/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100902.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 173
Headlines
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Dyer Firm Reminds Investors of Oct. 12 Deadline
ARGON ST: Plaintiff Dismisses Corrected Amended Complaint
BANK OF AMERICA: "Brito" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
BANK OF AMERICA: "Groehler" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Suits Over Bonuses & Losses at Merrill
BAXTER INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Heparin-Related Suits
BEAR LAKE: Deadline to File Class Claims Is November 29
BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Lawsuit by Two Bondholders
CARROLS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Request in EEOC Suit
COCA-COLA: Faces ERISA Class Suit After Canceling Health Care
COHEN & STEERS: Faces Class Action Over Redemption of Securities
CPI INTERNATIONAL: Asserts Claims in Merger Lawsuit Have No Merit
CRACKER BARREL: Accused in Indiana Suit of Not Paying Overtime
CRM HOLDINGS: Application Still Pending With Coordination Panel
CRM HOLDINGS: Stay in Trade Trust's Amended Complaint Remains
CRM HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Real Estate's Suit Remains Stayed
CRM HOLDINGS: Transportation Trust's Suit Is Currently Stayed
CRM HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Amended Complaint
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Trial in U.S. SRAM Suit Set for January
DE BEERS: Class Action Settlement May Be Approved on Re-Hearing
FORTIS BENEFITS: Settles Suit Over Health Premiums for $14.6MM
GENTA INC: Collins Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
GRUPO MEXICO: Accused in Ariz. Suit of Breach of Fiduciary Duty
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Discovery in Calif. "Privacy" Suit Ongoing
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Wants Amended Securities Lawsuit Dismissed
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Four RISPERDAL-Related Suits Remain Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pennsylvania AWP Case Set for Trial in October
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Unit Continues to Face Antitrust Suits in Pa.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Class Actions on Product Recalls
KOCH FOODS: Employees File Class Suit Over Underpayment
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Ordered to Pay $8.3MM to Calif. Employees
MBM INC: Calif. Court of Appeals Dismisses Malk Appeal
MOBILE CONTENT PROVIDERS: Settles Suits Over Unauthorized Charges
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $4.9MM
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Plaintiff Dismisses Appeal to Court Ruling
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Opposes Appeal on Pennsylvania Suit Dismissal
ORIENT PAPER: Receives Notice of "Henning" Suit
PACTIV CORP: Accused of Selling Itself for Inadequate Price
PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit Over Disclosure
PETROKAZAKHSTAN INC: Notice of C$9.9 Mil. Shareholder Settlement
PFIZER INC: Massachusetts and Pennsylvania Lawsuits Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Accused of Misleading Investors in NY and NJ Suits
PFIZER INC: Two Lawsuits Over Wyeth Merger Deal Dismissed
PFIZER INC: 7th Circuit Affirms Ruling on Pharmacia Plan Dispute
PLAINSCAPITAL: FSC Continues to Face California Antitrust Lawsuits
QUEST SOFTWARE: Court Okays Settlement Agreement, Suit Dismissed
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Makes Third and Final $2.5 Million Payment
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Defends "Holden" Complaint in California
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Calif. Court Dismisses Merger-Related Suit
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Wants Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: On the Verge of Settlement; Hearing Today
ST. JUDE: Trial in One Ontario Silzone-Related Suit Continues
ST. JUDE: Securities Suit Pending in Minnesota
STRONG CAPITAL: $13.7 Million Settlement to Be Heard in October
SUNOPTA INC: Ontario and New York Settlements Declared Effective
SUNOPTA INC: Seeks Court Okay of Agreement to Settle "Vargas" Suit
SUNOPTA INC: Insurer Shells Out $11.25MM for Class Suit Settlement
TREX CO: Hagens Berman Dismisses Appeal on Settlement Approval
UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit Over Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Derivative Class Action Lawsuit
VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
WMG ACQUISITION: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Music Pricing
WORLDWIDE DIRECT: Court OKs Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Faces New Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois State Court
*********
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Dyer Firm Reminds Investors of Oct. 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP reminded investors of the upcoming lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of investors who purchased Alphatec Holdings, Inc., common
stock and other publicly-traded securities between December 18,
2009 and August 5, 2010, inclusive.
If you purchased Alphatec shares during the Class Period and wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must seek such an appointment
with the court no later than October 12, 2010. A "lead plaintiff"
directs the litigation and participates in important decisions
including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a
settlement to accept for the class in the action. The lead
plaintiff here will be selected from among applicants claiming the
largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class
Period. You are not required to have sold your shares to seek
damages or to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the
putative class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.
If you wish to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff process, or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests in the litigation, please contact, Jeffrey A. Berens,
Esq., at (888) 300-3362 x302, (303) 861-1764, or via email at
jeff@dyerberens.com
Dyer & Berens LLP has significant expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions. The firm's extensive experience in
securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the
recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
investors. For more information about the firm, please go to
http://www.DyerBerens.com/
Contact:
Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
DYER & BERENS LLP
303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (888) 300-3362 ext. 302
(303) 861-1764
E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com
ARGON ST: Plaintiff Dismisses Corrected Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Noelle Sullivan, alleging herself to be a stockholder of
Argon St, Inc., voluntarily dismissed a corrected amended
complaint against the company, according to Argon St's August 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.
On June 30, 2010, Argon, Vortex Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Boeing Company, and Boeing entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Vortex commenced a
cash tender offer at $34.50 per share for all of Argon's
outstanding shares of common stock. The tender offer commenced on
July 8, 2010, and expired on August 4, 2010. On August 5, 2010,
Vortex accepted all of the shares tendered, and Argon subsequently
merged with Vortex, at which point Argon became a wholly owned
subsidiary of Boeing.
On July 2, 2010, Deidre Noelle Sullivan, alleging herself to be a
stockholder of Argon, filed a purported stockholder class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Sullivan v. Argon St,
Inc., et al., in connection with the Offer and the Merger. The
complaint names as defendants Argon and the members of Argon's
board of directors. The suit alleges that the members of Argon's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Argon's
shareholders in connection with the sale of Argon and that Argon
aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty. The suit sought
equitable relief, including an injunction against the Offer and
the Merger and also sought the costs of the action, including
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs.
On July 12, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
Amended Complaint:
(i) added Vortex and Boeing as defendants,
(ii) added allegations that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Argon
with the SEC in connection with the Offer and the Merger
contained materially misleading statements and omitted
material information; and
(iii) alleged that Vortex and Boeing aided and abetted the
alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
On July 12, 2010, the plaintiff also filed a motion seeking to
expedite discovery in anticipation of a forthcoming motion for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
with, consummating or otherwise giving effect to the Offer and the
Merger.
On July 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed a corrected amended
complaint removing certain allegations from the previous pleading.
On July 20, 2010, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Sullivan Complaint and oppositions to the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery.
On July 23, 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited
discovery at a hearing held to consider only that motion.
On August 4, 2010, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
Corrected Amended Complaint without prejudice.
The Company is subject to litigation from time to time, in the
ordinary course of business including, but not limited to,
allegations of wrongful termination or discrimination. The
Company believes the outcome of these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.
Argon St, Inc. -- http://www.argonst.com/-- designs, develops,
and produces systems and sensors for the Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) markets including SIGINT
(Signals Intelligence), ESM (Electronic Support Measures), EW
(Electronic Warfare), IO (Information Operations), imaging,
and acoustic systems serving domestic and international markets.
BANK OF AMERICA: "Brito" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabino Brito, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. CGC-09-493843 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on October 27, 2009. The
plaintiff accuses BofA of not providing its tellers statutory meal
and rest periods, not paying wages of terminated or resigned
employees, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.
BofA, on August 26, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern
District of California, on the ground that this Court has original
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441 and 1446.
The Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-03814 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
Jeff Geraci, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 "C" Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101-5305
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
- and -
Roger Carter, Esq.
THE CARTER LAW FIRM
2030 Main Street, 13th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 260-4737
- and -
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
2030 Main Street, 13th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 724-9200
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
McGUIRE WOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
BANK OF AMERICA: "Groehler" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Groehler, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 09-486087 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 12, 2009. A
First Amended complaint was filed on April 20, 2009. The
plaintiff accuses BofA of not providing meal periods, in violation
of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et
seq., and California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 2698, and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
On the basis of diversity of citizenship with the meaning of 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(c)(1), BofA, on August 27, 2010, removed the
lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-03841 to the proceeding.
The removal notice did not include a copy of the original
complaint or the First Amended Complaint.
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen P. Sonnenberg, Esq.
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
75 East 55th Street
New York, NY 10022-3205
Telephone: (212) 318-6000
E-mail: stephensonnenberg@paulhastings.com
- and -
Maria A. Audero, Esq.
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
E-mail: mariaaudero@paulhastings.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Suits Over Bonuses & Losses at Merrill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt and Patricia Hurtado at Bloomberg News report that
Bank of America Corp. must defend lawsuit claims it concealed
bonuses and losses at Merrill Lynch & Co after it agreed to
acquire the brokerage firm, a judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan Friday granted some
of Bank of America's requests to dismiss claims in the
consolidated class-action securities-fraud and derivative
lawsuits, while denying others.
Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank, acquired Merrill Jan. 1,
2009, in a deal criticized by lawmakers, regulators and investors
over its cost and the U.S. bailout that followed. Judge Castel
rejected Bank of America's argument that one claim in the case
should be dismissed because the bank's proxy materials didn't
misstate or omit Merrill's intention to award employee bonuses
made in December 2008.
Investors also claim in the suits that the merger agreement
triggered a duty to disclose negative events before the
shareholder vote because the agreement said "no material adverse
effects" would arise between the time the agreement was made and
the closing of the acquisition. Judge Castel granted Bank of
America's request to dismiss that claim.
Bank of America spokesman Bob Stickler said the company is
studying Friday's ruling and declined to comment further.
Andrew Entwistle, a lawyer representing shareholders, declined to
comment.
$150 Million Settlement
In February, Bank of America agreed to pay investors $150 million
to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission suit claiming the
Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank misled shareholders about
bonuses and losses after announcing it would acquire Merrill. The
settlement also requires the bank to take steps over the next
three years to strengthen its corporate governance.
Also in February, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo also sued
Bank of America along with former Chief Executive Officer Kenneth
Lewis and former Chief Financial Officer Joe Price. Cuomo accused
them of misleading investors by failing to disclose losses at
Merrill Lynch. Lewis has asked the court to throw the case out.
The case is In Re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative,
and ERISA Litigation, case no. 10-05563 (S.D.N.Y.). The SEC case
is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America Corp.,
case no. 09-cv-06829 (S.D.N.Y.). The Cuomo case is People of State
of New York v. Bank of America, case no. 450115-2010 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.).
BAXTER INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the ruling of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granting summary judgment in
favor of Baxter International Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In October 2004, a purported class action was filed against Baxter
and its current Chief Executive Officer and then current Chief
Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by
offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each of
the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.
In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.
In April 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied
Baxter's interlocutory appeal and upheld the trial court's denial
of Baxter's motion to dismiss.
On Sept. 28, 2009, the trial court partially granted Baxter's
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing claims related to
the 2004 timeframe.
In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.
Summary judgment in the company's favor was granted by the trial
court in May 2010. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases,
kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical
conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a
combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and
biotechnology to create products that advance patient care
worldwide.
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging
that it artificially increased the price of plasma-derived
therapies.
The company is a defendant, along with others, in eleven lawsuits
brought in various U.S. federal courts alleging that Baxter and
certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and
artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since
2004.
The complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief
and in some cases demand treble damages. These cases have been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases,
kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical
conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a
combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and
biotechnology to create products that advance patient care
worldwide.
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Heparin-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., continues to defend purported class
actions over the recall of heparin products.
In connection with the recall of heparin products in the United
States, approximately 650 lawsuits, some of which are purported
class actions, have been filed alleging that plaintiffs suffered
various reactions to a heparin contaminant, in some cases
resulting in fatalities.
