/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100630.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 127 Headlines 8X8 INC: Files Answer to Unpaid Overtime Suit in California ACCELRYS INC: Class Suits Over Symyx Merger Pending in Calif. ACXIOM CORP: Still Seeking Approval of "Fresco" Suit Settlement AIRGAS INC: Remains a Defendant in Delaware Stockholders' Suits ALPINE FUNDS: Statman Conducts Probe After 50% Dividend Cut ALUMINA LTD: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in St. Croix Suit Pending AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Malpractice Suit v. Milberg, Heuer Barred ARENA RESOURCES: Settles 6 of 9 Merger-Related Class Suits ARKANSAS: Suit Says Interest on Tax Debt Violates Constitution BASS PRODUCTIONS: Accused in Ill. Suit of Not Paying Overtime BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merit Systems Merger BJ'S WHOLESALE: Court Approval of Overtime Suit Still Pending BORDERS GROUP: Overtime Payment Suit Still Pending in Calif. BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Security Guard Suit Merits Class Certification BP PLC: Class Suit Filed on Behalf of Chefs BP PLC: La. Suit Complains About Refinery Safety Violations BURLINGTON COAT: Defends Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint CHINA ORGANIC: Settles Shareholder Suit for $300,000 CHINA SUNERGY: Court Approval of Suit Settlement Still Pending DAKTRONICS INC: South Dakota Court Dismisses Amended Complaint DONEGAL GROUP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Union National Merger DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Records $1.6 Million to Settle Class Suit DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Delaware Suit Over Parent's Merger Plan DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Virginia Suit Over Parent's Planned Merger EXPRESS INC: Remains a Defendant in California Labor Suit EXPRESS PRODUCTS: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Coverage Suit FLAG TELECOM: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 29 FOREST LAB: Prescription Drugs Anti-Trust Suit Still Pending FOREST LAB: Appeal in Derivative Suit Stayed in 2nd Cir. Court FOREST LAB: Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation Still Pending HAWAII: Accused of Illegally Privatizing He'eia State Park IBM CORP: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Not Paying Overtime INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces "Page" Suit Over Planned Sale to Hg INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces Amended "Marques" Lawsuit in Delaware KELLOGG CO: Recalls 28 Million Boxes of Cereal KOHLBERG CAPITAL: 3 Class Actions Pending in New York LEGG MASON: Securities Claims Action Concluded MASARI INVESTMENTS: Ariz. Court Cuts Attorney Fees to $63,161 MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending MELBOURNE GREYHOUND: Accused of Unlawful Employment Practices MICHAELS STORES: Faces Unfair Business Practice Suit in Calif. MF GLOBAL: Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending in NY MISSION ESSENTIAL: Advocacy Group Mulls Suit Over Abuses ORION ENERGY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Suits PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending REMEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Calif. Securities Suit SIGNET JEWELERS: Two Discrimination Suits Still Pending in NY TENNESSEE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification TENNESSEE: Dept. of Safety Sued for Civil Rights Violations THOR INDUSTRIES: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action UBS AG: Settlement in 1996 Nazi Restitution Case Delayed UNION FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger with DFSC UNITED RETAIL: Calif. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling on Morgan Wage Case UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Indian Settlement Still Awaits Senate OK UNIV. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sperm Donors' Suit Gets Certification YTB INTERNATIONAL: Montroy Files "Ponzi Scheme" Suit in Madison ZUMIEZ CORP: Remains a Defendant in "Berg" Suit in California ********* 8X8 INC: Files Answer to Unpaid Overtime Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- 8x8, Inc., said in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has filed on May 26, 2010, its answer to the first amended complaint filed by filed by three former employees in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The lawsuit, originally filed on January 27, 2010, is a putative class action seeking damages and various penalties under the California Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime, meal breaks, rest breaks and alleged late wage payments and unreimbursed business expenses. The Plaintiffs' filed a First Amended Complaint on April 29, 2010, and the company filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint on May 26, 2010. 8x8 said it has factual and legal defenses to the claims and are presenting a vigorous defense. The Plaintiffs have not made a specific monetary demand and 8x8 said it cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of litigation. Based in Santa Clara, Calif., 8X8 Inc. offers software, services, and equipment that enable voice and video communication over Internet Protocol networks. Through its Packet8 software suite and related services, it allows subscribers to make phone calls and perform other broadband networking functions using VoIP technology. ACCELRYS INC: Class Suits Over Symyx Merger Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Several lawsuits have been filed against Symyx Technologies, Inc., members of the Symyx board of directors, certain executive officers of Symyx, Accelrys Inc., and Alto Merger Sub Inc. in purported class action lawsuits brought by individual Symyx stockholders in connection with Symyx and Accelrys' proposed merger, Accelrys said in a May 28, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The class actions challenge the proposed merger and seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Accelrys said that if the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, an injunction may prevent the completion of the Merger in the expected timeframe. The first of the lawsuits was a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx and its directors and chief financial officer, as well as Accelrys and Merger Sub, alleging, among other things, that Symyx's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Symyx in connection with the proposed Merger. Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, several additional suits were filed, also in Santa Clara County, each of which is substantially similar to the first lawsuit. The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a single action. It is expected that the plaintiffs will file a single, consolidated complaint, which will serve as the only complaint in the combined litigation going forward. Accelrys expects that the consolidated complaint, like the four filed complaints, will seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger as currently contemplated. On June 24, 2010, Accelrys disclosed that that Institutional Shareholder Services, an independent proxy advisory firm, has recommended that stockholders of Accelrys vote "FOR" the proposed agreement providing for the merger with Symyx Technologies, Inc. Accelrys will hold a special shareholder meeting at its headquarters in San Diego, California, on June 30, 2010 to vote on the proposed merger. Headquartered in San Diego, California, Accelrys -- http://www.accelrys.com/-- develops scientific informatics software and solutions for the life sciences, energy, chemicals, aerospace, and consumer products industries. Customers include many Fortune 500 companies and other commercial entities, as well as academic and government entities. Accelrys has a vast portfolio of computer-aided design modelling and simulation offerings which assist customers in conducting scientific experiments 'in silico' in order to reduce the duration and cost of discovering and developing new drugs and materials. Its scientific informatics platform underlies the company's computer-aided design modelling and simulation offerings. The Accelrys platform can be used with both Accelrys and competitive products, as well as with customers' proprietary predictive science products. Its flexibility, ease-of- use and advanced chemical, text and image analysis and reporting capabilities enable customers to mine, aggregate, analyze and report scientific data from disparate sources, thereby better utilizing scientific data within their organizations. ACXIOM CORP: Still Seeking Approval of "Fresco" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Acxiom Corporation said in a May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, continues to seek preliminary court approval of a settlement resolving a putative class action captioned Richard Fresco, et al., v. R.L. Polk and Company and Acxiom Corporation, (U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Florida, 07-60695) formerly, Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., (U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Florida, 03-61063). The putative class action lawsuit was removed to federal court in May 2003, filed against Acxiom and several other information providers. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used drivers' license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. As of May 26, a class has not been certified. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees. Acxiom has agreed to settle the case and is seeking preliminary approval by the court. The process of obtaining final approval of the settlement is expected to take several months. Acxiom has accrued $5.0 million for the settlement and ancillary costs to obtain final approval and has paid $2.5 million of this amount into an escrow fund established for the settlement, leaving a remaining accrual of $2.5 million. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. ARONOVITZ TRIAL LAWYERS 150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-372-2772 Facsimile: 305-375-0243 E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com - and - Mark S. Fistos, Esq. JAMES HOYER NEWCOMER & SMILJANICH 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: 850-325-2680 Facsimile: 850-325-2681 - and - Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq. DEVINE GOODMAN PALLOT & WELLS 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-374-8200 Facsimile: 305-374-8208 E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com - and - James Kellogg Green, Esq. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561-659-2029 Facsimile: 561-655-1357 E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net R.L. Polk & Co. is represented by: Christopher M. Mason, Esq. NIXON PEABODY, LLP 437 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 - and - Scott J. Frank, Esq. BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG, LLP One South Harbour Island Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 Acxiom is represented by: Juan C. Enjamio, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP Mellon Financial Center 1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Acxiom Corporation, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, is a customer data integration, data content and information technology outsourcing services provider. The company provides data-processing services, database management, and solutions for product-marketing applications. AIRGAS INC: Remains a Defendant in Delaware Stockholders' Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Airgas, Inc., in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, maintains that the claims asserted by plaintiffs in a number of purported stockholder class action lawsuits are without merit and that it intends to defend against them vigorously. The actions were commenced against the Company and/or the members of the Airgas Board in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These suits, which have now been consolidated, allege, among other things, that the members of the Airgas Board have failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties by refusing to negotiate with Air Products, failing to seek more valuable alternatives and failing to redeem the Company's shareholder rights plan. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, as well as an award of compensatory damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Airgas Inc., headquartered in Radnor, PA, is the largest independent distributor of industrial, medical and specialty gases and related equipment in North America. Airgas reported $3.9 billion in revenue for the LTM ending December 31, 2009. ALPINE FUNDS: Statman Conducts Probe After 50% Dividend Cut ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC is investigating Alpine Total Dynamic Dividend Fund and Alpine Global Dynamic Dividend Fund for potential violations of state and federal law. AOD and AGD are closed-end mutual funds which up until recently have traded at a premium of 30% or more to their net asset values. The firm's investigation was triggered on June 24, 2010, when the Board of Trustees for the Funds declared the monthly dividend distributions for AOD for the months of July, August, and September 2010 would be $0.055 per share, a decrease of more than 50% from its previous distribution rate of $0.12 per share. The monthly dividend distributions for AGD for the same months were similarly lowered nearly 50% from $0.11 per share to $0.06 per share. The firm is investigating allegations that AOD and AGD paid yields known to be unsustainable and damaging to shareholders despite stated growth and income objectives, resulting in reduced distribution rates. AOD and AGD shareholders may have a claim against the Funds and are encouraged to contact: Melinda S. Nenning, Esq. STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC 441 Vine Street, Suite 3700 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 658-8867 Toll-Free: (888) 876-7881 E-mail: mnenning@statmanharris.com for further information without any obligation or cost to you. Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC -- http://www.statmanharris.com/-- has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Dayton, Ohio. ALUMINA LTD: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in St. Croix Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Alcoa, Inc., and St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C.'s motion to dismiss an appeal in a class action relating to alleged personal injuries and property damages caused by materials at the SCA facility in the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands during Hurricane Georges remains pending, Alumina Ltd. said in a May 27, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the SCA facility on the island of St. Croix. The wind and rain associated with the hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into neighboring residential areas. Various cleanup and remediation efforts were undertaken by or on behalf of SCA. A Notice of Violation was issued by the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government, and has been contested by the company. A civil suit was commenced in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands by certain residents of St. Croix in February 1999 seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal injuries and property damages associated with "bauxite or red dust" from the SCA facility. The suit, which has been removed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, names SCA, Alcoa Inc., and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000, was accorded class action treatment. The class is defined to include persons in various defined neighborhoods who "suffered damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane Georges." All of the defendants have denied liability, and discovery and other pre-trial proceedings have been underway since 1999. In October 2003, the defendants received plaintiffs' expert reports. These reports also claim that the material blown during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances. The reports further claim, among other things, that the population of the six subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and punitive relief. These opinions have been contested by the defendants' expert reports, that state, among other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime medical monitoring. In August 2005, Alcoa Inc. and SCA moved to decertify the plaintiff class, and in March 2006, the assigned magistrate judge issued a recommendation that class certification be maintained for liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after liability issues have been resolved. This recommendation has been adopted by the assigned district judge. Alcoa Inc. and SCA have turned over this matter to their insurance carriers who are providing a defense. Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss. On June 3, 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to decertify the class of plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for certification of a new class. Under the new certification order, there is no class as to the personal injury, property damage, or punitive damages claims. (The named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for medical monitoring during the course of the briefing of the certification motions.) The Court did certify a new class as to the claim of on-going nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present at the facility. The Court expressly denied certification of a class as to any claims for remediation or clean up of any area outside the facility (including plaintiffs' property). The new class may seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Named plaintiffs, however, may continue to prosecute their claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. On May 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs' sole remaining claim, which sought injunctive relief. On May 22, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the named plaintiffs' claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. On August 28, 2009, the Court dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their property damage claims. On September 25, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief. On October 29, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for injunctive relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On November 24, 2009, Alcoa Inc. and SCA filed a motion to dismiss that appeal. The company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. Australia-based Alumina Limited (ASX:AWC) -- http://www.aluminalimited.com/-- is engaged in investing in bauxite mining, alumina refining and selected aluminum smelting operations through its 40% ownership of Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (AWAC). The wholly owned subsidiaries of the company are Albion Downs Pty. Ltd., Alumina Holdings (USA) Inc., Alumina International Holdings Pty. Ltd., Alumina Brazil Holdings Pty Ltd, Alumina (U.S.A.) Inc., Butia Participacoes SA, Westminer Acquisition (U.K.) Limited, Westminer International (U.K.) Limited and Westminer (Investments) B.V. The geographical segments of the company are Australia, North America, Europe, and South America, Caribbean and Africa. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the denial of his renewed motion for class certification. The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on electronic receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder. The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case. On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America signed the FACTA reform bill. The bill specifies that if a company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the law. The legislation does not specifically address the situation where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a receipt. The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff has appealed this decision. The case is stayed pending this appeal. No further updates were reported in the company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2010. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. Ira Spiro, Esq. SPIRO MOSS BARNESS 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 235-2468 E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com ira@spiromoss.com Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitskim, Esq. THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Telephone: (213) 576-8097 Facsimile: (213) 576-8080 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Malpractice Suit v. Milberg, Heuer Barred ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight, held in Roger M. Lindmark, v. Milberg Weiss LLP, et al. Case No. B211388 (Calif. App. Ct.); and Roger M. Lindmark, v. Henry T. Heuer, et al., Case No. B214044 (Calif. App. Ct.), that Lindmark is barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing a legal malpractice suit against Milberg LLP and Henry T. Heuer, Esq. Mr. Lindmark filed the suit in February 2008. The Appellate Court said the malpractice action should have been filed at the latest May 2005, and possibly even by March 2005. Mr. Lindmark is trying to collect on a $1.107 million referral fee Milberg paid Mr. Heuer. The referral fee was generated by the settlement in October 2002 of federal class action Lindmark v. American Express Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Milberg represented the plaintiff class in the federal class action. Mr. Lindmark claims that he had an agreement with Mr. Heuer under which Mr. Heuer was required to pass on the referral fee to Mr. Lindmark. A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100623048 Mr. Lindmark is represented by: Steven C. Glickman, Esq. GLICKMAN & GLICKMAN 9460 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 E-mail: scg@glickman-law.com Telephone: (310) 273-4040 (800) 858-4040 Milberg is represented by: Edith R. Matthai, Esq. Steven S. Fleischman, Esq. ROBIE & MATTHAI, P.C. 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 624-3062 Facsimile: (213) 624-2563 Defendant Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP is represented by: Zesara C. Chan, Esq. Felicia A. Draper, Esq. Simone M. Katz-O'Neill, Esq. SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-6500 x265 Facsimile: (415) 421-2922 E-mail: zchan@sflaw.com fdraper@sflaw.com skatz@sflaw.com Defendant Dennis J. Stewart is represented by: Wayne T. Lamprey, Esq. Francine T. Radford, Esq. Anne Hayes Hartman, Esq. GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI DAY & LAMPREY, LLP 505 Sansome Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 392-7900 Facsimile: (415) 398-4321 Mr. Heuer and Prince & Heuer are represented by: Henry T. Heuer, Esq. Sunnie H. Han, Esq. PRINCE & HEUER 2029 Century Park E #2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3011 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Telephone: (310) 277-7442 ARENA RESOURCES: Settles 6 of 9 Merger-Related Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Arena Resources, Inc., disclosed in a May 28, 2010, Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that, together with Sandridge Energy, Inc., it has settled six of nine shareholder lawsuits. The nine shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been filed against Arena and its board of directors. The three lawsuits filed in Oklahoma County (Eberhardt v. Arena Resources, Inc., Tiemchan Phillips v. Rochford, and Reinfried v. Arena Resources) were stayed by the District Court of Oklahoma City at a hearing on May 10, 2010. The parties in the six remaining actions have reached stipulations consolidating, staying, or coordinating the actions and have reached a memorandum of understanding under which the actions would be settled. On April 30, 2010, the parties to three lawsuits filed in Nevada (City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Arena Resources, Inc. et al.; West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Rochford et al.; and Kolesnik v. Arena Resources et al.) stipulated that the actions would be consolidated for all purposes up through and including preliminary injunction proceedings. In the same stipulation, the parties to two lawsuits filed in Tulsa County (Slater v. Arena Resources, Inc., and Erickson v. Arena Resources, Inc.) agreed that both actions would be consolidated, stayed, and coordinated for all pre-trial purposes with the Nevada Consolidated Action. The parties in the federal suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Stevenson v. Rochford) thereafter reached a stipulation to coordinate discovery with the Nevada Consolidated Action. On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiffs in the Nevada Consolidated Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges generally that Arena's directors breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the merger and by allegedly favoring their own interests over those of shareholders, administering a sale process that failed to maximize shareholder value, failing to obtain certain protections in the Merger Agreement that would apply in the event of a decline in SandRidge's stock price, and agreeing to certain termination fees and other terms in the Merger Agreement. The Consolidated Amended Complaint further alleges that Arena and SandRidge aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by filing a deficient and misleading proxy. Arena and SandRidge believe the Consolidated Amended Complaint and all other complaints filed in the shareholder lawsuits arising out of the proposed merger are without merit and that they have valid defenses to all claims. Nevertheless, in order to avoid the cost, disruption and uncertainty of litigation -- and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing -- the Defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding agreeing, subject to certain terms and conditions, to settle the Nevada Consolidated Action, the Tulsa Consolidated Action, and the Federal Action, which asserts similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty as well as a federal claim against Arena and SandRidge under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Arena and SandRidge have agreed to make certain additional disclosure related to a proposed merger. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides, among other terms, for certification of a settlement class and the release of certain claims held by the class. The stipulation of the settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Arena's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. Arena said there can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement that receives court approval. In the event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. Arena Resources, Inc., is an oil and gas exploration, development and production company with current operations in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico. ARKANSAS: Suit Says Interest on Tax Debt Violates Constitution -------------------------------------------------------------- According to The Associated Press, a proposed class-action lawsuit claims Arkansas is violating the state constitution with the interest charged on tax debts. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Pulaski County Circuit Court by the law firms Deininger & Wingfield and Hatfield & Sayer, says the maximum interest that can currently be legally charged is 5.5%, and that the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration is charging 10% interest on judgments against tax debtors. DFA Director Richard Weiss could not be reached for comment. The rate makes it more difficult for anyone who owes an income-tax debt, sales-tax debt or withholding tax debt to catch up in a weak economy, said Reba M. Wingfield, Esq., of Little Rock. "To charge usurious interest on top of the exorbitant penalties by the state and the IRS, it's just not right," she said. Ms. Wingfield said that under Arkansas law, the interest rate on a judgment is to be either 10% or 5% over the prime rate, whichever is less. When interest rates were high, the law helped Arkansans who owed tax debts by limiting the interest they were charged to 10% or less. But when interest rates fell, the state didn't correspondingly change the amount of interest it charged to tax debtors, Ms. Wingfield said. Now, according to her firm, "interest rates are at an all-time low, and unemployment is soaring." Yet while interest rates have steadily been less than 10% since 2007, Ms. Wingfield said, the state has held its interest rate at 10%. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Gary Sanford of Hot Springs Village, Linda Yeager of Summers, Wayne Lilley of Plumerville and Lilley's business -- Lilley Paint Co. Mr. Sanford owes back income taxes for tax years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Ms. Yeager owes income taxes for the 2001 tax year. Mr. Lilley owes income taxes for 2001, 2003 and 2006 and his company is owes the finance department for payroll-withholding taxes for five months in 2003 and 2004. Ms. Wingfield said the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to stop the practice or at least to divert interest payments being collected into a fund to be held until the court decides the matter. Plaintiffs' lawyers may be reached at: Reba W. Wingfield, Esq. DEININGER & WINGFIELD, P.A. 920 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-3843 BASS PRODUCTIONS: Accused in Ill. Suit of Not Paying Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that R. Kelly (Robert Kelly) and Bass Productions failed to pay support workers overtime during his tours and studio work, a class action claims in Chicago Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Navarro v. Bass Productions, Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03941 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/rkelly.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Bantz, Esq. David E. Stevens, Esq. WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-419-1008 BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merit Systems Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- BioSphere Medical, Inc., faces a purported class action in connection with its proposed merger with Medical Systems, Inc., according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 15, 2010, members of the Board of Directors of the Company were served with a complaint for a purported class action on behalf of holders of the company's securities, filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (CA5553-VCL), alleging they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger with Merit. BioSphere Medical, Inc., seeks to pioneer and commercialize minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic applications based on proprietary bioengineered microsphere technology. The company's core technologies, patented bioengineered polymers and manufacturing methods, are used to produce microscopic spherical materials with unique beneficial properties for a variety of medical applications. BioSphere Medical's principal focus is the use of its products for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids using a procedure called uterine fibroid embolization, or UFE. The company's products continue to gain acceptance in this rapidly emerging procedure, as well as in a number of other new and established medical treatments. BJ'S WHOLESALE: Court Approval of Overtime Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its remaining reserve for related payments in the overtime class suit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is $2.4 million as of May 1, 2010. In November 2008, BJ's was sued in a purported class action brought on behalf of "current and former department and other assistant managers," in which plaintiffs principally alleged that they had not been compensated for overtime work as required under federal and Massachusetts law. (Caissie v. BJ's Wholesale Club., Case No. 3:08cv30220.) In the third quarter of 2009, BJ's recorded a pretax charge in selling, general and administrative expenses of $11.7 million in connection with a proposed settlement of this claim and related payments. Under the settlement, which still must be finally approved by the court, certain current and former mid-level managers will be eligible to receive payments to compensate them for particular hours worked in prior years. The settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission by the company of any wrongdoing. In 2009's first quarter, BJ's paid $9.2 million into a settlement fund and $0.1 million in legal fees and are awaiting a final approval from the court before all claims and related payments are made. While the ultimate outcome of the claims paid could differ from what the company has recorded, the difference is not expected to have a material impact on the company's consolidated financial position or liquidity, BJ's said. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. -- http://www.bjs.com/-- is a warehouse club operator in the eastern United States. BJ's revenues are derived from the sale of a range of food and general merchandise items, the sale of gasoline and from membership fees. BORDERS GROUP: Overtime Payment Suit Still Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Borders Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action filed in California alleging violations of the Labor Code, the company said in a May 27, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission In February 2009, three former employees, individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former employees who work or worked as General Managers in Borders stores in the State of California at any time from February 19, 2005 through February 19, 2009, have filed an action against Borders Group, Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly classified as exempt employees and that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i) pay required overtime and (ii) provide meal periods and rest periods, and (iii) that those practices also violate the California Business and Professions Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court deems proper. Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE: BGP) is a leading specialty retailer of books as well as other educational and entertainment items. The company employs approximately 25,000 throughout the U.S., primarily in its Borders(R) and Waldenbooks(R) stores. Online shopping is offered through http://borders.com/ BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Security Guard Suit Merits Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Ofgang, staff writer for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday that the lawsuit Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., Case No. G041702, which charges a company that employs security guards throughout Southern California with failing to pay correct amounts of overtime, must be certified as a class action. Div. Three partially reversed Orange Superior Court Judge Gail Andler's order denying class certification in the action against Boyd & Associates, Inc., which has offices in North Hollywood, Palm Desert, Santa Ana and Oxnard. The panel ordered that a class be certified of employees whose overtime premium was allegedly calculated on the basis of an amount that was less than their actual rate of pay. In an opinion written by Justice Richard Fybel, however, the court upheld Judge Andler's conclusion that claims the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks cannot not be litigated on a class- wide basis because there are predominant individual issues. The plaintiffs, Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene, brought their action on behalf of about 4,000 past and present employees of Boyd. They claimed that while employed by the company several years ago -- Mr. Faulkinbury for about 13 months and Mr. Levene for a little over two years -- they were denied the right to take meal and rest breaks. They also claimed that a gasoline allowance and a uniform maintenance allowance amounting to 70 cents per hour, along with a nondiscretionary bonus paid annually to employees who had been at the company for more than 12 months, should have been treated as wages for overtime purposes. In denying class certification, Judge Andler concluded that it was "not clear . . . that the proposed classes are ascertainable" and that "it appears that individual questions of fact predominate." Justice Fybel, however, said there was substantial evidence that the company's liability for failure to provide meal breaks depends on employees' individual circumstances. Under Industrial Welfare Commission regulations, Justice Fybel explained, an employer is not required to provide off-duty meal breaks "when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to." Boyd, Justice Fybel noted, requires all of its employees to sign on-the-job meal period agreements, and presented evidence that it provides different levels of security service at many different types of locations, so employees' meal arrangements vary from location to location. Some employees must work alone and are unable to leave their posts to eat, some work with another employee and can take off-duty breaks, some are able to leave their posts during periods of inactivity, some are relieved by other Boyd's employees at mealtime, and yet others are able to eat because they are relieved by employees of the client, Justice Fybel explained. Besides, Justice Fybel wrote, "[a] class-wide determination that the nature of the work exception did not apply to security guards employed by Boyd would not in itself result in liability against Boyd," because the court would still have to determine which individual employees actually took on-duty breaks instead of off- duty breaks mandated by law. Similarly, with respect to rest breaks, "evidence showed that Boyd had no formal policy denying off-duty rest breaks or requiring employees to waive them," and declarations submitted by both sides showed that practices varied according to individual circumstances, Justice Fybel wrote. He distinguished a Court of Appeal ruling allowing a claim for failure to provide rest breaks to go forward, noting that the employer in that case had "a common policy of denying rest breaks and failing to pay for them." As to overtime, however, the denial of class certification was an abuse of discretion, Justice Fybel said, because the issues of whether the annual bonus and the gas and uniform allowance were wages are amenable to determination on a class-wide basis. The company's arguments on overtime, he said, relate primarily to the merits and not to whether a class should be certified. Justice Fybel also noted that the trial judge, in her order denying the motion, did not distinguish among the three proposed classes and made no findings suggesting that the overtime issue specifically could not be resolved in a class action. BP PLC: Class Suit Filed on Behalf of Chefs ------------------------------------------- Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk at Bloomberg News report that Chef Susan Spicer of Bayona restaurant, in New Orleans's French Quarter, filed a proposed class action against BP Plc on behalf of chefs "whose occupation was destroyed and/or adversely and detrimentally affected" by the worst oil spill in U.S. history, caused by the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig off the Louisiana coast in April. "Much of the plaintiff's business is based on the unique quality of Louisiana seafood, as well as the chain of delivery of that resource from the initial harvester," Serena Pollack, Esq., one of Bayona's lawyers, said. "Because this chain of delivery cannot be maintained, plaintiff's business has been and continues to be materially damaged." The complaint says restaurants must pay higher prices for the dwindling supply of Gulf seafood and must also ship seafood in from other regions because of the closure of much of the Gulf to commercial fishing. The latest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration bulletin says 32.5% of the Gulf fishery, the nation's second largest, is closed due to concerns over contamination from the BP oil spill. Bayona's suit seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages from BP, which has primary liability as owner of the offshore lease, and from Transocean Ltd., which owned the drilling rig. Halliburton Energy Services Inc. and Cameron International Corp., which supplied the rig's cementing services and blowout prevention equipment, respectively, are also named in the proposed class action. BP spokesman Mark Salt declined to comment on the suit. Ms. Spicer was a judge at a recent "Top Chef" competition on Bravo TV and is an occasional panelist on the Food Network's "Iron Chef America" cooking challenge. She received the James Beard Foundation Award as best chef in the southeastern U.S. in 1993, and is a consultant for the HBO series "Treme," about life in post-Katrina New Orleans. The lawsuit is Bayona Corp. v. Transocean Ltd., et al., 10-cv-01839 (E.D. La.). Plaintiff's counsel may be reached at: Serena E. Pollack, Esq. LOWE, STEIN, HOFFMAN, ALLWEISS & HAUVER, L.L.P. One Shell Square 701 Poydras St Ste 3600 New Orleans, LA 70139-7735 Telephone: (504) 581-2450 Facsimile: (504) 581-2461 E-mail: spollack@lshah.com BP PLC: La. Suit Complains About Refinery Safety Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that while BP's top U.S. official said he stands by BP's "culture of safety" and said BP's practices are the same as those "deployed by the other companies out there," a federal class action claims that BP refineries in Texas and Ohio have accounted for 97% of the "egregious, willful" citations from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the past 3 years. BP was cited for 760 such violations, while Sunoco and Conoco- Phillips had 8 apiece, Citgo had 2 and Exxon had 1 comparable citation, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Armand's Bistro cites sworn testimony from BP employees and engineers and documents released through investigation to buttress claims that BP has a long history of sacrificing safety for profit. In its 72-page filing, Armand's Bistro also cites a shareholder derivative complaint filed against BP in May. Employee accounts of the weeks leading up to the explosion indicate that numerous safety issues aboard the Deepwater Horizon were ignored by BP. Survivors of the explosion said they had recurring problems with pockets of flammable natural gas bubbling up the drilling pipes. So much gas rose to the surface in the weeks before the spill that all "hot work" had to be stopped, including welding, cooking and any other use of fire or igniters, according to the complaint. Meanwhile on Thursday, a local attorney who represents several plaintiffs in claims against BP estimated the company's actual damages from the spill at $39 billion to $50 billion -- and said that BP has hired bankruptcy attorneys in New Orleans. Daniel Becnel Jr. did not say BP is preparing to file for bankruptcy, but said that for the past month BP has paid attorneys $1,100 an hour to work for 10 to 12 hours a day. Mr. Becnel, who represents Armand's Bistro, declined to name the firm. Also on Thursday, BP America's Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles says he stands by BP's "culture of safety" and that BP's practices in the Gulf of Mexico are the same as those "deployed by the other companies out there." Mr. Suttles told the Times-Picayune he'd like to see the U.S. moratorium on deepwater drilling lifted as soon as possible. "I understand why people might wasn't to put a moratorium in place, but my personal view on this is we need to look very rapidly at what needs to be done that gives you confidence to restart [drilling in deepwater] because the consequences of stopping are also significant," Mr. Suttles said. Louisiana officials have said more than 10,000 jobs may be at stake if the moratorium remains in place for 6 months. Royal Dutch Shell, which was not involved in the spill, has said it will await the appeals process before resuming operations. "Whether it's the safety equipment that's used, how it's tested, how well designs are examined and approved or how decisions are taken through that process, I would hope that those things could be examined very quickly with the right experts and at minimum you could come up with interim conditions to restart while you study it even further," Mr. Suttles said. Mr. Suttles appears to be the first BP official to publicly question the moratorium. Last week in congressional testimony, BP CEO Tony Hayward said the moratorium was "probably the right thing to do until such time as we have greater clarity." U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman blocked the moratorium on Tuesday and rejected the Interior Secretary's request for a stay on Thursday. Judge Feldman ruled that the moratorium was it overly broad and arbitrary. The Minerals Management Service has been criticized repeatedly for its cozy, de-facto deregulation of oil companies. Norway, Brazil and other nations require drilling rigs to be outfitted with a remote device that works as a last ditch effort to prevent a spill in the case the blowout preventer fails. The device costs about $500,000. BP says it has spent more than $100 million already compensating Gulf Coast residents for the oil spill. A copy of the Complaint in Armand's Bistro, L.L.C. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01007 (D. La.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/BistrovLP.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq. Kathryn Becnel, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: 985-536-1186 E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com mmoreland@becnellaw.com schristina@becnellaw.com - and - Robert Becnel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT BECNEL 425 W. Airline Hey, Suite B LaPlace, LA 70068 Telephone: 985-359-6100 E-mail: robbecnel@aol.com - and - Morris Bart, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 909 Poydras St., 20th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-525-8000 E-mail: morrisbart@morrisbart.com - and - Camilo K. Salas III, Esq. SALAS & CO., L.C. 650 Poydras St., Suite 1660 New Orelands, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-799-3080 E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com - and - Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT P.O. Box 1190 2220 Bonaventure Court Alexandria, LA 71309-1190 Telephone: 318-487-9874 E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com - and - Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. W.B. Markovits, Esq. Christopher D. Stock, Esq. WAITE SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A. 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513-621-0267 E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.com BURLINGTON COAT: Defends Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., defends an amended complaint alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009. The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all current, former, and future employees in the United States and the State of California for the relevant statutory time period. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009. The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage statements, and unfair competition. The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California law claims, appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees. Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday low prices. The company currently serves its customers through its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico. CHINA ORGANIC: Settles Shareholder Suit for $300,000 ---------------------------------------------------- China Organic Agriculture, Inc. has agreed to a settlement in the shareholder class action lawsuit commenced against it in December 2008, according to the company's June 14, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Counsel for the company and counsel for the Plaintiff Class entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement which has been submitted for approval by the Court. Under the terms of the settlement, eligible class members would receive a total of $300,000 in cash together with shares of China Organic Agriculture's common stock having a value of $300,000 in exchange for a release of all claims which class members have or may have against the company, its directors, officers, affiliates, shareholders and agents, except claims arising out of or related to the settlement. Qian Qi, the newly elected Chief Executive Officer of the Company commented: "The decision to settle this action reflects management's desire to focus on the Company's business and avoid the distractions that would result from mounting a defense to this lawsuit. Although we believe that the Company and its personnel did nothing improper, it is well worth it to pay the amount of the settlement and put this matter behind us and focus on growing our Company." China Organic Agriculture Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is based in China and is primarily engaged in the acquisition, trading and distribution of agricultural products. CHINA SUNERGY: Court Approval of Suit Settlement Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Sunergy Co., Ltd., disclosed in a May 28, 2010 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that court approval of its proposed settlement agreement of a consolidated class action lawsuit is still pending. Sunegry and several of its directors and officers were named defendants in three purported class actions currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Brown v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV- 07895 (DAB); Sheshtawy v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-08656 (DAB); and Giombetti v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-09689 (DAB). On September 29, 2008, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the three cases. The lead plaintiff alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in its registration statement and prospectus in connection with its initial public offering in May 2007 regarding, among other things, the procurement of polysilicon, and seek unspecified damages. In July 2009, the defendants agreed to settle the class action. The proposed settlement agreement, filed with the court on October 16, 2009, is still pending and must be approved by the court before becoming final. SunEnergy has recorded an estimated amount of $1.1 million for the final settlement in its consolidated financial statements as of and during the year ended December 31, 2009. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. -- http://www.chinasunergy.com/-- is engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing and selling solar cells. It manufactures solar cells from silicon wafers utilizing crystalline silicon solar cell technology to convert sunlight directly into electricity through a process known as the photovoltaic effect. It sells its solar cell products to Chinese and overseas module manufacturers and system integrators, who assemble its solar cells into solar modules and solar power systems for use in various markets. During the year ended December 31, 2007, it produced both monocrystalline and multicrystalline silicon solar cells. In addition to standard P-type solar cells, it commenced commercial production of selective emitter cells, an improved version of the P-type solar cells in 2007. DAKTRONICS INC: South Dakota Court Dismisses Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota has granted Daktronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended consolidated complaint, according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 1, 2010. The company and two of its executive officers are named as defendants in a consolidated class action filed in in November 2008 on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company's stock in the open market between Nov. 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007. In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on April 13, 2009, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material facts about our business and expected financial performance in the company's press releases, its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and conference calls, thereby inflating the price of the company's common stock. The Amended Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, reasonable fees and costs of litigation, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On June 5, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss. In September 2009, the company filed a reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice to plaintiffs being able to file a formal motion to further amend the complaint within 20 days of the date of the order. Daktronics, Inc. -- http://www.daktronics.com/-- is a supplier of electronic scoreboards, large electronic display systems and related marketing services, digital messaging solutions and software and services for sports venues, commercial and transportation applications. The company operates through five segments: Commercial, Live Events, Schools and Theatres, Transportation and International. The Ccmpany offers a line of products, from small indoor and outdoor scoreboards and electronic displays to video display systems, as well as related control, timing, sound and hoist systems and related professional services. The company is engaged in designing, marketing, manufacturing, installing and servicing integrated systems that display real-time data, graphics, animation and video. The company is engaged in a range of activities, including marketing and sales, engineering and design, manufacturing and professional services. DONEGAL GROUP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Union National Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Donegal Group Inc. faces a purported class action in relation to the proposed merger between its affiliate Donegal Financial Services Corporation (DFSC), and Union National Financial Corporation (UNFF), according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. UNFF, DFSC, and Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, reported they have become aware of the filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania against UNNF, each of the directors of UNNF, DFSC and certain affiliated entities of DFSC. The complaint purports to be a class action filed on behalf of the holders of UNNF common stock arising from certain alleged actions by UNNF and its board of directors in connection with the previously announced proposed merger of UNNF with and into DFSC. Donegal Group Inc. -- http://www.donegalgroup.com/-- is an insurance holding company whose insurance subsidiaries offer personal and commercial property and casualty lines of insurance in five Mid-Atlantic states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania), seven Southeastern states (Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and six Midwestern states (Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin). DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Records $1.6 Million to Settle Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Dycom Industries, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has received final approval of a settlement resolving a class action alleging wage and hour violations. In May 2009, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs, all former employees of the subsidiary, alleged various wage and hour claims, including that employees were not paid for all hours worked and were subject to improper wage deductions. Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class current and former employees of the subsidiary who worked in the State of Washington. In November 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys, the Company and the subsidiary entered into a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which the parties agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement with respect to the lawsuit. In January 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Notice of the terms of the proposed settlement and claim forms were mailed to members of the plaintiffs' class in February 2010. The Court held a hearing regarding the plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement in April 2010, at which time it entered an Order approving the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice subject to final administration of the terms of the settlement. As of April 24, 2010, approximately $1.6 million was included in other accrued liabilities with respect to claims approved for payment under the terms of the settlement. Dycom Industries, Inc. -- http://www.dycomind.com/-- is a provider of specialty contracting services. These services are provided throughout the United States and include engineering, construction, maintenance and installation services to telecommunications providers; underground locating services to various utilities, including telecommunications providers, and other construction and maintenance services to electric utilities and others. The Company also provides services on a limited basis in Canada. DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Delaware Suit Over Parent's Merger Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ DynCorp International LLC faces an amended complaint over its parent company, DynCorp International, Inc.'s agreement and plan of merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc., according to the company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010. On April 11, 2010, DynCorp International, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, and Delta Tucker Sub, Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. On April 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was commenced against the company, its directors, Cerberus, and Cerberus' acquisition entities in the Delaware Court. In this action, captioned Shawn K. Naito v. DynCorp International Inc. et al., C.A. No. 5419-VCS, the plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of the public stockholders of DynCorp International Inc., and seeks, among other things, equitable relief, to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, and fees and costs. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the proposed Merger in which the consideration is unfair and inadequate, failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value, and putting their own interests above those of DynCorp International Inc.'s stockholders. The complaint further alleges that Cerberus, Merger Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. On May 7, 2010, the company filed an answer that denied the material substantive allegations of the complaint. On May 10, 2010, Cerberus and its acquisition entities filed an answer that denied the material substantive allegations of the complaint. On May 14, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint to assert certain alleged failures of disclosure in the company's preliminary proxy statement previously filed with the SEC. Such motion was granted by the Court on May 18, 2010. The proposed amended complaint continues to challenge the Board's discharge of its fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the Merger. On June 2, 2010, the company and its directors, as well as Cerberus and its acquisition entities, filed respective answers denying the material substantive allegations of the amended complaint. Meanwhile, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of the Merger on May 17, 2010, and the court scheduled a hearing to adjudicate that motion on June 17, 2010. DynCorp International, Inc. -- http://www.dyn-intl.com/-- through its wholly-owned subsidiary DynCorp International LLC, is a global government services provider in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international development. DynCorp International operates major programs in logistics, platform support, contingency operations, and training and mentoring to reinforce security, community stability, and the rule of law. DynCorp International is headquartered in Falls Church, Va. DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Virginia Suit Over Parent's Planned Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- DynCorp International LLC faces an amended complaint pending in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia over its parent company, DynCorp International, Inc.'s agreement and plan of merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc., according to the company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010. On April 11, 2010, DynCorp International, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, and Delta Tucker Sub, Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. On April 30, 2010, the company, its directors and Cerberus' acquisition entities were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Kevin V. Meehan v. Robert McKeon et al., C.A. No. 1:10CV 446, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia. In the complaint, the plaintiff purports to represent a class of DynCorp International, Inc.'s stockholders and seeks, among other things, equitable relief, including to enjoin the company and Cerberus' acquisition entities from consummating the Merger, in addition to fees and costs. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to engage in an honest and fair sale process. The complaint further alleges that the company and Cerberus' acquisition entities aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. On May 17, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Section 14a of the Exchange Act, challenging disclosures and alleged omissions in the company's proxy statement. On May 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to expedite the case. On May 21, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, on May 24, 2010, filed a motion for abstention, asking the court to abstain from proceeding with the case in favor of the substantively similar and earlier-filed action in Delaware. On May 27, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery. The Federal Court set a hearing on the company's motions to dismiss and for abstention for June 18, 2010. In addition, following denial of the plaintiff's motion to expedite discovery in this action, plaintiff's counsel agreed to coordinate his discovery efforts with the plaintiffs in the Delaware action. DynCorp International, Inc. -- http://www.dyn-intl.com/-- through its wholly-owned subsidiary DynCorp International LLC, is a global government services provider in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international development. DynCorp International operates major programs in logistics, platform support, contingency operations, and training and mentoring to reinforce security, community stability, and the rule of law. DynCorp International is headquartered in Falls Church, Va. EXPRESS INC: Remains a Defendant in California Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Express, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit action alleging various California state labor law violations, according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. The complaint was originally filed on Feb. 18, 2009, and an amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2009. The amended complaint contains six counts: (1) failure to provide required meal breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class members for missed meal breaks, including premium payments required by California law; (2) failure to provide required rest breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class members for missed rest breaks, including premium payments required by California law; (3) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to employees who were terminated or quit; (4) failure to pay overtime or premium payments in a timely manner; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (6) violations of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Express, Inc. -- http://express.com/-- is the sixth largest specialty retail brand of women's and men's apparel in the United States. The company has 30 years of experience offering a distinct combination of fashion and quality for multiple lifestyle occasions at an attractive value addressing fashion needs across work, casual, jeanswear and going-out occasions. The company currently operates 576 retail stores, located primarily in high- traffic shopping malls, lifestyle centers and street locations across the United States and Puerto Rico, and also distributes its products through the company's e-commerce Web site. EXPRESS PRODUCTS: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Coverage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In Tunica Pharmacy, Inc., and Business Pro Communications, Inc., v. Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Express Products, Inc., Case No. A-5496-08T3 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App.), Tunica Pharmacy, Inc., a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against Express Products, appeals from the dismissal without prejudice of an insurance coverage action instituted by it and Business Pro Communications, Inc., against a liability insurer of Express Products, Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company, on the ground of comity. A three-man panel before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal, finding that (1) an earlier-filed insurance coverage action was instituted by Cumberland in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and remains pending; (2) the parties to the two actions are substantially the same as the result of the undertaking of Tunica and the class it represents to defend the interests of Express Products in the Pennsylvania coverage dispute; (3) a substantial identity exists in the issues presented in the two actions; and (4) special equities do not require continuation of the New Jersey litigation. A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100623387 Tunica is represented by: David Oppenheim, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 doppenheim@andersonwanca.com - and - Alan C. Milstein, Esq. SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A. 4300 Haddonfield Road Fairway Corporate Center Pennsauken, New Jersey 08109 Telephone: (856) 661-2078 Facsimile: (856) 488-4744 E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com Cumberland is represented by: Robert M. Runyon, III, Esq. Nelson, Levine de Luca & Horst, LLC 518 Township Line Road, Suite 300 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (866) 257-0114 (866) 716-0354 Facsimile: (215) 358-5101 E-mail: rrunyon@nldhlaw.com FLAG TELECOM: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on June 21, 2010, in the action IN RE FLAG TELECOM HOLDINGS, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 02-CV-3400 (S.D.N.Y.). The Court entered a prior order certifying class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited between March 6, 2000 and February 13, 2002, as well as those who purchased FLAG common stock pursuant to or traceable to FLAG's IPO between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2000, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, but excluding any such purchasers who sold all of their FLAG shares prior to February 13, 2002. A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on October 29, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the Preliminary Order For Notice And Hearing In Connection With Settlement Proceedings is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100623b48 The Court certified Lead Plaintiffs Peter T. Loftin and Joseph Coughlin as Class Representatives. They are represented by: Brad N. Friedman, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Penn Plaza New York, New York 10119-0165 The Individual Defendants are represented by: Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq. Shearman & Sterling LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022-6069 Citigroup Global Markets Inc., is represented by: Douglas W. Henkin, Esq. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York 10005-1413 FOREST LAB: Prescription Drugs Anti-Trust Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ An anti-trust lawsuit brought by various pharmacies is still pending against many pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers, including Forest Laboratories, Inc., according to the company's May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The litigation alleges certain violations of the federal anti- trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products, specifically price discrimination and conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the actions coordinated and consolidated in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption "In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation." On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated federal class action, including Forest, were granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded their case. In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial judge held that no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence as to individual defendants paltry or non-existent." The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the granting of the directed verdict in the federal class case in Forest's favor. Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed verdict in Forest's favor, the company has secured the voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases were included in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the dismissal of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in various state courts. Forest remains a defendant, together with other manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases included in the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. While no discovery or other significant proceedings with respect to Forest has been taken in respect of those claims, Forest said there is no assurance that it will not be required to actively defend those claims or to pay substantial amounts to dispose of those claims. However, by way of a decision dated January 25, 2007, the judge handling the Robinson-Patman Act cases for certain of a smaller group of designated defendants whose claims are being litigated on a test basis, granted summary judgment to those designated defendants against a group of designated plaintiffs due to those plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate any antitrust injury. Subsequently, the Court also granted the designated defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the designated plaintiffs' effort to obtain injunctive relief. Discovery is ongoing in the litigation. New York-based Forest Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture and sell both branded and generic forms of ethical drug products, which require a physician's prescription, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over the counter. FOREST LAB: Appeal in Derivative Suit Stayed in 2nd Cir. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed an appeal raised by holders of Forest Laboratories, Inc.'s common stock from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois's decision approving the company's motion to dismiss two derivative actions, according to the company's May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The directors and certain officers of Forest were named as defendants in two derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company and consolidated under the caption "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Derivative Litigation." The consolidated complaint in the derivative actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing Forest to misrepresent its financial results and prospects, selling shares of its common stock while in possession of proprietary non-public information concerning its financial condition and future prospects, abusing its control and mismanaging the Company and wasting corporate assets. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and various forms of equitable relief. In September 2006, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to make a pre-suit demand on its Board of Directors. New York-based Forest Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture and sell both branded and generic forms of ethical drug products, which require a physician's prescription, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over the counter. FOREST LAB: Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in a May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that they intend to vigorously defend against federal actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation." These actions, three of which are purported nationwide class actions, and one of which is a purported California-wide class action, allege that FLI and FPI marketed Celexa and Lexapro for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro. The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under a number of state consumer protection statutes, state common laws, and the federal RICO statute. FLI and FPI have moved to dismiss the complaints, and they intend to continue to vigorously defend against these cases. FLI or FPI are also named as defendants in two similar actions pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, arising from nearly identical allegations as those contained in the federal actions. The first action, filed on July 22, 2009 under the caption "Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use. Only FPI, which is headquartered in Missouri, is named as a defendant. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. On January 5, 2010, FPI filed an answer to the complaint and moved to join FLI as a necessary party. The same day, FLI moved to intervene as a defendant. On February 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which has been held in abeyance pending rulings on other pending motions. The second action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. New York-based Forest Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture and sell both branded and generic forms of ethical drug products, which require a physician's prescription, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over the counter. HAWAII: Accused of Illegally Privatizing He'eia State Park ---------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Hawaiian officials illegally privatized a historic state park and limited its public use by awarding a 25-year lease to a child care and tourism company, according to a federal class action in Honolulu. The class claims Hawaii's natural resources director did it despite the Legislature's rejection of her proposals to raise more money from state parks. He'eia State Park, on Kaneohe Bay, is home to several endangered species and has been used by native Hawaiians as a religious site since ancient times. For decades the defendant nonprofit Friends of He'eia State Park held the lease to manage the park. But in April Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Director Laura Thielen handed the keys to Kama'aina Kids, a nonprofit that runs "preschool programs, before and afterschool programs, day camps, environmental education programs, enrichment programs, sports clinics and hotel programs." The class claims Ms. Thielen violated state and federal laws because the land was bought with federal money and Kama'aina Kids is a "private entity." "The state is in the process of privatizing lands purchased with federal dollars in transferring total use of the He'eia State Park to a private entity," the complaint states. "Thielen seeks to erase decades long efforts for protection of this federally funded purchase of He'eia State Park to in one fell swoop accomplish the quasi theft of public lands for privatized use, ignore federal statute and protections for the next 25 years in a de facto unauthorized predetermined transfer of complete control of the public land through a scheme of a bid process in which the winner was pre-selected and the competition was a fraudulent act." In announcing the lease on April 9, the state said in a statement that "Kama'aina Kids has expressed an interest in collaboration with the board members of the Friends of He'eia and many other members of the community on new and future program development -- as they also strive to generate income to improve the aging and unsightly conditions of this historical park." But the class claims that Ms. Thielen skipped permitting procedures to award the lease, and defied the Legislature after it rejected her previous efforts to glean more income from Hawaii's state parks. "After failing in the State Legislature to use the State Parks as an income source under legislation known as 'Recreational Renaissance,' Thielen nonetheless, in clear violation of the intent of the Hawaii State Legislature, issued the lease that in exchange for dollars from the private income production grossly limited public use of He'eia State Park," the lawsuit claims. Ms. Thielen denied the allegations in an article posted on Honolulu's ABC TV affiliate, saying, "This is a public park, it will stay a public park but we've strengthened the contract of the lease to make it very clear our state park rules apply. It is open to the public, all the existing programs will continue, the community uses will continue." The class alleges violations of the National Historical Preservation Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act and other federal and state laws. It wants the lease enjoined and wants the Friends of He'eia State Park to resume management of the park until "all required permits, assessments and notifications required under the federal statutes herein be complied with." A copy of the Complaint in Seto, et al. v. Thielen, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00351 (D. Haw.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/HawaiiPark.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony P. Locricchio, Esq. 903 Maunawili Circle Kailua, HI 96734 Telephone: 808-261-8372 E-mail: tony96734@yahoo.com IBM CORP: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Not Paying Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that IBM stiffed call-center workers for overtime, according to a class action in Manhattan Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint was not available at press time from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces "Page" Suit Over Planned Sale to Hg ----------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Data Corporation faces a suit in connection with its planned sale to Hg Investors LLC, according to the company's June 17, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 10, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware by Kenneth M. Page against the company, each member of the Board of Directors of the company, such members being Rona A. Fairhead, Raymond L. D'Arcy, Philip J. Hoffman, Donald C. Kilburn, Luke Swanson, Casper J.A. Hobbs, Donald P. Greenberg, Myra R. Drucker, Robert C. Lamb, Jr. and Victor R. Simone, Christine Sampson, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the company, Warburg Pincus LLC, Silver Lake Technology Management L.L.C., Hg Investors LLC, Igloo Merger Corporation and Pearson DBC Holdings Inc., regarding the proposed sale of the company to Hg Investors and Igloo, affiliates of Warburg Pincus and Silver Lake. Mr. Page alleges in his complaint that he is a stockholder of the company and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against the above-named individuals and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty claims against the company, Warburg Pincus, Silver Lake, Hg Investors, Igloo and Pearson. Mr. Page purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class consisting of the company's stockholders. Among other forms of injunctive relief, Mr. Page purports to seek to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and recission of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3, 2010, among Hg Investors, Igloo and the company. The defendants intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or rescind the Merger Agreement. Mr. Page filed a similar lawsuit on May 4, 2010 in the Superior Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Interactive Data Corporation -- http://www.interactivedata.com/-- is a trusted leader in financial information. Thousands of financial institutions and active traders, as well as hundreds of software and service providers, subscribe to the company's fixed income evaluations, reference data, real-time market data, trading infrastructure services, fixed income analytics, desktop solutions and web-based solutions. Interactive Data's offerings can help clients around the world with mission-critical functions, including portfolio valuation, regulatory compliance, risk management, electronic trading and wealth management. Interactive Data is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts and has more than 2,400 employees in offices worldwide. Pearson plc (NYSE: PSO; LSE: PSON), an international media company, is Interactive Data's majority stockholder. INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces Amended "Marques" Lawsuit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Marques has amended his lawsuit against Interactive Data Corporation, in connection with the planned sale of the company to Hg Investors LLC, according to the company's June 17, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 14, 2010, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by Brad Marques, naming as defendants each member of the Board of Directors of the company, such members being Rona Fairhead, Raymond D'Arcy, Donald Greenberg, Philip Hoffman, Robert Lamb, Caspar Hobbs, Myra Drucker, Donald Kilburn, Victor Simone and Luke Swanson, the Company, Pearson DBC Holdings, Inc., Silver Lake Technology Management L.L.C., Warburg Pincus LLC, Hg Investors LLC and Igloo Merger Corporation (along with Hg Investors, as affiliates of Silver Lake and Warburg) regarding the proposed acquisition of the company by Hg Investors. Mr. Marques alleges in his complaint that he is a stockholder of the company and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against the individual members of the Board and Pearson, and aiding and abetting claims against the company, Pearson, Silver Lake, Warburg and the individual members of the Board. Mr. Marques purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class consisting of the company's stockholders and their successors in interest (other than the defendants and their affiliates). Mr. Marques purports to seek to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated prior to the entry of a final judgement, recission of the Proposed Transaction or an award of rescissory damages. The defendants intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the Proposed Transaction. On June 7, 2010, Brad Marques amended his lawsuit. Interactive Data Corporation -- http://www.interactivedata.com/-- is a trusted leader in financial information. Thousands of financial institutions and active traders, as well as hundreds of software and service providers, subscribe to the company's fixed income evaluations, reference data, real-time market data, trading infrastructure services, fixed income analytics, desktop solutions and web-based solutions. Interactive Data's offerings can help clients around the world with mission-critical functions, including portfolio valuation, regulatory compliance, risk management, electronic trading and wealth management. Interactive Data is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts and has more than 2,400 employees in offices worldwide. Pearson