/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100726.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 145 Headlines 5 DE MAYO BAKERY: NJ App. Ct. Affirms Order Denying Class Cert. 99 CENTS ONLY: Faces Two Class Suits Over Price Increase ANTONIO FLORES: Recalls 44,900 Karino Baby Pacifiers AOL LLC: Watchdog Files Brief v. Class Suit Settlement APPLE INC: Insists 5-Year AT&T Exclusivity Was Disclosed ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settles "McAnaney" Suit for $7.85 Million BC FERRIES: Settles Class Suit Over 2006 Mishap for C$350,000 BP PLC: Charis Moule Seeks Class Status of ERISA Suit BP PLC: New York & Ohio Pension Funds Seek Lead-Plaintiff Status BP PLC: Oil Spill Hurt Shrimpers' Health & Employment, Suit Says BRIDGESTONE ASSOCIATES: Accused of Rent Overcharges CCA INDUSTRIES: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on Sept. 20 CHICAGO: Cook Cty. Ct. Certifies Suit Over Amusement Tax on PSLs CITIMORTGAGE INC: Sued for Failing to Comply with HAMP Obligations CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Ottawa Court Certifies Pevets Class Suit DJSP ENTERPRISES: Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris File Suit ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Municipality of Aguazul ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Arauca Municipality ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Dept. of Tolima Over Royalties ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit Over Guando Well Royalties JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Agrees to Settles Suit for $1.3 Million LOWER MERION: Wants Bid for Class Status in Webcam Case Denied OAKLAND, CA: City Council OKs $6.5MM Payment to Settle Suit T.G.I. FRIDAY'S: Accused in N.Y. of Violating Minimum Wage Law TOWERS WATSON: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY: Accused in D.C. of Ethnic Cleansing ********* 5 DE MAYO BAKERY: NJ App. Ct. Affirms Order Denying Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on July 20, 2010, affirmed an order denying class certification of a lawsuit with respect to a claim under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiffs are immigrant workers who were employed by defendants on an hourly basis in such positions as waiters and waitresses, busboys, cooks, bakers, kitchen workers, cleaning staff and delivery persons. They claimed that defendants paid them less than minimum wage for the hours they worked. One of the plaintiffs reported defendants to the New Jersey Department of Labor, whose Division of Wage and Hour Compliance subsequently determined that defendants had violated the NJWHL. The suit was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiffs appealed from the October 9, 2007, Law Division order denying their motion for class certification for the NJWHL claim; the November 27, 2007, order denying their motion for reconsideration; and the May 9, 2008, order denying without prejudice the motion of plaintiff Virginia Ortiz for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, dismissed the appeal of the May 9, 2008 order as moot, and affirmed in all other respects. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for class certification. The court also noted that the court's decision to certify the FLSA collective action remedied any potential prejudice caused to plaintiffs by denial of class action certification on the NJWHL claim. In light of that fact and the ultimate judgment that was entered in plaintiffs' favor, reversal on this issue is not warranted and would have no remedial effect. The court declined the plaintiffs' invitation to review the judge's denial of attorneys' fees to Ortiz, as this issue is moot because the judge awarded attorney's fees of $753,807.60 and costs of $35,664.30 on December 4, 2008. The case is Lopez et al. v. 5 de May Bakery, Inc., et al., case no. A-2520-08T3 (N.J. Sup. Ct.), and a copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100720330 The Plaintiffs are represented in the case by: David Tykulsker, Esq. Rosemary DiSavino, Esq. DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES 161 Walnut Montclair, NJ 07042 99 CENTS ONLY: Faces Two Class Suits Over Price Increase -------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Chang of The Los Angeles Times reports that 99 Cents Only Stores is facing two class-action lawsuits that were filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court this month on allegations of unfair and deceptive business practices and misleading advertising. Ms. Chang relates that the retailer raised the top price of its goods to 99.99 cents from 99 cents two years ago due to inflation and higher costs. Ms. Chang notes that because U.S. currency makes it impossible to pay 99.99 cents for an item, shoppers are essentially paying $1 plus tax at the cash register. "If they call themselves 99 Cents Only, it should be 99 cents," Dan Callahan, an Orange County lawyer, told LA Times. "We had a survey done before we filed the lawsuit to see how many people thought they were paying 99 cents, and it was just about unanimous that nobody realized that they were paying more than 99 cents. The people who go to that store are typically lower income or seniors, so the people they're taking advantage of are the ones least able to discern the difference and least able to afford it." According to Ms. Chang, the lawsuits are asking for unspecified monetary compensation and contend that 99 Cents Only should have been more clear in its advertising; and a judge will decide whether the cases can proceed as class-action suits. Eric Schiffer, chief executive of 99 Cents Only, told LA Times in an interview this week that he didn't believe there was any wrongdoing by the chain, which he said "took every possible effort and avenue to basically bombard the consumer about our increase." "We changed all the signs, we have a large poster in the window of every store explaining the increase, we put it in our ads in the newspaper, we put it on the radio," he told LA Times. "Never mind the fact that the price increase was a very tiny amount, as we all know. So I don't think consumers were misled." ANTONIO FLORES: Recalls 44,900 Karino Baby Pacifiers ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Antonio Flores, of San Ysidro, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 44,900 Karino Baby Pacifiers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The pacifier fails to meet federal safety standards. The nipple can separate from the base easily, the pacifier handle is too long, the mouth guard is too small and there are no ventilation holes on the mouth guard. The pacifier could pose a choking and aspiration hazard to young children. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10305.html No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves pacifiers with a ring-shaped handle and a round-shaped mouth guard. "Karino" is printed on the handle side of the mouth guard, and "Mygra" is printed on one side of the handle. The nipple is filled with corn syrup. The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through independent grocery stores in California and Texas from October 2009 through March 2010 for about 25 cents. Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from children and contact Antonio Flores for a refund or exchange. For additional information, contact Antonio Flores collect at (619) 395-4543 Monday through Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time. AOL LLC: Watchdog Files Brief v. Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ The Center for Class Action Fairness on July 20 filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit its opening brief appealing the approval of a class action settlement against AOL. CCAF focused its appeal from the order issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on the problematic cy pres award in that case: This appeal presents a straightforward application of the Ninth Circuit precedent Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) -- a precedent that the district court entirely failed to apply. For a cy pres award to a third party to be permissible it must actually be "cy pres" -- as near as possible to actual class recovery. Id. at 1308. Here, there was a nationwide class of tens of millions of AOL members allegedly victimized by AOL practices, but the vast majority of the cy pres distribution went to local charities in the Los Angeles and Oklahoma areas; all of the cy pres was entirely unrelated to the class and unrelated to the claims of the case. The potential of cy pres to create conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas for the judiciary have garnered increasing attention in recent years. See, e.g.: -- Adam Liptak, Doling Out Other People's Money, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 26, 2007) (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26bar.html) -- Martin H. Redish, et al., Cy Pres Relief and the Pathologies of the Modern Class Action: A Normative and Empirical Analysis, 62 FLA. L. REV. __ (forthcoming 2010) (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1485047) -- Sam Yospe, Cy Pres Distributions in Class Action Settlements, 2009 COLUMBIA BUS. L. REV. 1014 (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1492105) -- Amanda Bronstad, Cy pres awards under scrutiny, NAT'L L. J. (Aug. 11, 2008) (available at http://is.gd/dyFk0-). If courts are going to countenance cy pres distributions in class actions settlements at all, such distributions must be strictly tethered to the standard of class benefit, lest cy pres become a slush fund for plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, and judges that creates the appearance of impropriety -- or worse, actual impropriety. The problems of potential conflicts of interest are not just a hypothetical concern in the case at bar. Neither the court nor the class was informed of the conflict of interest that one of the plaintiffs was the assistant director of development for one of the cy pres recipients. And yet still another cy pres recipient was a local charity where the spouse of the district court judge sits on the board. It is not exaggerating to say that this case is a poster child for the problem of cy pres abuse: indeed, in a story on the issue, the Wall Street Journal singled out the very settlement in this case as an example. Nathan Koppel, Proposed Facebook Settlement Comes Under Fire, WALL ST. J. (March 2, 2010) (available at http://is.gd/dyl7A-). For both precedential and sound public-policy reasons, this court should reverse the approval of the proposed class action settlement as an abuse of discretion. Parties to the appeal are: ROBERT NACHSHIN; DAWN FAIRCHILD, BRIAN GEERS, LAURENCE GERARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees AOL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee DARREN MCKINNEY, Objector-Appellant APPLE INC: Insists 5-Year AT&T Exclusivity Was Disclosed -------------------------------------------------------- As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 19, 2010, Judge James Ware of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that Apple and AT&T's longstanding iPhone exclusivity deal constitute a monopoly. Brian Heater at PCMag.com reports that Apple has issued a response to the claims of a monopoly. "There was widespread disclosure of [AT&T's] five-year exclusivity and no suggestion by Apple or anyone else that iPhones would become unlocked after two years," the company said. "Moreover, it is sheer speculation -- and illogical -- that failing to disclose the five-year exclusivity term would produce monopoly power." Beyond this, however, the company has refused to address the issue, Mr. Heater notes. The suit, originally filed in 2007, alleges that Apple created a monopoly by misrepresenting the timeframe of the deal it had struck with AT&T. Customers claimed they had purchased the required 2-year contract with AT&T but 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." ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settles "McAnaney" Suit for $7.85 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Astoria Financial Corporation has agreed to settle a suit relating to certain fees charged in connection with mortgage loans made by Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association for $7.85 million, according to the company's July 19, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A class action entitled David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., was commenced in 2004 in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made by Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, the wholly owned banking subsidiary of the company, Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, which, in 1998, was acquired by Astoria Federal, and their related entities. The action relates to certain fees charged in connection with such loans. On June 29, 2010, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the remaining claims in such action in the amount of $7.85 million. The company did not acknowledge any liability in the matter and further indicated that the Agreement is intended to resolve all claims arising from or related to the aforementioned case and is subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement between the parties and its approval by the Court. The Settlement Amount will be recorded in the company's 2010 second