/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100719.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 140 Headlines AMEDISYS INC: Application for Lead Plaintiff Until August 9 ANDARKO PETROLEUM: Application for Lead Plaintiff Due August 23 APPLE INC: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Lawsuit ASTOR SERVICES: Polish National Files Lawsuit Against Firm COCA-COLA: Accused of Selling Products with High Lead Levels COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Oregon Joins Lawsuit Over Subprime Losses DOW CHEMICAL: Sued in Louisiana Over Ethyl Acrylate Leak DRAPER AND KRAMER: Sued For Violations of Chicago RLT Ordinance HONDA MOTOR: Accused in California Suit of Deceptive Advertising JACK IN THE BOX: Accused in Calif. of Unfair Business Practice MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada MICRON TECH: Appeal on Reversal of Quebec Ruling Still Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Settles DRAM Antitrust Cases for $67 Million MTP ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage and Hour Laws MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 2,550 2009 Tree Climbing Sticks MUTUAL FUNDS MDL: Fairness Hearing Set for Oct. 21 and 22 NEDELJKA KOVACEVIC: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep. NOVARTIS PHARMA: Settles Sex Discrimination Suit for $152.5MM PACIFIC WEB: Accused in Mo. Suit of Deceptive Marketing Practice PALM INC: Faces Suit in Illinois for Defective Treo Phones PFIZER INC: Sued in Delaware for Breach of Fiduciary Duty POTTERY BARN: Recalls 82,000 Pottery Barn Kids Drop-Side Cribs PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Accused of Bad Faith Insurance Practices ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Class Suit by Earl Jones Victims Okayed SOMANETICS CORP: Faces Brower Piven Suit Over Covidien Deal TEXAS WINDSTORM: Settles Ike "Slab" Claims for $189 Million TORO COMPANY: Recalls 35880 Snow Blowers VITACOST.COM INC: Kahn Swick Sues Over September 2009 IPO WALT DISNEY: Blind Passholders Sue for ADA Violations ********* AMEDISYS INC: Application for Lead Plaintiff Until August 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC disclosed that investors have only until August 9, 2010 to inquire and take advantage of their right to apply for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc. and certain of its top officials. No class has yet been certified in this action. On July 13, 2010, AMED shares fell as much as 30% to a four-year low (after falling as much as 22% on July 1, 2010) after the home health and hospice care provider forecast second-quarter earnings below analysts' estimates. According to Reuters, an RBC Capital Market Analyst downgraded AMED shares to "sector perform" from "outperform" due to increased government scrutiny. If you are an Amedisys shareholder who has suffered losses on your investment and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call, without obligation or cost to you: Neil Rothstein, Esq. Director of Client Relations KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville LA 70447 Telephone: (877) 694-9510 (Toll free) (330) 860-4092 E-mail: neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com - or - Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville LA 70447 Telephone: (866) 467-1400, ext. 200 (Toll free) (504) 301-7900 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com KSF attorneys have significant experience in representing both institutional and individual shareholders in securities fraud litigation. On July 1, 2010, Amedisys announced that it had received subpoenas for documents and a formal investigation from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to the company's billing practices. Shares of Amedisys fell as much as 22% on that date. The subpoena seeks documents related to the company's home health care services and operations, including reimbursements under the Medicare home health prospective payment system, since January 1, 2000. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than August 9, 2010. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law firm focused on securities class action litigation with offices in Louisiana and New York. KSF's lawyers have significant experience litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered tens of millions of dollars over the past two years for aggrieved investors. ANDARKO PETROLEUM: Application for Lead Plaintiff Due August 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, which filed the first class action lawsuit against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company between June 12, 2009 and June 9, 2010, inclusive, on June 23, 2010, advises purchasers of the stock during the class period to contact the firm to learn more about their rights in this case. The case is filed as Civil Action Number 10-cv-4905. No class has yet been certified in this action. Any purchaser of this stock or other securities during the class period may inquire and receive information about this case. Additionally, anyone who desires to represent the class as Lead Plaintiff must contact the firm prior to August 23, 2010. KSF has significant experience in representing both individual and institutional clients in securities litigation matters. If you would like to discuss your legal rights as a member of the class and /or the lead plaintiff position and its related responsibilities including overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair settlement, you may contact without obligation or cost to you: Neil Rothstein, Esq. Director of Client Relations KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville LA 70447 Telephone: (877) 694-9510 (Toll free) (330) 860-4092 E-mail: neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com - or - Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville LA 70447 Telephone: (866) 467-1400, ext. 200 (Toll free) (504) 301-7900 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com Anadarko and certain of its Officers are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In particular, the Complaint charges Anadarko, 25% owner of the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well currently leaking millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, with failing to disclose, among other things: that there was no effective Exploration and Oil Spill Response Plan for Macondo/Deepwater Horizon; that BP implemented drilling procedures solely to cut costs at the expense of safety; that the Company lacked adequate systems of internal, operational or financial controls to maintain adequate insurance reserves or to meet the known or foreseeable risks associated with its deepwater drilling liabilities; and that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Anadarko was operating according to plan, or that Anadarko could achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants. On April 20, 2010, the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon rig exploded killing 11 platform workers and injuring 17 others. In the wake of this tragedy, defendants continued to issue materially false and misleading statements representing that the Company would likely incur only approximately $177.5 million in liability for its part in the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon venture. However, these statements were materially false and misleading. On June 1, 2010, the public began to learn the truth about Anadarko's business, operations, management, and the intrinsic value of Anadarko common stock when it was reported that the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well could not be capped and investors came to realize there was effectively no plan in place to stop the spill. That day, shares of Anadarko fell almost $10.00 per share -- or approximately 20% -- falling from a close of $42.10 per share, from a prior day's close of $52.33 per share, on huge volume of over 44.8 million shares traded. Shortly thereafter, on June 9, 2010, shares of Anadarko fell another 20% after investors learned of the material deficiencies in the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon Exploration and Oil Spill Response Plan, via the Huffington Post, and further learned that the Company would now be responsible for over $1 billion in clean up costs. The well continues to this date to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the court no later than August 23, 2010. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law firm focused on securities and class action litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana. KSF's lawyers have significant experience litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered tens of millions of dollars over the past years for aggrieved investors. APPLE INC: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple iPhone users can sue Apple and AT&T for their exclusive service contract, under the Sherman Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and computer fraud laws. U.S. District Judge James Ware granted a motion for class certification, finding "plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence of the ability to prove antitrust impact on a class-wide basis." In the original complaint, filed in 2007, customers claimed they had purchased the required 2-year contract with AT&T. But they say that "Apple and AT&T had secretly agreed to technologically restrict voice and data service in the aftermarket for continued voice and data services for five years, i.e., after Plaintiffs' initial two year service period expired. Plaintiffs also allege that Apple monopolized the aftermarket for third party software applications for the iPhone, and that Apple caused the iPhone to become unusable if it detected that a customer had 'unlocked' their iPhone for use with other service providers," according to Ware's 26-page order. Apple and AT&T claimed that their customers could not prove they had suffered actual injuries from the alleged antitrust law violations. But Judge Ware found it more appropriate to certify the class rather than prosecute individual antitrust claims: "the Court finds that the factors of Rule 23(b)(3) favor adjudication in a class setting as superior to individual actions. The potential number of class members is indisputably in the thousands, if not greater. Moreover, it is unlikely that the majority of class members suffered losses of a magnitude that would justify individual actions for antitrust violations against large corporate defendants. In light of the core set of common legal and factual questions, a class action appears manageable. Thus, the Court finds that class treatment is superior to individual actions. "Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class." ASTOR SERVICES: Polish National Files Lawsuit Against Firm ---------------------------------------------------------- Jolanta Jachimczyk, a 58-year old female of Polish national origin, has filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against her employer, Astor Services For Families & Children, and several individuals who Ms. Jachimczyk alleges participated in, and/or condoned the unlawful discrimination against her and subsequent retaliation. ASTOR, based in Rhinebeck, NY, is a community-based nonprofit organization that provides children's mental health services, child welfare services, and early childhood development programs, and serves NY State's Mid-Hudson Valley region and the Bronx. In her 1st Amended Complaint, Ms. Jachimczyk, who was first hired by ASTOR in 1988 as a social worker, alleges that, in April 2009, ASTOR demoted her, in whole or in substantial part, due her Polish national origin. In June 2001, ASTOR promoted Ms. Jachimczyk from her position as a clinician/therapist to Program Director of Astor's Family-Based Treatment & Therapeutic Foster Care Programs. Ms. Jachimczyk alleges that, while she served as Program Director, she endured disparate treatment and a hostile work environment from her subordinates due to, in whole or in substantial part, to her Polish national origin, including: (a) her frequently being ridiculed because of her accent; (b) being told on several occasions that "the way [she] pronounced things is funny"; (c) being called a "Polish Princess" on several occasions; and (d) her subordinates isolating her and their frequently being oppositional and confrontational towards her in comparison to their favorable treatment of other ASTOR managers, site and/or Program Directors of North-American national origin. Ms. Jachimczyk further alleges that, after her verbal and written complaints in July 2009 to ASTOR that she believed her demotion and hostile work environment were due, in whole or in part, to unlawful national origin discrimination, ASTOR did not make any serious investigation of her claims. She alleges that, instead, ASTOR began a campaign of unlawful retaliation against her. Ms. Jachimczyk alleges that, because of her first making internal complaints of discrimination in July 2009 through and including the filing of her lawsuit in federal district court in early May 2010, ASTOR has subjected her to conditions designed to force her to resign. She alleges that ASTOR's retaliation includes: (a) ASTOR's acceptance of certain subordinates be "insubordinate" to her, despite her requests to ASTOR that it take corrective action towards these certain subordinates; (b) her immediate supervisor's hostile and demeaning questioning of Ms. Jachimczyk's requests and/or notification of her need to take time off from work; (c) her being singled out for "reprimand" in comparison to other similarly-situated managers, program and/or site directors; and (d) ASTOR's directive to Ms. Jachimczyk in mid May 2010 that Jachimczyk undergo a "medical evaluation." Ms. Jachimczyk is seeking $1.62 million from defendants, which includes payment for lost back and front salaries, damages for severe physical and emotional injuries, and punitive damages for defendants' alleged outrageous conduct and complete disregard of her rights under Title VII and the NYS Human Rights Law. Ms. Jachimczyk is being represented by Law Offices of Jimmy M. Santos, PLLC, in Cornwall, NY. COCA-COLA: Accused of Selling Products with High Lead Levels ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that more than 100 food products for babies and children contain dangerous levels of lead. Named as defendants in Denver are Coca-Cola, Gerber, Motts and the Hain Celestial Group. Named plaintiff Suzanne Kennedy claims the defendants produce dozens of supposedly kid-friendly products with lead levels that violate California's safe drinking water standards. The 54-page complaint claims to be a response to a host of "notices of violations" filed in June by the California-based nonprofit Environmental Law Foundation. The Foundation tested "food product categories that children like and eat often and which the data showed had widespread presence of lead," it said in a statement on June 10. The Foundation claimed that its researchers found lead levels beyond that allowed by California law (0.5 micrograms per day) in 125 products, primarily canned and packaged fruit and juices. The Denver complaint, alleging violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, cites a body of scientific research suggesting that children are more susceptible to lead poisoning than adults. "Based on this empirical data and the fact that defendants' conduct is directed at children who are more susceptible to chemical exposures, defendants needed to be particularly vigilant to ensure that their food products did not contain harmful chemicals that might have both short and long term health effects, even at potentially very small exposure levels," according to the complaint. Ms. Kennedy wants the companies to stop selling the products until they get the lead out, and damages for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and consumer law violations. Her lead counsel is by Joe Whatley Jr. with Whatley Drake & Kallas of New York, N.Y. A copy of the Complaint in Kennedy v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01623 (D. Colo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/Lead.