plc (NYSE: PSO; LSE: PSON), an international media company, is Interactive Data's majority stockholder. KELLOGG CO: Recalls 28 Million Boxes of Cereal ---------------------------------------------- Ilan Brat and Nathan Becker at Dow Jones Newswires report that Kellogg Co. recalled about 28 million boxes of cereal largely marketed to children out of concern that unpleasant smells and flavors emanating from the boxes' plastic packaging can cause nausea and diarrhea. According to a company press release, only products with the letters "KN" following the Better If Used Before Date are included in the recall. Products with a "KM" designation are NOT included in the recall. In addition, no products in Canada are affected. Kellogg's(R) Apple Jacks(R) * UPC 3800039136 1: 17 ounce package with Better if Used Before Dates between APR 10 2011 and JUN 22 2011 * UPC 3800039132 3: 8.7 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between JUN 03 2011 and JUN 22 2011 Kellogg's(R) Corn Pops(R) * UPC 3800039109 5: 12.5 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011 * UPC 3800039111 8: 17.2 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011 * UPC 3800039116 3: 9.2 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between APR 05 2011 and JUN 22 2011 Kellogg's(R) Froot Loops(R) * UPC 3800039118 7: 12.2 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011 * UPC 3800039120 0: 17 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011 * UPC 3800039125 5: 8.7 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011 Kellogg's(R) Honey Smacks(R) * UPC 3800039103 3: 15.3 ounce packages with Better if Used Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011 While the potential for serious health problems is low, some consumers are sensitive to the uncharacteristic off-flavor and smell and should not eat the recalled products because of possible temporary symptoms, including nausea and diarrhea. No other Kellogg's products are part of this recall. The recalled products were distributed nationwide. Dow Jones Newswires notes that Adaire Putnam, a spokeswoman for Kellogg, said that complaints were received from about 20 people, including five who reported nausea and vomiting. The report relates Ms. Putnam said the bags producing the unpleasant smells and flavors in the cereals were first used in cereal boxes in late March. In the next several months consumers reported stale, metallic and soap-like tastes and scents, Ms. Putnam added. Dow Jones Newswires relates that the company first noticed a pattern of complaints on June 23, 2010, and began working to notify customers and consumers. The report says that a spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the company initiated the recall and notified the agency. Ms. Putnam, the report adds, said the company's chemists are studying whether a wax-like compound in the packaging may be the cause. KOHLBERG CAPITAL: 3 Class Actions Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Kohlberg Capital Corporation disclosed in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company and certain directors and officers continue to face three putative class actions pending in the Southern District of New York brought by shareholders of the Company and filed in December 2009 and January 2010. The complaints in these three actions allege violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act based on the Company's disclosures of its year-end 2008 and first- and second-quarter 2009 financial statements. The Company said it believes that each of the suits is without merit and will defend each vigorously. Kohlberg Capital Corporation -- http://www.kohlbergcapital.com/ -- is a publicly traded, internally managed business development company. Its middle market investment business originates, structures, finances and manages a portfolio of term loans, mezzanine investments and selected equity securities in middle market companies. Its wholly-owned portfolio company, Katonah Debt Advisors, manages CLO Funds that invest in broadly syndicated corporate term loans, high-yield bonds and other credit instruments. LEGG MASON: Securities Claims Action Concluded ---------------------------------------------- Legg Mason, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the securities class action filed in October 2006 is concluded. Legg Mason and a current and former officer, together with an underwriter in a public offering, were named as defendants in a consolidated legal action that was initially filed in October 2006. The action alleged that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by omitting certain material facts with respect to the acquisition of Citigroup's worldwide asset management business in a prospectus used in a secondary stock offering in order to artificially inflate the price of our common stock. On March 17, 2008, the action was dismissed with prejudice, and on September 30, 2009, the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs have no further avenue to appeal the dismissal, so this proceeding is concluded. Legg Mason, Inc. -- http://www.leggmason.com/-- is a global asset management company. Acting through its subsidiaries, the company provides investment management and related services to institutional and individual clients, Company-sponsored mutual funds and retail separately managed account programs. The company offers these products and services directly and through various financial intermediaries. The company operates its business as two divisions: Americas and International. MASARI INVESTMENTS: Ariz. Court Cuts Attorney Fees to $63,161 ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona approved a class action settlement agreement in Renia Bogner and Jeff Bogner, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Masari Investments, LLC; Joseph F. Musumeci, P.C.; and Joseph F. Musumeci (Case No. 08-cv-1511) (D. Ariz.), as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the class claims. The Court also granted, in part, the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs, awarding $63,161 in attorneys fees. The Plaintiffs requested a fee award of $69,671, but the Defendants asserted several objections to the fee request. The Bogners filed the class action complaint against Masari and Musumeci in August 2008, alleging the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100624f01 The Plaintiffs were represented by: Richard Groves, Esq. 4045 E. Union Hills Dr., Ste. 126 Phoenix, Arizona - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates 25 E. Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 Facsimile: (312) 372-1673 MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his renewed motion for class certification in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00171 (C.D. Calif.), which names Marquee Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, is pending. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the card holder. The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case. The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case. On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America signed the FACTA reform bill. The bill specifies that if a company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the law. The legislation does not specifically address the situation where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a receipt. The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff has appealed this decision and the case is stayed pending this appeal. No further updates were reported in the company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2010. The suit is Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. Ira Spiro, Esq. SPIRO MOSS BARNESS 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 235-2468 Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitski, Esq. THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Telephone: (213) 576-8097 Facsimile: (213) 576-8080 MELBOURNE GREYHOUND: Accused of Unlawful Employment Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Melbourne Greyhound Park paid poker dealers less than minimum wage, 26 dealers claim in a class action in Orlando Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Cushing, et al. v. Melbourne Greyhound Park, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-00957 (M.D. Fla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/Employ.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth St. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: 954-463-2001 E-mail: cjwhitelock@bellsouth.net - and - Chad E. Levy, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth St. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: 954-763-5722 E-mail: chad@levylaw.com MICHAELS STORES: Faces Unfair Business Practice Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against the company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated California consumers. The Rattray suit alleges causes of action for unlawful and unfair business practices and false advertising under the California Business and Professions Code, and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards are not redeemable for cash and for failure to disclose that the plaintiff could redeem the unused cash balance on a gift card when the value fell below $10.00. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Irving, Texas-based Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall decor and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home decorator. As of May 26, 2010, the Company owns and operates 1,029 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 146 Aaron Brothers stores. MF GLOBAL: Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- MF Global Holdings, Ltd., disclosed in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal from an order dismissing a consolidated class action lawsuit brought on behalf of certain purchasers of MF Global stock is still pending. MF Global and its subsidiaries, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the company's initial public offering, which was completed on July 23, 2007, have been named as defendants in five actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which purport to be brought as class actions on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and February 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk management and monitoring practices and procedures. The five purported shareholder class actions have been consolidated for all purposes into a single action. MF Global made a motion to dismiss which has been granted, with plaintiff having a right to replead and/or appeal the dismissal. Plaintiffs made a motion to replead by filing an amended complaint, which was denied. Plaintiffs have appealed. Because the motion to dismiss was made before discovery, the litigation is in its early stages, and in the event plaintiffs successfully appeal MF Global believes it has meritorious defenses. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: MF) -- http://www.mfglobal.com/ -- is one of the world's leading cash and derivatives brokerage firms, providing seamless execution, clearing, and settlement services in exchange-traded and over-the-counter markets. A leader by volume on multiple exchanges, the firm delivers insight and access across a broad range of products. MF Global helps its diverse client base meet their unique trading and hedging needs through customized solutions, market expertise, and value-added research. MISSION ESSENTIAL: Advocacy Group Mulls Suit Over Abuses -------------------------------------------------------- Advocacy group MEPWatch is gathering information from current and past employees of Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, based in Columbus, Ohio, as part of an ongoing investigation into MEP's illegal behaviors and shady business tactics. "If you are a current or past employee of MEP, and have been abused, threatened or harassed by MEP in any way whatsoever, please contact us immediately at wg@missionessentialpersonnelwatch.com " "Past employees have filed statements with us, complaining that MEP repeatedly detained them unlawfully at Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan. This illegal detention has lasted for as long as four weeks under harsh and inhumane conditions. Employees were subjected to repeated verbal abuse, threats of harm to them and their families, their reputation, and their employment with MEP. "In addition, hard-won security clearances of MEP contract employees have been summarily revoked by MEP for no apparent reason. These employees also have been treated harshly by MEP employees at Bagram, and kept under interrogation for many hours at a time without a break or water or food. They have been kept in non-air-conditioned tents for weeks at a time, without access to adequate toilet facilities nearby. "In short, these people have been tortured by MEP personnel at Bagram. "Our aim is to gather as much information about MEP's illegal behavior and shady business practices, and build a class-action case against MEP. If you know of anyone who has been subjected to MEP's illegal behavior and/or shady business practices, please contact us at your earliest convenience: wg@missionessentialpersonnelwatch.com "When you contact us, please provide your full name, address, telephone number and email address, plus a detailed history of your work with MEP and how they abused you or someone you know. "Please be as detailed and accurate as possible, and enclose copies of any and all supporting documentation about your complaint against MEP. We will not respond to anonymous or bogus claims. "Thank you for taking the time to contact us about your case. We look forward to working with you to help build a class-action case against Mission Essential Personnel, LLC of Columbus, Ohio." ORION ENERGY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Orion Energy Systems, Inc., reached a preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's June 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were filed against the company, several of its officers, all members of the company's then existing board of directors, and certain underwriters from the company's December 2007 IPO. The plaintiffs claimed to represent certain persons who purchased shares of the company's common stock from Dec. 18, 2007 through Feb. 6, 2008. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants made misstatements and failed to disclose material information in the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus. The complaints alleged various claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On Aug. 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 15, 2008, the company and the other director and officer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and the underwriters filed a separate motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 16, 2009. After oral argument on Aug. 19, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 9, 2009. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the company reached a preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits. Orion Energy Systems, Inc. -- http://www.oriones.com- designs, manufactures, markets and implements energy management systems consisting primarily of energy efficient lighting systems, controls and related services. The Company's energy management systems deliver energy savings and efficiency gains to its commercial and industrial customers without compromising their quantity or quality of light. Orion has sold and installed its HIF fixtures in over 3,655 facilities across North America, representing over 587 million square feet of commercial and industrial building space, including for 91 Fortune 500 companies, such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., General Electric Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Newell Rubbermaid Inc., OfficeMax, Inc., and SYSCO Corp. PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated pet food class action litigation against PetSmart, Inc., are still pending., according to the company's May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Beginning in March 2007, PetSmart was named as a party in these lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers: * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 3/23/07) * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07) * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07) * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA (filed 4/10/07) * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07) * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07) * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07) * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07) * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07) * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British Columbia (filed 3/23/07) * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba (filed 3/30/07) * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 3/28/07) The plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury or death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products. By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl, Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867). The Canadian cases were not consolidated. On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for court approval. Preliminary court approval was received from the U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian courts as of July 8, 2008. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final approval on November 3, 2008. Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S. settlement. Upon expiration of the prescribed appeal process these cases should be resolved, and PetSmart continues to believe it will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated financial statements. There have been no appeals filed in Canada. PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets. The company offers a line of products for all the life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp. It also offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as well operates a pet community site, pets.com. REMEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Calif. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against REMEC, Inc., has filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on the dismissal of the suit by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to the company's June 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010. On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the company and certain former officers alleging violations of federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004. On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was appointed lead plaintiff. After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed, challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave to amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006. REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov. 6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative defenses. The court granted plaintiff's motion for class-certification on Nov. 21, 2007. The parties engaged in discovery, including production of documents, between May 2007 and March 2009. All discovery, including expert discovery, is now closed. There are currently four motions seeking summary judgment or partial summary judgment pending before the Court, three made by the defendants and one made by the plaintiffs. The time period for filing dispositive motions has closed. A Pretrial Conference was for Jan. 25, 2010, and Trial was set for Feb. 23, 2010. On April 21, 2010 the Court issued an Order on the motions, granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based on Scienter and Loss Causation. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered for Defendants. The Plaintiffs had 30 days from Notice of Entry of Judgment to file a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 19, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. REMEC maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance, and has tendered the defense of this lawsuit to its insurance carriers. The primary insurance carrier has agreed to pay defense costs and provide coverage of this action, subject to a reservation of rights. The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04- CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 Facsimile: (213) 617-1975 - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Blake Muir Harper, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 Representing the defendants is: Robert W. Brownlie, Esq. DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP 401 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: 858-677-1401 SIGNET JEWELERS: Two Discrimination Suits Still Pending in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited, continues to deny the allegations asserted in two actions relating to employment practice, Signet said in a May 27, 2010, Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against a subsidiary of Signet, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that U.S. store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities. On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunities Commission filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or practice of gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/-- formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, with stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and Channel Islands. In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009, Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states. Its stores trade nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay), and regionally under a number of mall-based brands. Destination superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry (Jared). In the United Kingdom, the stores trade as H.Samuel, Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in High Street locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian traffic) or shopping malls. The United Kingdom division operated 558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14 stores in the Republic of Ireland. The Company operates in two geographical segments: the United States division (approximately 76% of sales) and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24% of sales). TENNESSEE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In Daniel C. Wicker, II, et al. v. Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Revenue, Case No. M2009-02305-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. App. Ct.), Plaintiffs were assessed, and paid taxes under the Drug Tax, which was later declared unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sought refunds individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The trial court certified the class, and the Department filed an interlocutory appeal challenging certification. Because the Taxpayer Remedies Statute, which must be strictly construed as a derogation of sovereign immunity, does not contemplate the maintenance of a class action, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, reversed the trial court's grant of class certification. Judge Alan E. Highers, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge David R. Farmer, J., and Judge J. Steven Stafford, J., joined. A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intnco20100623592 The Revenue Commissioner is represented by: Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Esq. Attorney General and Reporter Michael E. Moore, Esq. Solicitor General Brad H. Buchanan, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Nashville, Tennessee Plaintiffs Daniel C. Wicker, II and Joseph D. Williams are represented by: John Shackelford Colley, III, Esq. COLLEY & COLLEY ATTORNEY 710 N. Main St., Ste. 200 Columbia, Tennessee (Maury Co.) Telephone: (931) 388-8564 Facsimile: (931) 388-8569 TENNESSEE: Dept. of Safety Sued for Civil Rights Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a naturalized U.S. citizen is suing the Tennessee Department of Safety after driver's license station workers confiscated her proof of citizenship. The suit was filed in federal court Thursday by 21-year-old Diana Mata- Cuellar (Kway-YAR') of Morristown. It seeks class-action status, claiming that driver's license clerks have seized at least 100 documents in the past five years. Department of Safety spokeswoman Dalya Qualls told The Tennessean that clerks who think a document looks suspicious must make additional checks. The lawsuit claims those checks were not made. The suit accuses the department of civil rights violations and seeks an injunction to keep employees from confiscating identification documents from Hispanics. THOR INDUSTRIES: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a class action filed Friday, Thor Industries, Inc., and several of its executives were sued for violations of the federal securities laws, including securities fraud. Saxena White P.A. commenced the class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased shares of Thor common stock between November 30, 2009, and June 10, 2010, at 12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, inclusive. On June 10, 2010, at 12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Thor issued a press release in which it announced that it was delaying the release of the Company's 10-Q due to their evaluation of certain accounting positions previously taken in its audited financial statements. If the Company is required to change its accounting for these items, there could be material adverse changes to Thor's results of operations and financial condition for fiscal 2009 and for the first three quarters of fiscal 2010. The price of Thor common stock was trading at $28.39 per share prior to the release of the news, and traded as low as $20.74 per share after the news was revealed -- a precipitous decline of approximately 27%. You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com/ If you purchased Thor stock between November 30, 2009 and June 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests: If you purchased Thor shares in the Class Period, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than August 24, 2010. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and Helena, Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com gstone@saxenawhite.com UBS AG: Settlement in 1996 Nazi Restitution Case Delayed -------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Henry, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that the settlement of a U.S. class-action lawsuit filed in 1996 against major Swiss banks during Nazi era is now under threat by Israel and U.S. survivors' groups. In the mid-1990s, Jewish organizations and a handful of lawyers demanded the return of Naziera Jewish accounts in Swiss banks. The accounts had become dormant because the Jewish depositors did not survive the Holocaust, or because crucial documents did not survive, leaving families unable to prove their rights to the accounts. The claims against the Swiss banks fostered an environment in the U.S. that, decades after the Holocaust, generated other Nazi-era claims, including for insurance policies that European companies had failed to honor, as well as compensation for slave and forced labor. There also were claims for artworks that had been looted or displaced in Europe between 1933 and 1945. These were material claims with strong moral underpinnings -- the idea that survivors and heirs should recover what was taken from them, or be compensated for damages done to them during the Nazi era. A class-action lawsuit against the major Swiss banks was filed in U.S. federal court in Brooklyn in 1996. A $1.25 billion settlement was announced in 1998 under U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman. Under the terms of the settlement, the Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse seemed to fall on their proverbial swords, accepting virtually all liabilities for the wartime behavior of Switzerland, its national bank, as well Swiss private banks. The two banks insisted on a "global settlement". This compelled dividing the $1.25 billion into five classes. These classes were claimants for bank accounts (the depositors); two classes of slave laborers (those who performed slave labor for Swiss corporations, or those who were in German facilities that were financed by the Swiss); a class of refugees who were excluded or deported from Switzerland, or mistreated in Switzerland because of their ethnic or religious origin. Finally, there was the "looted assets" class, which referred to Nazi victims whose looted property was fenced through Swiss entities. That UBS and Credit Suisse were willing to bear all the weight of Switzerland's Nazi-era history was their prerogative. It made for an odd situation. As Judge Korman noted, "The claims of those other [non-bank] classes lacked any legal merit." However, the fundamentals of the case did not change: the lawsuit against the two banks was a restitution case to recover bank accounts. In a June 16 "Memorandum & Order Approving Adjustment of Presumptive Values Used in the Claims Resolution Process and Authorizing Additional Payments for Deposited Assets Class Plausible Undocumented Awards," Judge Korman signaled that the Swiss banks case is nearly at an end all these years later. The judge has managed to keep the settlement on track. No easy task for claims for accounts that are more than 60 years old, and that originated in a foreign nation whose institutions' assets have been absorbed and reabsorbed by changes in bank ownership and organization. According to court documents, some $581 million has been allocated to nearly 18,000 owners of Holocaust-era Swiss bank accounts. In addition, compensation has been paid to nearly 200,000 slave laborers and their heirs, and more than 4,100 survivors or heirs received the so-called refugee funds from the settlement. The court faced daunting forensic accounting problems in assessing and adjusting the current value of bank accounts. But these problems seemed to pale against efforts by some Jewish organizations, lawyers and the State of Israel to ignore depositors' property rights -- their claims to their family accounts -- and to treat the Swiss case, even in advance of the settlement announcement, as a Jewish slush fund. Early on, many survivors cruelly were led to believe that they would benefit from the lawsuit, even if their families had no connection to Switzerland or its banks. In 1997, Switzerland itself created a humanitarian fund, separate from the banks case, to aid needy survivors. Many viewed that Swiss money as an entitlement, not a generous gesture, feeding the notion that the Swiss banks lawsuit was money-for-all. The settlement's "looted assets" class, not well understood by some and exploited by others, created additional problems. In theory, it would have required a mechanism to determine whether property, from among more than a million potential claimants, had been looted and whether it passed through Switzerland. Such a mechanism would have been prohibitively expensive and an administrative nightmare. Judge Korman's alternative remedy was to craft a system to benefit the neediest survivors who, in this specific instance, wouldn't have been eligible for payments under the Swiss banks settlement. The humanitarian aspects were not negotiated under the settlement; the original parties to the suit did not advocate for the interests of needy survivors. Nonetheless, the judge was within his judicial discretion when the settlement provided $205 million to help some 231,000 needy survivors, primarily in the former Soviet Union, obtain food, medical care, winter relief and emergency grants. Now, as Judge Korman seeks to wrap up the claims for the Swiss banks lawsuit that began in 1996, there has been the continuing threat from the State of Israel and survivors in the U.S. to delay the process. They seek more funds for a select group of the needy. They question the increases in the adjusted value of bank account awards, as if a depositor should be compelled to relinquish a percentage of his bank account to help Nazi victims in Israel or Florida. They also suggested that victims in the former Soviet Union receive a disproportionate share of the funds intended for the needy, as if humanitarian funds should be allocated on the basis of geography rather than hunger. "Judge Korman, whose decisions were upheld by a U.S. appellate court, did a noble service to the needy," Ms. Henry wrote. "But this compassionate aid should not distort the essential purpose of the Swiss banks settlement. The lawsuit was a restitution case about bank accounts, bank accounts, bank accounts. It was a claim with legal and moral legitimacy. But when the State of Israel and survivors' groups in the U.S. demanded more cash for their own purposes, they did not simply stall the conclusion of the Swiss banks settlement. Instead, they ran roughshod over individual property rights and undermined the moral basis of every Jewish claim: that victims are entitled to recover the property stolen from them." UNION FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger with DFSC --------------------------------------------------------- Union National Financial Corporation faces a purported class action in relation to its planned merger with Donegal Financial Services Corporation, according to the company's June 17, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Union National entered into an agreement and plan of merger on April 19, 2010, with Donegal Financial Services Corporation (DFSC), the parent company of Province Bank FSB, and certain affiliated entities of DFSC, pursuant to which Union National will merge with and into DFSC. DFSC is wholly owned by Donegal Mutual Insurance Company and Donegal Group Inc. Union National, DFSC), and Donegal Mutual, jointly reported they have become aware of the filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania against UNNF, each of the directors of UNNF, DFSC and certain affiliated entities of DFSC. The complaint purports to be a class action filed on behalf of the holders of UNNF common stock arising from certain alleged actions by UNNF and its board of directors in connection with the previously announced proposed merger of UNNF with and into DFSC. Union National Financial Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Union National Community Bank, provides a full range of financial services for both retail and business customers, and offers insurance, retirement plan services and wealth management services through Union National Advisors. Union National Community Bank has ten full-service offices in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. UNITED RETAIL: Calif. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling on Morgan Wage Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amber Morgan filed a class action lawsuit against her former employer, United Retail Incorporated, for violation of Labor Code section 226. On behalf of a class of current and former non- exempt employees, Ms. Morgan alleged that United Retail's wage statements failed to comply with section 226, subdivision (a) because they listed the total number of regular hours and the total number of overtime hours worked by the employee, but did not list the sum of the regular and overtime hours worked in a separate line. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of United Retail on the section 226 claim. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, concluded that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication because United Retail's wage statements complied with the statutory requirements of section 226 by "showing . . . total hours worked." A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100623060 The case is Amber Morgan, v. United Retail Incorporated, Case No. No. B216130 (Calif. App. Ct.), and representing the plaintiffs are: Marc Primo, Esq. Matthew T. Theriault, Esq. Dina S. Livhits, Esq. Jennifer Grock, Esq. INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC 1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 Facsimile: (310) 861-9051 United Retail is represented by: Charles F. Barker, Esq. Ross A. Boughton, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 333 South Hope Street Forty-Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-4168 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: cbarker@sheppardmullin.com rboughton@sheppardmullin.com UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Indian Settlement Still Awaits Senate OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Volz, writing for The Associated Press, relates that caught in the Senate filibuster of a bill to extend unemployment payments is a $3.4 billion government settlement with hundreds of thousands of American Indians over claims that the Interior Department mismanaged their land trust accounts. Congress must authorize the Obama administration to enter into the class-action settlement 14 years in the making with between 300,000 and 500,000 Indians who have land held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The House gave its approval in May. But the settlement authorization is tucked into the Democrats' jobs-agenda legislation that fell three votes short of breaking a Republican filibuster in the Senate on Thursday, and now the future of the hard-fought agreement is in doubt. The Senate's action -- or lack of it -- leaves the Indian plaintiffs and the Obama administration with little choice but to wait and see if the Democratic leadership can rally support for another push for a vote on the bill after the July 4 holiday. "The administration is very committed to passing this legislation and will continue to work with congressional leadership to pass it," Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Friday. Elouise Cobell, the Blackfeet Indian woman who filed the lawsuit in 1996, said Friday to come this far only to be stymied by what appears to be an unrelated partisan fight is frustrating. The Interior Department leases out the land it holds in trust for individual Indians and is supposed to pay them the revenue generated into their Individual Indian Money trust accounts, or IIMs. Ms. Cobell and the other plaintiffs claim the Bureau of Indian Affairs have mismanaged those IIM accounts for more than a century, shortchanging the owners of the land several billion dollars. After more than 3,600 court filings and 80 court decisions, the two sides finally reached a settlement in December. Under the proposed agreement, $1.4 billion would go to individual Indian account holders. Some $2 billion would be used by the government to buy up fractionated Indian lands from individual owners willing to sell, and then turn those lands over to tribes. Another $60 million would be used for a scholarship fund for young Indians. Lawsuit participants would receive at least $1,500, and many would receive considerably more. The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to dismiss a pending appeal on the lawsuit, believing that appeal was moot because the Senate was about to authorize the settlement, plaintiffs spokesman Bill McAllister said. "We couldn't go via the Supreme Court and Congress at the same time. We opted to go for Congress because we were told that our provision was likely to be approved. It still offers the promise of a quicker resolution of the lawsuit," Mr. McAllister said Friday. If Congress doesn't approve the settlement, the plaintiffs can bring the issues back to the Supreme Court after a final judgment is entered in the case, he said. Even if the Senate approves the settlement, it must do so without any changes or it may be considered void, both sides say, and that includes an amendment by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who has proposed a $50 million cap on lawyer's fees. Mr. Barrasso also has suggested limiting any incentive awards to the lawsuit's named plaintiffs to unreimbursed expenses and setting aside $50 million of the settlement money for certain lawsuit participants who receive "insufficient or unfair" amounts under the settlement's payment formula, among other changes. On Friday, Mr. Barrasso said he would still like to see the Senate accept his amendment and finalize the settlement, but suggested it may have to be separated from the larger bill that failed Thursday. That bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to states and included dozens of tax breaks sought by business lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on investment fund managers. UNIV. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sperm Donors' Suit Gets Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Vancouver Sun's Neal Hall reports that the British Columbia Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court ruling and certified a class action lawsuit against the University of British Columbia by a sperm donor after a freezer failed, ruining his and other donor samples. Howard Lam stored a sperm sample in a cryopreservation freezer unit at the UBC Andrology Lab but the freezer experienced a power failure in 2002, which rendered the sperm immotile and may have destroyed their genetic material. Mr. Lam sued, seeking certification of a class action on his own behalf and on behalf of all others who had sperm samples in the freezer, alleging breach of contract and negligence by UBC. The legal action sought damages of between $20,000 to $100,000 for each of the donors. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler decided in 2009 to deny to certify a class action, finding that the common issues would not appreciably advance the proceedings and that a class action was not the preferable procedure to determine the common issues. Mr. Lam appealed the ruling. A decision on Friday, written by B.C. Chief Justice Lance Finch, found the lower court judge erred. Justice Finch and B.C. Court of Appeal Justices John Hall and Elizabeth Bennett allowed Mr. Lam's appeal and certified a class action proceeding against UBC. "We're pleased with the decision," one of Lam's lawyers, Peter Norell, Esq., said Friday. He said there may be 160 potential members of the class whose sperm was stored in the freezer. "We don't know the identity of all the donors," the lawyer explained. "There might be some class members outside the province or abroad." The triggering event in the case was the freezer failure on May 24, 2002, when the supply of electricity to a Forma Scientific Inc. was interrupted when an inadequate circuit breaker tripped. The freezer was used for storing cells at a temperature below -130 degrees Celsius. The freezer contained sperm samples belonging to Mr. Lam and other men who were undergoing chemotherapy or other medical treatments that could adversely affect their reproductive capacity. The freezer's security alarm system failed to function and it was without electrical power for some time, rendering the sperm immotile and may have destroyed its genetic material. The freezer was purchased by UBC in July 1987 and was initially used for kidney research. In 1993, it was transferred to the Andrology Lab at the Koerner Pavilion at UBC Hospital. It remained there until Feb. 22, 2001,when it was moved to the lab's new location at Vancouver General Hospital. UBC has denied it was negligent, maintaining it met the appropriate standard of care for a sperm storage facility operator and that sperm donors signed an agreement limiting liability. No signed agreement, however, could be found for Mr. Lam and about 25 other sperm donors. Still, UBC will argue that the terms of the agreement and the conditions under which UBC promised to store the sperm were brought to the attention of all individuals before they agreed to store their sperm at the lab. It will also argue that those individuals for whom no signature page exists agreed to those terms and conditions. UBC has joined a number of third parties in the legal action, including the freezer's manufacturer and a security alarm company, claiming if it was their fault if liability is found. YTB INTERNATIONAL: Montroy Files "Ponzi Scheme" Suit in Madison --------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford J. Schmidt at The Telegraph reports that another class action lawsuit has been filed against Wood River-based YTB, but the latest version is in state court and alleges a conspiracy on the part of the company's owners to siphon off money to privately owned corporations that they controlled. The latest suit was filed in Madison County Circuit Court by East St. Louis lawyer Christian Montroy, who makes allegations that the company was involved in an illegal pyramid scheme. Mr. Montroy was among the lawyers who filed a class action case against YTB in federal court. The suit claims one of the schemes to siphon money was to spend an estimated $8 million on a 50,000-pound replica of the Statue of Liberty for YTB's five-day 2008 convention in St. Louis, with the money going to an Indiana company, CCMP, operated by former YTB president J. Kim Sorensen. That firm also created marketing materials for YTB and operated under the assumed name BerylMartin, the suit claims. YTB paid no less than $7 million for making the materials, the suit claims. That Indiana CCMP firm was named as a "conspiracy defendant." Also named as "conspiracy defendants" are several firms and individuals from The Telegraph area. They include Winfield Development, Meridian Land Co., Dr. Timothy Kaiser, who formerly practiced in Alton, and Clay Winfield, an officer of Meridian and former Edwardsville land developer. Dr. Kaiser and Winfield also were officers of Meridian Bank in Alton, which failed and was closed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Agency. The bank is not named as a defendant. Other "conspiracy defendants" had ties to YTB in the form of individuals with interests in YTB operating companies that also did business with YTB. Some of the activities allegedly involved in the conspiracy to siphon off money were rental agreements between Meridian Land Co. and YTB. The suit claims rent on two Edwardsville properties at 1 Country Club View and 600 Country Club View was $15,000 per month. Also cited were purchase contracts between Meridian and YTB amounting to millions of dollars. The suit cites a loan between Meridian bank and YTB in connection with its acquisition of the land and building that houses its corporate headquarters in Wood River. Dr. Kaiser and Winfield also were officers of Meridian Land Co. Current YTB President Robert Van Patten said the suit filed in circuit court in Edwardsville is the same as the two filed in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis. "They were dismissed three times, the last time with prejudice, which means they can't file again," Mr. Van Patten said. He said they were dismissed for reasons YTB has given in the past -- that the business plan is not an illegal pyramid scheme. Mr. Van Patten said he expects the same fate awaits the suit filed in state court. The latest class action alleges, as have previous suits, that most of the people known as Referring Travel Agents (RTAs) who signed up to attract travel customers and refer them to YTB did not make any money from that activity. They made most of their money by attracting others to become RTAs. People who recruited others were called Independent Marketing Representatives, also known as IMRs. People who signed up to be RTAs paid a one-time fee of $450 to $500 and a monthly fee of about $50. The IMRs received a commission for each person they recruited. Named as defendants in the suit are various YTB companies and sister companies, and J. Lloyd Tomer, J. Scott Tomer, J. Kim Sorensen, Andrew Cauthen and Michael Brent. All have held major executive positions with YTB. They are referred to as "YTB defendants." The most recent suit claims that YTB defendants "have perpetrated an illegal pyramid scheme that represents one of the largest frauds in the history of the state of Illinois." The suit claims the firm violated the consumer protection laws in several states, including Illinois. The suit offers alternative legal theories under the laws of Illinois, Georgia, Utah and Missouri. Named defendants are from those states. The suit alleges that the company made false statements that RTAs could earn a lot of money. "In fact, 80 percent earned absolutely nothing, and the median annual travel commission earned was zero," the suit claims. ZUMIEZ CORP: Remains a Defendant in "Berg" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Zumiez, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed in California alleging failure to pay overtime wages, among others, to present and former store managers. Chandra Berg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a first amended complaint on April 2, 2010, in the putative class action, Chandra Berg v. Zumiez Inc., the company said in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The action was filed against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court under case number BC408410 on February 25, 2009. The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages to present and former store managers in California, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers, failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the Company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees for business expenses, failure to provide store managers with accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due at the time of termination, unfair business practices and declaratory relief. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 2, 2010 which added an additional plaintiff/class representative and a new cause of action for penalties for alleged Labor Code violations under the Private Attorneys General Act. Zumiez has filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint and discovery is being conducted. On February 8, 2010, the company attended a mediation wherein no settlement was reached. Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification, and the company's opposition to the motion was due June 17, 2010. A status conference was held May 28, 2010. Zumiez continues to believe that this lawsuit is without merit and will continue to oppose it vigorously if necessary. Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states. ********* 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 * * *