/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100804.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 152 Headlines AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey AETNA INC: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending BELINDA FRANCOIS: Marked-Up Commissary Prices in Excess of Limits COMCAST CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Remains Pending COMCAST CORP: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Dismissal of Suit Pending COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn. COMCAST CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $5 Million COMMSCOPE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in N.C. ENBRIDGE INC: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill NEXCEN BRANDS: Faces Suit on Planned Sale of Franchise Business ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends 3 Suits Over Planned Gentiva Merger PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit in Israel for Overcharging PHARMAPRIX: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Optimum Points Card SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Holds Denial of Certification Request SOLUTIA INC: Flexsys Unit Defends Suit Over Dioxin Exposure SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal in ERISA Suit Still Pending SPI ELECTRICITY: Law Firms Confirm Class Action Will Continue STERLING EQUITIES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Losses TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga. TOTAL CABLE: Sued for Violations of Illinois Wage and Hour Laws UNITED CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Failing to Pay Prevailing Wage Rates WELLPOINT INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Preliminary Approval WELLPOINT INC: Defends "Gold" Suit After Court Reversal Ruling WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Ormond" Suit WELLPOINT INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Mell" Suit Remains Pending WELLPOINT INC: "Jorling" Suit Over AICI Demutualization Pending WELLPOINT INC: Remains a Defendant in OON Reimbursement Suit WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif. XENOPORT INC: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws XENOPORT INC: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action Lawsuit in Calif. ********* AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc. continues to defend the matter In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is named as a defendant in several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of the company's practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its members by health care providers with whom the company does not have a contract ("out-of-network providers"). Other major health insurers are also the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation. Among other things, these lawsuits allege that the company paid too little to its health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of the company's use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the company's competitors. Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to the company's members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in the company's health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of its members who received services from out- of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the company violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by a health plan member and by out-of-network providers. The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020. In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. Discovery has commenced in MDL 2020, and the court has not set a trial date. Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health care benefits company. Its offers a range of traditional and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services, including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities and health care management services for Medicaid plans. Aetna's customers include employer groups, individuals, college students, part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units, government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates. It operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and Large Case Pensions. In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP) business to the company. In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna, Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services, LLC. AETNA INC: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal on the dismissal of a consolidated complaint against Aetna Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Two purported class action lawsuits were pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Aetna and certain of its current or former officers and/or directors. On Oct. 24, 2007, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed suit on behalf of all purchasers of Aetna common stock between Oct. 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. The second lawsuit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007, by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock between July 28, 2005 and July 27, 2006. On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint in the Pennsylvania Federal Court on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 27, 2005 and July 27, 2006. The consolidated complaint supersedes and replaces the two previous complaints. The plaintiffs allege that Aetna and four of its current or former officers and/or directors, John W. Rowe, M.D., Ronald A. Williams, Alan M. Bennett and Craig R. Callen, violated federal securities laws. The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and omissions regarding, among other things, our medical benefit ratios and health plan pricing practices, as well as insider trading by Dr. Rowe and Messrs. Bennett and Callen. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies. On June 9, 2009, the Pennsylvania Federal Court granted Aetna's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 7, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Federal Court's order dismissing the consolidated complaint. On Feb. 11, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals conducted oral arguments on the plaintiff's appeal. Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health care benefits company. Its offers a range of traditional and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services, including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities and health care management services for Medicaid plans. Aetna's customers include employer groups, individuals, college students, part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units, government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates. It operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and Large Case Pensions. In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP) business to the company. In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna, Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services, LLC. BELINDA FRANCOIS: Marked-Up Commissary Prices in Excess of Limits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Giancana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Belinda Francois, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-32773 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 29, 2010), accuses the Francois Parties of forcing inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections to pay commissary prices exceeding the statutory limits imposed by the Illinois legislature. Mr. Giancana, an IDOC inmate assigned to the Vandalia (Illinois) Correctional Center from 2007 until March 2009, explains