In June 2008, a number of these federal cases were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
pretrial case management under the Multi District Litigation
rules. A trial date for the first of these cases is scheduled for
early 2011.
In September 2008, a number of state court cases were consolidated
in Cook County, Illinois for pretrial case management, with a
scheduled trial date for the first of these cases in May 2011.
Discovery is ongoing with respect to these matters.
No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases,
kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical
conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a
combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and
biotechnology to create products that advance patient care
worldwide.
BEAR LAKE: Deadline to File Class Claims Is November 29
-------------------------------------------------------
This notice is to all individuals and entities (other than
Excluded Persons, as defined below), who purchased common stock of
Bear Lake Gold Ltd. (the "Company" or "BLG") traded on the TSX-V
during the period from July 18, 2006 to and including July 17,
2009 ("Class Period") and who held some or all of those shares
when trading in BLG's common stock was halted on July 17, 2009
("Class Members").
Read this notice carefully as it may affect your legal rights.
Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publication
purposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached in
this litigation. A Second Long Form Notice, with full details of
the settlement is available on Class Counsel's Web site:
http://www.classaction.ca/, or the Administrator's Web site:
http://www.bearlakegoldsettlement.com/
Court Approval of the Class Action Settlement
In 2009, a class action was commenced in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court") against BLG and certain of its
current or former officers and directors (the "Defendants"). By
order issued on August 10, 2010 the Court certified the class
action and approved the Settlement Agreement dated May 12, 2010
(the "Settlement"). The Settlement is a compromise of disputed
claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault
on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and
continue to deny, the allegations against them.
The Settlement provides that the Defendants will pay $1,305,000
(the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement of the
claims of Class Members, including legal fees, disbursements,
taxes and administration expenses in return for releases and a
dismissal of the class action. The Company will also implement
certain corporate governance enhancements. Mr. Bernard Boily, the
Company's former Vice President of Exploration, has agreed not to
accept a position as an officer or director of an Ontario
reporting issuer for a period of 10 years from the date of the
Settlement.
The Defendants, BLG's past or present parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs,
predecessors, successors and assigns, and any member of the
individual Defendants' families and any entity in which any of
them has or had a legal or de facto controlling interest
("Excluded Persons") are not permitted to participate in the
Settlement.
Administration of the Settlement Agreement
The Court has appointed Analytics Incorporated ("Analytics") as
the Administrator of this Settlement Agreement. Analytics will
oversee the claims and opt-out processes (described below) and
will distribute the Settlement Amount.
Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the
Settlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim
Form, and any supporting documentation to the Administrator, no
later than November 29, 2010, ("Claims Bar Deadline") at the
following address: Bear Lake Gold Settlement, c/o Bowne, 220 Bay
Street, Suite 200, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4 Canada.
The Class Members who do not opt out (as discussed below) and who
file a valid claim will be paid a pro rata share of the balance of
the settlement amount after payment of fees, expenses, and taxes.
All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement unless they "opt out." This means that Class Members
will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal
proceeding against the Defendants, or any other person released by
the Settlement Agreement, in relation to the matters alleged in
the class action unless they opt out. If you do not want to be
bound by the Settlement Agreement you must opt out. Please note
however, that by opting out you will also be barred from making a
claim and receiving compensation from the Settlement Amount.
The settlement may be terminated if the shares purchased by those
who opt out exceeds approximately 5% of the total shares purchased
by all Class Members and held at the end of the Class Period.
If you wish to opt out you must submit a request to opt out which
states the name of the person wishing to opt-out, the number of
shares of BLG purchased during the Class Period and held as of
July 17, 2009 by the person opting out and stating clearly the
person's intention to opt-out of the Settlement, along with
documents evidencing those purchases, as set out in the Second
Long Form Notice, to the Administrator, no later than October 29,
2010, (the "Opt-Out Deadline").
For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, filing a claim and/or opting
out, or to obtain a Claim Form or request to opt out, visit the
Administrator's Web site: http://www.bearlakegoldsettlement.com/
or contact the Administrator by calling 1-866-308-7608.
The law firm of Siskinds LLP is counsel to the Plaintiff in the
class proceeding, and can be reached by telephone, toll free, at
1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380.
Publication of this Notice has been Authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice
Contact:
Monique L. Radlein, Esq.
SISKINDS LLP
Telephone: 519-660-7868
E-mail: Monique.radlein@siskinds.com
BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., is awaiting a decision from
California's highest court in a decertified class-action suit
related to meal and rest breaks.
Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against Brinker in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks. The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was
certified as a class action in July 2006.
On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the
class action on all claims with prejudice.
On Oct. 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a writ to
review the decision of the Court of Appeal.
No further updates on the case were reported in the company's Aug.
24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.
Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/-- is
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and
franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar, Maggiano's Little Italy,
and On The Border Mexican Cantina restaurant concepts.
CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Lawsuit by Two Bondholders
-------------------------------------------------
Cascade Bancorp faces a lawsuit filed by two bondholders,
according to the company's Aug. 24, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
On Aug. 18, 2010, the Bank was named as the defendant in a lawsuit
filed by two related individuals in which the plaintiffs claim
that they have suffered damages related to the Bank's role under
an indenture agreement pertaining to certain bonds. The
plaintiffs allege that they own bonds totaling approximately
$725,000, and request certification of the lawsuit as a class
action so they can seek damages against the Bank exceeding $23.5
million.
Cascade Bancorp through its wholly owned subsidiary, Bank of the
Cascades, offers full-service community banking through 32
branches in Central Oregon, Southern Oregon, Portland/Salem Oregon
and Boise/Treasure Valley Idaho. Cascade Bancorp has no
significant assets or operations other than the Bank.
CARROLS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Request in EEOC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrols Corp. continues to await the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York's decision on the company's
summary judgment motion to dismiss claims in an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit, according to company's
Aug. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.
On Nov. 16, 1998, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York, under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, against Carrols. The
complaint alleged that Carrols engaged in a pattern and practice
of unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation against
former and current female employees. The EEOC identified
approximately 450 individuals (which were subsequently increased
to 511 individuals) that it believed represented the class of
claimants and was seeking monetary and injunctive relief from
Carrols.
On April 20, 2005, the Court issued a decision and order
granting Carrols' Motion for Summary Judgment that Carrols filed
in January 2004. Subject to possible appeal by the EEOC, the case
is dismissed; however the Court noted that it was not ruling on
the claims, if any, that individual employees might have against
Carrols.
On Feb. 27, 2006, Carrols filed a motion for summary judgment to
dismiss all but between four and 17 of the individual claims.
On July 10, 2006, in its response to that motion, the EEOC
asserted that, notwithstanding the Court's dismissal of the case
as a class action, the EEOC may still maintain some kind of
collective action on behalf of these claimants. Oral argument
before the Court was held on Oct. 4, 2006, and the company is
awaiting the Court's decision on its summary judgment motion.
The company notes that although it believe the EEOC's continued
class litigation argument is without merit, it is not possible to
predict the outcome of the pending motion.
Carrols Corporation -- http://www.carrols.com/-- is a
restaurant company in the United States, operating three
restaurant brands in the quick-casual and quick-service
restaurant segments with 553 restaurants located in 16 states as
of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company owns, operates two Hispanic
restaurant brands, Pollo Tropical and Taco Cabana (Hispanic
Brands).
COCA-COLA: Faces ERISA Class Suit After Canceling Health Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing 500 striking employees at Coke filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company Friday for violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act after Coke canceled
the employees' health care. Five plaintiffs were named in the
complaint.
ERISA is the federal law that sets minimum standards for health
plans in private industry to protect individuals covered under
these plans.
"My wife had a kidney transplant two years ago. When Coke
cancelled our health care, they cut off her anti-rejection
medication. This shows me that Coke doesn't care about its
employees," said Bill Mauhl, a 34-year Coke employee, who works in
the company's production facility in Bellevue.
"In my almost twenty years of representing workers and unions in
labor disputes, it's hard to think of any past instance where I
have seen an employer retaliate against its striking workers in a
manner as egregious as what the Coca-Cola Bottling Company has
done here," said Dmitri Iglitzin, an attorney at Schwerin Campbell
Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt, an employment law firm based in
Seattle.
"Cutting off the medical benefits to more than 500 workers,
knowing that many of them rely on those benefits on a day-to-day
basis and will be irreparably harmed if they lose those benefits
is a brutal, full-scale attack by Coke on its own workers," Mr.
Iglitzin said.
Approximately 500 Coke employees in Western Washington went on
strike on Monday last week over charges of employee surveillance,
intimidation and bad faith bargaining.
Contract negotiations between the Union and Coke have been
underway since April, but the Company refused to bargain for 10
weeks, and then began an aggressive campaign of unfair labor
practices. The employees' contract expired on May 25, 2010.
KOMO 4 News reports a Coca-Cola spokesman said the company had not
yet reviewed the complaint, and refused to comment.
KOMO 4 News relates Bob Phillips, Coca-Cola's vice president of
public affairs, said the company did not cancel the workers'
health care coverage as punishment, but rather because the
striking workers are not eligible as long as they refuse to work
for the company. He said the workers were paid only through
Aug. 14, and a fee scheduled to be deducted from employees' Sept.
3 paycheck was to cover health care from Aug. 15 to Aug. 28.
Because the coverage has been canceled, Phillips said no medical
deductions will be made on the next paycheck.
The Teamsters and Coke are scheduled to return to the negotiation
table this week.
Mr. Iglitzin can be reached at:
Dmitri Iglitzin, Esq.
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98119-3971
Telephone: 206-285-2828
Facsimile: 206-378-4132
COHEN & STEERS: Faces Class Action Over Redemption of Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen & Steers, Inc., disclosed that a class-action lawsuit has
been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, with respect to Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Fund, Inc.
In addition to the Fund, the named defendants include the officers
of the Fund, Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. and CNS. The
complaint alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Fund's redemption of auction market preferred
securities at their liquidation preference.
Cohen & Steers believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.
Cohen & Steers is a manager of income-oriented equity portfolios
specializing in U.S. and international real estate securities,
large cap value stocks, listed infrastructure and utilities, and
preferred securities. The company also manages alternative
investment strategies such as hedged real estate securities
portfolios and private real estate multi-manager strategies for
qualified investors. Headquartered in New York City, with offices
in London, Brussels, Hong Kong and Seattle, Cohen & Steers serves
individual and institutional investors through a broad range of
investment vehicles.
CPI INTERNATIONAL: Asserts Claims in Merger Lawsuit Have No Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI International, Inc., is facing a lawsuit for allegedly failing
to provide stockholders with material information related to a
proposed merger with Comtech Telecommunications Corporation,
according to the company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2010.
On May 10, 2010, CPI International announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement with Comtech Telecommunications
Corporation. Under the proposed transaction, Comtech agreed to
acquire the Company in a merger in which Company stockholders
would receive a combination of cash and stock in exchange for
their Company shares. The ultimate amount of consideration that a
Company stockholder will receive for each Company share will be
equal to a combination of $9.00 in cash plus a fraction of a share
of Comtech common stock equal to $8.10 divided by the average
closing price of Comtech common stock over a specified period of
time prior to closing, provided that the fraction will not be
greater than 0.2382 nor less than 0.2132.
On July 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed against CPI International, the members of the CPI
International board of directors, and Comtech Telecommunications
Corp. in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara, entitled Continuum Capital v. Michael Targoff, et al. (Case
No. 110CV175940). The lawsuit concerns the proposed merger
between CPI and Comtech, and generally asserts claims alleging,
among other things, that each member of CPI's board of directors
breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the
proposed merger and by failing to provide stockholders with
allegedly material information related to the proposed merger, and
that Comtech aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of the company's board of
directors. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, class action
certification and monetary relief.
On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making
generally the same claims against the same defendants, and seeking
the same relief. In addition, the amended complaint generally
alleges that the consideration to be paid to CPI International's
stockholders under the terms of the proposed merger is inadequate.
