/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100818.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 18, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 162
Headlines
BNB BANK: Sued for Converting Check Deposit Proceeds for Own Use
BLUE SHIELD: Suit Complains About Maternity-Care Coverage
CARDIONET INC: Suit Over IPO/Secondary Offering Pending
CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend Securities Violations Suit
CIT GROUP: Continues to Defend Against NY Securities Class Action
COCA-COLA: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in Delaware
COCA-COLA: Ga. Suit Over Planned Buy of CCE Assets Pending
CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Accused of Selling Fake Pinot Noir
CONVERGYS CORP: To Oppose Appeal Filed by Intervoice Plaintiffs
CUTERA INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit Affirmed
EL PASO CORP.: Continues to Defend "Tomlinson" Suit in Colorado
FACTOR NUTRITION: Removes "Gray" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
FBR CAPITAL: Will Oppose Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Securities Suits in Connecticut Dismissed
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Securities Suit in New York Remains Pending
GLG PARTNERS: Continues Defense v. NY Suits Over Man Group Deal
GLG PARTNERS: Continues Defense v. Del. Suit Over Man Group Deal
IAC/INTERACTIVE CORP: Calif. Suit Alleges Deceptive Practices
INERGY HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Mo. Suit Claims
INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
INVENTIV HEALTH: Will Defend Against 5 Stockholder Suits on Merger
HSBC FINANCE: Appeal to Jaffe Verdict Pending in Seventh Circuit
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Consolidated Antitrust Suit Ongoing
KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Continues Defense v. 3 Class Actions in New York
MONEY TREE: Ga. Suit Complains About Collateral Protection Plans
MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Continues to Defend Alabama Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Barkwell Counterclaim Still Pending
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Freeman Counterclaim Still Pending
SK PARTNERS: Sued for Not Paying Mandated Rate on Security Deposit
SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaiting Summary Judgment in ERISA Case v. Duke
TD AMERITRADE: Talks Continue in Accountholders Litigation
TD AMERITRADE: Motion to Dismiss "Ross" Suit Still Pending
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane Katrina Suit Reinstated
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Continues to Defend Kingston Ash Spill Suits
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Suit v. 6 TVARS Directors Pending in Tennessee
TOWN SPORTS: Two Wage and Overtime Suits Remain Pending in NY
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Continues Defense of Suit v. Comdata
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Can't Estimate Loss in "Hot Fuel" Suits
UTICA NAT'L: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Employees
VISA INC: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
VISA INC: Faces Suit Over Prepaid Gift Cards in California
WELLS FARGO: Ordered to Pay $200 Mil. in Overdraft Fee Suit
WRIGLEY'S: Sued for Falsely Advertising "Eclipse Breeze" Gum
*********
BNB BANK: Sued for Converting Check Deposit Proceeds for Own Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of K.C. Okoli, P.C., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. BNB Bank, Case No. 651228/2010 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty. August 11, 2010), accuses the bank of
withholding the proceeds of check deposits of its customers even
after the proceeds had been collected by the bank, in violation of
New York General Business Law Section 349. The law office says
that BNB converts the proceeds of the checks to its own use
between the time the bank receives the proceeds of the checks and
when it makes said proceeds available to its customers. This
policy of withholding the proceeds of check deposits, the law
office states, without informing its customers, is fraudulent,
deceptive, misleading and improper.
The Plaintiff is a customer of BNB at its branch located at 250
Fifth Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York City. BNB is a
commercial bank doing business in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casilda E. Roper-Simpson, Esq.
Eric P. Schutzer, Esq.
Rudy M. Brown, Esq.
Anthony Ofodile, Esq.
K.C. Okoli, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF K.C. OKOLI, P.C.
330 7th Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (564) 8152
BLUE SHIELD: Suit Complains About Maternity-Care Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------
Chie Akiba at Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Shield of
California rakes in higher insurance premiums by selling men
policies with unnecessary maternity-care coverage, a class claims
in Superior Court.
"Blue Shield's conduct is 'unfair' because Defendant fails to
exclude maternity coverage for individuals who cannot conceivably
use maternity care coverage," says lead plaintiff Al Van Slyke, a
Blue Shield customer.
He says individual insurance policies with coverage for maternity
care can have up to 30 percent higher premiums "than the identical
policy without maternity care coverage."
"Blue Shield routinely sells individual health insurance policies
that include maternity care coverage without informing its insured
that an identical policy without maternity care coverage is
available for substantially lower premiums," the lawsuit states.
Mr. Van Slyke says Blue Shield sells the maternity-care plans to
single men, older couples and others "with the knowledge that the
increased premiums it collects will be pure profit."
Class members seek restitution and disgorgement for the alleged
violations of California's business and professions code and
negligence. They also demand an order barring Blue Shield from
selling policies with maternity-care coverage to male customers.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Kabateck, Esq.
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER
644 South Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-217-5000
CARDIONET INC: Suit Over IPO/Secondary Offering Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint in connection with CardioNet,
Inc.'s IPO and/or Secondary Offering on Aug. 6, 2008, remains
pending, according to the company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On March 5, 2010, West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, San
Diego County asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against
CardioNet, nine current and former officers and directors of
CardioNet and six underwriters of CardioNet's IPO and/or
Secondary Offering on Aug. 6, 2008.
The complaint filed March 5, 2010 also asserted claims for alleged
violations of Sections 25401 and 25501 of the California
Corporations Code against defendants James M. Sweeney and Fred
Middleton. The plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
CardioNet pursuant and/or traceable to the Offerings.
On March 10, 2010, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that
deleted the claims for violations of the California Corporations
Code. The claims are based on purported misrepresentations and
omissions in the Registration Statements for the Offerings
relating to alleged business decisions made by CardioNet that were
supposedly not disclosed to investors and alleged misstatements
concerning CardioNet's business.
On April 5, 2010, all defendants removed the case to the Southern
District of California, where it is pending. On April 7, 2010,
defendants filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On April 23, 2010, the plaintiff moved
to remand the case to state court. On May 19, 2010, the court
ordered that defendants' response to the complaint will be due 21
days after the order on the Motion to Remand. On May 28, 2010,
defendants filed their opposition to the Motion to Remand, and
plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On June
14, 2010, plaintiff filed its reply in support of the Motion to
Remand, and on June 18, 2010, defendants' reply in support of the
Motion to Transfer was filed.
On June 21, 2010, the court found the motions suitable for
disposition on the written motions submitted by the parties
without oral argument.
CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- provides
continuous, real-time ambulatory outpatient management solutions
for monitoring relevant and timely clinical information regarding
an individual's health. The Company is focused on the diagnosis
and monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders,
through its core Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT), event
and Holter services. The company's CardioNet Monitoring Center
provides analysis and response for all incoming electrocardiogram
(ECG) data. The company provides all cardiac arrhythmia
monitoring services for mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT)
at this location. The company has developed an ambulatory,
continuous and real-time arrhythmia monitoring solution that
represents advancement over event and Holter monitoring. In
addition to MCOT, the Company offers event and Holter monitoring
services. It provides cardiologists and electrophysiologists who
prefer to use a single source of arrhythmia monitoring services.
CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend Securities Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suit alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to
the company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.
Commencing on Aug. 26, 2009, two putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania naming CardioNet, Inc., Randy Thurman and Martin P.
Galvan as defendants and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between April 30,
2009 and June 30, 2009 and between April 30, 2009 and July 10,
2009.
The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.
The complaints further allege that the alleged misstatements were
revealed to the public on June 30, 2009 and July 10, 2009 when the
company made certain announcements regarding potential lower
pricing for commercial and Medicare reimbursement rates.
These actions were consolidated on Sept. 9, 2009 under docket
number 09-3894.
On Oct. 26, 2009, two competing motions were filed for appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the requirements
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On Dec. 22, 2009, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, but denied
its request for appointment of lead counsel and required lead
plaintiff to file an amended motion for approval of its selection
of class counsel.
Lead Plaintiff filed their amended motion for appointment of lead
counsel on Jan. 15, 2010, was granted on Feb. 3, 2010.
Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Feb. 19, 2010, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
March 26, 2010.
Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 30, 2010.
On May 13, 2010, defendants moved for leave to file a reply brief,
which motion was granted and the reply brief was filed May 20,
2010.
CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- provides
continuous, real-time ambulatory outpatient management solutions
for monitoring relevant and timely clinical information regarding
an individual's health. The Company is focused on the diagnosis
and monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders,
through its core Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT), event
and Holter services. The company's CardioNet Monitoring Center
provides analysis and response for all incoming electrocardiogram
(ECG) data. The company provides all cardiac arrhythmia
monitoring services for mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT)
at this location. The company has developed an ambulatory,
continuous and real-time arrhythmia monitoring solution that
represents advancement over event and Holter monitoring. In
addition to MCOT, the Company offers event and Holter monitoring
services. It provides cardiologists and electrophysiologists who
prefer to use a single source of arrhythmia monitoring services.
CIT GROUP: Continues to Defend Against NY Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc.'s obligation to defend and indemnify its former
Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer and
former Controller and members of its current and former Board of
Directors in a consolidated securities class action continues,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
The company was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated
securities class action in November 2009.
In July and August 2008, putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders
against CIT, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former
Chief Financial Officer.
In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units
against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and
members of its current and former Board of Directors.
In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder
actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca &
Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which
consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred
stock from December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly
were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock
pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred
stock.
In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, it is alleged
that the company, its former CEO, CFO, former Controller, and a
former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by
allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding CIT's subprime home lending and student lending
businesses.
The allegations relating to the company's student lending
businesses are based upon the assertion that the company failed
to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the
preferred stockholders, its registration statement and
prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot
training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be
repaid and should have been written off.
The allegations relating to the Company's home lending business
are based on the assertion that the company failed to fully
disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime
mortgage loans.
The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the company, its former CEO,
former CFO and former Controller and those current and former
Directors of the Company who signed the registration statement in
connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering
violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's student lending business.
Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT
Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated
securities action. On June 10, 2010, the Court denied the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The action will continue as to the remaining defendants
and CIT's obligation to defend and indemnify such defendants
continues. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified
damages and interest. CIT believes the allegations in these
complaints are without merit.
CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing
assets that provides financial products and advisory services to
small and middle market businesses.
COCA-COLA: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint filed against The Coca-Cola Company in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware relating to its
planned acquisition of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.'s North American
operations remains pending.
Shortly following the announcement of the proposed transaction
whereby the company will acquire CCE's North American operations,
purported shareowners of CCE filed five substantially identical
putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against CCE, the members of the Board of
Directors of CCE and the company.
These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one action
styled In Re CCE Shareholders Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No.
5291-VCN).
On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
On April 15, 2010, the company filed its answer to the
consolidated complaint. On April 19, 2010, defendants CCE and
John Brock filed their answer to the consolidated complaint.
In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that CCE, CCE's directors and the company have violated
and are continuing to violate Delaware law by not submitting the
sale of CCE's North American operations to a separate vote of
CCE's shareowners; that CCE's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to CCE and its shareowners by approving the proposed
transaction for grossly inadequate consideration, and that the
company aided and abetted such breach.
The plaintiffs further allege that by virtue of its stock
ownership in CCE, representation on the Board of Directors of CCE
and various agreements and business relationships with CCE, the
Company dominates and controls CCE and therefore has a fiduciary
duty to CCE's public shareowners which the Company breached
because, among other things, the proposed transaction is not
entirely fair.
The plaintiffs seek a judgment enjoining the closing of the
proposed transaction, declaring the proposed transaction unlawful
and unenforceable and ordering rescission if the proposed
transaction is consummated, directing defendants to account for
all damages, profits, special benefits and unjust enrichment,
awarding the costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs
and expenses, and granting such other relief as the court deems
just and proper.
On or about July 15, 2010, the Company, CCE and the other
defendants filed separate answers to the amended consolidated
complaint, according to the company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 2, 2010.
The Coca-Cola Company -- http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/-- is
the world's largest beverage company, refreshing consumers with
more than 500 sparkling and still brands. Together with
Coca-Cola, recognized as the world's most valuable brand, the
company's portfolio includes 14 billion dollar brands, including
Diet Coke, Fanta, Sprite, Coca-Cola Zero, vitaminwater, Powerade,
Minute Maid, Simply and Georgia Coffee. Globally, the company is
the No. 1 provider of sparkling beverages, juices and juice drinks
and ready-to-drink teas and coffees. Through the world's largest
beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries
enjoy the company's beverages at a rate of 1.6 billion servings a
day. With an enduring commitment to building sustainable
communities, the company is focused on initiatives that protect
the environment, conserve resources and enhance the economic
development of the communities where it operates.
COCA-COLA: Ga. Suit Over Planned Buy of CCE Assets Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated suit against The Coca-Cola Company remains pending
in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, according to the
company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2010.
Shortly following the announcement of the proposed transaction
whereby the company will acquire Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.'s
North American operations, purported shareowners of CCE filed
three putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia against the company, CCE and the members of
the Board of Directors of CCE.
These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one action
styled In Re The Coca-Cola Company Shareholder Litigation (Civil
Action No. 2010-cv-182035). On May 17, 2010, the consolidated
action was transferred to the Business Case Division of the Fulton
County Superior Court. On June 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.
On or about June 3, 2010, an amended consolidated complaint was
filed. On July 6, 2010, the Company and all other defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and
for an order staying discovery. On July 6, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification. Oral arguments on
plaintiffs' class certification motion and on defendants' motion
to dismiss will be heard by the court on Aug. 11, 2010.
In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that by virtue of its stock ownership in and business
dealings with CCE, the company controls and dominates CCE and
therefore owes to CCE a duty of entire fairness and a duty not to
misuse its control of CCE for its own ends which the company
breached because, among other things, the proposed transaction is
not entirely fair; and that the company, CCE and CCE's directors
have violated and are continuing to violate Delaware law by not
submitting the proposed transaction to a separate vote of CCE's
shareowners.
The plaintiffs seek a judgment enjoining the closing of the
proposed transaction, declaring the proposed transaction void and
ordering rescission if the proposed transaction is consummated,
requiring disgorgement of profits, awarding damages, awarding
reasonable fees and expenses of counsel, and granting such other
relief as the court deems just and proper.
The Coca-Cola Company -- http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/-- is
the world's largest beverage company, refreshing consumers with
more than 500 sparkling and still brands. Together with
Coca-Cola, recognized as the world's most valuable brand, the
company's portfolio includes 14 billion dollar brands, including
Diet Coke, Fanta, Sprite, Coca-Cola Zero, vitaminwater, Powerade,
Minute Maid, Simply and Georgia Coffee. Globally, the company is
the No. 1 provider of sparkling beverages, juices and juice drinks
and ready-to-drink teas and coffees. Through the world's largest
beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries
enjoy the company's beverages at a rate of 1.6 billion servings a
day. With an enduring commitment to building sustainable
communities, the company is focused on initiatives that protect
the environment, conserve resources and enhance the economic
development of the communities where it operates.
CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Accused of Selling Fake Pinot Noir
--------------------------------------------------------
Chie Akiba at Courthouse News Service reports that Constellation
Brands, the world's largest wine company, sold millions of bottles
of "fake" pinot noir that was "illegally cut with cheaper Syrah
and Merlot grapes," according to a class action in Superior Court.
Constellation sells popular premium wines such as Woodbridge by
Robert Mondavi, Clos du Bois, Black Box, Ravenswood and Estancia.
Lead plaintiff Mark Zeller claims he "paid a premium for the wine
based on the belief that it was made from more expensive Pinot
Noir grapes, and not cheaper Syrah and Merlot grapes."
Constellation allegedly bought the wine from French company Aimery
Sieur D'Arques, which sold the wine to Sica Caves du Sieur
D'Arques for blending and bottling.
The class claims Domaine et Vignoble du Sud brokered the grape
sales, while Vigneron du Sieur D'Arques "grew the grapes and
produced the wine . . . that were used to make the fake Pinot Noir
wine sold by defendants Constellation."
A court in Carcassonne, France, convicted 12 French wine traders
and producers of selling fake pinot noir to Constellation,
according to the lawsuit.
"The French court found the scheme, which lasted from January 2006
to March 2008, to be organized, structured, and to have involved
every level in the supply chain," the class claims.
"Constellation knew that the wine it was selling as Pinot Noir did
not have the content of Pinot Noir listed on its labels, nor the
content of Pinot Noir required to label a wine as Pinot Noir."