that the law allows prisons to mark-up commissary items to recover the costs of operating the commissary (up to 25% for non-tobacco items and 35% for tobacco items). Mr. Giancano says IDOC has evaded these statutory limits by first marking-up commissary prices by the amount it costs to operate the commissary and then applying the second mark-up of 25% or 35%, as the case may be, on top. Defendants Belinda Francois, the Business Manager of the Vandalia Correctional Center, is being sued in her personal and official capacities. Mr. Giancana says that in 2008 and 2009, he purchased non-tobacco commissary items that were marked-up more than 25%, but when he complained, IDOC responded by saying that the Vandalia Correctional Center commissary pricing was "in accordance with Department [IDOC] Policy." The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Daniel Twetten, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 312 North May St., Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 COMCAST CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corporation's appeal on the class certification ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remains pending, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is a defendant in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is the company's customer base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages. Classes of Philadelphia Cluster and Chicago Cluster customers were certified in May 2007 and October 2007, respectively. In March 2009, as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision clarifying the standards for class certification, the order certifying the Philadelphia Cluster class was vacated without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a new motion. In January 2010, in its decision on the plaintiffs' new motion, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class subject to certain limitations. In June 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted the company's petition for an interlocutory appeal from the class certification decision. In March 2010, the company moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster; the summary judgment motion is stayed pending the class certification appeal. The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims. Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and communications services to residential and commercial customers. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high- speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The company operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable systems in the United States. The Cable segment also includes the operations of its regional sports networks. The Programming segment consists primarily of its consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style. COMCAST CORP: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Dismissal of Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a purported class action against Comcast Corporation remains pending in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is a defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2007. The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the United States who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and satellite (including the company), which preclude the distributor defendants from reselling channels to customers on an "unbundled" basis in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its customers on an "unbundled" basis. In October 2009, the Central District of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and communications services to residential and commercial customers. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high- speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The company operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable systems in the United States. The Cable segment also includes the operations of its regional sports networks. The Programming segment consists primarily of its consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style. COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ Comcast Corporation continues to defend a consolidated suit alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is a defendant in 21 purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation, the plaintiffs allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of the company's premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. West Virginia AG's Case The West Virginia Attorney General filed a complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the company improperly "ties" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and restitution. The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multi-district litigation. There were oral arguments in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December 2009 in connection with a motion by the Attorney General to remand the case back to West Virginia state court. In March 2010, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to West Virginia state court. In June 2010, the Attorney General moved to sever and remand the portion of his claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief back to West Virginia state court. The company filed a brief in opposition to the motion in July 2010. Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and communications services to residential and commercial customers. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high- speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The company operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable systems in the United States. The Cable segment also includes the operations of its regional sports networks. The Programming segment consists primarily of its consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style. COMCAST CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $5 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corporation has agreed to settle a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for $5 million, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company and several of its current officers have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February 2008. The potential class comprises participants in our retirement investment (401(k)) plan that invested in the plan's company stock account. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA in managing the plan by allowing participants to continue to invest in the company stock account during a time in 2007 when the company allegedly knew (but had not disclosed) that it would not meet its forecasted results. In July 2010, the parties agreed to settle this action with a payment by the company of $5 million and its agreement to take certain action with respect to the administration of the plans. Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and communications services to residential and commercial customers. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high- speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The company operates in two segments: Cable and Programming. The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable systems in the United States. The Cable segment also includes the operations of its regional sports networks. The Programming segment consists primarily of its consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style. COMMSCOPE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in N.C. --------------------------------------------------------- CommScope Inc., defends a putative class action lawsuit asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The suit was filed on May 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against CommScope and certain current and former officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that during the putative class period, from April 29, 2008 to Oct. 30, 2008, the company made false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its financial condition, specifically by allegedly failing to disclose weakness in its current and future sales prospects in the company's cabinets and apparatus business. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all those who purchased CommScope common stock during the putative class period, and seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. CommScope, Inc. -- http://www.commscope.com/-- provides essential infrastructure that makes communication possible. The company empowers people to connect and communicate seamlessly where, when and how they choose. The company's solutions and services for wired and wireless networks enable high-bandwidth data, video, and voice applications everywhere -- at home, at work, and on the go. Through every wave of technology, CommScope helps the world connect and evolve. Backed by numerous respected brands such as Andrew(R), SYSTIMAX(R) and Uniprise(R), CommScope supports customers in more than 100 countries around the world through its focus on integrity, ethics, quality and technical innovation. ENBRIDGE INC: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill ----------------------------------------------- Sarah Lambert, writing for The Enquirer newspaper in Michigan, reports that Gloria Volstromer went to a hospital emergency room July 24 Saturday afternoon with a rash, a headache and an upset stomach -- all symptoms of overexposure to benzene. The volatile organic compound has been found at unsafe levels along the Kalamazoo River, where the Volstromers live, after a ruptured pipe spewed about 1 million gallons of oil into it last week. Now, Gloria and her husband Eugene are suing Enbridge Inc., the company responsible for the spill. They are plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit filed Friday on behalf of residents affected by the spill. "This is just an outrage at this point," said lawyer Liz Thomson, Esq., at Hertz-Schram P.C. in Bloomfield Hills. Ms. Thomson is one of two lawyers working the case. "People's very basic needs are not being met: fresh air and clean water." On July 26 Monday, the Volstromers' back yard on G. Drive North, along the river southeast of Battle Creek, was flooded to the back porch after heavy rains the week before the spill. "When the water recedes, it's never normally like this," Eugene Volstromer said, pointing toward the plane of swampy, black grass on his property. Mr. Volstromer said he wasn't sure what it would take to get his property back to the way it was before the spill. But the lawsuit is about more than just restoring the river banks. "In addition to just getting back to where they were, people should be compensated for the interference with their property rights," Ms. Thomson said. The suit is intended to represent all residents affected by the spill -- whether they've had to buy water, pay for a hotel or visit a doctor or hospital. It is meant to ensure that residents' properties are returned to their former states and that air and water quality are monitored in the long-term. Enbridge President and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Daniel said Saturday that he had not heard of the lawsuit and could not comment on it. But the company has promised to clean up all traces of the mess. "Companies are motivated by dollars," Ms. Thomson said. "They're still a business. Although they claim at this point that that's what they're going to do, what's really done is not always what needs to be done." After Enbridge is served with the Western District Court lawsuit, it will have 30 days to respond to the claim. Then Ms. Thomson and her partner will begin gathering material and testimony for the case. Residents who are interested in learning more about the lawsuit or having an active role in it can attend a public meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall at 800 Michigan Ave. in Marshall. In the mean time, Mr. Volstromer will take his wife away from home, somewhere that won't make her sick. "I couldn't come back here with her," he said. "It's a slimy mess." Contact: Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM P.C. 1760 South Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 Facsimile: (248) 335-3346 Email: lthomson@hertzschram.com NEXCEN BRANDS: Faces Suit on Planned Sale of Franchise Business --------------------------------------------------------------- NexCen Brands, Inc., faces a purported class action lawsuit in connection with the planned sale of its franchise business to Global Franchise Group, LLC, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company, members of the company's board of directors and management and Global Franchise and its parent entity have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and captioned Soheila Rahbari v. NexCen Brands, Inc., et al., Index No. 651063/2010. The complaint was served on the company on July 26, 2010. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the Company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties of candor, loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing in connection with the proposed sale of the company's franchise business assets to GFG. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the sale of the company's franchise business assets. On July 28, 2010, the company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. NexCen Brands, Inc. is a strategic brand management company with a focus on franchising. It owns a portfolio of franchise brands that includes two retail franchise concepts: TAF(TM) and Shoebox New York(R), as well as five quick service restaurant (QSR) franchise concepts: Great American Cookies(R), MaggieMoo's(R), Marble Slab Creamery(R), Pretzelmaker(R) and Pretzel Time(R). The brands are managed by NexCen Franchise Management, Inc., a subsidiary of NexCen Brands. ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., defends a class action lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime. The company has been named in a collective action lawsuit filed on Jan. 25, 2010, in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division by Bobby Blevins, a former employee, alleging failure to pay overtime to a purported class of similarly situated hourly-paid current and former nurse employees. The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, damages and attorney fees. No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- provides hospice care in the country in terms of both average daily patient census and number of locations. Odyssey seeks to improve the quality of life of terminally ill patients and their families by providing care directed at managing pain and other discomforting symptoms and by addressing the psychosocial and spiritual needs of patients and their families. ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends 3 Suits Over Planned Gentiva Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., defends three suits resulting from its agreement and plan of merger with Gentiva Health Services, Inc., according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The first, filed on May 27, 2010, is captioned Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., et al., Cause No. CC-10-03561-E in the County Court at Law No. 5 in Dallas County, Texas. The second, filed on June 9, 2010, is captioned Eric Hemminger, et al. v. Richard Burnham, et al., Cause No. DC-10-06982, in the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. The third, filed on July 7, 2010, is captioned Hansen v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case 3:10-cv-01305-G in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. All three suits name the company, the members of its board of directors, Gentiva, and Merger Sub as defendants. All three lawsuits are brought by purported stockholders of the company, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, alleging that its board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to maximize stockholder value, and that the company and Gentiva aided and abetted the purported breaches. The Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters suit seeks additional proxy disclosures regarding the Merger. The petitions each seek equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement, and an award of all costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- provides hospice care in the country in terms of both average daily patient census and number of locations. Odyssey seeks to improve the quality of life of terminally ill patients and their families by providing care directed at managing pain and other discomforting symptoms and by addressing the psychosocial and spiritual needs of patients and their families. PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit in Israel for Overcharging ------------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli mobile communications operator, disclosed that it was served on August 1, 2010, with a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class action, filed against Partner in the Central District Court (Petach-Tikva) in Israel. The claim alleges that Partner overcharged its subscribers who were registered to a certain voice discount package, as a result of miscalculating the discount. If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS106 million. Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if any. Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex Corporation Ltd. Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK. Scailex currently operates in two major domains of activity in addition to its holding in Partner: (1) the sole import, distribution and maintenance of Samsung mobile handset and accessories products primarily to the major cellular operators in Israel (2) management of its financial assets. Contact: Mr. Emanuel Avner Chief Financial Officer Telephone: +972-54-7814951 Facsimile: +972-54-7815961 E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il -- or -- Mr. Oded Degany V. P. Corporate Development, Regulation and IRO Telephone: +972-54-7814151 Facsimile: +972-54-7814161 E-mail: oded.degany@orange.co.il PHARMAPRIX: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Optimum Points Card --------------------------------------------------------------- Newstalk radio CJAD reports that a motion to proceed with a class action lawsuit against the Shoppers drug mart chain which includes Pharmaprix has been deposited with Quebec Superior court. The lawsuit is all about the Optimum points card, which gives rebates on store merchandise. Since July 1st, the card has been devalued, meaning you need 1,000 more points for a $10 dollar saving. Petitioner Pierre Gaumond alleges that Pharmaprix modified their cards without advance warning and retroactively. Pharmaprix says all clients were informed via email, although class action lawyer Marie-Anais Sauve says not everyone has an e- mail address. It's still not known the amount of the class action lawsuit, but Ms. Sauve says 10 million Canadians hold cards at 1,200 pharmacies across the country. Contact: Marie-Anais Sauve, Esq. SYLVESTRE FAFARD PAINCHAUD 740 Avenue Atwater Montreal (Quebec), Canada H4C 2G9 Telephone: (514) 937-2881 Facsimile: (514) 937-6529 Email: ma.sauve@sfpavocats.ca SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Holds Denial of Certification Request --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order denying class certification in In re Siegel v. Shell Oil Company, Case No. No. 09-3451 (July 30, 2010). The 7th Circuit notes that Michael Siegel, like many Americans, didn't like the price he was paying for gasoline. So he sued five of the eight largest oil companies. Mr. Siegel moved for class certification, seeking relief under both the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment. The district court denied class certification and entered summary judgment for the defendants. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision. The 7th Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that questions of fact common to class members did not predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The 7th Circuit added that Mr. Siegel failed to show that he was harmed and he fails to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct caused him harm. A copy of the 7th Circuit's decision is available for free at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100730156 SOLUTIA INC: Flexsys Unit Defends Suit Over Dioxin Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------- Flexsys, Solutia Inc.'s subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility. In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a named defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility, which is now closed. The relevant production activities at the facility occurred during Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the facility and well prior to the creation of the Flexsys joint venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was subsequently transferred to us in the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value, medical monitoring and other equitable relief. Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County, West Virginia. The largely identical complaints allege that the residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin particles from the Nitro facility. Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of their alleged damages in their complaints. In 2009, over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named Solutia and Flexsys as defendants. The claims in this matter concern alleged conduct occurring while Flexsys was a joint venture of Solutia and Akzo Nobel, and any potential damages in these cases would be evenly apportioned between Solutia and Akzo Nobel, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading performance materials and specialty chemicals company. The company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer fluid. Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their market segments. With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations. SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination -------------------------------------------------------- Solutia, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit alleging contamination in St. Clair County, Illinois. In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia, Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging the contamination of their property from PCBs, dioxins, furans, and other alleged hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including our W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois). The proposed class is comprised of residents who live within a two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their property. In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009 against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property damages as a result of the same PCB's, dioxins, furans, and other alleged hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget. Moreover, two additional individual lawsuits comprised of claims from eight plaintiffs have been filed in Madison County, Illinois, alleging the plaintiffs suffered illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances. Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement and other defenses available to the company, it believes the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the company on the Putnam County, West Virginia, Escambia County, Florida, and St. Clair and Madison Counties, Illinois litigation against the company is remote and, accordingly, the company has not recorded a loss contingency. No further developements were reported in the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading performance materials and specialty chemicals company. The company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer fluid. Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their market segments. With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations. SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal in ERISA Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the summary judgment in favor of Solutia Inc. on the sole claim against the company's U.S. Employees' Pension Plan, remains pending, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Starting in October 2005, separate purported class action lawsuits were filed by current or former participants in the company's U.S. pension plan, which were ultimately consolidated in September 2006 into a single case. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged three separate causes of action against the U.S. Plan: (1) the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by terminating interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55; (2) the U.S. Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of ERISA; and (3) the U.S. Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age. In September 2007, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' second and third claims, and by consent of the parties, certified a class action against the U.S. Plan only with respect to plaintiffs' claim that the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by allegedly terminating interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55. On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered a summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Plan on the sole remaining claim against the U.S. Plan. The district court entered its final appealable judgment in the case on Sept. 29, 2009, and plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit held oral argument on the appeal in April 2010, and a decision is pending. Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading performance materials and specialty chemicals company. The company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer fluid. Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their market segments. With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations. SPI ELECTRICITY: Law Firms Confirm Class Action Will Continue ------------------------------------------------------------- The New Lawyer reports that the release on August 1, 2010, of the final report from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission has been welcomed by the law firm conducting a major class action against an electricity company it has charged with the disaster. Australian law firms Maurice Blackburn and Oldham Naidoo Lawyers welcomed the release of the final report, confirming the class action would continue. The Maurice Blackburn firm has declined to comment further, but said it is conducting proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd, alleging that inadequate maintenance standards led to the Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire. The fire resulted in 121 deaths, the destruction of 1,244 homes, damage to 530 homes and the devastation of 75,744 hectares of land. In receiving the Final Report the firms said in a combined statement: "We welcome the findings of the Royal Commission, which only strengthen our resolve to pursue compensation for the victims of the Kilmore East bushfire." More than 630 people have signed up to the class action. STERLING EQUITIES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Losses ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that New York Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon was sued on Friday over alleged losses suffered by retirement plan participants at his firm Sterling Equities. The complaint, filed Friday in Manhattan federal court, said Sterling invested $16.2 million, or 92%, of the 401(k) plan's $17.6 million of assets with Bernard Madoff. It accused Mr. Wilpon and two other plan trustees of breaching their fiduciary duties to plan participants by mishandling investments with Mr. Madoff and his firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of plan participants, a number it estimates in the hundreds. There were 267 participants at the start of 2008, the complaint said. Lawyers for the plaintiff and Sterling did not immediately return calls seeking comment. A call to Mr. Wilpon's office was not immediately returned. The complaint was filed by Elyse Goldweber, a New Yorker who said she had $280,420 invested in her late husband's individual 401(k) plan. A majority of this sum was invested directly with Mr. Madoff and has been "wiped out," she said. "While defendant Wilpon has been quoted as claiming that he and his business family are 'fine,' his loyal employees (many of whom had previously been laid off) have lost their retirement savings," apart from some insurance money that "does not come close" to covering losses, the complaint said. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses arising from the defendants' breaches, and other remedies. In October 2009, Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee liquidating Madoff's investment firm, said Mets LP, a team affiliate, withdrew $47.8 million more from Mr. Madoff's firm than it put in. Mr. Picard has been trying to recover money from such former clients, whom he considers "net winners." Mr. Madoff, 72, was arrested on December 11, 2008, and pleaded guilty three months later to running an estimated $65 billion Ponzi scheme. He is serving a 150-year sentence in a North Carolina federal prison. The case is Goldweber v. Sterling Equities Associates, et al., Case No. 10-05786 (S.D.N.Y). TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend Jacobs, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00002 (N.D. Ga.) (Vining, J.), a class-action antitrust proceeding. On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division. The action alleges violations of federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain distributors. The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur- Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25, 2007 based on a motion filed by the company. Then, following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the complaint on July 10, 2007. On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result, judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed. On May 1, 2008, that motion was denied. The Jacobs appealed the dismissal of their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec. 11, 2008. The matter has been taken under advisement by the court. No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Tempur-Pedic International Inc. -- http://www.tempurpedic.com/ -- is a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of mattresses and pillows, which it sells in approximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR and Tempur-Pedic brands. The Company has two operating segments: Domestic and International. The Domestic operating segment consists of United States manufacturing facilities, whose customers include its United States distribution subsidiary and certain third party distributors in the Americas. The International segment consists of its manufacturing facility in Denmark, whose customers include all of the company's distribution subsidiaries and third party distributors outside the Domestic segment. TOTAL CABLE: Sued for Violations of Illinois Wage and Hour Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Thomas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Total Cable Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-32259 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 27, 2010), accuses Total Cable of improperly classifying its technicians as independent contractors, failing to keep true and accurate time records, failing to compensate class members for actual hours worked, making improper deductions from workers' pay for improper charges, and failing to pay overtime, in violation of state wage and hour laws. Mr. Thomas worked as a non-exempt technician for Total Cable, an Illinois corporation with offices located in Chicago. Co- defendants Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC employed the services of Total Cable on a contractual basis to provide cable television services in the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 - and - Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq. Brian D. Massatt, Esq. JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES 431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 939-2100 UNITED CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Failing to Pay Prevailing Wage Rates ------------------------------------------------------------------ Francisco Cortes, Ezequiel Gonzalez, and Nelson Morazan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. United Construction Services of New York, et al., Case No. 109936/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 27, 2010), accuse United Construction of breaching its public works contracts (covering work and services performed on various public works projects contracted by the defendants for the City of New York) by failing to ensure that its workers received the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits for all labor performed at the various project sites, failing to furnish an itemized statement of wages as required by New York Labor Law, and failing to pay overtime. Plaintiffs explains that these prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits were made part of the public works contracts or subcontracts for the benefit of the class members. United Construction is engaged in the construction, demolition and asbestos removal business. Plaintiffs worked for United Construction at various public works projects of the City and State of New York. For the same reasons, Plaintiffs also bring claims against Neelam Construction Corporation, who subcontracted or joint-ventured a portion of its public works contracts with United Construction. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 111 Broadway, 14th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com WELLPOINT INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- An agreement resolving a class action against WellPoint, Inc., alleging wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies, has received preliminary approval from the court, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. In various California state courts, the company is defending a number of individual lawsuits, including one filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney, and one purported class action alleging the wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies. The suits name WellPoint as well as Blue Cross of California, and BC Life & Health Insurance Company, (which name changed to Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company in July 2007), both WellPoint subsidiaries. The lawsuits generally allege breach of contract, bad faith and unfair business practices in a purported practice of rescinding new individual members following the submission of large claims. The parties agreed to mediate most of these lawsuits and the mediation resulted in the resolution of some of these lawsuits. Preliminary approval of the class action settlement was granted on June 3, 2010. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Defends "Gold" Suit After Court Reversal Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend the matter Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al., after the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the trial court, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is currently defending several putative class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs. In the Gold action, cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut. The State appealed this denial to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The company filed a cross-appeal. Oral argument was held in November 2008. On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under sovereign immunity. The company's cross-appeal was dismissed by the Court. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Ormond" Suit ------------------------------------------------ The matter Mary E. Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc,. et al., remains pending, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is currently defending several putative class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs. In the Ormond suit, the company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on March 31, 2008. The Court dismissed the claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law and for unjust enrichment. On Sept. 29, 2009, a class was certified in the Ormond suit. The class consists of all ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut who received cash compensation in connection with the demutualization. The class does not include employers located in Ohio and Connecticut that received compensation under the Plan. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Mell" Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the matter Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al, is pending in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is currently defending several putative class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs. On Nov. 4, 2009, a class was certified in the Mell suit. That class consisted of persons who were employees or retirees who were continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored by the City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001 and Nov. 2, 2001. On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the company's motion for summary judgment. As a result, the Mell suit has been dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: "Jorling" Suit Over AICI Demutualization Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend the matter Jeffrey D. Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al. The company is currently defending several putative class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs. No other information regarding the Jorling Action was disclosed in the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Remains a Defendant in OON Reimbursement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ WellPoint, Inc., remains a defendant in a putative class action relating to Out-of-Network (OON) reimbursement of dental claims called American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Blue Cross of California, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The lawsuit was filed in March 2002 by the American Dental Association, and three dentists who are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to sue on behalf of a nationwide class of all non-participating dental providers who were paid less than their actual charges for dental services provided to WellPoint dental members. The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California and other WellPoint affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively, WellPoint) improperly set usual, customary and reasonable payment for OON dental services based on HIAA/Ingenix data. The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the HIAA/Ingenix databases fail to account for differences in geography, provider specialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure. The complaint further alleges that WellPoint was aware that this data was inappropriate to set usual, customary and reasonable rates. The dentists sue as assignees of their patients' rights to benefits under WellPoint's dental plans and assert that WellPoint breached its contractual obligations in violation of ERISA by routinely paying OON dentists less than their actual charges and representing that its OON payments were properly determined usual, customary and reasonable rates. The suit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The company's motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice to refiling it after additional discovery is conducted. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated complaint relating to out-of-network reimbursement, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement. The cases have been made part of a WellPoint-only multi-district litigation called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc., WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received out-of-network services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges. The plaintiffs in that case allege that the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, and federal regulations by relying on databases provided by Ingenix in determining out-of-network reimbursement. The second lawsuit (AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in March 2009 by the American Medical Association, four state medical associations and two individual physicians on behalf of a putative class of out-of-network physicians. The third lawsuit (Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class action on behalf of all persons or entities who have paid premiums for out-of-network health insurance coverage. The fourth lawsuit (JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in April 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class action on behalf of all persons who have paid premiums for out-of- network health insurance coverage. The fifth lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was brought in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative class action on behalf of all persons who received out-of-network services. The sixth lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of Health v. Blue Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network chiropractor as a putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network chiropractors. The seventh suit (North Peninsula Surgical Center v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network surgical center as a putative class action on behalf of all out- of-network surgical centers. The eighth lawsuit (American Podiatric Medical Association, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association, California Psychological Association and an out-of- network clinical psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of out-of-network podiatrists, chiropractors and psychologists. The ninth lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network providers who are not medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy. The tenth lawsuit (Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of all non-medical doctor health care providers. The eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of all non- medical doctor health care providers. A consolidated complaint has been filed for the eleven cases. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which broadened the allegations in the lawsuit to out-of-network reimbursement methodologies beyond the use of Ingenix. The company relates it intends to file a revised motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. At the end of 2009, the company filed a motion to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy based on prior litigation releases. Plaintiffs recently filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment asking the Court to find that those claims are not barred by the prior litigation releases. Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31, 2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health benefit plans. XENOPORT INC: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bellomo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. XenoPort, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03301 (N.D. Calif. July 28, 2010), accuses the biopharmaceutical company of (i) disseminating misleading and incomplete information about its Phase 3 clinical program for the development stage drug Horizant as a treatment for Restless Legs Syndrome, including that "there was strong evidence of safety and indication that it remained on track, creating opportunity for the Company to raise money," and (ii) concealing negative information that results had shown a risk of pancreatic cancer, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 17, 2010, XenoPort disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declined approval of Horizant as a treatment for RLS. As a result, XenoPort's stock closed at 6.67 per share on February 18, 2010, a one-day decline of 65% on volume of 36.5 million shares, over 16 times the average three-month daily volume. Mr. Bellomo explains that XenoPort's false statements and concealment of adverse facts about Horizant constitute fraud perpetrated upon the purchasers of XenoPort common stock who purchased the stock at inflated prices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis J. Herman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 - and - Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. DYER & BERENS LLP 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 861-1764 XENOPORT INC: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action Lawsuit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP said it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased XenoPort, Inc., common stock between May 5, 2009 and February 17, 2010, inclusive. The complaint charges XenoPort and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than September 27, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764, or via email at jeff@dyerberens.com 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. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants disseminated false and misleading statements to the investing public and concealed negative information related to the prospects for approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a new drug application for an extended-release tablet called Horizant, also known as XP13512, a potential treatment for moderate-to-severe Restless Legs Syndrome. These false, positive statements caused XenoPort stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, until the true facts were eventually revealed, resulting in significant losses to investors. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of XenoPort investors. The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions involving financial fraud. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. For more information about the firm, please go to http://www.DyerBerens.com/ Contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. DYER & BERENS LLP 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (888) 300-3362 (303) 861-1764 Email: jeff@dyerberens.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 * * *