quarter. Astoria Financial Corp. -- http://www.astoriafederal.com/-- is the unitary savings and loan association holding company of Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, and its consolidated subsidiaries. Astoria Federal's primary business is attracting retail deposits from the general public and investing those deposits, together with funds generated from operations, principal repayments on loans and securities and borrowings, primarily in one- to-four family mortgage loans, multi-family mortgage loans, commercial real estate loans and mortgage-backed securities. To a lesser degree, Astoria Federal also invests in construction loans, and consumer and other loans, United States government, government agency and government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), securities and other investments permitted by federal banking laws and regulations. BC FERRIES: Settles Class Suit Over 2006 Mishap for C$350,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- Tamara Baluja, writing for The Province, reports that passengers who survived the sinking of the Queen of the North in 2006 have finally settled a class-action lawsuit against B.C. Ferries -- four years after the incident. James Hanson, lawyer for the group, confirmed the details for The Province Wednesday. Mr. Hanson told The Province that the 40 passengers settled for C$350,000 for the entire group, but that only a small fraction will actually go to them, given the C$210,000 in legal costs they must pay first. After the legal fees have been subtracted, the 40 passengers will have to divide C$140,000 among themselves, the report relates. The Province recounts that in the past, B.C. Ferries admitted it was liable for the March 2006 accident when the ferry ran aground off the northern tip of Vancouver Island. Some 99 people were forced to evacuate and two passengers -- Shirley Rosette and Gerald Foisy -- went missing and were later declared dead, the report notes. BP PLC: Charis Moule Seeks Class Status of ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb at LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a participant in BP's US 401(k) plan, Charis Moule, filed a lawsuit against BP PLC and State Street Bank & Trust in U.S. District Court in Chicago on June 28 and is seeking class action status. Also named in the suit as defendants are BP Corp. North America Inc., BP America Inc., BP Corp. North America Inc. Savings Plan Investment Oversight Committee, BP CEO Anthony Hayward, BP America Chairman and President Lamar McKay (also a member of the plan investment oversight committee), and BP America director of trust investments Gregory Williamson, the report adds. Four other members of the BP Savings Plan Investment Oversight Committee were named in the lawsuit, including State Street Bank & Trust, a trustee of the employee savings plan, Mr. Gibb relates. The SSgA investment management arm of the bank also served as the investment manager of the BP stock fund, the report notes. According to Mr. Gibb, the lawsuit contends that as of December 31, 2009, the plan held $2.45 billion of BP American depository shares, amounting to 29% of the total $8.27 billion in plan assets, citing BP's 11-K report filed on June 16. The BP ADS lost more than 50% of their value, falling from $59.88 a share on April 19, the day before the devastating explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, the report states. The defendants in the lawsuit are accused of breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA with regard to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars contained in the company stock option in BP's US 401(k) plan, Mr. Gibb reports. The suit seeks recovery of participant losses and losses sustained by investing in BP ADS instead of other prudent funds within the plan, the report relates. Mr. Gibbs notes that State Street Bank & Trust was a fiduciary of the BP employee plan with independent discretion and authority to liquidate the BP stock fund but it failed to do so. BP PLC: New York & Ohio Pension Funds Seek Lead-Plaintiff Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Brubaker Calkins at Bloomberg News report that the public pension funds of New York and Ohio asked a Louisiana court to appoint them as lead plaintiffs in a securities class-action lawsuit against BP Plc. The company and some officers and director are responsible for the loss in share value since the April explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a complaint in federal court in Lafayette, Louisiana, filed on behalf of BP investors, Bloomberg relates. Bloomberg, citing court papers filed by New York Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Ohio Attorney General Richard A. Cordray, states that the two state pension funds lost $229.4 million in BP investments. The funds asked that similar cases against BP be consolidated with the Ohio and New York plaintiffs as leads, the report adds. They argued that they are the best choice "by virtue of the enormous loss they suffered from their investments in BP as a result of the defendants misconduct," and that "New York and Ohio have an extremely large financial interest in this litigation," Bloomberg relates. According to Bloomberg, BP faces more than 300 lawsuits arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, which set off the worst oil spill in U.S. history, and the lawsuits include scores of proposed class actions filed by commercial fishing companies, beach-front property owners, restaurant owners and environmentalists claiming harm from the drifting oil. The case is Ludlow v. BP Plc, case no. 10-cv-00818 (La. W.D.) BP PLC: Oil Spill Hurt Shrimpers' Health & Employment, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that two new class actions rang in the 3-month anniversary of BP's catastrophic oil spill. Shrimpers claim that BP hires cleanup workers who use their own boats, and that boats as well as the workers get sick from the toxic fumes, and that the decontamination process, which shrimpers have to do on their own, can ruin their boats, killing their careers and the chance of part-time work on the cleanup. And Oklahoma police claim that their pension plan has been gutted by the stock plunge caused by BP's reckless conduct. In their class action in Orleans Parish Court, shrimpers say their employment, their health and their shrimp boats have all been hurt by BP's carelessness. In the shrimpers' class action, John Wuntsell and Kelly Blanchard, co-owners of a boat, say BP hire them for its Vessel of Opportunity Program after the oil spill left them unable to fish for a living. They were put on BP's burn team: they gathered oil to burn and kept watch over its toxic flames. The men say