The Company believes all claims asserted in the lawsuit to be
without merit.
CPI International Inc. -- http://www.cpiinternational.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Communications & Power
Industries, Inc., develops, manufactures and distributes microwave
and power grid Vacuum Electron Devices ("VEDs"), microwave
amplifiers, modulators, antenna systems and various other power
supply equipment and devices.
CRACKER BARREL: Accused in Indiana Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old County Store made managers work 60 to 70 hours
a week without overtime and docked their wages if receipts didn't
hit a mark, a class action claims in Terre Haute, Ind., Federal
Court.
ERNST & YOUNG: Kentucky Court Orders Arbitration of Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky on August 26, 2010, affirmed the
Franklin Circuit Court's order in Civil Action No. 05-CI-00344
denying Ernst & Young, LLP's demand for arbitration of the claims
brought against it by Sharon P. Clark, in her official capacity as
Commissioner for the Kentucky Department of Insurance and
Rehabilitator of AIK Comp, a workers' compensation self-insurance
group.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Franklin Circuit Court's
order in Civil Action No. 05-CI-00455 denying Ernst & Young's
motion to compel arbitration of the claims of Appalachian Regional
Healthcare, Inc., and the other class action plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court remands the matter to the Franklin Circuit Court
for entry of an order compelling arbitration of the class action
lawsuit and for further proceedings in the adjudication of the
Rehabilitator's claims.
The Rehabilitator of AIK Comp seeks to assert tort claims on
behalf of AIK Comp against Ernst & Young LLP, and others. Similar
claims were also asserted by the individual members of AIK Comp in
a class action.
A copy of the court's opinion is available at:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inkyco20100826261
CRM HOLDINGS: Application Still Pending With Coordination Panel
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd., now known as Majestic Capital, Ltd., has a
pending application to coordinate pretrial proceedings in the
lawsuit filed by Wholesale Retail Workers' Compensation Trust of
New York with other lawsuits, 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 Nov. 24, 2008, FS Kids, LLC, Mask Foods, Inc., Valu Home
Centers, Inc., KBLM Foods, Inc., KDJB Foods, Inc., Gaige & Son
Grocery, Inc., TJ's Market, Inc., BB&T Supermarkets Inc., BNR-
Larson, LLC, and Gift Express of New York, Inc., all of which
were former members of Wholesale Retail Workers' Compensation
Trust of New York (WRWCTNY), on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York Supreme
Court, Erie County.
On Aug. 26, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking class action certification and alleging that CRM:
(1) breached its contract with WRWCTNY;
(2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
to WRWCTNY;
(3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to WRWCTNY;
(4) was negligent in administering WRWCTNY;
(5) engaged in deceptive business practices;
(6) was unjustly enriched; and
(7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
that they may incur.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages arising from the plaintiffs'
joint and several liability for the deficit of WRWCTNY which, as
of Sept. 30, 2007, was estimated at $19 million, and from any
unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount
presently undetermined.
In September 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.
CRM's motion to dismiss was denied by the court on March 11, 2010.
Following the court's decision, in April 2010, CRM submitted an
application to the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel,
seeking to coordinate pretrial proceedings in these lawsuits
before a single justice of the New York State Supreme Court,
Albany County:
(1) FS Kids LLC, et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(2) Armstrong Brands, Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk
Managers, LLC;
(3) Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip, LLC, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(4) 70 Sheldon Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(5) Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, et al.;
(6) New York State Workers Compensation Board v. Compensation
Risk Managers, LLC et al.; and
(7) any future lawsuits which relate to CRM's administration of
group self-insured trusts in the State of New York.
In connection with CRM's application, the Litigation Coordination
Panel issued an order staying each of the lawsuits for which
coordination was sought pending the Panel's decision. CRM's
application is currently pending before the Panel.
CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a
provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California. The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. On May 5, 2010, CRM
Holdings changed its name to Majestic Capital, Ltd.
CRM HOLDINGS: Stay in Trade Trust's Amended Complaint Remains
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint filed by The Trade Industry Trust Workers'
Compensation Trust for Manufacturers against CRM Holdings, Ltd.,
in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, remains stayed,
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 March 6, 2009, Armstrong Brands, Inc., Metal Cladding, Inc.,
TREK, Inc., Petri Baking Products, Inc., Time Cap Laboratories,
Inc., Custom Coatings, Inc., GPM Associates, LLC, d/b/a Forbes
Products, PJR Industries, Inc., d/b/a Southside Precast Products,
Lakeshore Metals, Inc. Duro-Shed, Inc., Tooling Enterprises, Inc.
Northeast Concrete Products, Inc., d/b/a Concrete Building Supply
and Superior Steel Studs, Inc., all of which were former members
of Trade Industry Trust Workers' Compensation Trust for
Manufacturers (the "Trade Trust"), on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York
State Supreme Court, Erie County.
The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
CRM:
(1) breached its contract with the Trade Trust;
(2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
to the Trade Trust;
(3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to Trade Trust;
(4) was negligent in administering the Trade Trust;
(5) engaged in deceptive business practices;
(6) was unjustly enriched; and
(7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
that they may incur.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages:
(a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several liability
for the deficit of the Trade Trust which, as of
Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at $4.9 million,
(b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured
employees in an amount presently undetermined,
(c) from potentially being liable for the costs of
liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and
(d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Trade Trust to
CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM and the
Trade Trust.
On Aug. 17, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint. The motion is currently pending before the court.
On Nov. 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging substantially the same claims and damages as contained
in their original complaint.
In April 2010, CRM submitted an application to the New York State
Litigation Coordinating Panel, seeking to coordinate pretrial
proceedings in these lawsuits before a single justice of the New
York State Supreme Court, Albany County:
(1) FS Kids LLC, et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(2) Armstrong Brands, Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk
Managers, LLC;
(3) Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip, LLC, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(4) 70 Sheldon Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(5) Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, et al.;
(6) New York State Workers Compensation Board v. Compensation
Risk Managers, LLC et al.; and
(7) any future lawsuits which relate to CRM's administration of
group self-insured trusts in the State of New York.
In connection with CRM's application, the Litigation Coordination
Panel issued an order staying each of the lawsuits for which
coordination was sought pending the Panel's decision.
Accordingly, Trade Trust's Amended Complaint is currently stayed
pursuant to the Litigation Coordination Panel's Order, and CRM
will have 20 days to respond to the complaint once the stay is
lifted.
CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a
provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California. The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. On May 5, 2010, CRM
Holdings changed its name to Majestic Capital, Ltd.
CRM HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Real Estate's Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former
members of the Real Estate Management Trust of New York in the
New York Supreme Court, Erie County, remains stayed, 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 Aug. 18, 2009, Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip LLC,
Anchor Building Maintenance Corp., Conifer Realty, LLC, Constanza
Enterprises, Inc., Court Plaza Senior Apartments, L.P., John
Wesley Village II, Midland Management, LLC, Niagara River World,
Inc., Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corp., and Wen Management
Corp., all of which were former members of the Real Estate
Management Trust of New York (the "Real Estate Trust"), on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued
CRM in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County.
The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
CRM:
(1) breached its contract with the Real Estate Trust;
(2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
to the Real Estate Trust;
(3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to the Real Estate
Trust;
(4) was negligent in administering the Real Estate Trust;
(5) engaged in deceptive business practices;
(6) was unjustly enriched; and
(7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
that they may incur.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages:
(a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several
liability for the deficit of the Real Estate Trust
which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at
$1.6 million,
(b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured
employees in an amount presently undetermined,
(c) from potentially being liable for the costs of
liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and
(d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Real Estate
Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM
and the Real Estate Trust.
On Oct. 20, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.
In April 2010, CRM submitted an application to the New York State
Litigation Coordinating Panel, seeking to coordinate pretrial
proceedings in these lawsuits before a single justice of the New
York State Supreme Court, Albany County:
(1) FS Kids LLC, et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(2) Armstrong Brands, Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk
Managers, LLC;
(3) Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip, LLC, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(4) 70 Sheldon Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(5) Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, et al.;
(6) New York State Workers Compensation Board v. Compensation
Risk Managers, LLC et al.; and
(7) any future lawsuits which relate to CRM's administration of
group self-insured trusts in the State of New York.
In connection with CRM's application, the Litigation Coordination
Panel issued an order staying each of the lawsuits for which
coordination was sought pending the Panel's decision.
Accordingly, Real Estate Trust's Complaint is currently stayed
pursuant to the Litigation Coordination Panel's Order, and CRM
will have 20 days to respond to the complaint once the stay is
lifted.
CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a
provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California. The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. On May 5, 2010, CRM
Holdings changed its name to Majestic Capital, Ltd.
CRM HOLDINGS: Transportation Trust's Suit Is Currently Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a suit by filed by former
members of the Transportation Industry Workers' Compensation
Trust in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, is currently
stayed, 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 Aug. 20, 2009, 70 Sheldon, Inc., Advance Relocation Storage,
Inc., All County Bus, LLC, Alpha Services of Westchester, Inc.,
A. T. & A. Trucking Corp., B. Pariso Transport, Inc., Carmen M.
Pariso, Inc., Covered Wagon Train, Inc., Exclusive Ambulette
Service, Inc. Ficel Transport, Inc., North Shore Ambulance and
Oxygen Service, Inc., Rivlab Transportation Corp., Woodland
Leasing Co., Inc., all of which were former members of the
Transportation Industry Workers' Compensation Trust (the
"Transportation Trust"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York State Supreme
Court, Erie County.
The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
CRM:
(1) breached its contract with the Transportation Trust;
(2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed
to the Transportation Trust;
(3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to the
Transportation Trust;
(4) was negligent in administering the Transportation
Trust;
(5) engaged in deceptive business practices;
(6) was unjustly enriched; and
(7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments
that they may incur.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages:
(a) arising from the plaintiffs' joint and several
liability for the deficit of the Transportation Trust
which, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was estimated at
$6.1 million,
(b) from any unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured
employees in an amount presently undetermined,
(c) from potentially being liable for the costs of
liquidation charged or to be charged by the WCB, and
(d) from fees paid by the plaintiffs and the Transportation
Trust to CRM pursuant the service agreement between CRM
and the Transportation Trust.
On Oct. 20, 2009, CRM filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.
In April 2010, CRM submitted an application to the New York State
Litigation Coordinating Panel, seeking to coordinate pretrial
proceedings in these lawsuits before a single justice of the New
York State Supreme Court, Albany County:
(1) FS Kids LLC, et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(2) Armstrong Brands, Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk
Managers, LLC;
(3) Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip, LLC, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(4) 70 Sheldon Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;
(5) Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, et al. v.
Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, et al.;
(6) New York State Workers Compensation Board v. Compensation
Risk Managers, LLC et al.; and
(7) any future lawsuits which relate to CRM's administration of
group self-insured trusts in the State of New York.
In connection with CRM's application, the Litigation Coordination
Panel issued an order staying each of the lawsuits for which
coordination was sought pending the Panel's decision.
Accordingly, Transportation Trust's Complaint is currently stayed
pursuant to the Litigation Coordination Panel's Order, and CRM
will have 20 days to respond to the complaint once the stay is
lifted.
CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a
provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California. The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. On May 5, 2010, CRM
Holdings changed its name to Majestic Capital, Ltd.
CRM HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings Ltd., now known as Majestic Capital, Ltd., is facing
a consolidated securities class action in New York, 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 February 5, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of CRM Holdings Ltd. between
December 21, 2005, and November 5, 2008. The complaint was filed
by Beverly L. Munter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and charges CRM Holdings and certain of the
company's executive officers and directors with violations of
federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that throughout
the class period the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that their public statements concerning CRM Holdings' financial
performance and prospects were materially false and misleading.
Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose that:
(1) the defendants and their affiliates engaged in a fraudulent
scheme and course of business to grow membership in eight
group self-insured trusts previously administered by CRM,
by charging premiums below commercial rates;
(2) the membership growth inflated gross trust revenues while
reducing net paid premium income to the level that the
assets of the group self-insured trusts would become
insufficient to cover liabilities;
(3) accordingly, the group self-insured trusts would fall below
"fully funded" status;
(4) as part of their fraudulent scheme and course of business
to cover up the difference between assets and liabilities,
the defendants and their affiliates disguised the true
financial conditions of the group self-insured trusts by
engaging in certain improprieties designed to result in
minimal projected claims liability, including under-
reserving individual claims and utilizing improper
actuarial/accounting methods;
(5) the defendants and their affiliates provided the New York
State Workers' Compensation Board with materially false
and/or misleading financial and actuarial reports for the
group self-insured trusts which reflected artificially
reduced liabilities;
(6) as a result of all these, the Company was exposed to
hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities relating to
the under-funding of the group self-insured trusts;
(7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(8) as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
In May 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion appointing Brett
Brandes and Beverly L. Munter as lead plaintiffs in the action,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP as lead counsel for the class, and
consolidation of any subsequently filed lawsuits with the action
under the caption In re: CRM Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation.
The Company and defendant directors and officers have been served
with the complaint and will have 60 days to respond once the
plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint.
CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a
provider of workers' compensation insurance products. The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities. Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states. The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations. Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California. The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other. On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar. On May 5, 2010, CRM
Holdings changed its name to Majestic Capital, Ltd.
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Trial in U.S. SRAM Suit Set for January
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. continues to face several consumer
class-action lawsuits filed in various federal courts throughout
the United States and Canada in connection with static random
access memory.
Federal Suits
In October 2006, Cypress, along with a majority of the other SRAM
manufacturers, was sued in over 82 purported consumer class action
suits in various U.S. Federal District Courts. The cases
variously allege claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, state
antitrust laws and unfair competition laws. They seek
restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount.
Direct and indirect purchaser classes have been certified. The
cases are now consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
Trial is tentatively scheduled for January 2011, according to the
Company's August 11, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ending July 4,
2010.
Canadian Suits
In addition to the federal class action lawsuits, Cypress, along
with a number of the SRAM manufacturers, was also sued in
purported consumer anti-trust class action suits in three
separate provinces in Canada. The Canadian lawsuits have not been
materially active over the last two years, the Company noted in
its latest Form 10-Q filing. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to allegations asserted in the various
lawsuits and intend to defend itself over those matters.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.cypress.com/-- is a
broad-line semiconductor company. The company delivers mixed-
signal, programmable solutions. Its offerings include the
Programmable System-on-Chip products, universal serial bus or
USB controllers, general-purpose programmable clocks and
memories. Cypress also offers wired and wireless connectivity
solutions. Cypress serves numerous markets, including consumer,
computation, data communications, automotive and industrial.
DE BEERS: Class Action Settlement May Be Approved on Re-Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
An article posted by Rob Bates at JCKOnline notes the De Beers
anti-trust class action settlement has a better chance of getting
approved, now that a 15-judge panel will re-hear the case, lawyers
say.
"We feel this is a significant development," says plaintiff
attorney Joseph Tabacco, "that will pave the way for the
settlement to hopefully become final in the next few months."
Still, the upshot is: No one is getting their money yet, and
nobody knows when the $300 million settlement will be distributed.
In a separate report, IDEX Online Staff Reporter relates this
week's ruling that the court will re-hear the De Beers class
action law suit was based on lack of common claims and will grants
all sides a chance to re-argue their case, according to legal
trade association Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC).
On August 27, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order
granting a re-hearing before the entire Third Circuit panel. The
issue for the en banc panel to decide is whether the lower court
correctly analyzed if it was appropriate to certify the suit as a
class action, JVC said in a release that explained the ruling.
Some members of the class challenged the certification of the
class and the settlement agreement at the Third Circuit based on a
claim (among others) of a lack of common harm to all of the
members of the class. A smaller three judge panel of the Third
Circuit decided to send the case back to the District Court for
re-consideration on that ground, but now the full court will re-
consider the grounds for the appeal.
This decision granting a re-hearing of this issue before the
entire Third Circuit panel gives all parties to the litigation
another chance to argue that there is no flaw in the certification
of the class. However, it also provides the appellants (those
challenging the settlement) an opportunity to argue again that the
class is incorrectly composed, making the settlement agreement
reached by the parties unsupportable.
During the period of time that the case will be again argued at
the Third Circuit, and until the full court issues its opinion, no
claims filed by any class members will be paid. Even once the
opinion is issued, there could be further delays pending ultimate
resolution of all of the legal issues attached to the case. There
is no time table for this opinion of the full panel to be issued,
and once issued; the decision of the full panel can be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
The Diamond Manufacturers & Importers Association of America
(DMIA) filed an amicus brief (friend of the court) in the
settlement case. DMIA said it decided to take an active role in
the case "to get the De Beers settlement and distribution of the
funds back on track."
FORTIS BENEFITS: Settles Suit Over Health Premiums for $14.6MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Fulton County Daily Report, relates after
almost six years and a circuitous route through Georgia and
federal courts, a class action claiming that several interrelated
insurance companies illegally raised health policy premiums on
small-group policyholders has settled for more than $14.6 million.
The agreement includes a $3.6 million payday for the plaintiffs'
team: former Gov. Roy E. Barnes and his Barnes Law Group partner
John R. Bevis, who served as deputy consumer insurance advocate
during the Barnes administration and as a lead attorney on the
insurance suit. The team also includes L. Andrew Hollis Jr., Esq.,
and Steven W. Couch, Esq., of Birmingham's Hollis & Wright.
"There are going to be substantial refunds for the folks who
bought these policies," said Mr. Bevis. "This is not one of those
settlements where you get coupons or a $25 discount on your next
purchase." Mr. Bevis said a class of 3,692 potential class
members will be eligible to share in the $11 million health
insurance carrier Assurant has agreed to pay out to settle claims
for the policies marketed in Georgia by its corporate predecessor,
Fortis Benefits Insurance Co. The award to each class member will
be calculated based on the cost of the individual policy and the
length of time it was held, said Mr. Bevis.
"This is not a one-size-fits-all settlement," he said.
Mr. Bevis added that the named plaintiff and class representative,
Daniel S. Kahn, will also receive a $35,000 incentive award.
Mr. Barnes, on the campaign trail in a bid to get his old job
back, did not reply to a request for comment, but Mr. Bevis said
the former governor was "very happy."
"I did most of the heavy lifting, but he went to a lot of the
hearings and argued before the courts. He was very involved."
The case began in November 2004, with a suit filed in Georgia's
Fulton County State Court claiming that rate hikes on polices
issued by Fortis to small businesses and individuals had violated
state law and insurance regulations governing the factors insurers
may take into account when calculating increases on small group
policyholders.
According the suit, Fortis and its co-defendants -- Fortis
Insurance, Assurant Inc., Rogers Benefit Group and Phoenix
Associates, and two individual insurance agents -- marketed the
Upper Midwest Employer Group (UMEG) Individual Medical Plan as a
group plan. It was supposed to control medical expenses by
spreading the risk of illness among a large group of individuals.
The suit said premium increases were supposed to be made without
regard for the health or claims history of individuals. Georgia's
law governing small-group insurance law expressly forbids group
carriers from doing otherwise, it said. The suit claimed that the
insurers "engaged in re-underwriting individuals on the basis of
their individual health or individual claims history," creating
"substandard categories" of policyholders whose rates rose more
quickly than the rate "comparable to a normal group health
insurance policy."
"In this fashion," said the complaint, "the defendants
accomplished two sinister purposes: (1) they reaped an enormous
windfall by sharply increasing the renewal policies on UMEG
policies for those unfortunate insureds who became ill and fell
into one of the substandard categories; and (2) once an insured
was cast into a substandard category, the inflated renewal
premiums helped drive the sick and ill from coverage because the
increased premium s became more difficult to afford."
According to filings, the named plaintiff, Mr. Kahn, bought a UMEG
policy for himself and his family in 1995. The following year, he
was diagnosed with a brain tumor; over the course of the next four
years his "quarterly premiums increased, forcing him to drop his
family from the plan in 2001, increase his deductible, and reduce
his available benefits."
Between 2001 and 2004, his premiums rose from $689 to $1,736 by
2004, when his policy was cancelled and replaced by a new Fortis
plan. Both sides agreed that there were 5,757 such policyholders
in Georgia in 1996; by 2004, all of them had either allowed their
policies to lapse or been moved into another insurance plan.
Fortis stopped selling the UMEG plan in 2005, said Mr. Bevis.
Mr. Kahn's suit alleged violations of statutory duty; breach of
contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; unjust enrichment; and conspiracy and fraud through
uniform, written misrepresentations.
The suit sought class certification for anyone who purchased the
UMEG policies from 1993 onward, but the class was later narrowed
to anyone who had purchased the policies and renewed them at least
once, subjecting them to the higher premiums. The defendants were
represented by a team of Burr & Forman partners including Jennifer
"Ginger" M. Busby, Gregory F. Harley and John O. Sullivan. Mr.
Harley, the lead attorney, said any comment on the case would have
to come through Assurant, but inquiries directed to the company's
vice president of communication were not returned by press time.
A 2005 brief supporting Assurant's motion to dismiss argued that
Mr. Kahn had never actually been in a group plan at all. His
insurance certificate plainly stated that Mr. Kahn's was an
individual policy, it said, and that to enroll in the plan he
"must not be eligible for coverage under a group insurance plan
due to employment status."
Further, said the brief, both Georgia law and Georgia Department
of Insurance regulations definitions of an eligible "small group"
specifically excluded Kahn.
While Georgia law may prohibit an insurer from discriminating
"between individuals of the same class and of essentially the same
hazard in the amount of the premium," it said, "the essence of the
plaintiff's claim is that defendants unfairly discriminated
against people of different hazard (i.e. plaintiff claims
defendants charged sick people more at renewal)." "While
plaintiffs' counsel might believe the world would be better if
everyone, regardless of their hazard, paid the same thing for
health insurance, the Georgia Legislature has expressly legislated
otherwise," it said.
The insurer added that Georgia law does not provide for a private
right to sue under its small group statute; that power, it said,
is reserved for the insurance commissioner.
In January 2005, the defense had the case removed to U.S. District
Court in Atlanta. But that September, Judge William S. Duffey Jr.
granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the state
court, ruling that contrary to the defense arguments, all the
defendants were citizens of Georgia and thus could not claim the
"complete diversity" that would keep the case in federal court.
In July 2008, Fulton County State Court Judge Susan B. Forsling
granted class certification. The defense sought relief at the
Georgia Court of Appeals, which in June 2009 affirmed Judge
Forsling's order granting class certification, and the following
month turned aside a motion to reconsider. In January 2010, a
unanimous Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear the case. "After
the Supreme Court denied cert, [the defense] said, 'Do you want to
have settlement discussions?'" said Mr. Bevis. "We said 'Yes, as
long as they're meaningful.' We weren't interested in dragging
this thing out any longer. We had three separate full-day
mediations over the course of about six weeks, which resulted in
the settlement."
According to the order Judge Forsling signed Aug. 18, Assurant
will create a "common fund of up to $11 million," from which
policyholders are entitled to 112% of the additional premiums they
paid during the time they held the policies. "Thus," it said, "the
recovery is proportionate to the amount of the harm allegedly done
rather than a flat rate paid to class members regardless of the
length of time class members held their UMEG . . . policy."
The class includes anyone who bought the UMEG policies and renewed
them at least once.
The plaintiffs attorneys provided timesheets showing more than
1,500 hours had been devoted to the case, it said, and that more
than $33,000 in litigation costs had been advanced.
Regarding the attorney fees, it said, "the court notes that by
securing defendants' agreement to pay up to $3,666,300 in addition
to and not out of the $11 million common fund to the class,
counsel has effectively conferred a total benefit of $14,666,300
for the class members. The requested fees are therefore
approximately 25% of the total benefit conferred and even fall
below the accepted range of customary fee awards made in
contingency fee consumer class alone." The case is Kahn v. Fortis,
No. 2004VS074998.