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-707026 E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com psheehan@wdklaw.com - and - Howard Rubinstein, Esq. 914 Waters Ave., Suite 20 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058-2610 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com - and - Scott E. Poynter, Esq. Jack T. Patterson II, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP The Museum Center 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com jpatterson@emersonpoynter.com - and - Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. JIGARJIAN LAW OFFICE 128 Tunstead Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 Telephone: (415) 341-6660 E-mail: jigarjianlaw@gmail.com COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Oregon Joins Lawsuit Over Subprime Losses ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Lehman, writing for Oregon Public Broadcasting, reports that Oregon is joining a class action lawsuit against mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Services. Jeff Manning at The Oregonian reports that Oregon claims the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund lost $29 million on Countrywide mortgage-backed securities. According to The Oregonian, the complaint, filed in federal court in California, accuses Countrywide of violating securities law by making statements to investors that were materially false and misleading. Company officials allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose information crucial to investors' ability to accurately assess the risks of their investments. According to OPB, Oregon Attorney General John Kroger says it's time for Countrywide to pay up. He said, "We bought products from Countrywide based on their false misstatements. And because of those false misstatements we've lost $30 million. And the goal of our lawsuit it to get that money back for Oregon retirees." Countrywide was acquired by Bank of America in 2008. The lawsuit also names as defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America Securities and several other investment banks that sold the securities, as well as individual executives. The Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System serves as the lead plaintiff in the suit. Countrywide was the nation's largest residential mortgage lender in 2005-2006, originating in excess of $850 billion in home loans. It moved aggressively into subprime mortgage loans -- those made to borrowers with bad credit. DOW CHEMICAL: Sued in Louisiana Over Ethyl Acrylate Leak -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions claim a leak from a Dow Chemical storage tank in Taft, La., exposed nearby residents to toxic ethyl acrylate on July 7, 2009, in St. Charles Parish Court. A copy of the Complaint in Richard, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company, Case No. 71723-D (La. Dist. Ct., Parish of St. Charles) (Lemmon J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/Liabil.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randal L. Gaines, Esq. 7 Turnberry Dr. LaPlace, LA 70068 Telephone: 652-3299 DRAPER AND KRAMER: Sued For Violations of Chicago RLT Ordinance --------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Dingle, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Draper and Kramer Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-29756 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 12, 2010), accuses the property and financial services company of failing to: (i) attach to the rental agreement for her dwelling unit a summary including the required porch safety language, as required under Sec. 5-12-170 of the Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance and (ii) maintain her dwelling unit free of bedbugs, in violation of RLTO Sec. 5-12-070. Ms. Dingle relates that on November 14, 2009, she and D&K entered into a written rental agreement for a dwelling unit numbered 1503 at the residential apartment building at 2801 S. Martin Luther King Dr. in Chicago, Cook County. The building has approximately 340 apartments. RLTO Sec. 5-12-170 requires a landlord to attach to each rental agreement (whether for a new rental or renewal) a summary which shall include the following language: "The porch or deck of this building should be designed for a live load of up to 100 pounds, per square foot and is safe only for its intended use. Protect your safety. Do not overload the porch or deck. If you have questions about porch or deck safety, call the City of Chicago non-emergency number, 3-1-1." RLTO Sec. 5-12-070 requires a landlord to maintain the premises in compliance with the municipal code and to promptly make all necessary repairs. Ms. Dingle says she gave written notice to D&K about the severity of the bedbug problem and her intent to withhold rent, but D&K took no action to remedy the bedbug infestation. For violation of RLTO Sec. 5-12-170, Ms. Dingle seeks statutory damages of $100 per tenant per lease, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. For violation of RLTO Sec. 5-12-070, plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $3,250.00, rent abatement for the months of May, June and July 2010, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington, Suite 220 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 HONDA MOTOR: Accused in California Suit of Deceptive Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a man claims Honda advertises that its Civic Hybrids get 49 miles per gallon, though they actually get only about 26, in a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court. JACK IN THE BOX: Accused in Calif. of Unfair Business Practice -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Jack in the Box pays some employees with a payroll debit card which requires a withdrawal fee and does not make all the wages available on paydays, according to a class action in Santa Clara County Court, Calif. A copy of the Complaint in Flores v. Jack in the Box, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-10-cv-176741 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/JackBox.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. R. Craig Clark, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Laura M. Cotter, Esq. CLARK & MARKHAM LLP 600 B St., Suite 2130 San Diego, CA 92101-4512 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 - and - Francisco J. Aldana, Esq. THE ADVOCATES' LAW FIRM, LLP 600 B St., Suite 2130 San Diego, CA 92101-7912 Telephone: (619) 236-8355 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Micron Technology, Inc., is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Four substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the same court. The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb. 13, 2003. The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006. The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct. It seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002 No further updates regarding the case were reported by the company in its July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010. The suit is City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-00085 (D. Idaho) (Lynn Winmill, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Bruce S. Bistline, Esq. GORDON LAW OFFICES 623 W. Hays Boise, ID 83702-5512 Telephone: (208) 345-7100 Facsimile: (208) 345-0050 E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com - and - Mary Blasy, Esq. LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 100 Pine St., Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Douglas W. Greene, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 883-2529 Facsimile: (208) 883-2699 E-mail: dgreene@wsgr.com - and - Richard H. Greener Esq. GREENER BANDUCCI SHOEMAKER, P.A. 950 W. Bannock St. 900 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 319-2600 E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class- action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of Flash products. The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act. These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers. The company reported no developments in the matter in its July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM. Three purported class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of SRAM products were filed in Canada, asserting violations of the Canadian Competition Act. These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM products directly or indirectly from various SRAM suppliers. The company reported no developments in the matter in its July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECH: Appeal on Reversal of Quebec Ruling Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc.'s appeal on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversing the decision of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec, remains pending. Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts: Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec; Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia. The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those decisions. On Nov. 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the denial of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appeal of the Quebec case is still pending. No further updates were reported in the company's July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Settles DRAM Antitrust Cases for $67 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., has agreed to settle a purported class- action relating to alleged dynamic random access memories (DRAM) price-fixing in the United States for $67 million, according to the company's July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010. The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for consolidated proceedings remains pending. A number of purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers. Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at least June 30, 2002. The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. In addition, at least sixty-four cases have been filed in various state courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of DRAM. Cases have been filed in these states: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. On Jan. 29, 2008, the Northern District of California Court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification for interlocutory appeal of the decision. On Feb. 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On June 26, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed to consider plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal. On June 23, 2010, the company executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the class settlements, the company agreed to pay a total of approximately $67 million in three equal installments over a two-year period. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MTP ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage and Hour Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- Audrey Berna, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MTP Enterprises Ltd., d/b/a H&M Limousine Service, Case No. 2010-CH-30008 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 13, 2010), accuses the limousine service operator of failing to provide meal and rest breaks, improperly manipulating hourly paid employees' time records, failing to record actual hours worked by hourly paid employees, and failing to compensate hourly paid employees for all hours actually worked, including missed breaks, regular and overtime compensation as required by Illinois wage and hour laws. Audrey Berna worked as an hourly paid, non-exempt limousine driver for defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Shannon, Esq. SHANNON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-2804 - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, PC 8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 2,550 2009 Tree Climbing Sticks ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Muddy Outdoors, of Camdenton, Mo., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,550 2009 Muddy Outdoors tree climbing sticks. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Bolts that secure the cam locs to the frame of these climbing sticks that retains the rope around the tree can break, allowing the cam locs to detach from the frame. This causes the retaining rope to detach and the climbing stick to release from the tree, posing a fall hazard to the user. CPSC has received two reports of bolts breaking on a climbing stick. No reports of injuries. This recall involves climbing sticks are used for climbing a tree and include 2009 year Model 70301 -- Muddy Outdoors climbing stick (a 20 inch single climbing stick) and 2009 year Model 70304 -- Muddy Outdoors climbing stick (4 pack of 20-inch climbing sticks). The year and model number is printed on a label on the front of the main vertical frame of the climbing stick just below the two cam locs. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10300.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through directly from Muddy Outdoors via Internet/telephone sales and other outdoor sports retailers nationwide from July 2009 through April 2010 for about $35 (model 70301) and about $130 (model 70304). Consumers should immediately stop using these climbing sticks and return the climbing sticks to Muddy Outdoors for a refund, exchange or manufacturer's credit. For additional information contact Muddy Outdoors toll-free at (877) 366-8339 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gomuddy.com/ or e-mail the firm at info@gomuddy.com MUTUAL FUNDS MDL: Fairness Hearing Set for Oct. 21 and 22 --------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced the proposed settlements of the class action captioned: In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation [Federated Sub-Track], Civil Action No. 04-md-15861(D. Md.). Bernstein Liebhard LLP serves as lead counsel in the securities action, representing investors in Federated fluctuating mutual funds during the period October 21, 1998 through September 30, 2003. As part of these settlements, plaintiffs have reached settlements with defendants Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd., Canary Investment Management, LLC, and Edward Stern and Banc of America Securities LLC. The proposed Cross- Track Settlements total $1,557,500, which will be distributed to certain Federated Funds. Because the Cross-Track Settlement Amount is being distributed directly to certain Federated Funds, class members are not required to submit proof of claims. The Cross-Track Settlements resolve class action litigation and derivative litigation concerning allegations that the Cross-Track Defendants violated securities laws and breached fiduciary duties by allegedly engaging in or facilitating "market-timing" and "late-trading" in certain Federated Funds during the period May 1, 2000 through July 31, 2003. Market-timing is an investment technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares. Late-trading is an investment practice whereby investors are permitted to place orders to buy, sell or exchange mutual fund shares using the day's net asset value after 4:00 p.m. Eastern-time, capitalizing on post-4:00 p.m. information. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Catherine C. Blake in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, United States Courthouse, 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, at 10:00 a.m., on October 21 and 22, 2010, to determine whether: (1) the proposed Cross-Track Settlements should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the plans for allocating the settlement proceeds should be approved; (3) Plaintiffs' Counsel's applications for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved; (4) the claims against the Cross-Track Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice; and (5) the Court should rule on such other matters as the Court deems appropriate. You may write to the Court if you object to one or both of the Cross-Track Settlements, plans of allocation of the Cross-Track Settlement Amounts -- available at http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement-- or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses. You may obtain a copy of the Cross-Track Long-Form Notice by visiting http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement As more fully described in the Cross-Track Long-Form Notice, the deadline for submitting objections and requests for exclusion from any of the proposed Cross-Track Settlements is September 21, 2010. Plaintiffs also entered into a proposed settlement agreement with Federated Investors Inc., Federated Investment Management Company, Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania, Federated Services Company, Federated Securities Corporation, and certain individual defendants. The details of the settlement with the Federated Defendants can be found at http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement Further information may also be obtained by contacting: U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com Beige@bernlieb.com Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- http://www.bernlieb.com/-- is