As a major wine producer, Constellation should have known that the
wine it bought from France was not pinot noir, the class claims.
"Constellation is one of the largest and most sophisticated wine
manufacturers and sellers in the world and its wine experts can
easily examine the wine and discern from its characteristics the
difference between wine made from Pinot Noir and wine made from
inferior, less expensive grapes," the lawsuit states.
The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for unfair
competition, false advertising, fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and fraudulent concealment. It also demands an order barring
Constellation from selling mislabeled pinot noir and forcing it to
disgorge all "ill-gotten profits."
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Kingsley, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
City National Bank Bldg., Suite 1200
16133 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: 818-990-8300
CONVERGYS CORP: To Oppose Appeal Filed by Intervoice Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation said it will oppose an appeal of a ruling
denying class certification in a consolidated lawsuit against
Intervoice, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, according to Convergys Corp.'s August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its
acquisition of Intervoice. Several related class-action lawsuits
were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock
of Intervoice during the period from October 12, 1999 through
June 6, 2000.
The plaintiffs filed claims, which were consolidated into
one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with
Brite and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice.
They asserted that these alleged statements resulted in
artificially inflated stock prices.
The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because it
lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the
pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and
reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of
issues for further proceedings in the District Court.
On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period.
On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's petition
to appeal the District Court's decision to grant Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class.
On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's
class-certification order and remanded the case to the District
Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's
decision in Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance
Telecom, Inc.
The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court
regarding class certification and are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.
The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss
portions of that amended complaint. On March 14, 2008, the
District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part.
Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in
response to the plaintiffs' requests for production.
On July 7, 2009, the District Court ordered the parties to file
additional briefing regarding class certification in light of the
Fifth Circuit's more recent decision in Alaska Electric Pension
Fund v. Flowserve Corporation, No. 07-11303 c/w 08-
10071, http://is.gd/2drBW(5th Cir. June 19, 2009).
On Oct. 26, 2009, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class. The named plaintiffs' claims remain
pending in the District Court.
On Nov. 9, 2009, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Fifth
Circuit to appeal the District Court's order denying class
certification.
In December 2009, the Fifth Circuit accepted the Plaintiff's
appeal and on Jan. 15, 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the
Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification. The case has been stayed in the District Court
pending the Fifth Circuit's decision on the Plaintiffs' appeal of
the denial of class certification.
On Feb. 12, 2010, the Fifth Circuit decided Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. Based on the
Halliburton opinion, the company filed a motion to reconsider the
grant of permission to appeal.
On March 23, 2010, the Fifth Circuit denied the motion to
reconsider.
On June 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing the District Court's
decision to deny class certification.
The Company said it would file a brief opposing the plaintiff's
appeal on August 11, 2010. The Company intends to vigorously
defend the denial of class certification and the portion of the
case that remains pending in the District Court.
Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global
player in relationship management. The Company provides its
clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer
Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions). It
has three segments: Customer Management, which provides
outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and
consulting services to in-house customer care operations;
Information Management, which provides convergent rating,
charging and billing solutions for the global communications
industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human
resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and
learning solutions. In September 2008, Convergys announced the
closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc. In October 2008,
the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a
developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play
fulfillment software for communications service providers.
CUTERA INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the consolidated securities class action suit
against Cutera Inc., has been affirmed, according to the company's
August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Two securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and two of the company's executive officers in April 2007
and May 2007, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California following declines in the
company's stock price.
The plaintiffs claim to represent purchasers of the company's
common stock from Jan. 31, 2007, through May 7, 2007. The
complaints generally allege that materially false statements and
omissions were made regarding the company's financial prospects,
and seek unspecified monetary damages.
On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court ordered the two cases consolidated.
On Dec. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended
complaint, and on Jan. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion to
dismiss that complaint. On Sept. 30, 2008, in response to the
company's motion, the Court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' amended complaint without prejudice.
On Oct.28, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice Of Intention Not to
File A Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.
On Nov. 25, 2008, the Court closed the case on its own initiative.
On Nov. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on April 16, 2009 the
plaintiffs filed their opening brief with that Court, on June 17,
2009, the company filed its response to Plaintiff's brief, on July
1, 2009 the plaintiffs filed their response to the company's
brief, and on Feb. 11, 2010, both parties presented oral argument
to the Court of Appeals.
On June 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the complaint.
Brisbane, California-based Cutera Inc. -- http://www.cutera.com/
-- provides laser and other energy-based aesthetic systems for
practitioners worldwide. Since 1998, Cutera has been developing
innovative, easy-to-use products that enable physicians and other
qualified practitioners to offer safe and effective aesthetic
treatments to their patients.
EL PASO CORP.: Continues to Defend "Tomlinson" Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.
In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al.v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado.
The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
as a result of the company's change from a final average earnings
formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.
The trial court has dismissed the claims that the company's plan
violated ERISA.
No further updates were reported in the company's August 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company,
which operates in the natural gas transmission and exploration
and production sectors of the energy industry. The company owns
or has interests in North America's interstate pipeline system,
which has approximately 42,000 miles of pipe that connect North
America's producing basins to its consuming markets. It also
provides approximately 230 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage
capacity and has a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal
and related facilities in Elba Island, Georgia with 933 million
cubic feet (MMcf) of daily base load sendout capacity. El Paso's
exploration and production business is focused on the exploration
for and the acquisition, development and production of natural
gas, oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States,
Brazil and Egypt. The company operates in two business segments:
Pipelines, and Exploration and Production. It also has Marketing
and Power segments.
FACTOR NUTRITION: Removes "Gray" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Amy Gray, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Factor Nutrition Labs, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-501551 (Calif.
Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty.), was filed on July 14, 2010. The
Plaintiff accuses the dietary and nutritional supplement
manufacturer of making false claims about the dramatic results
consumers can expect from its product FOCUSfactor(R) in terms of
improved memory and concentration, when, in fact, there is no
competent and reliable evidence to substantiate those claims, in
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the
California Business & Professions Code.
Factor Nutrition Labs, LLC owns and distributes the FOCUSfactor(R)
brand of memory supplements.
On the basis of minimal diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2)(A), among other things, Factor Nutrition Labs, on
August 11, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-03526 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
A Professional Corporation
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
dreid@trialnewport.com
Defendants Factor Nutrition Labs and Walgreen Co. are represented
by:
Brad W. Seiling, Esq.
Justin C. Johnson, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
E-mail: bseiling@manatt.com
jjohnson@manatt.com
FBR CAPITAL: Will Oppose Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets Corporation said in its August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, that it will oppose any motion for
leave to amend a class action complaint filed by plaintiffs, who
were allowed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico to do so.
In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. (now FBR & Co.) and eight other underwriters as
defendants. The lawsuit, styled In Re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.,
Securities Litigation and pending in the District Court, was
originally filed in August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors, alleging material
misrepresentations and omissions about, inter alia, the financial
position of TMI.
The amended complaint now includes claims under Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act against nine underwriters relating to five
separate offerings (May 2007, June 2007, September 2007 and two
offerings in January 2008). The allegations against FBR & Co.
relate only to its role as underwriter or member of the syndicate
that underwrote TMI's total of three offerings in September 2007
and January 2008 -- each of which occurred after the filing of the
original complaint -- with an aggregate offering price of
approximately $818,000. The plaintiffs seek restitution,
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain
costs and expenses.
Although FBR & Co. is contractually entitled to be indemnified by
TMI in connection with this lawsuit, TMI filed for bankruptcy on
May 1, 2009, and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that FBR & Co. receives from TMI. On
September 22, 2008, FBR & Co. filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint as to FBR & Co. The District
Court granted that motion on January 27, 2010.
On July 5, 2010, the District Court ruled that it would allow the
plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint; the
District Court is also allowing plaintiffs to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the amended
complaint. FBR will oppose those motions. Although these cases
involving FBR & Co. are at a preliminary stage, based on
management's review with counsel and present information currently
known by management, resolution of those matters is not expected
to have a material effect on the company's financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.
FBR Capital Markets Corporation --
http://www.fbrcapitalmarkets.com/-- provides investment banking,
merger and acquisition advisory, institutional brokerage and
research services through its subsidiary FBR Capital Markets & Co.