Plaintiffs were represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
John R. Bevis, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: 770.BARNES LAW (227-6375)
Facsimile: 770.BARNES FAX (227-6373)
- and -
L. Andrew Hollis Jr., Esq.
Steven W. Couch, Esq.
HOLLIS, WRIGHT & HARRINGTON, P.C.,
Financial Center, Suite 1500
505 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-588-2865
Toll Free: 888-496-2271
Facsimile: 205-324-3636
Defendants were represented by:
Burr & Forman partners including Jennifer "Ginger" M. Busby,
Gregory F. Harley and John O. Sullivan.
Jennifer "Ginger" M. Busby, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 458-5341
Facsimile: (205) 244-5614
E-mail: gbusby@burr.com
- and -
John O'Shea Sullivan, Esq.
Gregory F. Harley, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 685-4268
(404) 685-4243
Facsimile: (404) 214-7924
(404) 214-7390
E-mail: shea.sullivan@burr.com
gharley@burr.com
GENTA INC: Collins Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs in the matter Collins v. Warrell, on the
dismissal of their lawsuit remains pending, according to Genta
Incorporated's Aug. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.
In September 2008, several stockholders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, the Board of Directors, and certain of its
executive officers in Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned
Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08. The complaint alleged
that in issuing convertible notes in June 2008, the Board of
Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties,
and the Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty.
On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division. On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for relief from judgment based on a claim of new evidence,
which was denied on June 12, 2009. The plaintiffs also asked the
Appellate Division for a temporary remand to permit the Superior
Court judge to resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs
sought to raise and the Appellate Division granted the motion for
temporary remand.
Following the briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court denied
the motion for relief from judgment on August 28, 2009. Thus,
this matter proceeded in the Appellate Division. Plaintiffs'
brief before the Appellate Division was filed on October 28,
2009, and the Company's responsive brief was filed on
January 27, 2010. The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
March 15, 2010.
The Company is currently awaiting a decision from the Appellate
Division on this matter. At this time, the Company cannot
estimate when the Appellate Division will rule on the appeal.
Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, Genta Incorporated (OTCBB: GETA.OB)
-- http://www.genta.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical company with a
diversified product portfolio that is focused on delivering
innovative products for the treatment of patients with cancer.
GRUPO MEXICO: Accused in Ariz. Suit of Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a police and
firefighters pension plan claims that Grupo Mexico, a copper
conglomerate, is scooping up millions of shares of a copper
company in exchange for shares of a company that does not exist
yet. The shareholders class action claims that Grupo Mexico,
which owns 80% of Southern Copper Corp. through its subsidiary
Americas Mining Corp., is buying all of the 170 million shares of
Southern Copper that it does not already own in exchange for
shares of Americas Mining, which is not listed on any stock
exchange.
The City of North Miami Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters'
Retirement Plan claims the proposal is "grossly inadequate," as
shareholders would end up owning 16.6% of Americas Mining common
stock instead of the 20% of Southern Copper stock that they own
now.
The pension plan says Grupo Mexico announced on July 23 that
Americas Mining had "submitted a nonbinding indication of interest
for an all-stock business combination of SCCO and AMC."
Grupo Mexico, the largest mining corporation in Mexico, "has a
long history of self-dealing transactions negotiated and
consummated through unfair procedures" and "intends to repeat this
history in forcing the public minority shareholders to capitulate
to the proposed transaction," the class claims.
Americas Mining's assets are the 80% ownership of Southern Copper
and 100% ownership of ASARCO, another giant copper mining company,
the class claims.
To support the proposed stock transaction, Grupo Mexico assigned
$5.9 billion to ASARCO, which "emerged from bankruptcy just over
seven months ago."
That amount comes to 34.3 times earnings, the shareholders say,
but the deal values Southern Copper's equity at just 16.3 times
earnings, though Southern Copper "is one of the world's largest
copper producers poised for continued growth." The complaint
claims that since ASARCO's "asset quality" is poorer than Southern
Copper's, the exchange ratio "grossly overvalues" ASARCO and the
Americas Mining stock to be received by Southern Copper
shareholders.
Fourteen people are named as defendants, along with Grupo Mexico,
Americas Mining Corp., and Southern Copper Corp.
The shareholders want the transaction enjoined, an accounting and
damages.
A copy of the Complaint in City of North Miami Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Larrea, et al.,
Case No. CV2010-02567 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/30/GrupoMexico.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard G. Himelrick, Esq.
J. James Christian, Esq.
TIFANNY & BOSCO, P.A.
Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II
2525 East Camelback Rd.
Phoenix, AZ
Telephone: 602-255-6000
E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com
jjc@tblaw.com
- and -
Scott R. Shepherd, ESq.
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
Weston, FL 33326
Telephone: 954-515-0123
- and -
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 212-983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Vahn Alexander, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-461-1426
- and -
Robert A. Sugarman, Esq.
SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND, P.A.
100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: 305-529-2801
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Discovery in Calif. "Privacy" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a putative class action lawsuit against
HealthMarkets, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California, according to HealthMarkets, Inc.'s August 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On December 18, 2008, HealthMarkets and MEGA were named as
defendants in a putative class action (Jerry T. Hopkins,
individually and on behalf all those others similarly situated v.
HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, Case No. BC404133. Plaintiff alleges
invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code Section
630, et seq., negligence and the violation of common law privacy
arising from allegations that the defendants monitored and/or
recorded the telephone conversations of California residents
without providing them with notice or obtaining their consent.
Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the suit as a California class
action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
On December 3, 2009, plaintiff Jerry Hopkins was dismissed as the
class plaintiff and Jerry Buszek was substituted in his place.
On March 10, 2010, defendants' motion for summary judgment was
denied.
Discovery in this matter is ongoing and a hearing regarding class
certification is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2010.
HealthMarkets, Inc. -- http://www.healthmarkets.com/-- offers
health and life insurance through its MEGA Life and Health
Insurance, Chesapeake Life Insurance Company, and other
subsidiaries. Its targeted customers are the self-employed,
association groups, and small businesses. Other services include
third-party administrative and distribution services for health
care providers and other insurers. The company changed its name
from UICI to Health Markets in 2006 after being acquired by a
consortium led by the Blackstone Group.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Wants Amended Securities Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology is seeking dismissal of an amended
securities fraud class action filed in Nevada, according to the
Company's August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2010.
On July 30, 2009, the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging
causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom
is a director. The complaint alleges that between November 1,
2007, and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock
price through a series of materially false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and
prospects.
The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 26, 2010, and
the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on June 17, 2010.
International Game Technology -- http://www.igt.com/-- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing and services. The company maintains an
array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition
to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it
manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom and through a
third-party manufacturer in Japan. The company derives its
revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment and
network systems, as well as licensing and services. Gaming
operations generate recurring revenues by providing customers
with its proprietary gaming equipment and network systems, as
well as licensing, services, and component parts. Its product
sales include the sale of gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing, services, and component parts. In January
2009, it acquired certain operating assets of Progressive Gaming
International Corp.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology's motion to dismiss a consolidated
ERISA class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the
Company's August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2010.
On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.
The complaints, which seek unspecified damages, allege breaches of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132. The complaints further allege
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants
by failing to disclose material facts to Plan Participants,
failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in the interest
of the Participants, failing to properly manage Plan assets,
failing to diversify Plan assets, and permitting Participants to
elect to invest in Company stock. The actions, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et
al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-
00584, and Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.
In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two
actions which motion was granted.
On April 9, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.
International Game Technology -- http://www.igt.com/-- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing and services. The company maintains an
array of entertainment-inspired gaming product lines. In addition
to its United States production facilities in Nevada, it
manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom and through a
third-party manufacturer in Japan. The company derives its
revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming equipment and
network systems, as well as licensing and services. Gaming
operations generate recurring revenues by providing customers
with its proprietary gaming equipment and network systems, as
well as licensing, services, and component parts. Its product
sales include the sale of gaming equipment and network systems,
as well as licensing, services, and component parts. In January
2009, it acquired certain operating assets of Progressive Gaming
International Corp.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Four RISPERDAL-Related Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four out of six originally filed purported class-action lawsuits
against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutica
Inc., now Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (OMJPI),
with regard to RISPERDAL(R), a drug used for the treatment of
schizophrenia, remain pending, according to the company's
August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.
There are six cases filed by union health plans seeking damages
for alleged overpayments for RISPERDAL(R), several of which seek
certification as class actions. One of these has been dismissed
on Summary Judgment.
In the case brought by the Attorney General of West Virginia,
based on claims for alleged consumer fraud as to DURAGESIC(R) as
well as RISPERDAL(R), Janssen was found liable and damages were
assessed at $4.5 million. OMJPI filed an appeal. The West
Virginia Supreme Court has accepted Janssen's appeal from that
Judgment. It will be orally argued in September 2010.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania suit against Janssen, trial
commenced in June 2010. The Judge dismissed the case after the
close of the plaintiff's evidence. The Commonwealth has filed
post-trial motions and may appeal.
Other cases scheduled for trial are in Louisiana and South
Carolina, currently scheduled in September 2010, and Texas
scheduled in January 2011.
In addition, Attorneys General of many states have been involved
in a coordinated civil investigation of OMJPI regarding potential
consumer fraud actions in connection with the marketing of
RISPERDAL(R).
Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field. The company has more than 250
operating companies. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pennsylvania AWP Case Set for Trial in October
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Average Wholesale Price class action lawsuits in the state of
Pennsylvania filed against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiaries are
set for trial in October, according to the company's August 11,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.
Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries,
along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are defendants
in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving
allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain
pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise
actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies
allegedly reported an inflated AWP for the drugs at issue.
Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions
removed to federal court, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in Federal District Court
in Boston, Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs in these cases include classes of private persons
or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs
at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made
Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.
The MDL Court identified classes of Massachusetts-only private
insurers providing "Medi-gap" insurance coverage and private
payers for physician-administered drugs where payments were based
on AWP ("Class 2" and "Class 3"), and a national class of
individuals who made co-payments for physician-administered drugs
covered by Medicare ("Class 1").
A trial of the two Massachusetts-only class actions concluded
before the MDL Court in December 2006.
In June 2007, the MDL Court issued post-trial rulings, dismissing
the Johnson & Johnson defendants from the case regarding all
claims of Classes 2 and 3, and subsequently of Class 1 as well.
Plaintiffs appealed the Class 1 judgment and, in September 2009,
the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for further
proceedings in the District Court.
AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to
trial against other manufacturers.
These state cases against certain of the Company's subsidiaries
have been set for trial: Pennsylvania in October 2010, Hawaii in
November 2010, Idaho in October 2011, and Kentucky in January
2012. Other state cases are likely to be set for trial in the
coming year.
Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field. The company has more than 250
operating companies. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Unit Continues to Face Antitrust Suits in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company, is
facing multiple class action complaints, according to Johnson &
Johnson's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4,
2010.
In April 2009, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics received a grand jury
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
requesting documents and information for the period beginning
September 1, 2000, through the present, pertaining to an
investigation of alleged violations of the antitrust laws in the
blood reagents industry.
The company is in the process of complying with the subpoena.
In the weeks following the public announcement that OCD had
received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division, multiple class
action complaints were filed.
The various cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field. The company has more than 250
operating companies. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Class Actions on Product Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to face several class action
complaints related to product recalls, according to the company's
August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.
In May 2010, Johnson & Johnson received a letter from the United
States House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform ("Committee") requesting information and
documents regarding the April 2010, recall of various infants' and
children's liquid products by McNeil Consumer Healthcare. Johnson
& Johnson produced documents and other information in response to
these requests.
In May 2010, the Committee conducted a public hearing.