a prominent plaintiffs' class action law firm that has been representing investors since 1993. It has pursued hundreds of securities, shareholder, and consumer cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has also been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last seven years. NEDELJKA KOVACEVIC: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Konstantine "Gus" Ress, individually and on behalf of other tenants and former tenants similarly situated v. Nedeljka Kovacevic, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-29817 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 12, 2010), accuses the defendants of: i) failing to pay interest on her and the proposed class members' security deposits as mandated by Section 5-12-080(c) of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, (ii) commingling her and the proposed class members' security deposits with the defendants' own assets and failing to place the security deposits in a federally insured interest bearing account in a bank, savings and loan association or other financial institution located in the State of Illinois as mandated by Section 5-12-080(a) of the RLTO, (iii) failing to return her and the proposed class members' security deposits within 45 days of vacating and failing to deliver an itemized statement of damages within 30 days for any alleged deductions as mandated by Section 5-12-080(d) of the RLTO, and (iv) failing to provide at least two days' notice of defendants' intent to enter their dwelling units as required by Section 5-12-050 of the RLTO. Plaintiff asks the Court to order defendants to pay her and each proposed class member a sum equal to twice the amount of each class member's security deposit, together with interest, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees for each violation of Sections 5-12-080(c), 5-12-080(a), and 5-12-080(d) of the RLTO. Plaintiff also asks the Court to order defendants to pay plaintiff and each proposed class member an amount equal to one month's rent, together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees for each violation of Section 5-12-050, pursuant to Sections 5-12-060 and 5-12-180 of the RLTO. Plaintiff Konstantine "Gus" Ress formerly resided in Unit 1S at 5651 N. Christiana, Chicago, Illinois 60659, which was part of the building located at 5649-5655 N. Christiana, Chicago, Illinois 60659, a development consisting of approximately 36 residential dwelling units. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Starr, Esq. STARR & ROWELLS 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1870 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 346-9420 NOVARTIS PHARMA: Settles Sex Discrimination Suit for $152.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a U.S. subsidiary of Novartis AG, and Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Counsel to the Plaintiffs and the Class, have announced an amicable end to their litigation. On July 14, 2010, the parties filed papers in the Southern District of New York memorializing a settlement agreement including up to $152.5 million in payments to eligible class members and NPC's funding, over three years, of improvements to policies and programs valued at an estimated $22.5 million. While the company maintains that the alleged behavior described during the trial is not systemic, NPC has agreed with the Plaintiffs to end the ongoing proceedings and make monetary payments to eligible class members for back-pay and compensatory damages in the amount of up to $152.5 million. "While we believe that there was not systemic discrimination at NPC, the trial revealed that some of our associates had experiences influenced by managerial behavior inconsistent with our values" said Joe Jimenez, CEO of Novartis AG. "As a company we are now even more strongly resolved to ensure that all our employees act and behave in accordance with our corporate values. We aspire to be a leader in diversity and inclusion, and I am committed to implementing decisive measures to ensure that we act in accordance with our values." "Novartis has agreed to a momentous settlement," explained David Sanford, Esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. "The terms of this agreement allow for full compensation of both former and current female field force employees, ensuring that every woman who worked at Novartis over the past eight years has been compensated fairly." As part of the agreement and consistent with its philosophy to foster a diverse and inclusive workforce, NPC is implementing comprehensive programs designed to ensure fair treatment of all members of the NPC sales force. The measures agreed to by the parties set high standards, and the company is committed to occupy a leadership position for gender equity in the industry. "In this settlement, Novartis establishes itself as a leader on issues for women in the workplace," said Katherine Kimpel, Esq., co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. "In particular, NPC is committed to substantially revising its human resources policies, revamping its personnel management systems, and strengthening its commitment to ensuring gender equality in the workplace." As part of the measures, NPC will enhance many of its ongoing commitments to all employees and will add additional programs and initiatives to further strengthen its commitment to a diverse and inclusive environment. For example: * NPC will revise its sexual harassment policy and training, making it even clearer that the company will not tolerate inappropriate behavior or comments from employees, customers or healthcare providers. * NPC will also further strengthen its complaint process to ensure employees can safely raise concerns and that those concerns will be addressed in a timely and thorough fashion; * NPC will retain an external specialist to conduct adverse impact analyses aimed at identifying and remedying, with recommendations from Class Counsel, unjustified gender disparities; * NPC will revise its performance management process to ensure it is fair to all employees. The full range of changes and improvements that NPC will be making are detailed in the settlement agreement filed with the Court. The agreement remains subject to final court approval. Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at: David Sanford, Esq. Katherine M. Kimpel, Esq. SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 742-7780 Facsimile: (202) 742-7776 E-mail: dsanford@swhlegal.com kkimpel@swhlegal.com Novartis -- http://www.novartis.com/-- provides healthcare solutions that address the evolving needs of patients and societies. Focused solely on healthcare, Novartis offers a diversified portfolio to best meet these needs: innovative medicines, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals, preventive vaccines, diagnostic tools and consumer health products. Novartis is the only company with leading positions in these areas. In 2009, the Group's continuing operations achieved net sales of $44.3 billion, while approximately $7.5 billion was invested in R&D activities throughout the Group. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Novartis Group companies employ approximately 100,000 full-time-equivalent associates and operate in more than 140 countries around the world. The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP. Sanford Wittels & Heisler -- http://www.swhlegal.com/-- is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United States. The firm also represents individual clients in employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and personal injury matters. PACIFIC WEB: Accused in Mo. Suit of Deceptive Marketing Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that an Internet marketer uses "fake news articles and fake blogs" to direct browsers to its page, then bills people's credits cards without permission, a class action claims in Jackson County Court. The class claims that Pacific Web Works is preying upon people hurt by the recession by promising them work-at-home jobs. The Nevada-based company claims -- falsely -- that its victims will work directly with Google, and will be well paid for it, says lead plaintiff Thomas Aikens. Mr. Aikens claims Pacific's initial offers come as spam email, sponsored links, banner ads on Internet search pages and links in fake news articles and fake blogs. The complaint cites 18 corporate names or dbas. Pacific Web Works' game is to drive consumers to pages where a purchase can be made by credit card, according to the complaint. Once consumers lands on a Pacific products page, they are urged to buy a Pacific product, usually a CD or software kit that allegedly will how to earn thousands of dollars by working at home using Google, Mr. Aikens claims. "These landing pages typically contain language describing their offering 'As seen on: Fox News, CNN,' and 'USA Today,'" the complaint states. "The website prominently features network logos without license from these media entities and are plainly designed to suggest to a consumer that the offering is supported by a reputable entity. Pacific WebWorks have never been 'seen on' or endorsed by any of the networks claimed on the website." Mr. Aiken says Pacific often advertises that its products cost $2 or less. But in fine print, Aiken claims, consumers are told they will be subject to a recurring monthly charge of $79.90 for access to a program that allegedly allows them to "Start Making Money Today!" Consumers may also find that Pacific billed them $24.90 a month, for another, unknown product, Mr. Aikens says. The complaint claims that Pacific operates under a variety of Internet names including Tracking202 Inc.; Media Trust LLC (Advaliant); CyberPlex inc. (CX Digital Media); Coleadium Inc. (Ads4Dough); JAR Media LLC; Sybtrackcom; eSynergy Media LLC; W4 Media LLC; Bskytracking.com; GMB Direct Inc.; Elite Clicks Media LLC; Tracklead.net; Track606.com; Intermark Communications Inc. (Copeac); Zoomleads.net; Vetrue Incorporated (Neverblue); Lidango; and Convert2Media LLC. The class seeks restitution and punitive damages for fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. A copy of the Complaint in Aikens v. Pacific WebWorks, Inc., et al., Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/FakeNews.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Williams G. Crowe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BILL CROWE 3259 East Sunshine, Suite I Springfield, MO 65804-2143 Telephone: 417-883-8000 E-mail: wcrowe1415@gmail.com - and - Will Haselden, Esq. Christopher Dore, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC 350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-589-6370 E-mail whaselden@edelson.com cdore@edelson.com PALM INC: Faces Suit in Illinois for Defective Treo Phones ---------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs.com, reports that a class action suit has been filed alleging that two Palm Treo smartphone models are junk, and that the manufacturer isn't doing enough to address consumers' complaints. The suit was filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, says that the "premium-priced Palm Treo 700 series and . . . 755p hand-held devices" are "saddled with malfunctions and problems." Specifically, the suit alleges that the phones freeze or lock up, requiring the owner to turn the phone off, remove and reinstall the battery, and turn the phone back on again, an annoying routine to perform on a regular basis. Worse, the defect can wipe out user data like phone numbers and photos. The complaint also says that the phones have "poor sound quality," rendering them difficult or impossible to use, and that it can be difficult to "view or download documents or attachments from email or the internet." According to the suit, Palm markets the Treos as "speedy, state- of-the art smartphones," and boasts on its Web site that, "[w]ith this easy-to-use productivity device in hand, you can stay connected on your terms." When Palm started hearing about the problem from customers, according to the suit, it simply replaced the broken phones with more of the same model. As a result, the plaintiffs "cycled through numerous Treo Phones, none of which provided the functionality and quality that such phones are supposed to provide." Instead of fixing the problem, Palm chose to "continue peddling its inventories" and "intentionally replace[] defective Treo Phones with equally defective Treo Phones," according to the complaint. This creates a system in which consumers "continue to receive defective products . . . until they either tire of the process or their warranties run out." Suit resembles previous action The suit also says that Palm has taken no action to effect a lasting fix of the defects, despite having received scores of complaints from consumers. The complaint also points out that Palm has provided "class-wide compensation" to owners of older Treo models, a claim that appears to reference a 2008 settlement involving the Treo 600 and 650 models. That settlement provided a cash rebate to Treo users who had to replace or repair their phones at least twice. That suit, filed in 2005, contained allegations strikingly similar to those in the Illinois complaint, including frequent restarts, the loss of stored information, and poor sound quality. That suit also said that Palm replaced defective phones with equally defective "refurbished" phones of the same model. ConsumerAffairs.com has received several complaints that seem to echo the claims in the suit. As Nicole of Marina Del Ray, CA, wrote in 2008: "I have had problem after problem with the palm treo. I have been given one defective replacement after another. I have lost work and clients due to these problems." Elaine of Warsaw, IN, had a similar experience: "I purchased a new palm centro online through the palm store. This phone was unlocked and the cost was 299.99. After I recieved this phone it froze within the first 3 days. The phone was sent back and a new one was sent to us. I have had this phone for 4 months and am now having problems with it again. The palm store requires the phone to be sent in (at my expense) to be analyzed and repaired. This will take approx. 7 days. (7 days without my only form of communication). This is unacceptable. The suit covers anyone who bought or received, under warranty, a Treo 700 series or 755p phone. Consumers in California are excluded from the class. The complaint charges Palm with breach of express and implied warranty, violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and violations of several California state statutes. PFIZER INC: Sued in Delaware for Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Pfizer pushed its drugs illegally for more than a decade, then settled for $2.3 billion with Uncle Sam, shareholders claim in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Bricklayers Local & Plasterers Local 233 Pension Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., Case No. 5631 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/SCAPfizer.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq. Jessica Zeldin, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market St., Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 - and - Robert M. Roseman, Esq. Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. David Felderman, Esq. Daniel J. Mirarchi, Esq. Rachel E. Kopp, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market St., Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 - and - Stephen C. Richman, Esq. MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN 1100 North American Bldg. 121 South Broad St. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 875-3100 POTTERY BARN: Recalls 82,000 Pottery Barn Kids Drop-Side Cribs -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pottery Barn Kids, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 82,000 Pottery Barn Kids drop-side cribs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The cribs' drop-sides can detach when hardware breaks, creating a space into which a young child can become entrapped, which can lead to suffocation. A child can also fall out of the crib. Drop side incidents also occur due to incorrect assembly and with age- related wear and tear. CPSC and Pottery Barn Kids have received 36 reports of drop sides that have malfunctioned or detached, resulting in seven minor injuries when children fell out of the cribs or got their legs caught between the mattress and the drop side. One child became entrapped at the head between the drop side and crib mattress but was freed without injury. This recall involves all Pottery Barn Kids drop-side cribs regardless of the model number. Pottery Barn Kids is printed on a label attached to the crib headboard or footboard. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10302.html The recalled products were manufactured in Canada, Malaysia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia and Italy and sold exclusively through the Pottery Barn Kids catalog, http://www.potterybarnkids.com/ and at Pottery Barn Kids retail stores nationwide from January 1999 through March 2010 for between $300 and $600. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs, inspect the hardware to make sure it is not broken, and contact Pottery Barn Kids to receive a free fixed-gate conversion kit that will immobilize the drop side. For additional information, contact Pottery Barn Kids at (877) 804-3847 between 7:00 a.m. and midnight 7 days a week or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.potterybarnkids.com/ PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Accused of Bad Faith Insurance Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Progressive Mountain Insurance Co. pays "unreasonable, unfair and bad faith low-ball amounts as diminished-value losses" for auto accident claims, in Dublin, Ga., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Hurt v. Progressive Mountain Insurance Company, Case No. 10-cv-00059 (S.D. Ga.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/Insure.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by; James E. Carter, Esq. JAMES E. CARTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC 400 East President St. Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 236-7200 E-mail: jcarter@carterfirm.net - and - Thomas W. Tucker, Esq. John B. Long, Esq. TUCKER, EVERITT, LONG, BREWTON & LANIER Post Office Box 2426 Augusta, GA 30903-2426 Telephone: (706) 722-0771 E-mail: ttucker@thefirm453.com jlong@thefirm453.com ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Class Suit by Earl Jones Victims Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Montreal Gazette reports that Superior Court Judge Robert Mongeon Wednesday approved a request to file a class-action lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Canada on behalf of the victims of Earl Jones. The suit seeks C$40 million in damages. The thrust of the lawsuit alleges that a suburban bank branch where Mr. Jones did business treated him like a VIP and allowed him to use a personal account for business purposes. BBC News reports that former clients of the financial advisor allege a RBC branch where he did business knew about irregularities in Mr. Jones' account, but did nothing. None of the claims against RBC have been proven. Mr. Jones is currently serving 11 years in jail for fraud. The former Montreal financial adviser fell from grace when his ponzi scheme was revealed in the summer of 2009. He is thought to have defrauded clients out of tens of millions of dollars over a decade. SOMANETICS CORP: Faces Brower Piven Suit Over Covidien Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the State of Michigan, Oakland County Circuit Court on behalf of all shareholders of Somanetics Corporation. The complaint asserts claims that arise from alleged attempts of Somanetics' board of directors to complete a squeeze-out of Somanetics' public shareholders via a tender offer by Covidien DE Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of United States Surgical Corporation, and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Covidien plc. According to the complaint, on June 16, 2006, Covidien and Somanetics announced that they had signed a definitive merger agreement under which Covidien will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Somanetics for $25.00 per share in cash, for a total of $250 million, net of cash acquired. The complaint alleges that the consideration to be paid to shareholders under the terms of the Merger Agreement is unfair and undervalues Somanetics, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value and failing to engage in a fair sale process, that Somanetics and Covidien aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and that Somanetics failed to adequately disclose material information regarding the Offer. If you are a current owner of shares of Somanetics Corporation, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit by contacting: Charles J. Piven, Esq. BROWER PIVEN PC 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: (410) 415-6701 E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 40 years. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. TEXAS WINDSTORM: Settles Ike "Slab" Claims for $189 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Texas Windstorm Insurance Association has agreed to settle lawsuits by paying $189 million to 2,400 Galveston County property owners whose insured homes were reduced to their foundations by Hurricane Ike. Ian White, writing for Galveston County's The Daily News, explains the suits are known as "slab" cases because they all involve properties where Hurricane Ike left little or nothing standing above ground when it made landfall Sept. 13, 2008. The policy- holding property owners are suing the insurance association for $189 million in Judge Susan Criss' 212th District Court. They are divided into two groups of about 1,200 homeowners each. The first group consists of plaintiffs individually represented by counsel, of which 517 have filed suit. The second group consists of homeowners who have joined in a class-action lawsuit. One application in the class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 206 Bolivar Peninsula homeowners by area attorneys Tony Buzbee and Darrell Apffel in January. It joined lawsuits challenging the windstorm association's offer of 11.2% of the value of each lost house. The association based that figure on its assessments of how much damage had been caused by flooding during the storm, a figure hotly disputed in court by the plaintiffs' attorneys. The cases went to mediation, where lawyers for both sides and mediator Todd Hunter spent six days negotiating the new deal. Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, the property owners will be offered higher settlement figures, plus their attorneys' fees, in confidential transactions. For property owners who sued individually, acceptance of their individual offers will end their cases. Class-action plaintiffs must wait until Judge Criss considers the association's offer in court, which could take another month or so, state Rep. Craig Eiland, one of the attorneys involved, said. Judge Criss said: "We have had more than 100 lawyers, many of them among the state's leading trial lawyers, involved in the mediation and, if they all think this is a good resolution, I'm not going to throw it out. It's $189 million for the county, and that's good for everyone." Mr. Eiland said: "The association is making the same offer for all the plaintiffs, whether individual or class-action. The offer is calculated based on the value of each property, payments already made or agreed to by the National Flood Insurance Program and policy limits. "I have some individual and some class-action clients. I will be sending the individual plaintiffs' offers to them in the next day or two." In a statement issued by Mostyn Law Firm's Houston office, plaintiffs' attorney Steve Mostyn, Esq., who serves as the liaison counsel to the court for all Hurricane-Ike cases filed in Galveston, said: "We are pleased that TWIA stepped up to the plate and resolved these cases so that these folks may now get on with their lives." Mostyn Law Firm also noted that Judge Criss stated: "I appreciate all of the hard work by the plaintiffs' lawyers, the TWIA lawyers and the mediator, Todd Hunter, put into mediating these cases over a period of six full days. The Bolivar/Galveston community deserves closure and the opportunity to rebuild their homes and lives." The Daily News reports that another of the class counsel, Mitchell Toups, Esq., of Beaumont, said: "This is a triumph for 'slab' owners and the Galveston County economy." The Daily News also reports that the windstorm association's general manager, Jim Oliver, said: "These slab claims were very complicated and numerous, and they required a great deal of time and analysis in determining the impact from wind and storm surge damage since TWIA policies only cover direct loss caused by wind. "TWIA needs to receive information on the amount of reductions due to flood insurance payments before determining what amount is to be offered in each individual case." Altogether, the association, the largest property insurer in Galveston County and the Texas coast's insurer of last resort for windstorm and hail coverage, received more than 100,000 claims, costing $2.1 billion, for damage caused by hurricanes Dolly and Ike in 2008, The Daily News reports. Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at: J. Steve Mostyn, Esq. THE MOSTYN LAW FIRM 3810 W. Alabama Street Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 861-6616 Facsimile: (713) 861-8084 Toll Free: (888) 400-6616 TORO COMPANY: Recalls 35880 Snow Blowers ---------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Toro Company, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 35,700 Power Clear 180 Single Stage Snow Blowers in the United States and 2,300 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Exposure to ethanol in gasoline can cause the carburetor needle to become corroded. A corroded needle can stick in the open position and allow fuel to leak from the carburetor, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Toro has received 2,200 reports of carburetor leaks. No fires or injuries have been reported. This recall involves Toro(R) Power Clear 180 Single Stage snow blowers. The recalled snow blowers have model numbers 38272 and 38282. Serial numbers included in the recall range from 310000001 through 310999999. The model and serial number can be found on a decal on the lower right side of the snow blower. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10299.html The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A and sold through Toro dealers and The Home Depot stores nationwide from November 2009 through May 2010 for between $400 and $440. Consumers should immediately check to see if their snow blowers are included in this recall and contact an authorized Toro service dealer to arrange a free repair. To obtain the location of the nearest dealer, consumers should contact Toro. For additional information, contact Toro toll-free at (877) 738-4440 between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.toro.com/ VITACOST.COM INC: Kahn Swick Sues Over September 2009 IPO --------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Vitacost.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: VITC) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering commencing on or about September 24, 2009, and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010, inclusive. No class has yet been certified in this action. Any purchaser of this stock during the class period may inquire and receive information about this case. Additionally, anyone who desires to represent the class as Lead Plaintiff must contact the firm prior to July 23, 2010 to the extent they want to apply for Lead Plaintiff. KSF has significant experience in representing both individual and institutional clients in securities litigation matters. If you would like to discuss your legal rights as a member of the class and/or the lead plaintiff position and its related responsibilities including overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair settlement, you may contact KSF's Director of Client Relations: Neil Rothstein, Esq. Director of Client Relations KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC 206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (877) 694-9510 (330) 860-4092 E-mail: neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com Additionally, you can contact KSF's Managing Partner: Lewis Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC 206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (866) 467-1400, ext. 200 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period and/or in the offering documents (registration statement and prospectus) for its initial public offering on or about September 24, 2009, that the Company was starting a product-mix shift away from the high-margin proprietary products yet inflated demand for its proprietary products by pushing out excess product to customers so that it could mask declining demand; that the Company was knowingly experiencing logistical issues at its own plants, lacking adequate oversight processes and procedures and utilizing ineffective operations software; that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times. According to the complaint, after, on April 20, 2010, the Company announced updated guidance for revenue for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 and for the full year 2010, the value of Vitacost.com stock declined significantly. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the court no later than July 23, 2010. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. To learn more about KSF, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com/ KSF is a law firm focused on securities class action litigation and other class action litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana. KSF's lawyers have significant experience litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered tens of millions of dollars over the past two years for aggrieved investors. WALT DISNEY: Blind Passholders Sue for ADA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Two visually impaired annual pass holders at the Disney theme parks have filed a nationwide class action against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries, which own Disneyland, Disney's California Adventure, and Walt Disney World, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On behalf themselves and others similarly situated, they seek to change various Disney's policies which unfairly treat the blind. Cari Shields and Amber Boggs, two visually impaired annual pass holders at the Disney parks, have filed a nationwide class action against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries which own Disneyland, Disney's California Adventure, and Walt Disney World, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On behalf themselves and others similarly situated, Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields seek to change various Disney policies which unfairly treat the blind. For example, they demand that Disney change its policy of not allowing costumed characters to interact with visually impaired guests who visit the park with their service animals. This policy is enforced even when Mrs. Boggs visits the parks with her fully-sighted children. Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields allege other violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They are not seeking monetary damages, but only demand that Disney provide more reasonable accommodations for the visually impaired, such as portable Braille maps of the parks, areas to cage or leave service animals during rides, reduced or free admission for service aides, keyed rather than digital lockers, Braille menus in the park restaurants, and adequate lodging for service animal while visually impaired guests visit the park. "Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields simply expect Disney to provide reasonable and fair accommodations to visually impaired guests who visit the parks, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act", said their attorney, Andy Dogali, of the Tampa, Florida law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.A. "The reasonable accommodations we demand will provide a more joyful experience for visually impaired guests in Disney's parks, where visitors' dreams are supposed to come true". The class action has been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court of California, Case No. BC438241. The law firms of Forizs and Dogali, P.A. and Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, represent the Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields in this class action. For any questions, please contact: Brian Hohman, Esq. FORIZS AND DOGALI, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300 Tampa, FL, 33634 Telephone: (813) 289-0700 Facsimile: (813) 289-9435 E-mail: bhohman@forizs-dogali.com - and - Gene Feldman, Esq. EUGENE FELDMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW Telephone: (310) 372-4636 555 Pier Ave, Suite 4 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (866) 920-8349 ********* 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 * * *