FBR Capital Markets focuses capital and financial expertise on
seven industry sectors: consumer, diversified industrials, energy
and natural resources, financial institutions, insurance, real
estate, and technology, media and telecom. The company's
subsidiaries are FBR Investment Management, Inc. and FBR Fund
Advisers, Inc. FBR Investment Management, Inc. provides asset
management services. FBR Fund Advisers, Inc. provides mutual
funds. On Aug. 31, 2009, the company acquired Watch Hill Partners
LLC, a boutique corporate finance advisory practice. The Watch
Hill Partners team is now part of FBR Capital Markets' Investment
Banking department.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Securities Suits in Connecticut Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two purported federal securities class actions against General
Electric Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut have been dismissed, according to the company's
August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In July 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the company's motion to dismiss in their
entirety two purported class actions under the federal securities
laws naming the company, its chief executive officer, and its
chief financial officer as defendants.
These two actions alleged that the company and its chief executive
officer made false and misleading statements that artificially
inflated GE's stock price between March 12, 2008 and April 10,
2008, when we announced that the company's results for the first
quarter of 2008 would not meet its previous guidance and also
lowered its full year guidance for 2008.
Conn.-based General Electric Co. -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a
diversified technology, media and financial services company.
With products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power
generation, water processing and security technology to medical
imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and
industrial products, it serves customers in more than 100
countries.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Securities Suit in New York Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. continues to defend a purported class action
under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to the company's
August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In October 2008, shareholders filed the action in New York naming
the company as defendant, as well as its chief executive officer
and chief financial officer.
The complaint alleges that during a conference call with analysts
on Sept. 25, 2008, defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning (i) the state of GE's funding, cash flows, and
liquidity and (ii) the question of issuing additional equity,
which caused economic loss to those shareholders who purchased GE
stock between Sept. 25, 2008 and Oct. 2, 2008, when the company
announced the pricing of a common stock offering.
The case seeks unspecified damages.
The company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was
fully briefed in April 2010, and is under consideration by the
court.
Conn.-based General Electric Co. -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a
diversified technology, media and financial services company.
With products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power
generation, water processing and security technology to medical
imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and
industrial products, it serves customers in more than 100
countries.
GLG PARTNERS: Continues Defense v. NY Suits Over Man Group Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
GLG Partners, Inc., remains a defendant in two purported class
action civil lawsuits filed in New York. The complaints purport
to assert claims on behalf of the company's stockholders relating
to a proposed acquisition transaction.
On May 17, 2010, the Company announced a transaction to be
acquired by Man Group plc through two concurrent transactions: a
cash merger under a merger agreement with Man and Escalator Sub 1
Inc., pursuant to which (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company, (ii) the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub
will thereupon cease, and (iii) the Company will be the surviving
corporation in the merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of Man;
and a share exchange under a share exchange agreement among Man
and Noam Gottesman, Pierre Lagrange and Emmanuel Roman, together
with their related trusts and affiliated entities and two limited
partnerships that hold shares for the benefit of key personnel who
are participants in the Company's equity participation plans.
No specific claim is made against the Company, although it is
named as a defendant in each of the civil suits. If the plaintiffs
ultimately prevail in these lawsuits or any other lawsuits that
may be filed in connection with the proposed acquisition
transaction, GLG's insurance coverage may not cover the company's
total liabilities and expenses associated with the lawsuits, as it
has deductibles on certain aspects of the coverage.
In addition, subject to certain limitations, GLG is obligated to
indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees
in connection with their exercise of fiduciary duties in relation
to the evaluation and execution of the proposed acquisition
transaction.
Any conclusion of these lawsuits in a manner adverse to GLG
Partners could have a material adverse effect on its business,
results of operation, financial condition and cash flows. In
addition, the cost to the company in defending these lawsuits,
even if resolved in its favor, could be substantial.
These lawsuits could also result in a diversion of management and
employee attention and resources, all of which could materially
and adversely affect the company's business and results of
operations, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.
GLG Partners, Inc., is a U.S.-listed asset management company
offering clients a diverse range of alternative and traditional
investment products and account management services. The
Company's primary business is to provide investment management
advisory services for various investment funds and companies and
accounts it manages.
GLG PARTNERS: Continues Defense v. Del. Suit Over Man Group Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLG Partners, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action
civil lawsuit in Delaware. The complaint purports to assert
claims on behalf of the company's stockholders relating to a
proposed acquisition transaction.
On May 17, 2010, the Company announced a transaction to be
acquired by Man Group plc through two concurrent transactions: a
cash merger under a merger agreement with Man and Escalator Sub 1
Inc., pursuant to which (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company, (ii) the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub
will thereupon cease, and (iii) the Company will be the surviving
corporation in the merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of Man;
and a share exchange under a share exchange agreement among Man
and Noam Gottesman, Pierre Lagrange and Emmanuel Roman, together
with their related trusts and affiliated entities and two limited
partnerships that hold shares for the benefit of key personnel who
are participants in the Company's equity participation plans.
No specific claim is made against the company, although it is
named as a defendant in the civil suit. If the plaintiffs
ultimately prevail in the lawsuit or any other lawsuits that may
be filed in connection with the proposed acquisition transaction,
GLG's insurance coverage may not cover its total liabilities and
expenses associated with the lawsuits, as the company has
deductibles on certain aspects of the coverage. In addition,
subject to certain limitations, GLG is obligated to indemnify its
current and former directors, officers and employees in connection
with their exercise of fiduciary duties in relation to the
evaluation and execution of the proposed acquisition transaction.
Any conclusion of the lawsuit in a manner adverse to GLG could
have a material adverse effect on its business, results of
operation, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, the
cost to GLG of defending the lawsuit, even if resolved in its
favor, could be substantial.
The lawsuit could also result in a diversion of management and
employee attention and resources, all of which could materially
and adversely affect the company's business and results of
operations, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.
GLG Partners, Inc., is a U.S.-listed asset management company
offering clients a diverse range of alternative and traditional
investment products and account management services. The
Company's primary business is to provide investment management
advisory services for various investment funds and companies and
accounts it manages.
IAC/INTERACTIVE CORP: Calif. Suit Alleges Deceptive Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cohen IP Law Group claims
that IAC/InterActiveCorp and CityGrid Media dba CitySearch cheated
online advertisers through click fraud, in a class action in Los
Angeles Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Cohen IP Law Group, PC v.
IAC/InterActive Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05994 (C.D. Calif.),
is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/12/ClickFraud.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Michael V. Storti, Esq.
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
644 South Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-217-5000
E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
rlk@kbklawyers.com
at@kbklawyers.com
ms@kbklawyers.com
- and -
Erik S. Syverson, Esq.
PICK & BOYDSTON, LLP
1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-624-1996
E-mail: eriksyverson@syversonlaw.com
INERGY HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Mo. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim directors
of Inergy Holdings are selling the company too cheaply through an
unfair process, in Jackson County Court, Kansas City, Mo.
A copy of the Complaint in Himmel v. Sherman, et al. (Mo. Cir.
Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/12/SCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Pottenger, Esq.
YONKE & POTTENGER, LLC
1100 Main St., Suite 2450
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: 816-221-6000
- and -
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Gina Stassi, Esq.
ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
600 B St., Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-525-3990
- and -
William C. Wright, Esq.
LEOPOLD KUVIN, P.A.
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: 561-514-0904
INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint alleging
fraudulent misrepresentation of the medical benefits of Actimmune
for the treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's August 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In May 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California entitled Deborah Jane
Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v. InterMune,
Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. C-08-
02376. Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered Actimmune,
and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and
other end-payors of Actimmune.
The complaint alleged that the company fraudulently
misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the
treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint
asserted various claims against the company, including civil
RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer
protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought
various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any
monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal
fees and costs. The complaint also sought equitable relief.
Between June 2008 and September 2008, three additional complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging similar facts. In February 2009, the
Court consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes.
The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard in February
2009. In April 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss
the complaints in all four cases in their entirety and granted
the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints.
Following the initial motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have
filed amended complaints and on Jan. 25, 2010, the company and
the other defendants each filed motions to dismiss the most
recently filed amended complaints. Pursuant to stipulation of the
parties, plaintiffs have filed an opposition to these motions.
The motions were fully briefed as of March 8, 2010, and was set to
be heard on May 10, 2010. The Court took the motions under
submission, but no decision has been issued. The Court had stayed
discovery until at least the time of the hearing on the first
motions to dismiss, and no party has sought to conduct discovery
following a February 2, 2009 hearing.
InterMune Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotechnology
company focused on the research, development and commercialization
of innovative therapies in pulmonology and hepatology. InterMune
has an R&D portfolio addressing idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
(IPF) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. The pulmonology
portfolio includes Esbriet(TM) (pirfenidone) for which InterMune
has completed a Phase 3 program in patients with IPF CAPACITY). A
Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) is under review by the
European Medicines Agency (EMA). The hepatology portfolio
includes the HCV protease inhibitor compound danoprevir (also
known as RG7227 or ITMN-191, partnered by Roche) that entered
Phase 2b in August 2009 and a second-generation HCV protease
inhibitor research program.
INVENTIV HEALTH: Will Defend Against 5 Stockholder Suits on Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
inVentiv Health Inc., its board of directors, and Thomas H. Lee
Partners., L.P., intend to defend themselves against five putative
stockholder class actions filed in Delaware and New Jersey in May
2010, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.
On May 6, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with inVentiv Group Holdings, Inc., formerly Papillon
Holdings, Inc., as parent, and inVentiv Acquisition, Inc.,
formerly Papillon Acquisition, Inc., as "merger sub," each of
which is an affiliate of Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., providing
for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent. The closing of the Merger took place on August 4, 2010.
On May 7, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, captioned
Palkon v. R. Blane Walter et al, Case No. SOM-C-12037-10, was
filed in the Chancery Division of New Jersey Superior Court for
Somerset County against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, and Thomas H. Lee Partners., L.P.. An amended complaint
was filed with the Court on June 7, 2010, which was joined by the
plaintiff in the "Beard action". As amended, the complaint
alleges that the Company's preliminary proxy statement omitted
material information necessary to enable stockholders to cast an
informed vote with regard to the proposed merger transaction and
that the defendant directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, good faith and care by, among other things,
failing to maximize stockholder value, and that THL aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other
remedies, the complaint seeks a declaration that the defendant
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties and an
injunction preventing consummation of the merger. On July 9,
2010, the Court stayed the action pending the outcome of the
"Delaware actions".
On May 12, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, captioned
Steamfitters Local Union 449 v. R. Blane Walter et al, Case No.
5492, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company, its directors, certain of its officers, THL, Parent and
Merger Sub. An amended complaint was filed with the court on
June 7, 2010. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the
defendant directors engaged in self-dealing and breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, fairness, good faith and care by,
among other things, allegedly failing to disclose in the Company's
preliminary proxy statement material information to enable the
stockholders to render an informed decision with regard to voting
for or against the proposed merger transaction, failing to secure
adequate merger consideration and to consider a strategic
alternative, and that THL aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of duty. Among other remedies, the complaint seeks a declaration
that the defendant directors breached their fiduciary duties and
an injunction preventing the defendants from placing their own
interests ahead of those of the Company and its shareholders, or
initiating any defensive measures that would inhibit the
defendants' ability to maximize value for the Company
stockholders. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages.
On May 13, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, captioned
Beard v. inVentiv Health, Inc. et al, Case No. SOM-C-12039-10, was
filed in the Chancery Division of New Jersey Superior Court for
Somerset County against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and THL. The court has consolidated this action with the
Palkon case and, on July 9, 2010, the Court stayed the action
pending the outcome of the Delaware actions.
On May 15, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, captioned
Carter v. R. Blane Walter et al, Case No. SOM-C-12041-10, was
filed in the Chancery Division of New Jersey Superior Court for
Somerset County against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, Parent, Merger Sub and THL. The complaint alleges that
the defendant directors and officers engaged in self-dealing and
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, fairness, good faith
and care by, among other things, not taking adequate measures to
protect the interests of the Company's stockholders and by
embarking on a process that avoids competitive bidding and
provides THL with an unfair advantage by excluding alternative
proposals, and that THL aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. Among other remedies, the complaint seeks a
declaration that the defendant directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties and an injunction preventing the defendants
from initiating any defensive measures that would inhibit the
defendants' ability to maximize value for the Company
stockholders. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages. The
court has consolidated this action with the Palkon case and, on
July 9, 2010, the Court stayed the action pending the outcome of
the Delaware actions.
On May 25, 2010, a putative stockholder class action, captioned
Ramage v. Eran Broshy et al, Case No. SOM-C-12044-10 was filed in
the Chancery Division of New Jersey Superior Court for Somerset
County against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, Parent and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the
defendant directors and officers engaged in self-dealing and
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by failing to
engage in an honest and fair sale process and maximize stockholder
value, and that THL (which is not named as a party to the action)
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty. Among other
remedies, the complaint seeks an injunction preventing
consummation of the merger or, in the event it is consummated, an
order rescinding the merger or the award of rescissory damages,
and an order directing the defendants to account for all damages
caused by them and all profits and any special benefits obtained
as a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action and, on June 7, 2010,
the plaintiff filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery an action
under the caption Ramage v. Eran Broshy et al, Case No. 5547-CC,
containing allegations similar to those contained in the New
Jersey Ramage action but also alleging that the defendant
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duty by failing to
disclose information material to the Company's stockholders to
make an informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the
proposed transaction. On June 8, 2010, the Steamfitters case and
the Delaware Ramage case were consolidated by the Delaware Court
of Chancery.
The Company, its board of directors, and THL believe that the
above lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously.
inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a
provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life
sciences and healthcare industries. The company supports a
range of clinical development, communications and
commercialization activities that are critical to its customers'
ability to complete the development of drug products and medical
devices and commercialize them. inVentiv provides services to
over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global
pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and
payors. The company's service offerings reflect the changing
needs of its clients as their products move through the late-
stage development and regulatory approval processes and into
product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle.
HSBC FINANCE: Appeal to Jaffe Verdict Pending in Seventh Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The jury verdict in the class action Jaffe v. Household
International Inc., et. al, is on appeal, according to HSBC
Finance Corp.'s August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.
On May 7, 2009, the jury in the Jaffe class action returned a
verdict partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to
Household International and three former officers for certain of
the claims arising out of alleged false and misleading statements
made in connection with certain activities of Household
International, Inc. between July 30, 1999 and Oct. 11, 2002.
Despite the verdict at the District Court level, the company
continues to believe, after consultation with counsel, that
neither Household nor its former officers committed any wrongdoing
and that the Seventh Circuit will reverse the trial Court verdict
upon appeal. As such, it is not probable a loss has been incurred
as of June 30, 2010 as a result of this verdict. Therefore, no
loss accrual was established as a result of the verdict.
HSBC Finance Corp. -- http://www.hsbcusa.com/-- is an indirect
subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., a bank holding
company, and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings
plc. The Company provides middle-market consumers in the U.S.,
the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland with
several types of loan products. HSBC Finance Corp. is the
principal fund raising vehicle for the operations of its
subsidiaries.
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Consolidated Antitrust Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated payment card interchange
fee and merchant discount antitrust class action, according to
HSBC Finance Corp.'s August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.
Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed
in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York, specifically:
1. Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D.
Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE));
2. National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG));
3. Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and
4. American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).
Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which
no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against
Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks.
These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-
surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the
interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the
merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.
These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.
A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 24, 2006, and a second consolidated amended complaint was
filed on Jan. 29, 2009.
The parties are engaged in discovery and motion practice.
HSBC Finance Corp. -- http://www.hsbcusa.com/-- is an indirect
subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., a bank holding
company, and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings
plc. The Company provides middle-market consumers in the U.S.,
the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland with
several types of loan products. HSBC Finance Corp. is the
principal fund raising vehicle for the operations of its
subsidiaries.
KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Continues Defense v. 3 Class Actions in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolberg Capital Corporation continues to face three putative class
actions pending in the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
The company and certain directors and officers are named as
defendants in three putative class actions pending in the Southern
District of New York brought by shareholders of the Company and
filed in December 2009 and January 2010. The complaints in these
three actions allege violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the
Exchange Act based on the company's disclosures of its year-end
2008 and first- and second-quarter 2009 financial statements.
The company believes that each of the lawsuits is without merit
and will defend each vigorously.