their exposure to fumes at the burn site put them in the hospital. Now they fear long-term illness. And, they say, they had to decontaminate their shrimp boat, which is no longer usable -- killing their career jobs, and the possibility of short- term work on BP's oil spill. Though it is not alleged in the complaint, oil spill workers on the Gulf Coast say that BP preferably -- or only -- hires cleanup workers who have their own boats. The complaint does allege that despite the toxic nature of the cleanup, BP has been "discouraging the use or respirators or other respiratory protective equipment, without considering the respiratory problems and issues faced by crew members, such as John Wunsell Jr." The men say they were exposed to massive quantities of crude oil, crude oil vapors, dispersants and other gases as well as the vapors and fumes from the burning oil. Mr. Wuntsell claims that on may 28, as he was captain aboard the ship "Ramie's Wish," he "became severely ill with a severe headache, nausea and shortness of breath." He also suffered chest pain, nose irritation and a severe rise in blood pressure. He was taken by helicopter to West Jefferson Medical Center in New Orleans, where he was down and decontaminated before being admitted. He is undergoing medical monitoring, which he says will have to continue and will for some time. Mr. Wuntsell says that he and the rest of the class share a "significantly increased" risk of contracting serious disease, including cancers of the scrotum, esophagus, stomach, lungs, intestines, kidneys, bladder, blood (leukemia), lymph glands, skin, brain, breast and larynx. Medical monitoring is conducted to detect early signs of disease. While environmental diseases from toxic exposure are chronic in nature and take years to develop, some diseases can be reversed if detected early, the class says. The plaintiffs seeks classwide court-supervised medical monitoring, and more answers about the chemicals in the oil released from BP's Macondo well, the nature of the chemicals in the dispersants, and the compounds created when the oil mixes with the dispersants. Messrs. Wuntsell and Blanchard add that although they were told that the proper procedure at the end of each shift was to bring the boats inland, to be cleaned of toxic oil and chemicals, neither their boat nor any other shrimp boats owned by the class ever underwent such a procedure shift's end. After working for BP for 3 months near the burn area, the men say, they had to conduct the detoxification process on their own, to remove paint and chemicals from the decks, bow, railings and other equipment. The class of shrimpers is represented by Stephen Herman of New Orleans. Also Tuesday, in Federal Court, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System filed a securities class action that claims their retirement benefits have been gutted by BP's conduct. The securities class action claims that while BP has boasted since 2005 that the Gulf of Mexico is a spectacular source of oil, it has "completely failed to disclose that its operations were being conducted in a highly reckless manner, as it lacked any legitimate plan to respond to an oil spill from its drilling activities in the region." "Exacerbating the probability that BP's inadequate spill response would actually be relied upon to respond to a sizable spill, BP has for years maintained a corporate culture where adherence to safety protocols and environmental laws were ignored in favor of profits." All talk about safety but no action, is the gist of the 47-page complaint, which continues: "BP's culture of placing profits over the safety of its employees and the protection of the environment led to a 2005 explosion in Texas City, Texas which led to the deaths of 15 people and two oil spills in Alaska in 2006. In both cases, BP pled guilty to criminal violations and subsequently assured investors that safety would be a guiding principle of the Company's operations. The Company's public statements routinely detailed the specific steps taken by BP to reform its culture while reducing the possibility that lapses leading to the disaster in Texas City and Alaska would be repeated in the future." The class is represented by Eric Nowak of New Orleans. In other oil spill news, while BP is the world's second-largest oil company, The Wall Street Journal reported that it is the largest supplier of oil to the Pentagon. Perhaps even more significant, on the 3-month anniversary of BP's catastrophe, was that China has surpassed the United States in oil consumption. The International Economic Agency, based in Paris, reported that China consumed 2.25 billion tons of oil in 2009, just a bit more than the United States' 2.17 billion tons. China, whose population is 4 times that of the United States, denied the report, according to the Financial Times. A copy of th Complaint in Wunstell, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2010-7437 (La. Civ. Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/21/BPCAShrimper.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen J. Herman, Esq. James C. Klick, Esq. Soren E. Gisleson, Esq. HERMAN HERMAN KATZ & COTLAR LLP 820 O'Keefe Ave. New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: 504-581-4892 E-mail: sherman@hhkc.com - and - James Parkerson Roy, Esq. Elwood Stevens, Esq. DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY & EDWARDS 556 Jefferson St., Suite 500 P.O. Box 3668 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: 337-233-3033 E-mail: jimr@wrightroy.com - and - Jonathan B. Andry, Esq. THE ANDRY LAW FIRM, LLC 610 Baronne St. New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: 504-586-8899 E-mail: johnandry@yahoo.com BRIDGESTONE ASSOCIATES: Accused of Rent Overcharges --------------------------------------------------- Asher Laub and Chana Etengoff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bridgestone Associates LLC, Case No. 651030/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 20, 2010), accuses Bridgestone of wrongfully charging market rate rents for their rental units, instead of rent stabilized rents, even as it has been receiving real estate tax benefits under New York City's J-51 property tax abatement/exemption program for approximately the past 12 years. Plaintiffs Laub and Etengoff are residential tenants residing in Apartment 3E at 640 Fort Washington Avenue in City of New York, which is owned by defendant Bridgestone. Plaintiffs relate that as a result of Bridgestone's acts, they have been "priced-out" of their apartments and forced to vacate their apartment units. Plaintiffs explain that as a condition to receiving J-51 tax benefits for residential buildings, units in the tax lot which is receiving tax benefits under the J-51 program are required by law to be subject to the Rent Stabilization Law during the period in which tax benefits are being received. Plaintiffs seek money damages and attorney's fees for the rent overcharges imposed and collected by Bridgestone, as well as other relief. The Plaintiffs are represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: NYJG@aol.com CCA INDUSTRIES: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on Sept. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court authorized a legal notice in an attempt to contact anyone who purchased (for personal use) any of these Mega-T dietary supplements -- Mega-T Ultra, Mega-T Plus, Mega-T Effervescent, Mega-T Green Tea Dietary Supplement and/or Mega-T Dietary Supplement -- between September 29, 2005, and June 9, 2010, and who lives in the United States. CCA Industries, Inc., maker of that line of supplements, has set aside a $2,500,000 Common Fund to settle the Mega-T brand Weight Loss Products Class Action Lawsuit. More details are available at: http://www.Mega-Tsettlement.com/ The lawsuit was officially brought by Denise Wally, et al. and claims that CCA Industries, Inc., made improper statements in its labeling and advertising of the Mega-T Ultra, Mega-T Plus, Mega-T Effervescent, Mega-T Green Tea Dietary Supplement and/or Mega-T Dietary Supplement products. The legal settlement does not mean that CCA did anything wrong. In fact, CCA has denied any wrongdoing whatsoever, and is settling the case only to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further legal action. Anyone who purchased any of the five Mega-T products should go to http://www.Mega-Tsettlement.com/for fast, free information about this case and to submit a claim. The Court has preliminarily appointed the law firm of Milstein, Adelman, & Kreger, LLP to represent the Class as Plaintiffs' Lead Class Counsel. In addition to submitting a claim form to ask for payment, consumers can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement. Claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than September 2, 2010. The deadline for exclusions and objections is September 2, 2010. The Court will hold a settlement fairness hearing on September 20, 2010. CHICAGO: Cook Cty. Ct. Certifies Suit Over Amusement Tax on PSLs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duaa Eldeib at Chicago Breaking Sports reports that Cook County Judge Alexander White issued a 17-page ruling on July 16 certifying class-action status of a lawsuit aimed at recovering more than $10 million from the city of Chicago. The lawsuit is centered on whether the city can impose and collect an amusement tax on those permanent seat licenses, or PSLs, the report relates. According to Chicago Breaking Sports, 10 people and an automotive parts company filed the suit last year on behalf of thousands of permanent and former PSL holders. The report explains that as a way to pay for the renovation of Soldier Field, the Chicago Bears began in 2002 selling the licenses -- for anywhere between $900 and $10,000 per seat -- that allow owners to buy season tickets for certain seats. Chicago Breaking Sports notes that in his ruling, Judge White wrote that PSLs give holders the right "to purchase tickets which would then give the ticket purchaser the right to witness an amusement," and the city already taxes the tickets. The city claims that PSLs themselves are part of an entertainment package that warrant the amusement tax, the report adds. The report relates that the Bears initially paid the city a 7% amusement tax on the sales of the PSLs in late 2002 and early 2003. Last year, when the amusement tax was raised to 9 percent, the city attempted to collect the taxes from about 2,900 people on PSLs they had reason to believe were sold or transferred -- some as many as six years ago, the report states. The proposed class includes the estimated 2,900 who obtained their PSLs after the initial sale and the 30,000 or so who originally bought them, according to the ruling, Chicago Breaking Sports states. CITIMORTGAGE INC: Sued for Failing to Comply with HAMP Obligations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Betancourt and Pedro Betancourt, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03168 (N.D. Calif. July 20, 2010), accuses the international financial conglomerate of failing to comply with its obligations under the Home Affordable Modification and failing to comply with contracts it has directly with Plaintiffs to modify mortgages to make them more affordable and sustainable. Plaintiffs say that between and November 2008, defendant Citigroup, Inc. accepted $45 billion in funds from the United States government as part of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. By accepting this payment, Citigroup agreed that it would participate in one or more programs that TARP authorized the Secretary of the Treasury Department to establish in order to minimize foreclosures. Consistent with its TARP mandate, the Treasury implemented the HAMP, a detailed program designed to stem the foreclosure crisis by providing affordable mortgage loan modifications and other alternatives to foreclosure to eligible borrowers. Companies that accepted money under TARP are subject to mandatory inclusion in HAMP. Plaintiffs allege that Citigroup has systematically failed to comply with the terms of the HAMP directives and has regularly and repeatedly violated its rules and prohibitions. Plaintiffs say that eligible homeowners (whose loans are serviced by Citigroup), who have entered into trial modifications and performed their obligations under the contracts by submitting the required documentation and making timely payments, have not received the permanent loan modifications. Instead, Citigroup has delayed or avoided permanently modifying the loans that it services. For example, fees that Citigroup charges its borrowers who are in default and unpaid interest are often added to the principal of the loan, thereby increasing the balance on the pools of loans Citigroup services and the fees it charges to the holders of the loans, such that individual borrowers end up worse off than they were before they sought a modification from Citigroup. Plaintiffs add that Citigroup's acts also violate California law. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Sturdevant, Esq. Whitney Huston, Esq. THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 477-2410 E-mail: jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com whuston@sturdevantlaw.com - and - Maeve Elise Brown, Esq. Elizabeth S. Letcher, Esq. Noah Zinner, Esq. Cynthia Singerman, Esq. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1040 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 271-8443 E-mail: melisebrown@heraca.org eletcher@heraca.org nzinner@heraca.org csingerman@heraca.org CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Ottawa Court Certifies Pevets Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- James Proffitt, a staff writer at thenews-messenger.com, reports that an Oak Harbor man's lawsuit over a magazine subscription was recently certified as a class action by Ottawa County Common Pleas Court. Michael Pevets, a subscriber to AW, formerly known as AutoWeek, filed the suit in October because he was dissatisfied with changes made by Crain Communications, the Detroit-based publisher of AW, according to attorney Dennis Murray Jr., Mr. Proffitt relates. According to the report, the magazine, published weekly and delivered to subscribers' homes up until January 2009, caters to car, truck and SUV enthusiasts and features racing coverage, industry news, product and performance reviews and other auto- related material. But in January 2009, a letter to subscribers published in the magazine announced AutoWeek would become AW and would be a twice-monthly publication with more pages, larger photos, new features and an expanded and up-to-the-minute Web site, the report notes. According to the lawsuit, AutoWeek has about 300,000 subscribers, each of whom paid about $39 for one-year subscriptions. That's $11.9 million, Mr. Murray said, although factoring in complimentary subscriptions, discounts and other factors, the figure is probably slightly less, the report notes. That means, according to Mr. Murray, a maximum aggregate of about $5.9 million was deprived from subscribers, Mr. Proffitt relates. Mr. Proffitt reports that attorneys for the publisher said Pevets' suit should be thrown out for several reasons, including the fact he waited so long after the change to complain. "After the redesign took effect," Detroit attorney Robert M. Jackson wrote in response to questions submitted by The News-Messenger, "he did not complain or object in any way." Attorneys for Crain appealed Ottawa County Common Pleas Judge Bruce Winters' decision to allow class-action status and have asked the Ohio Court of Appeals to dismiss the suit, and a decision is pending, Mr. Proffitt relates. DJSP ENTERPRISES: Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris File Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed by the Cincinnati law firms of Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of DJSP Enterprises, Inc., between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive, and who suffered damages as a result. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DJSP and certain of its officers and/or directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a result the stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On March 16, 2010, DJSP informed the investing community that ". . . there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that we anticipate to go for another two or three years . . . . foreclosure volumes through 2012 are expected to increase dramatically." Then on May 27, 2010, DJSP shocked the market when it lowered its guidance for adjusted net income by $15 to $17 million and for adjusted EBIDTA by $18 to $22 million. On this news, the Company's shares fell nearly 29%, opening on May 28, 2010 at $6.33 per share. DJSP indicated that the lowered guidance was a result of (i) the foreclosure system conversion of one of its largest bank clients which resulted in a reduction in the referral of foreclosure files; and (ii) a temporary slowdown in foreclosures due to governmental intervention programs. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased DJSP common stock during the Class Period. If you purchased common stock between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, you may, no later than October 20, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of the class members. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that you meet certain legal requirements. Contact: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. Thomas P. Glass, Esq. STRAUSS & TROY 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: 800-669-9341 E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com tpglass@strausstroy.com - and - Melinda Nenning, Esq. STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH 3700 Carew Tower 441 Vine Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: 513-345-8181 Ext. 3095 E-mail: mnenning@statmanharris.com ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Municipality of Aguazul ----------------------------------------------------- Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Municipality of Aguazul, Tauramena. The suit is an administrative proceeding of the Solidarity Contribution Fund to the electricity self-taxation. No additional information was disclosed in the company's July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining, and marketing and supply. Ecopetrol's exploration and production business segment includes exploration, development and production activities in Colombia and abroad. It conducts exploration and production activities directly and through joint ventures with third parties. Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other refined products, excluding natural gas. ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Arauca Municipality ------------------------------------------------- Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Municipality of Arauca. The lawsuit relates to contributions to the solidarity and redistribution of income fund as a consequence of the generation of electricity, according to the Law 142 of 1994. No additional information was disclosed in the company's July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining, and marketing and supply. Ecopetrol's exploration and production business segment includes exploration, development and production activities in Colombia and abroad. It conducts exploration and production activities directly and through joint ventures with third parties. Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other refined products, excluding natural gas. ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Dept. of Tolima Over Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------ Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Department of Tolima. The lawsuit relates to the recalculation of royalties with 20% specified in Law 141 of 1994. No additional information was disclosed in the company's July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining, and marketing and supply. Ecopetrol's exploration and production business segment includes exploration, development and production activities in Colombia and abroad. It conducts exploration and production activities directly and through joint ventures with third parties. Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other refined products, excluding natural gas. ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit Over Guando Well Royalties ----------------------------------------------------- Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Municipality of Melgar. The Municipality is requesting the recovery to the Department of Tolima of the amounts not collected regarding royalties corresponding to the Guando well. No additional information was disclosed in the company's July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining, and marketing and supply. Ecopetrol's exploration and production business segment includes exploration, development and production activities in Colombia and abroad. It conducts exploration and production activities directly and through joint ventures with third parties. Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other refined products, excluding natural gas. JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Agrees to Settles Suit for $1.3 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Convertibles, Inc., has reached a preliminary settlement resolving a putative class action for $1.3 million, according to the company's July 19, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 29, 2010. On July 16, 2009, a complaint styled as a putative class action was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California by an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of the California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 1174, 1198 and 2802, violations of Section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code and violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Such alleged violations include, among other things, failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse certain expenses, failure to provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor related complaints. Before engaging in discovery and extensive pre-trial proceedings, the parties participated in an early mediation. The plaintiff offered to settle for 20% of the company's outstanding common stock in an amount guaranteed to be worth at least $2,000,000 on the date of distribution. If the value of the stock as of the date of distribution is less than $2,000,000 we would distribute cash to make up the difference between the value of the stock and $2,000,000. In addition, the company would pay $400,000 over a five-year period. During November 2009, the company proposed a counter- offer for $300,000 in cash over a five-year period, with $100,000 to be paid up front and the balance to be secured by the company's assets, and between 600,000 and 800,000 shares of stock. The number of shares to be issued would be shares sufficient to reach a value of $1,000,000 as of the time of issuance, subject to a cap of 800,000 shares and a minimum distribution of 600,000 shares, regardless of the actual value at the time of issuance. The plaintiff rejected our counter offer but made a new proposal, which included the stock component proposed by us, but increased the cash component to a total of $1,500,000 paid in equal installments over a five-year period, with $300,000 to be paid up front and the balance to be secured. The company has determined that it is probable that the company has some liability. Based on the offer and counter offer, the company estimates the liability ranges between $1,300,000 and $2,500,000 with no amount within that range a better estimate than any other amount. There is no assurance, notwithstanding the proposals, that the litigation will be settled or, if settled, that it will be settled within the parameters of the two offers. On June 18, 2010, the parties attended a court ordered settlement conference and reached a preliminary settlement. The total classwide settlement was for $1.3 million with $300,000 due in escrow by Aug. 17, 2010, and the remainder due Jan. 15, 2011, or as soon thereafter as the court approves the final settlement. Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. -- http://www.jenniferfurniture.com/ -- is an owner and licensor of a group of sofa bed specialty retail stores and leather specialty retail stores in the United States, with stores located throughout the Eastern seaboard, in the Midwest, on the West Coast and in the Southwest. As of Aug. 30, 2008, its stores included 157 Jennifer Convertibles stores and 14 Jennifer Leather stores. Of these 171 stores, the company owned 149 and licensed 22, including 21 owned and operated by a related private company, the related company, and one owned by a third party operated by the related company. Its operations are classified into two operating segments: Jennifer and Ashley. The Jennifer segment owns and licenses the sofabed specialty retail stores. The Ashley segment is a big box, full-line home furniture retail store. LOWER MERION: Wants Bid for Class Status in Webcam Case Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ilgenfritz at Main Line Media News reports that attorneys for the Lower Merion School District filed documents in hopes of convincing a judge not to certify a webcam case as a class-action suit. Mr. Ilgenfritz notes that after more than a month of judicially approved delays, the court papers were filed shortly before the judge's July 16 deadline. According to the report, attorneys from Ballard Spahr argued that "class certification is unnecessary and unwarranted," and that "the pending equitable claims can be fully resolved simply by making permanent the interim relief that the court has already entered and that the district has already put into effect in any event." Mr. Ilgenfritz relates that attorneys for Blake Robbins filed suit in February claiming the district used the student-issued computers to spy on Mr. Robbins and his family at home. The district has since admitted that it used security-tracking software that could snap webcam images and take a screenshot of a computer, the report adds. As of July 20, there was no indication of when Judge Jan DuBois would rule on the class-action status, the report states. OAKLAND, CA: City Council OKs $6.5MM Payment to Settle Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Henry K. Lee at the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Oakland City Council voted Tuesday night to pay $6.5 million to more than 100 people -- some of them drug suspects -- who said their homes were searched by officers who obtained search warrants by providing false information to judges. According to the Chronicle, the payouts -- of which $4.5 million will be paid by the city's insurance carrier -- bring to an end two federal civil rights lawsuits filed by individuals who said a group of officers lied to judges when they stated on affidavits that substances they seized as suspected drugs had been confirmed by police laboratories as narcotics, when in fact they had not been. Mr. Lee relates that some of the plaintiffs were drug suspects, but others were not, according to their attorneys, John Burris, Esq., and Jim Chanin, Esq., who filed a class-action lawsuit against the city alleging warrant irregularities for several years ending in 2008. Many people, predominantly African American residents in East and West Oakland, "had their homes and lives torn apart by the malicious and fraudulent actions of OPD officers, and a large number of the class members were totally innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with illegal narcotics trafficking or other criminal activities," the attorneys wrote in court papers, Mr. Lee notes. Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at: John L. Burris, Esq. Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California - and - James B. Chanin, Esq. 3050 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley, California T.G.I. FRIDAY'S: Accused in N.Y. of Violating Minimum Wage Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that T.G.I. Friday's paid waiters, busboys and food service workers less than minimum wage and stiffed them on 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. TOWERS WATSON: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Towers Watson & Co.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated action remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's July 19, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 1, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., and Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., combined their businesses through two simultaneous mergers and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently changed its name to Towers Watson & Co. Since the consummation of the Merger, Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson Pennsylvania Inc.; and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers Watson Delaware Holdings Inc. Dugan Action Earlier, on Dec. 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of Towers Perrin -- the Dugan Action. Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December 8, 2009, and in writing on Dec. 9, 2009, sought a payment of $800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class. Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt. The complaint was filed on Nov. 5, 2009, against Towers Perrin, members of its board of directors, and certain members of senior management in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in this action are former members of the Towers Perrin's senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between 1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on or after Jan. 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specified criteria. Pao Action On Jan. 15, 2010, a former company shareholder who separated from service with the company in March 2005 when Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the creation of eHRO, commenced a separate legal proceeding -- the Pao Action -- in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action. The company contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions (TPAS) business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of eHRO. Pao seeks to represent a class of former company shareholders who separated from service in connection with the company's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who are excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action. The complaint in this action also names Towers Watson & Co. as defendant. Individual Actions On Dec. 17, 2009, four former company shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left the company in May or June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding -- the Allen Action -- in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action. These plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and do not seek to represent a proposed class. Pursuant to the company's bylaws in effect at the time of their separations, the company shares held by each of these plaintiffs were redeemed by the Company at book value at the time these individuals separated from employment. The complaints allege variously that there was a promise that the company would remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receive compensation (Allen and Pao Actions). Plaintiffs allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to the company at book value upon retirement, they and other members of the putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which they claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the Merger between the company and Watson Wyatt. The complaints assert claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi- contract/unjust enrichment, and constructive trust, and seeks equitable relief including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and the imposition of a constructive trust. On Jan. 20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all purposes. On Feb. 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints in their entireties. The motion remains pending. Towers Watson -- http://www.towerswatson.com/-- is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk and financial management. With 14,000 associates around the world, we offer solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent management, rewards, and risk and capital management. TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY: Accused in D.C. of Ethnic Cleansing -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action on behalf of 170,000 displaced Cypriots and their heirs accuses the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus of "religious and ethnic cleansing" through illegal force and occupation. Among other things, they want co-defendant HSBC Bank restrained from transacting any business with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or concerning property in Northern Cyprus, in D.C. Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Fiouris, et al. v. The Turkish Cypriot Community, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01225 (D. D.C.) (Friedman, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/21/Cyprus.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq. TSIMPEDES LAW FIRM 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-772-3159 E-mail: athan@tsimpedeslaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *