at various Skilled Healthcare facilities statewide. At the heart of the case is whether the nursing homes maintained staffing levels required by the state. California law requires that nursing homes maintain 3.2 nursing hours per- patient, per-day, which is the key point of contention in the case that spent over 100 days in trial. Skilled Healthcare's attorney Kippy Wroten, Esq., described Thursday as a "school day" in her closing arguments as she walked jurors through a list of questions they now face in their deliberations. Ms. Wroten again questioned the formula used to translate nursing hours into patient care, saying that there were only a handful of days in which the facilities being sued operated under the 3.2 nursing hours per-patient per-day standard in California. "They don't walk into work every day and say, 'Let's provide adequate care,'" Ms. Wroten said, pointing to the nurses in attendance for the final day of arguments. "They walk in and say, 'Let's provide the best, most loving care we can.'" Ms. Wroten said that if jurors factor in other staff members -- such as nursing aides -- the facilities operate above the minimum requirement. The plaintiffs' attorney Michael Thamer, Esq., then had his chance for rebuttal, saying the concept of confusion when it comes to how the hours are counted is an illusion created by the defense attorneys. "The concept that these folks are confused is malarkey," Mr. Thamer told the jury. "If it is so confusing, how come no one else in the industry is confused?" Mr. Thamer said class-action lawsuits are designed for cases like this one, and dismissed the notion that the plaintiffs in the case -- there are three named -- should file suits on their own. After court adjourned, Mr. Thamer said that it is up to the jury to decide if Skilled Healthcare is guilty of knowingly acting with disregard for the well-being of their patients. Charlene Harrington, a professor of nursing and sociology at the University of California at San Francisco, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs in March. She said arguments over whether the facilities met the 3.2-hour threshold is irrelevant because it is too low to begin with. "It's a laughable standard," said Ms. Harrington, whose research focuses on the quality and expenditures of nursing home care. "It should be at least 4.1." Ms. Harrington said Skilled Healthcare is not unique, and that many large corporations are routinely understaffed. "They try to keep staffing numbers as low as possible," she said. "They would rather just pay the fines and hope they don't get caught." Ms. Harrington said that an injunction would be a good start to force nursing homes to at least meet the minimum staffing requirement. In a separate report, Mr. Drange says Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos presented evidence in a court trial Friday that he hopes will lead to an injunction against Skilled Healthcare, mandating the company to keep staffing levels compliant with the law. Lawyers for both sides hope to be done with the injunction phase -- which does not involve the jury -- this week. If the jury finds that Skilled Healthcare acted with oppression, fraud or malice in the case, a subsequent jury trial will take place to establish the net worth of the company and assess any additional penalties in the case. The district attorney's office intervened in the case four years ago, assisting with collecting witnesses and sifting through evidence over the past few months. The case was scheduled to resume Monday. STATION CASINOS: Reaches Initial Terms on Global Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Station Casinos, Inc., reached preliminary agreement on the terms of a global settlement of all claims asserted in the state court action filed by Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr, according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141. The plaintiffs are all former employees of the company or its subsidiaries. The complaint alleged that the company: (i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay overtime, (iii) failed to timely pay wages, and (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel. On October 31, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. During a hearing on that motion, the United States District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on May 16, 2009, the United States District Court dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the company's favor. Subsequently, on July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614-C. The complaint in the State Court Action alleges substantially the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal Court Action. On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the company, filed an answer responding to the complaint. Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action pending the resolution of the company's bankruptcy petition. That motion was granted on September 30, 2009. On April 30, 2010, the company and the plaintiffs reached preliminary agreement on the terms of global settlement of all claims asserted in the State Court Action. The principal terms of the settlement are: (a) The plaintiffs will have an aggregate allowed $5 million general unsecured claim in the company's bankruptcy case in respect of all of the claims alleged in the State Court Action that arose prior to Jan. 28, 2009. (b) The company will set aside $1.1 million to pay (i) the claims of the plaintiffs that were employed at the company and its subsidiaries that are defendants in the State Court Action during the period January 28, 2009, through the date of the approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court, and (ii) the fees and expenses of the plaintiffs' counsel. (c) The State Court Action will be removed from the state court to the Bankruptcy Court. Upon approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court, the State Court Action will be dismissed. The settlement remains subject to final documentation, and will further require (i) preliminary approval by the Bankruptcy Court, (ii) notice to the current and former employees covered by the State Court Action of their right to object to the settlement or be excluded therefrom; and (iii) final approval by the Bankruptcy Court. Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50% owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are 50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe. SUNOPTA INC: Court Okays Ontario and New York Suit Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have approved SunOpta Inc.'s agreement to settle all claims raised in class action proceedings arising from the company's restatement of interim financial results for the first three quarters of 2007. The Class Actions were filed against the Company and other named defendants on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired SunOpta securities from February 23, 2007 to January 27, 2008. Specifically: (a) The Ontario class action lawsuit was filed in Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of shareholders who acquired securities of SunOpta between May 8, 2007 and January 25, 2008 against the company and certain of its officers (one of whom is a director), alleging misrepresentation and proposing to seek leave from the Ontario court to bring statutory misrepresentation civil liability claims under the Ontario Securities Act. (b) The New York class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired securities of SunOpta between May 8, 2007 and Jan. 25, 2008, alleging the company's violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC. Additionally, the named officers and directors (one of whom is a former director) were alleged to have violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints alleged different proposed class periods and were consolidated into one class action with two lead plaintiffs. The Class Actions Settlement is expected to become effective on June 17, 2010, upon the expiry of the period for filing any appeals. In return for the dismissal of the Class Actions and releases from Class Members of settled claims against the company and the remaining named defendants, the settlement agreement provides for a total cash contribution of US$11.25 million (funded entirely by the company's insurer) to a settlement fund and the adoption of certain corporate governance enhancements by the company. The corporate governance enhancements include certain amendments to the Company's Audit Committee Charter and Internal Audit Charter and the adoption of an enhanced Information Technology Conversion Policy. The settlement agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing by SunOpta or any of the other named defendants and the company and the other named defendants expressly deny any liability or wrongdoing in the agreement. SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high- growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models in the natural and organic food and natural health markets. The company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta), a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries. TAM S.A.: Remains Party to Four Class Actions --------------------------------------------- TAM S.A. remains a party to four class actions, one by Panama's union of tourism companies and the remaining three by the national airline workers' union. The total assessed value of those actions was approximately R$222,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, and according to the company's legal advisors, R$5,000 correspond to claims with a remote chance of loss, R$192,000 correspond to claims with a possible chance of loss, and R$24,000 correspond to claims with a probable chance of loss. The company has established provisions totaling R$24,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, in respect of all of these claims. For specific actions the company has made court deposits totaling R$1,016,000 to address labor claims. No further details were reported in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, TAM S.A. -- http://www.tam.com.br/-- has business agreements with the regional airlines Pantanal, Passaredo, Total and Trip. As of Jan. 14, 2010, the daily flight on the Corumba -- Campo Grande route in Mato Grosso do Sul began to be operated by a partnership with Trip. With the expansion of the agreement with NHT, TAM will now be serving 82 destinations in Brazil, 45 of which with its own flights. In addition, the company is strengthening its presence in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. TARGET CORP: Recalls 105,150 Boys' and Girls' Belts --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Target Corp. of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 105,150 Boys' and girls' belts. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The belt buckles contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves two types of belts: The Cherokee boys' belts and Circo girls' belts. The Cherokee belts are black and brown reversible belts with heavy stitching in sizes M-XL. The belts came in a pack of two with the numbers 202/08/0018, 202/08/0019 or 202/08/0020 embossed on the belt. The girls' Circo belts are pink and white with heart buckles in sizes XS-L. They were sold in a 2-pack with the numbers 202/05/0071, 202/05/0072, 202/05/0073 or 202/05/0074 listed on the product label attached to the inside of the belt. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10268.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Target stores and on Target.com nationwide from December 2008 through December 2009 for between $7 and $9. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled belts and return them to any Target store to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/ TOWERS WATSON: Unit Faces $800 Million Settlement Demand -------------------------------------------------------- Towers Watson & Co.'s subsidiary, Towers Watson Pennsylvania, Inc., is facing a settlement demand of a class action lawsuit by former shareholders amounting to $800 million, according to the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On January 1, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., and Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., combined their businesses through two simultaneous mergers and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently changed its name to Towers Watson & Co. Since the consummation of the Merger, Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson Pennsylvania Inc.; and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers Watson Delaware Holdings Inc. Earlier, on December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of Towers Perrin -- the Dugan Action. Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December 8, 2009, and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of $800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class. Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt. The complaint was filed on November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin, members of its board of directors, and certain members of senior management in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in this action are former members of the Towers Perrin's senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between 1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on or after January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specified criteria. Towers Watson -- http://www.towerswatson.com/-- is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk and financial management. With 14,000 associates around the world, we offer solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent management, rewards, and risk and capital management. YTB INTERNATIONAL: Remains a Defendant in Illinois Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- YTB International, Inc., remains a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit in Illinois alleging consumer fraud, according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class- action was filed against the company, three company subsidiaries, and certain executive officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. On August 14, 2008, a second, substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same defendants in the Court. The two cases have now been consolidated and are proceeding together before the same judge. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100 million. On February 9, 2009, the company filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motions and dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's ruling. On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that purported to conform to the Court's ruling. The amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the dismissed complaint. On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading standards. As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with the Court to amend their complaints. The Court granted their motions and a second amended complaint was filed on December 24, 2009. On February 12, 2010, the company filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On April 19, 2010, the Court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss as to all the out-of-state plaintiffs. As a result, there is only one remaining plaintiff who is a citizen of Illinois. Consequently, the Court has requested further briefing on the issue of whether the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter when both plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of the same state. The additional briefing was due May 19, 2010. YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- provides E- commerce business solutions for individual consumers and home- based independent representatives in the United States, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Canada, Bermuda, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Company operates through three subsidiaries: ZamZuu, Inc. (formerly YTB Marketing, Inc.), YTB Travel Network, Inc., and YTB Franchise Services, Inc. ZYNEX INC: Remains a Defendant in Securities Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- Zynex, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in Colorado, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On April 6, 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On April 9 and April 10 two other lawsuits were filed in the same court against the same defendants. These lawsuits alleged substantially the same matters and have been consolidated. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM). The consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement of the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008. The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding the financial results and operating conditions for the first three quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements. The plaintiffs ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified damages and costs of the legal action. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. The Company has notified its directors and officers liability insurer of the claim. Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com/-- engineers, manufactures, markets, and sells its own design of electrotherapy medical devices in two distinct markets: standard digital electrotherapy products for pain relief and pain management; and the NeuroMove(TM) for stroke and spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Zynex's product lines are fully developed, FDA- cleared, commercially sold, and have been developed to uphold the company's mission of improving the quality of life for patients suffering from impaired mobility due to stroke, spinal cord injury, or debilitating and chronic pain. ********* 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 * * *