Kohlberg Capital Corporation -- http://www.kohlbergcapital.com/--
is a publicly traded, internally managed business development
company. Its middle market investment business originates,
structures, finances and manages a portfolio of term loans,
mezzanine investments and selected equity securities in middle
market companies. Its wholly-owned portfolio company, Katonah Deb
Advisors, manages CLO Funds that invest in broadly syndicated
corporate term loans, high-yield bonds and other credit
instruments.
MONEY TREE: Ga. Suit Complains About Collateral Protection Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Money Tree charges
customers for collateral protection over the full term of a loan,
but provides it for a shorter term, a class action claims in
Albany, Ga., Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Jackson v. The Money Tree, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00107 (M.D. Ga.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/12/CCA.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.
W. Lewis Garrison, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC
2224 1st Avenue North
Post Office Box 11310 (35202)
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-326-3336
E-mail: jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com
lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Continues to Defend Alabama Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s affiliate, U.S. Pipe Valve &
Hydrant, LLC, and a number of co-defendant foundry-related
companies continue to face a putative civil class action case
originally filed in April 2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun
County, Alabama, and removed by defendants to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the Class Action
Fairness Act.
The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the District Court in December 2006. The amended complaint
alleged state law tort claims arising from creation and disposal
of "foundry sand" alleged to contain harmful levels of PCBs and
other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc.
The plaintiffs originally sought damages for real and personal
property and for other unspecified personal injury. In June 2007,
a motion to dismiss was granted to U.S. Pipe and certain co-
defendants as to the claims for negligence, failure to warn,
nuisance, trespass and outrage. The remainder of the complaint
was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint.
On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's former
facility located at 2101 West 10th Street in Anniston, Alabama and
no longer alleges personal injury claims. Plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint on July 27, 2007. U.S. Pipe and the other
defendants have moved to dismiss the third amended complaint.
In September 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for wantonness and permitting the plaintiffs
to move forward with their claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence.
No further updates were reported in Mueller Water's August 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- manufactures and markets
of a range of water infrastructure, flow control and piping
component system products for use in water distribution networks
and treatment facilities. The company also acts as a distributor,
especially in Canada, for products that are manufactured by other
companies. The company's product portfolio includes engineered
valves, fire hydrants, pipe fittings, water meters and ductile
iron pipe. The company operates through three business segments:
Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Barkwell Counterclaim Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend itself
from a purported class action counterclaim filed in Georgia,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
PRA is currently a defendant in a purported class action
counterclaim entitled PRA v. Barkwell, 4:09-cv-00113-CDL, which
was filed in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia.
The counterclaim allege that in pursuing arbitration claims
against Barkwell and other consumer debtors, pursuant to the
terms and conditions of their cardholder agreements, PRA breached
a duty of good faith and fair dealing and made negligent
misrepresentations concerning its "arbitration practices." The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, to vacate the
arbitration awards that PRA has obtained before the National
Arbitration Forum and have PRA disgorge the amounts collected
with respect to such awards. It is not possible at this time to
accurately estimate the possible loss, if any. PRA believes it
has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the
counterclaim and intends to defend itself vigorously against
them.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. --
http://www.portfoliorecovery.com-- is a full-service provider of
outsourced receivables management and related services. The
company is engaged in the business of purchasing, managing and
collecting portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables, as well
as offering a range of accounts receivable management and payment
processing services. The majority of the company's business
activities involve the purchase, management and collection of
defaulted consumer receivables. It also provides fee-based
services, including collateral-location services for credit
originators, through PRA Location Services, LLC, and revenue
administration, audit and debt discovery/recovery services for
government entities through PRA Government Services, LLC, and
MuniServices, LLC.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Freeman Counterclaim Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend itself
in a purported class action counterclaim filed in North Carolina,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
PRA is currently a defendant in a purported class action
counterclaim entitled PRA v. Freeman, 10-CVD-1003, filed in the
District Court for Wake County, North Carolina on March 26, 2010.
The counterclaim allege that in pursuing arbitration claims
against Freeman and other consumer debtors, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of their cardholder agreements, PRA breached a
duty of good faith and fair dealing and made negligent
misrepresentations concerning its "arbitration practices." The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, to vacate the
arbitration awards that PRA has obtained before the National
Arbitration Forum and have PRA disgorge the amounts collected
with respect to such awards. It is not possible at this time to
accurately estimate the possible loss, if any. PRA believes it
has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the
counterclaim and intends to defend itself vigorously against
them.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. --
http://www.portfoliorecovery.com-- is a full-service provider of
outsourced receivables management and related services. The
company is engaged in the business of purchasing, managing and
collecting portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables, as well
as offering a range of accounts receivable management and payment
processing services. The majority of the company's business
activities involve the purchase, management and collection of
defaulted consumer receivables. It also provides fee-based
services, including collateral-location services for credit
originators, through PRA Location Services, LLC, and revenue
administration, audit and debt discovery/recovery services for
government entities through PRA Government Services, LLC, and
MuniServices, LLC.
SK PARTNERS: Sued for Not Paying Mandated Rate on Security Deposit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iliana Takova, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. SK Partners IV Limited Partnership, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-34439 (Ill. Super. Ct., Cook Cty. August 10, 2010),
accuses her landlord, SK Partners IV, of not paying interest on
her security deposit at the rate of at least 0.35% (either by cash
or credit to be applied to rent due) within 30 days after the end
of her third 12 month rental period (Dec. 1, 2008 - Nov. 30,
2009), in violation of the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act.
Under the ISDIA, landlords are mandated to pay security deposit
interest at the rate of interest paid by the largest commercial
bank in Illinois on minimum passbook savings accounts as of
December 31 of the calendar year preceding the inceptions of
tenants' rental agreements, which in Ms. Takova's case was 0.35%.
Ms. Takova also accuses SK Partners IV of withholding from the
security deposits of tenants who moved out from any of the
defendant's Illinois apartment communities, within the past two
years and 45 days prior to the filing of this complaint, amounts
supposedly for compensation for property damage, without providing
the tenants itemized written statements of estimated or actual
costs for repairs with paid receipts within 60 days after move-
out, in violation of the Illinois Security Deposit Return Act.
At all times during her tenancy (between December 1, 2006, and
May 31, 2010), Ms. Takova says that SK Partners IV was the owner
of her apartment unit at 917 E. Golf Road, in Arlington Heights,
Illinois, which is part of the Takova Complex consisting of 100 or
more apartments, commonly known as "The Mansions".
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Krolik, Esq.
AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 55-1978
- and -
Mark Silverman, Esq.
MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 775-1015
SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaiting Summary Judgment in ERISA Case v. Duke
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina has yet
to rule on motions for summary judgment with respect to the two
claims that remain in a class action lawsuit against Duke Energy
Corporation, according to Spectra Energy Corp.'s August 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
A class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court in 2006
against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance
Plan. Various causes of action were alleged in the class action
lawsuit, including violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. These allegations arise out of the conversion of
the Duke Power Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke
Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The plaintiffs seek
to represent present and former participants in the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan. This group is estimated to include
approximately 36,000 persons.
Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006, and various motions
were thereafter filed by the parties, including plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class, Duke Energy's motion to dismiss, and cross
motions for summary judgment filed by both the plaintiffs and Duke
Energy. The Court issued a series of rulings in June 2008 denying
the plaintiffs' class certification motion, dismissing certain of
the causes of action originally filed by plaintiffs and allowing
other causes of action to proceed.
As a result of these rulings, the plaintiffs re-filed a new
Amended Class Action Complaint in June 2008 asserting and re-
pleading the claims which the Court is allowing to proceed. Duke
Energy filed a motion to dismiss in July 2008 requesting the
dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims. Plaintiffs
filed a new motion to certify a class action in August 2008 and
Duke Energy filed a response to this motion. The Court issued an
Order on March 31, 2009 denying Duke Energy's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims. A hearing on the issue of
class certification of plaintiffs' remaining claims was held on
April 29, 2009.
On September 4, 2009, the Court issued an Order granting class
certification for plaintiffs' remaining claims and denying
certification of the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on April 1, 2010
with respect to the two claims that remain in the case and which
were certified as class actions last year. Duke Energy also filed
a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary claims which remain in the case but were denied class
action status.
Future activity in this case, including additional discovery
activity, will be determined and scheduled after the Court
considers and issues rulings on these new motions.
In connection with the spin-off from Duke Energy in January 2007,
Spectra Energy agreed to share with Duke Energy any liabilities or
damages associated with the class action that relate to its
employees that may be members of a plaintiff class if one is
certified. At mediation, plaintiffs quantified their claims as
being in excess of $150 million. It is not possible to predict
with certainty the damages, if any, that Spectra Energy might
incur in connection with the legal matter.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Spectra Energy Corp engages
primarily in natural gas transmission and distribution.
TD AMERITRADE: Talks Continue in Accountholders Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said settlement discussions are
continuing in a consolidated class action captioned In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation, according to the company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
A purported class action, captioned Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
was filed on May 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that
there was a breach in TDA Inc.'s systems, which allowed access to
e-mail addresses and other personal information of account
holders, and that as a result account holders received unsolicited
e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and have been
subjected to an increased risk of identity theft. The complaint
requests unspecified damages and injunctive and other equitable
relief.
A second lawsuit, captioned Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., was
filed on September 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of
a purported nationwide class of account holders. The factual
allegations of the complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit. The cases
were consolidated under the caption In re TD Ameritrade
Accountholders Litigation.
The Company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether
identity theft occurred as a result of the breach. The consultant
conducted four investigations from August 2007 to June 2008 and
reported that it found no evidence of identity theft.
The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuits on a
class basis subject to court approval. The court denied final
approval of the proposed settlement on October 23, 2009. The court
ruled that the asserted benefits of the settlement to the class
were not sufficient to warrant approval and that the proposed
settlement was not fair, reasonable and adequate.
The parties participated in a mediation on April 7, 2010 and
discussed possible terms of a new settlement. The settlement
discussions are continuing.
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged
in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based
financial services to retail investors and business partners,
predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and
relationships with independent registered investment advisors.
The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet,
unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading
hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to
its customers.
TD AMERITRADE: Motion to Dismiss "Ross" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is still awaiting the outcome of
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed with respect to
the Yield Plus Fund, according to the company's August 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc., et al., and is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Reserve Yield Plus Fund.
On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming as defendants the Fund's advisor, certain of its
affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers
and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges
claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other
claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements
and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
prospectuses and in other statements regarding the Fund. The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary damages
and equitable relief.
On January 19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss
the complaint.
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged
in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based
financial services to retail investors and business partners,
predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and
relationships with independent registered investment advisors.
The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet,
unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading
hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to
its customers.
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane Katrina Suit Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi's
ruling dismissing the case against Tennessee Valley Authority
arising out of Hurricane Katrina was reinstated, according to the
company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.
In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action
lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents allegedly
injured by Hurricane Katrina.
The plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company
trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical
trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining
and/or burning of coal. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming
and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane
Katrina's increased destructive force.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages among other relief.
The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.
In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit decided that the plaintiffs
have standing to assert their public and private nuisance,
trespass, and negligence claims, and that none of these claims
present political questions, but also concluded that their unjust
enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy
claims must be dismissed for standing reasons.
Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's
judgment in part, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in part, and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
TVA and the other defendants filed a petition seeking a rehearing
by the entire Fifth Circuit, which the Fifth Circuit granted.
The case had been scheduled for rehearing before the entire court,
but on April 30, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order stating
that it lost the necessary quorum to rehear the appeal.
On May 28, 2010, the court determined that it had no viable way to
rehear the case and concluded that the Fifth Circuit's original
decision was vacated. The result is that the district court's
ruling dismissing the case was reinstated.
Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three
nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion
turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through
its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people
across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region.
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Continues to Defend Kingston Ash Spill Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority continues to defend legal Proceedings
related to the Kingston ash pond spill, according to the company's
August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Sixty lawsuits based on the Kingston ash spill have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Two of those actions have been voluntarily dismissed.
The lawsuits, filed by residents, businesses, and property owners
in the Kingston area, allege various causes of action in tort --
including nuisance, strict liability, personal injury, and
property damage -- as well as inverse condemnation, and generally
seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, court orders
to clean up the plaintiffs' properties and surrounding properties,
and other relief. Four of the lawsuits are proposed class
actions, and three of the proposed class actions have been
consolidated.
TVA is the sole defendant in all actions except one of the
proposed class actions, in which Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., and
Worley Parsons Corporation are also defendants.
On March 26, 2010, the court issued its decision on TVA's motions
to dismiss the first seven actions that had been filed -- the
proposed class actions and three other cases filed on behalf of
named individuals. In those cases, the court dismissed (1) the
tort claims related to TVA's decisions to build and operate the
ash pond and TVA's recovery and remediation activities, (2) the
plaintiffs' demand for punitive damages, and (3) the plaintiffs'
demand for a jury trial. The court denied TVA's motions with
regard to plaintiffs' tort claims concerning TVA's maintenance and
upkeep of the ash pond, along with the inverse condemnation claims
raised by certain plaintiffs.
The court has scheduled the first seven filed actions for trial
beginning on Sept. 13, 2011.
Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three
nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion
turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through
its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people
across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region.
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Suit v. 6 TVARS Directors Pending in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six current members of Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement
System's Board of Directors continue to face a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
according to Tennessee Valley Authority's August 2, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On March 5, 2010, eight current and former participants in and
beneficiaries of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System
(TVARS) filed suit against the six current members of the TVARS
Board of Directors.
The lawsuit challenges the TVARS Board's decision to:
(1) reduce the calculation for cost of living adjustment
benefits for calendar years 2010 through 2013,
(2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund
accounts,
(3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs to
age 60, and
(4) suspend the TVA contribution requirements for fiscal
years 2010 through 2013.
The plaintiffs allege that the amendments violated the TVARS Board
members' fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs (and the purported
class) and the plaintiffs' contractual rights, among other claims.
The plaintiffs seek damages, an order directing the TVARS Board to
rescind the amendments, and other relief.
Five of the six individual defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, while the remaining defendant filed an answer
to the complaint. Another group may file a similar lawsuit.
Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three
nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion
turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through
its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people
across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region.
TOWN SPORTS: Two Wage and Overtime Suits Remain Pending in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., continues to defend two
purported class actions alleging wage and overtime violations of
the New York State Labor Law, according to the company's August 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against the company
in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers.
On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second
purported class action against the company in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees.
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. -- www.mysportsclubs.com
-- owns and operates fitness clubs in the Northeast and mid-
Atlantic regions of the United States and, through its
subsidiaries, operated 161 fitness clubs as of
March 31, 2010, comprising 109 New York Sports Clubs, 25 Boston
Sports Clubs, 18 Washington Sports Clubs (two of which are
partly-owned), six Philadelphia Sports Clubs, and three clubs
located in Switzerland. These clubs collectively served
approximately 495,000 members.
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Continues Defense of Suit v. Comdata
-----------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America, LLC, remains a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit against Comdata Network Inc. in Pennsylvania.
On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add TravelCenters as a defendant, which was allowed
on March 25, 2010. The amended complaint also adds as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.
Comdata markets fuel cards which are used for payments by
trucking companies to truck stops. The amended complaint alleges
antitrust violations arising out of Comdata's contractual
relationships with truck stops in connection with its fuel cards.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and injunctive
relief. This case is in the discovery stage.
The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it, but that the costs
to defend the case could be expensive, according to the company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the
U.S. interstate highway system. The Company was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust. Its
customers include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers,
independent truck drivers and motorists.
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Can't Estimate Loss in "Hot Fuel" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America, LLC, said it cannot estimate its
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to certain
class actions filed over "hot fuel" because various motions are
still pending, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the company's predecessor and the company's
subsidiaries, in United States district courts in over 20 states.
Major petroleum refineries and retailers have been named as
defendants in one or more of these lawsuits. The plaintiffs in
the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who
purchased motor fuel at temperature greater than 60 degrees
Fahrenheit at the time of sale.
One theory alleges that the plaintiffs purchased smaller
quantities of motor fuel than the amount for which defendants
charged them because the defendants measured the amount of motor
fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher temperatures,
contain less energy.
A second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by
governmental agencies from suppliers and wholesalers, who are
reimbursed in the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers
before the fuel is sold to consumers. These "tax" cases allege
that, when the fuel is subsequently sold to consumers at
temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell a greater volume
of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax, and therefore reap
unjust benefit because the customers pay more tax than the
retailer pays.
The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the theories alleged in these so called "hot fuel"
lawsuits. The "temperature" cases seek non-monetary relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to install temperature
correcting equipment on their retail fuel pumps. They also seek
monetary relief in the form of damages. The plaintiffs have not
quantified the damages they seek. The "tax" cases also seek
monetary relief. Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the
company disputes) to measure these damages as the difference
between the amount of fuel excise taxes paid by defendants and the
amount collected by defendants on motor fuel sales. Plaintiffs
have taken the position in filings with the Court that under this
approach, the company's damages for an eight-year period for one
state would be approximately $10.7 million. The company denies
liability and disagrees with the plaintiff's position.
The cases have been consolidated in the District Court pursuant to
multi-district litigation procedures.
On May 28, 2010, the Court ruled that, with respect to two cases
originally filed in U.S. District Court in the state of Kansas, it
would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs
seeking injunctive relief (implementation of fuel temperature
equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the effect of
temperature on fuel), and that it would defer plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class with respect to damages.
A TA entity was named in one of those two Kansas cases, but the
Court ruled that the named plaintiffs were not sufficient to
represent a class as to TA, and as a result, there has been no
class certified as to TA. The defendants with respect to which a
class has been certified have petitioned the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for interlocutory review of the
Court's class certification decision. The Court has not issued a
decision on class certification with respect to the remaining
cases that have been consolidated in the multi-district
litigation.
TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the
U.S. interstate highway system. The Company was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust. Its
customers include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers,
independent truck drivers and motorists.
UTICA NAT'L: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Utica
National Insurance Group refuses to promote women, pays them less
than men, and discriminates against them for becoming pregnant, in
Richmond, Va., Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Jackson, et al. v. Utica Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 10-cv-00562 (E.D. Va.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/12/Insure.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Rebecca H. Royals, Esq.
BUTLER WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C.
100 Shockoe Slip, Fourth Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: 804-648-4848
VISA INC: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. faces a consolidated class action lawsuit in connection
with the proposed merger of CyberSource Corporation and Visa,
according to the company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
On April 29, 2010, an individual named Carol Ann Peters filed a
putative class action lawsuit against CyberSource, certain of its
directors, and Visa Inc. in California Superior Court in
connection with the proposed merger.
The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty against
the CyberSource directors and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty against CyberSource and Visa. Plaintiff later
added Market Street Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Visa Inc.,
as a defendant, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.
A similar lawsuit was filed on May 4, 2010, by the Inter-Local
Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the Chancery Court of
the State of Delaware.
The Delaware complaint was voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in
California Superior Court on June 1, 2010, adding allegations of
inadequate disclosure in CyberSource's preliminary proxy statement
concerning the merger.
On June 9, 2010, the California court consolidated the two suits,
now captioned In re CyberSource Shareholder Litigation.
On June 29, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation. The agreement requires CyberSource to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger,
which were made in CyberSource's definitive proxy statement filed
with the SEC on June 11, 2010, but does not require any defendant
to pay money damages. A notice of settlement, which is subject to
confirmatory discovery and Court approval, was filed on July 13,
2010. The agreement is not considered material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.
Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail
electronic payments network. The company facilitates global
commerce through the transfer of value and information among
financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and
government entities. Its primary customers are financial
institutions, for which it provides processing services and
payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer
credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments. The company has
three business operations: transaction processing services,
product platforms and payments network management. In October
2007, the company completed the series of transactions, in which
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Visa Canada and Inovant became
direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Visa Europe did not
become a subsidiary of Visa Inc., but rather remained owned and
governed by its European member financial institutions and entered
into a set of contractual arrangements with the company in
connection with the reorganization.
VISA INC: Faces Suit Over Prepaid Gift Cards in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed by Diane Matalas
involving prepaid gift cards, according to the company's August 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On May 27, 2010, Diane Matalas filed a class action lawsuit
against Wells Fargo Bank and Visa Inc. in California Superior
Court asserting claims under California's gift card act and other
consumer laws.
Among other things, Matalas alleges that certain authorization
practices for gift cards used at restaurants are unlawful.
On July 14, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank removed the case to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail
electronic payments network. The company facilitates global
commerce through the transfer of value and information among
financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and
government entities. Its primary customers are financial
institutions, for which it provides processing services and
payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer
credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments. The company has
three business operations: transaction processing services,
product platforms and payments network management. In October
2007, the company completed the series of transactions, in which
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Visa Canada and Inovant became
direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Visa Europe did not
become a subsidiary of Visa Inc., but rather remained owned and
governed by its European member financial institutions and entered
into a set of contractual arrangements with the company in
connection with the reorganization.
WELLS FARGO: Ordered to Pay $200 Mil. in Overdraft Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ordered Wells Fargo to pay customers more than $200 million,
after a two-week bench trial in which the bank was accused of
manipulating debit-card overdraft charges to increase revenue from
overdraft fees. The class claimed -- and the judge agreed -- that
Wells Fargo posted transactions with highest dollar amounts first,
rather than in the order the purchases were made, to turn one
legitimate overdraft fee into as many as 10.
Banks around the country have been accused of the same practice,
in dozens of class actions. This claim against Wells Fargo was
filed in November 2007 by three customers on behalf of a class of
thousands.
The class also alleged that Wells Fargo did not disclose that it
was assessing overdraft fees, and that they discovered the fees
well after Wells Fargo posted them.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup found that Wells Fargo raked in
"massive" profits from the overdrafts: "In California alone, Wells
Fargo assessed over $1.4 billion in overdraft penalties between
2005 and 2007."
Judge Alsup wrote: "Overdraft fees are the second-largest source
of revenue for Wells Fargo's consumer deposits group, the division
of the bank dedicated to providing customers with checking
accounts, savings accounts, and debit cards. The revenue
generated from these fees has been massive. . . . Only spread
income -- money the bank generated using deposited funds --
produced more revenue."
Judge Alsup found that while most customers know they must pay
fees for overdrafts, "They do not, however, reasonably expect that
they will have to pay up to ten overdrafts when only one would be
ordinarily incurred."
Judge Alsup wrote that the fees were "so pernicious" that they
should only be allowed if customers reasonably expected to pay
them.
"Here the proof is the opposite," Judge Alsup wrote. "The bank
went to great lengths to bury the words deep in a lengthy fine-
print document and the words selected were too vague to warn
depositors, as even the bank's own expert conceded."
During trial, Wells Fargo's expert testified that the length and
complexity of Wells Fargo's disclosure documents to customers
about posting order made it "'completely unrealistic to assume
that . . . many customers would actually read those lengthy
documents.'"
Citing an expert's study of 43 months of transactions, Judge Alsup
estimated the amount of restitution as $203 million. The judge
pointed out that the bank based its own analysis "upon a mere ten
days worth of customer data (as compared to the 43-months of data
analyzed by Expert Olsen). This strips the bank's arguments of
all weight and credibility."
In addition to restitution for class members, Judge Alsup ordered
Wells Fargo to stop posting the highest debits first by Nov. 30,
and ordered its counsel to "meet and confer and recommend a
detailed plan of distribution and notice, including a plan to
track down class members for whom the available contact
information is inadequate, such plan to include use of the
National Change of Address Registry and published notice."
A copy of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law After Bench
Trial in Gutierrez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
07-cv-05923 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/12/WFargo200.pdf
WRIGLEY'S: Sued for Falsely Advertising "Eclipse Breeze" Gum
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wrigley's falsely advertises
that its "Eclipse Breeze" gum will "neutralize the toughest breath
odors," a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Sityar v. WM. Wrigley Jr., Case No. 10-
cv-05965 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/12/Gum.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian W. Smith, Esq.
SMITH, VANTURE & RIVERA, LLP
1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: 561-684-6330
E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com
- and -
Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
914 Waters Ave., Suite 20
Aspen, CO 81611
Telephone: 832-715-2788
E-mail: howard@pdq.net
- and -
Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
HEWELL LAW FIRM
105 West F St., Second Floor
Telephone: 619-235-6854
E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.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, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan 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 * * *