Thereafter, the Company received a letter from the Committee,
requesting information and documents regarding the recall of
certain Motrin products by McNeil Consumer Healthcare. Johnson &
Johnson produced documents and other information in response to
these requests.
In addition, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, and certain affiliates
including Johnson & Johnson, received grand jury subpoenas from
the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania requesting documents broadly relating to recent
recalls of various products of McNeil Consumer Healthcare, and the
FDA inspections of the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania and
Lancaster, Pennsylvania manufacturing facilities. The Companies
are cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office in
responding to the subpoenas. Also, multiple complaints seeking
class action certification related to the recalls have been filed.
Johnson & Johnson has also received Civil Investigative Demands
from multiple State Attorneys General Offices relating to the same
issues.
Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field. The company has more than 250
operating companies. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.
KOCH FOODS: Employees File Class Suit Over Underpayment
-------------------------------------------------------
The Chattanoogan.com reports that three employees of the Koch
Foods chicken processing plant in Chattanooga have filed a class
action lawsuit claiming the firm has underpaid them.
The Federal Court suit by Jennifer Swoopes, Yvonne Colvin and
Cardanella Lawal says they should have been paid for their break
time and also for the time they suit up in special garb for work.
The suit by attorneys George Barrett and David Garrison of
Nashville says Koch Foods "requires plaintiffs to perform certain
work-related activities without pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1974."
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Ordered to Pay $8.3MM to Calif. Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Meehan at Lexington Herald-Leader reports that a judge has
ordered Lexmark International to pay some $8.3 million to
compensate its California employees for a flawed "use it or lose
it" vacation pay policy.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Alarcon ruled last week
that the 178 employees identified in the class-action suit should
be compensated for the vacation time and personal time they did
not use before they were terminated.
The employees originally challenged the company saying they should
not lose compensation for the time that they did not use.
The judge ruled in May 2009 that the Lexington-based printer
maker's policy violates California labor law but it took until
June to work out the numbers.
The employees were originally asking for $16 million in damages,
said Sheila Thomas, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
The final judgment set out in an order is $8,299,242.
She said the ruling applies to anyone who worked for Lexmark in
California from 1991 to the present. Most of the plaintiffs were
involved in sales or marketing, she said.
Lexmark declined to comment on the case because of pending
litigation, said the company's Lexington-based spokesman Jerry
Grasso.
MBM INC: Calif. Court of Appeals Dismisses Malk Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, dismissed an
appeal filed by Michael Malk, Esq., from an order disqualifying
him from representing plaintiffs Thomas Arriola and Renato
Trinidad in a class action against defendant MBM, Inc.
During the appeal's pendency, the parties settled the lawsuit. The
trial court approved the settlement and subsequently entered a
judgment incorporating its terms.
A copy of the court's order is available at:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100827049
MOBILE CONTENT PROVIDERS: Settles Suits Over Unauthorized Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of mobile content providers, including Flycell, Inc.,
Glomobi, Mobilefunster, Inc., Thumbplay, Inc., WebAMG Holdings, as
well as the marketing affiliate Glispa, LLC, and the aggregator
Motricity, Inc., have agreed to settle a number of class action
lawsuits against them, involving claims that these companies
charged wireless subscribers for "mobile content" without
authorization. To be clear, each of the Defendants has denied any
wrongful conduct, and the settlement is in no way a judgment or
ruling by the Court that the Defendants did anything wrong.
"Mobile content" refers to electronic products such as ringtones,
games, graphics, news, and other alerts that are provided through
mobile phones and are charged directly to consumers' mobile phone
bills. Although a relatively new form of commerce, mobile content
has evolved to form a large and increasingly important industry.
The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Circuit
Court of Cook County in Illinois; it includes a $9 million fund to
pay all claims of settlement members, and attorney's fees of up to
$1.85 million. Settlement members are eligible to receive a one-
time cash award of $10.00, or a refund of up to three months of
content subscription charges. Members of the settlement class
include any person in the U.S. and its territories who, at any
time prior to August 27, 2010, were charged, damaged, or otherwise
lost money as a result of unauthorized content from any of the
settling Defendants. People can find out if they're eligible by
scanning past phone records for short codes that identify the
various mobile content companies. Participants in the AT&T, Mobile
Messenger, Media Breakaway, m-Qube or Jamster! settlements are not
eligible.
In addition to the payout, the Defendants are required to agree to
adhere to certain consumer protection practices -- including
properly disclosing billing terms -- as well as promptly refunding
unauthorized content.
Attorneys Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, Rafey S. Balabanian, and
Steven L. Lezell of Edelson McGuire, LLC, were appointed by the
Court to serve as the attorneys for the class. Full details can
be found at http://www.cellcontentsettlement.com/ Class members
may also call the claims administrator directly at 1-800-936-5093
or Class Counsel at 1-866-354-3015.
The Class is represented by:
Myles McGuire, Esq.
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Steven L. Lezell, Esq.
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
Telephone: 1-312-589-6370
Facsimile: 1-312-589-6378
E-mail: mmcguire@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
slezell@edelson.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $4.9MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld LLP, a global law firm dedicated to handling complex
litigation and class action matters for businesses, organizations,
and individuals, disclosed a $4.95 million settlement with Morgan
Stanley in In re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 08-cv-2516 (S.D.N.Y.). Hausfeld LLP serves as one of the
interim class counsel law firms leading the case.
In this antitrust class action regarding municipal derivatives,
the plaintiffs allege that banks, insurance companies and brokers
engaged in anticompetitive behavior in the municipal derivatives
industry to the detriment of state, local, and municipal
governments and their agencies, as well as private entities that
purchased municipal derivatives from 1992 to the present. Morgan
Stanley has vigorously denied all claims of alleged wrongdoing and
entered the settlement without any such admission in order to
avoid the costs, burdens, and business distraction of costly class
action litigation.
Under the settlement, which awaits court approval, Morgan Stanley
has agreed to pay $4.95 million to resolve the claims, along with
an additional $1.55 million for notice and costs associated with
administering the settlement. Plaintiffs continue to pursue
antitrust claims against other entities in the municipal
derivatives industry.
Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on this case are:
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Megan E. Jones, Esq.
Faris Ghareeb, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202-540-7200
Facsimile: 202-540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
mjones@hausfeldllp.com
fghareeb@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-633-1908
Facsimile: 415-358-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Plaintiff Dismisses Appeal to Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in a consolidated suit against Nutrisystem, Inc., has
dismissed the appeal filed over the dismissal of the suit,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
Commencing on Oct. 9, 2007, several putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania naming Nutrisystem, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors as defendants and alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 14,
2007 and Oct. 3, 2007 or Oct. 4, 2007.
The complaints alleged 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.
These actions were consolidated in December 2007 under docket
number 07-4215.
On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on March 7, 2008. The consolidated amended
complaint raised the same claims but alleged a class period of
Feb. 14, 2007 through Feb. 19, 2008.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2008. On Aug.
31, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and the
appeal was fully briefed. On May 19, 2010, upon motion by the
appellant, the appeal was dismissed without costs to either party.
Nutrisystem, Inc. -- http://www.nutrisystem.com/-- is a leading
provider of weight management products and services. Nutrisystem
is sold direct to the consumer through nutrisystem.com, by phone,
and at select retailers, with convenient home delivery. The
company offers proven nutritionally balanced weight loss programs
designed for women, men, and seniors, as well as the clinically
tested Nutrisystem D plan, designed to help people with type 2
diabetes who want to lose weight. The Nutrisystem program is
based on more than 35 years of nutrition research and the science
of the low glycemic index, and offers a variety of great tasting,
satisfying high-fiber, good carbohydrate meals that are heart
healthy. Nutrisystem was named the "Best Value" of the six most
popular commercial diet programs by SmartMoney magazine in January
2010. The program has no membership fees and provides 24/7 weight
management support by trained weight loss coaches and online
weight management tools free of charge. In 2010 Internet Retailer
magazine recognized Nutrisystem as one of the top two overall
online retailers in the Food and Drug category, and as number 56
of the top 500 online retailers overall. Nutrisystem proudly
supports the American Diabetes Association in its Movement to Stop
Diabetes and WomenHeart, The National Coalition for Women with
Heart Disease, in its mission to bring about a greater awareness
of the link between heart disease and obesity.
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Opposes Appeal on Pennsylvania Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrisystem, Inc., continues to oppose the appeal of the plaintiff
on the dismissal of a suit against the company, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On March 28, 2008, a former Nutrisystem, Inc. sales representative
filed a putative collective action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, docket no. 08-
1508, alleging that the company unlawfully failed to pay overtime
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of
current and former sales representatives who were compensated by
the company pursuant to a commission-based compensation plan,
rather than on an hourly basis. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on May 28, 2008, adding a state-law class claim under
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, alleging that the company's
compensation plan also violated state law.
On June 11, 2008, the company answered the amended complaint and
moved to dismiss the plaintiff's state-law class claim.
On June 11, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to proceed as a
collective action and sent class members notice under the Fair
Labor Standards Act claim. On July 25, 2008, the Court granted
the company's motion to dismiss with respect to the state law
claim.
On Sept. 26, 2008, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed
as a collective action and facilitate notice. On Oct. 8, 2008,
the Court entered a Stipulation and Order approving proposed
notice of a collective action lawsuit. On Oct. 14, 2008,
plaintiff's counsel mailed notice to potential class members.
Including plaintiff, fifty-four former sales representatives and
fourteen current sales representatives have opted-in to this
litigation.
On March 9, 2009, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' claims. On June 22, 2009, plaintiffs filed their
response in opposition to the company's motion for summary
judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment. On July 6, 2009,
the company filed its reply in further support of its motion for
summary judgment. Thereafter, on July 22, 2009, plaintiffs filed
their reply in further support of their cross-motion for summary
judgment.
The Court heard oral argument on the cross-motions for summary
judgment on July 24, 2009. On July 31, 2009, the Court entered an
Order granting the company's motion for summary judgment and
denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.
On Sept. 10, 2009, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's Order
granting the company's motion for summary judgment and denying
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. On Jan. 4, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their brief in support of their appeal. On Jan.
7, 2010, several employee rights organizations filed an amicus
curiae brief in this matter. On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S.
Department of Labor filed an amicus curiae brief in this matter.
On March 8, 2010, the company filed its brief in opposition to
plaintiffs' appeal. On June 21, 2010, the Third Circuit held oral
argument on plaintiffs' appeal.
Nutrisystem, Inc. -- http://www.nutrisystem.com/-- is a leading
provider of weight management products and services. Nutrisystem
is sold direct to the consumer through nutrisystem.com, by phone,
and at select retailers, with convenient home delivery. The
company offers proven nutritionally balanced weight loss programs
designed for women, men, and seniors, as well as the clinically
tested Nutrisystem D plan, designed to help people with type 2
diabetes who want to lose weight. The Nutrisystem program is
based on more than 35 years of nutrition research and the science
of the low glycemic index, and offers a variety of great tasting,
satisfying high-fiber, good carbohydrate meals that are heart
healthy. Nutrisystem was named the "Best Value" of the six most
popular commercial diet programs by SmartMoney magazine in January
2010. The program has no membership fees and provides 24/7 weight
management support by trained weight loss coaches and online
weight management tools free of charge. In 2010 Internet Retailer
magazine recognized Nutrisystem as one of the top two overall
online retailers in the Food and Drug category, and as number 56
of the top 500 online retailers overall. Nutrisystem proudly
supports the American Diabetes Association in its Movement to Stop
Diabetes and WomenHeart, The National Coalition for Women with
Heart Disease, in its mission to bring about a greater awareness
of the link between heart disease and obesity.
ORIENT PAPER: Receives Notice of "Henning" Suit
--------------------- -------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc., has been served notice of a class action
lawsuit captioned Mark Henning v. Orient Paper et al., 10-cv-5887
RSWL (AJWx), according to the company's Aug. 24, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On Aug. 20, 2010, the company was served notice of a stockholder
class action lawsuit filed on Aug. 6, 2010 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the company,
the current and former officers and members of the board of
directors of the company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.
The complaint in the lawsuit alleges, among other claims, that the
company issued materially false and misleading statements and
omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative
statements misleading as they related to the company's financial
performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that
the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued
or corrected. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts'
fees.
Mr. Henning purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a
class consisting of the company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).
Orient Paper, Inc. -- http://www.orientalpapercorporation.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Shengde Holdings, Inc.,
controls and operates Baoding Shengde Paper Co., Ltd., and Hebei
Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd. Founded in 1996, HBOP is
engaged in the production and distribution of products such as
corrugating medium paper, offset printing paper, writing paper,
and other paper and packaging-related products in China. The
company uses recycled paper as its primary raw material. Baoding
Shengde, founded in June 2009 located in Baoding, is engaged in
the production and distribution of digital photo paper. As one of
the largest paper producers in Hebei Province, China, HBOP is
strategically located in Baoding, a city in close proximity to
Beijing where the majority of publishing houses are based. Orient
Paper is led by an experienced management team committed to
diversifying the company's product offering and delivering
tailored services to its customers.
PACTIV CORP: Accused of Selling Itself for Inadequate Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Timmons, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pactiv Corporation, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-36811
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 25, 2010), accuses Pactiv
Corporation and Pactiv Board of Directors of breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Company's public shareholders, arising out
of their efforts to sell the Company to Reynolds Group Holdings
Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rank Group Limited, for
$33.25 per share in cash, for a total transaction value of
$6 billion. Mr. Timmons says the Proposed Transaction undervalues
Pactiv, given the Company's steadily rising stock price and
improving financial results. In addition, Mr. Timmons says that
the proposed offer of $33.25 per share represents a meager 7.5%
premium over Pactiv's closing price on the day before the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction.
Mr. Timmons says that Pactiv's Board failed to demonstrate they
took all necessary steps to maximize shareholder value, as
exemplified by their agreeing to preclusive deal protection
provisions that effectively shuts out potential competing bids.
These preclusive devices include a "no-solicitation provision",
the payment of a termination fee of up to $160 million if Pactiv
decides to pursue another offer, and a provision that allows
Reynolds to match any unsolicited offer which the Board determines
to be superior.
Pactiv Corporation manufactures and sells Consumer and Food
Service and Food Packaging products in the United States and
internationally. Defendant Richard Wambold currently serves as
the Chairman of the Board and as the Company's Chief Executive
Officer.
Pactiv's board of directors has unanimously approved the merger
agreement, the completion of which is subject to Pactiv's
shareholder approval, regulatory approvals, and customary closing
conditions, and is targeted to occur by the end of the year.
The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:
Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 606-0500
E-mail: Clint@krislovlaw.com
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
1050 30th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 337-8000
- and -
David A.P. Brower, Esq.
BROWER PIVEN
A Professional Corporation
488 Madison Avenue, Eight Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 501-9000
PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit Over Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company continues to defend an amended purported
shareholder class action complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 26, 2010.
On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, including the President
and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief Financial
Officer, Judy Brown, among others. The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The
plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by
failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain
auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling
approximately $18 million in par value (the ARS), had been
purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman). The
plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the
seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman's bankruptcy
filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable
to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value.
The complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable
or injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys' fees.
On June 15, 2009, the Court endorsed a stipulation appointing
several purported shareholders of the company, namely CLAL
Finance Batucha Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix
Insurance Company, Ltd., Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds
Management, Ltd. and Excellence Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On July 31, 2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped all
claims against the individual defendants other than Joseph Papa
and Judy Brown, and added a "control person" claim under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the company's
Audit Committee, namely Laurie Brlas, Gary Kunkle and Ben-Zion
Zilberfarb. The amended complaint asserts the same statutory
claims and contains the same class action allegations as the
original pleading. The amended complaint alleges that the company
should have disclosed, prior to Feb. 3, 2009, that Lehman had sold
the ARS to the company and had provided the allegedly inflated
valuation of the ARS that the company adopted in its Form 10-Q
filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009, which was filed with
the SEC on Nov. 6, 2008. The amended complaint also alleges that
some portion of the write-down of the value of the ARS that the
company recognized in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 should
have been taken in the prior quarter, immediately following
Lehman's bankruptcy filing.
On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims against all defendants. The motion to dismiss was
fully briefed and submitted to the Court on December 14, 2009.
During the pendency of the dismissal motion, discovery is stayed.
No further developments were disclosed by the company in its
latest Form 10-K filing with the SEC.
Perrigo believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.
Perrigo Company -- http://www.perrigo.com/-- is a global
healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes
over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional
products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and pharmaceutical
and medical diagnostic products. The company operates in three
segments: Consumer Healthcare, Rx Pharmaceuticals and API. The
company has other category that consists of the Israel
Pharmaceutical and Diagnostic Products. The company operates
through wholly owned subsidiaries. In the United States, its
operations are conducted through L. Perrigo Company, Perrigo
Company of South Carolina, Inc., Perrigo New York, Inc., Perrigo
Holland, Inc. and Perrigo Florida, Inc. Outside the United
States, its operations are conducted through Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chemagis Ltd., Quimica y Farmacia S.A. de
C.V., Laboratorios Diba, S.A., Wrafton Laboratories Limited,
Brunel Pharma Limited and Galpharm Healthcare Ltd.
PETROKAZAKHSTAN INC: Notice of C$9.9 Mil. Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petrokazakhstan Inc. Securities Litigation
Notice of Class Actions and Proposed Settlement
This Notice is to All Persons (as Defined Below), Resident in
Canada or Elsewhere, Who Sold Common Shares of Petrokazakhstan
Inc. ("Pkz") During the Period from and Including June 17, 2005 to
and Including August 12, 2005 ("Class Period"), Other Than
Excluded Persons (as Defined Below) ("Class Members").
Read this notice carefully as it may affect your legal rights.
Class Actions Commenced in Ontario and Alberta Have Been Settled
In 2007, class actions were commenced in Ontario and Alberta
against 1000128 Alberta Ltd., CNPC International (Canada) Ltd.,
China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Corp., CNPC
International Ltd. and China National Petroleum Corporation (the
"Defendants"). The Plaintiffs in the actions allege that the
Defendants engaged in insider trading and "tipping" relating to
the common shares of PKZ and participated in an unlawful
conspiracy to engage in insider trading and "tipping" relating to
the common shares of PKZ, contrary to statutory and common law.
The parties in the class actions have reached a proposed
settlement subject to obtaining the approval of the courts in
Ontario and Alberta. The Settlement Agreement provides that the
Defendants will pay CDN$9,990,000 (the "Settlement Amount") in
full and final settlement of all claims, including class counsel
fees, disbursements, taxes and administration expenses in return
for releases and a dismissal of the class actions.
The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of
the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny, the
allegations against them.
Settlement Approval Motions Will Be Held in Ontario and Alberta
The Settlement Agreement must be approved by the courts in Ontario
and Alberta before it can be implemented. Class Members may, but
are not required to, attend at the settlement approval motions
which will be held:
1. In Ontario: on Friday, October 22, 2010 at
10:00 a.m. at the London Courthouse,
80 Dundas St., London, Ontario; and
2. In Alberta: on Thursday, October 28, 2010
at 3:30 p.m. at the Law Courts,
1A Sir Winston Churchill Square, Edmonton,
Alberta.
If the Settlement Agreement is approved, another notice to Class
Members will be published which will provide instructions on how
to make a claim to receive compensation from the settlement amount
and how to opt out of the class if the Class Member does not wish
to share in, or be bound by, the settlement.
Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement do not
need to appear at any of the hearings or take any other action at
this time to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed
settlement.
Class Counsel Fees and Administrative Expenses
In addition to seeking the courts' approval of the Settlement
Agreement, Class Counsel (as identified below) will seek the
courts' approval of their legal fees not to exceed 25% of the
Settlement Amount, plus disbursements and applicable taxes ("Class
Counsel Fees"). Class Counsel will also seek appointment of an
Administrator for the Settlement Agreement whose fees, together
with any other amounts incurred or payable relating to approval,
notification, implementation and administration of the Settlement
("Administration Expenses"), will also be paid from the Settlement
Amount. Class Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses will be
deducted from the Settlement Amount before it is distributed to
Class Members.
Terms of the Settlement Agreement
The remainder of the Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class
Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses (the "Net Settlement
Amount"), will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with
the Distribution Protocol attached as Schedule "E" to the
Settlement Agreement, which, in general terms, provides that:
(a) in order to be eligible to receive compensation pursuant
to the settlement, a Class Member must submit a Claim Form,
including trading information that demonstrates that the Class
Member sold common shares of PKZ during the Class Period, to the
Administrator by the deadline for submission of claims (an
"Authorized Claimant");
(b) subject to (c) below, an Authorized Claimant is entitled
to one (1) undivided interest in the Net Settlement Amount (a "Net
Settlement Amount Interest") for each common share of PKZ sold by
the Authorized Claimant through the facilities of the TSX, the
NYSE, the FSE or the LSE during the Class Period;
(c) an Authorized Claimant is entitled to one and one-half
(1.5) Net Settlement Amount Interests for each common share of PKZ
sold by the Authorized Claimant on June 17, 2005, June 20, 2005,
June 21, 2005, June 22, 2005, June 23, 2005, July 1, 2005, July 4,
2005 or July 19, 2005 through the facilities of the TSX or the
NYSE; and
(d) each Authorized Claimant's monetary compensation will be
a portion of the Net Settlement Amount calculated as the ratio of
their number of Net Settlement Amount Interests to the total
number of Net Settlement Amount Interests of all Authorized
Claimants, multiplied by the Net Settlement Amount.
In the Settlement Agreement, "Person" is defined as an individual,
corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability
company, association, joint stock company, estate, legal
representative, trust, trustee, executor, beneficiary,
unincorporated association, government or any political
subdivision or agency thereof, and any other business or legal
entity and their heirs, predecessors, successors, representatives,
or assignees.
The Defendants, their affiliates and their respective past and
present directors, officers, subsidiaries, affiliates, employees,
trustees, servants, consultants, underwriters, advisors,
representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns, and the
entities over which any of the foregoing persons or entities has
or had during the Class Period any legal or de facto control, are
"Excluded Persons" and as such are precluded from receiving
compensation pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement, including the Distribution
Protocol, may be found at http://www.classaction.ca/
Effect of Settlement Approval on other Actions Commenced by Class
Members
If the courts approve the proposed settlement, all Class Members
will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, unless
they "opt out". This means that they will not be able to bring or
maintain any other claim or legal proceeding against the
Defendants or any other person released by the Settlement
Agreement in relation to the matters alleged in the class actions.
If a Class Member opts out, they will not be bound by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, BUT they will be barred from making a
claim and receiving compensation from the Settlement Amount.
Objections to the Proposed Settlement
If you wish to comment on, or make objection to, the Settlement
Agreement, you must do so in writing. All objections must be
submitted to Class Counsel (at the addresses listed below) no
later than October 1, 2010. Class Counsel will forward all such
submissions to the courts.
A written objection should include the following information:
(a) the objector's name, address, telephone number, fax
number (where applicable) and email address;
(b) a brief statement outlining the nature of, and reason
for, the objection;
(c) documents establishing that the objector sold common
shares of PKZ during the Class Period; and
(d) a statement as to whether the objector intends to appear
at the Approval Motion in person or by legal counsel, and, if by
legal counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number and
email address of such legal counsel.
Interpretation
If there is a conflict between the provisions of this notice and
the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement
will prevail.
Questions About the Proposed Settlement Should be Directed to
Class Counsel.
PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF
ALBERTA.
For more information, please contact:
A. Dimitri Lascaris, Esq.
SISKINDS LLP
680 Waterloo Street
London, ON N6A 3V8
CANADA
Telephone: 1.800.461.6166 ext. 2380
E-mail: dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com
PFIZER INC: Massachusetts and Pennsylvania Lawsuits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed against Pfizer Inc. in Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania have been dismissed, according to the Company's
August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010
Purported nationwide class actions were filed against Pfizer in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging off-label promotion of certain drugs.
In May 2010, the action in Massachusetts was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiffs.
In July 2010, the action in Pennsylvania was dismissed with
prejudice by the court.
Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a research-based,
global pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures, and markets medicines for humans and animals. The
Company's products include prescription pharmaceuticals, non-
prescription self-medications, and animal health products such as
anti-infective medicines and vaccines.
PFIZER INC: Accused of Misleading Investors in NY and NJ Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is facing lawsuits in New York and New Jersey for
failing to disclose information regarding bapineuzumab, a product
in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, according
to the Company's August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4,
2010.
In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer Inc.,
as successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth.
The complaint alleges that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007, through July
2008, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the
purported class.
In July 2010, a related action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Elan
Corporation (Elan), certain directors and officers of Elan, and
Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth. This action asserts claims on
behalf of purchasers of call options of Elan, a company that
jointly developed bapineuzumab with Wyeth until September 2009.
The complaint alleges that Elan, Wyeth and the individual
defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing
Elan to make false and misleading statements, and by failing to
disclose or causing Elan to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Elan call options from June 17, 2008, through
July 29, 2008, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of the purported class.
Pfizer Inc. -- htpp://www.pfizer.com/ -- is a research-based,
global pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures, and markets medicines for humans and animals. The
Company's products include prescription pharmaceuticals, non-
prescription self-medications, and animal health products such as
anti-infective medicines and vaccines.
PFIZER INC: Two Lawsuits Over Wyeth Merger Deal Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Two of three lawsuits filed against Pfizer, Inc., regarding its
acquisition of Wyeth have been dismissed, according to the
Company's August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4,
2010.
On October 15, 2009, Pfizer acquired all of the outstanding equity
of Wyeth in a cash-and-stock transaction, valued at the
acquisition date at approximately $68 billion. While Wyeth now is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, the merger of local Pfizer
and Wyeth entities may be pending or delayed in various
international jurisdictions, and integration in these
jurisdictions is subject to completion of various local legal and
regulatory obligations.
Beginning in late January 2009, several purported class action
complaints were filed by Wyeth shareholders challenging Wyeth's
proposed merger with Pfizer. The actions were filed in federal
court in New Jersey and in state courts in New Jersey and
Delaware. Subsequently, the actions filed in state court in New
Jersey were consolidated, and the actions filed in state court in
Delaware were consolidated. The complaints in all of the actions
named as defendants Wyeth and the individuals who served as the
members of Wyeth's Board of Directors prior to the consummation of
the merger, two of whom are now directors of Pfizer. The
complaints in the Federal Action and the Delaware Action also
named Pfizer as a defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that:
(i) each of the members of Wyeth's pre-merger Board of
Directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to Wyeth
and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of Wyeth to
Pfizer for what plaintiffs deemed "inadequate"
consideration;
(ii) Wyeth directly breached and/or aided and abetted the
other defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties;
and
(iii) in the actions in which Pfizer was a defendant, Pfizer
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by Wyeth and its pre-merger directors.
The plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
On June 10, 2009, Wyeth, Wyeth's directors and Pfizer entered into
a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware
Action reflecting an agreement-in-principle to settle the Delaware
Action based on their agreement to include in the Pfizer/Wyeth
registration statement/proxy statement on Form S-4 certain
additional disclosures relating to the transaction.
Wyeth, Wyeth's pre-merger directors and Pfizer each have denied
that they committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in
the Delaware Action and expressly maintain that they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
duties.
On April 26, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement agreeing that the Delaware Action would be dismissed
with prejudice and that the defendants and other released persons
(affiliates of the defendants) would receive -- from or on behalf
of all persons and entities who held Wyeth common stock at any
time from the date of the announcement of the merger agreement
through the date of consummation of the merger -- a release of all
claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and the
transactions contemplated therein, and the disclosures made in
connection therewith.
Members of the purported plaintiff class were sent notice of the
proposed settlement beginning in early May 2010.
A hearing before the Delaware Court of Chancery took place on
June 29, 2010, at which the court approved the settlement
agreement and dismissed the Delaware Action with prejudice.
On August 4, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed the Federal Action with prejudice.
With respect to the New Jersey Action, on April 17, 2009, the
court stayed the action in favor of the Delaware Action. On
June 10, 2009, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New
Jersey denied plaintiffs' appeal of the order staying the New
Jersey Action.
Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a research-based,
global pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures, and markets medicines for humans and animals. The
Company's products include prescription pharmaceuticals, non-
prescription self-medications, and animal health products such as
anti-infective medicines and vaccines.
PFIZER INC: 7th Circuit Affirms Ruling on Pharmacia Plan Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit court handed down its decision on an appeal of a 2009
Illinois District Court ruling on a class action involving
Pfizer Inc. and the Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, according
to the Company's August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4,
2010.
In 2006, several current and former employees of Pharmacia
Corporation filed a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the Pharmacia
Cash Balance Pension Plan (the Plan), Pharmacia Corporation,
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Pfizer Inc. Plaintiffs claim that
the Plan violates the age-discrimination provisions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by providing
certain credits to certain participants only to age 55.
In June 2009, the court granted Pfizer's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the claims against it, the Plan, and the
two Pfizer subsidiaries.
In October 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
In July 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the claims against the Plan, Pfizer Inc. and the two
Pfizer subsidiaries.
Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a research-based,
global pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures, and markets medicines for humans and animals. The
Company's products include prescription pharmaceuticals, non-
prescription self-medications, and animal health products such as
anti-infective medicines and vaccines.
PLAINSCAPITAL: FSC Continues to Face California Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
A PlainsCapital Corp. subsidiary, First Southwest Company,
continues to defend itself in California lawsuits alleging
antitrust and securities law violations, according to the
company's August 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.
After the close of business on December 31, 2008, First Southwest
Holdings, Inc., a diversified, private investment banking
corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas, merged into FSWH
Acquisition LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank. Following
the merger, FSWH Acquisition LLC changed its name to "First
Southwest Holdings, LLC". PlainsCapital Corp. owns 100% of the
outstanding stock of PlainsCapital Bank (PCB), who has a 100%
interest in First Southwest Holdings, LLC (FSH). One of the
principal subsidiaries of FSH is First Southwest Company (FSC).
In November 2006, FSC received subpoenas from the SEC and the
U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an investigation of
possible antitrust and securities law violations, including bid-
rigging, in the procurement of guaranteed investment contracts
and other investment products for the reinvestment of bond
proceeds by municipalities. As a result of these SEC and DOJ
investigations into industry-wide practices, FSC was named as a
co-defendant in a series of civil lawsuits filed during 2008 in
several different federal courts by various state and local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities.
A similar set of lawsuits were filed in California state courts
by various local governmental entities suing only on behalf of
themselves and not on behalf of a putative class. The California
state court suits were removed to federal court, and all of the
cases have been transferred to federal court in New York.
On April 29, 2009, the federal court judge dismissed all claims
asserted against FSC and nearly all other defendants from the
consolidated putative class action case and granted the lead
class plaintiffs until June 18, 2009, to file an amended complaint
citing specific instances of alleged anti-competitive behavior by
specific individuals at specific defendants.
On June 18, 2009, the lead class plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended
complaint did not name FSC as a defendant and did not make any
specific allegations of misconduct against FSC or any of its
employees. As a result, FSC is no longer a party to the putative
class action case. However, FSC is identified in the consolidated
amended class action complaint as an alleged co-conspirator with
the named defendants. The remaining defendants filed motions to
dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaint,
but on March 25, 2010, the Court denied those motions, thus
allowing the consolidated class action to proceed against the
remaining defendants.
With respect to putative class actions filed in federal court by
California plaintiffs that opted not to join in the consolidated
class action case, the federal court judge granted those
plaintiffs until September 15, 2009, to file an amended complaint.
In their amended complaint, the California putative class
plaintiffs also did not name FSC as a defendant and did not make
any specific allegations of misconduct against FSC or any of its
employees. As a result, FSC is no longer a party to these
California putative class actions. However, FSC is identified in
the complaint as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants. The remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in the California class action. On April 26,
2010, the Court granted those motions in part and denied them in
part, allowing certain claims to proceed against the remaining
defendants.
With respect to the removed California suits that do not seek
class action status, the federal court judge gave the plaintiffs
until September 15, 2009. to file an amended complaint. These
California plaintiffs, all of which are represented by the
Cotchett, Pitre, and McCarthy law firm, filed amended complaints
continuing to identify FSC as a named defendant. The few
allegations against FSC are very limited in scope.
No further developments were reported by the Company in its
Aug. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
PlainsCapital Corp. is a financial holding company registered
under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended by the
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, headquartered in Dallas, Texas,
that provides, through its subsidiaries, a broad array of
products and services. In addition to traditional banking
services, PlainsCapital provides residential mortgage lending,
investment banking, public finance advisory, wealth and
investment management, treasury management, capital equipment
leasing, fixed income sales and trading, asset management and
correspondent clearing services.
QUEST SOFTWARE: Court Okays Settlement Agreement, Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave its approval to the settlement agreement and entered judgment
dismissing a purported shareholder class action against Quest
Software, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In October 2006, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against Quest and certain of its current or former officers and
directors.
The plaintiff alleges that:
(i) the company improperly backdated stock options,
resulting in false or misleading disclosures
concerning, among other things, Quest's financial
condition and
(ii) the individual defendants sold Quest stock while in
possession of material nonpublic information resulting
in damages to the putative plaintiff class, in
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
On Sept. 8, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.
Pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into
on Nov. 6, 2009, the company, the class representative and certain
current and former officers and directors of the company, agreed
to settle the Options Class Action for a payment of $29.4 million.
On Dec. 7, 2009, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved
the settlement. Shortly thereafter, the company funded its share,
$19.0 million, of the $29.4 million settlement, with the remainder
being funded directly by the company's liability insurance
carriers.
No class members opted out of or objected to the settlement prior
to the Feb. 15, 2010 deadline for doing so.
In a final hearing before the U.S. District Court on April 26,
2010, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment dismissing the
Options Class Action with prejudice as to all defendants,
including the company.
None of the Plaintiffs included in the class appealed the
judgment, and the judgment is now final.
Quest Software, Inc. -- http://www.quest.com/-- designs,
develops, markets, distributes and supports enterprise systems
management software products. The company's primary portfolio of
software products includes software solutions grouped into four
categories: Application Management, Database Management, Windows
Management and Virtualization Management. Quest markets and sells
its products and services worldwide primarily through its direct
sales organization, its telesales organization and via indirect
sales channels with a group of value added resellers (VAR's) and
distributors.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Makes Third and Final $2.5 Million Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's(R) Restaurants, Inc., discloses that it has made the third
and final installment of the payment under a settlement agreement
resolving a class action lawsuit, according to the company's Aug.
5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2010.
In March 2007, the company reached an agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit related to how it classified certain employees
under California overtime laws. The settlement agreement, which
was approved by the court in June 2007, provides for a settlement
payment of $7.5 million payable in three installments. The first
$2.5 million installment was distributed on Aug. 31, 2007 and the
second $2.5 million installment was paid into a qualified
settlement fund on Dec. 29, 2008.
The third and final installment of $2.5 million was paid on
June 29, 2010.
As of June 27, 2010, the remaining balance of $2.5 million, plus
accrued interest of $312,000, was accrued in "Accrued expenses and
other liabilities".
The company learned that 140 current and former employees who
qualified to participate as class members in this class action
settlement were not included in the settlement list approved by
the court. The company filed a motion requesting the court to
include these individuals in the approved settlement and to
provide that their claims are payable out of the aggregate
settlement payment, as the company believes the parties intended
when they reached a settlement.
On April 30, 2010, the California Superior Court issued a ruling
in the company's favor. Pursuant to the ruling, the 140
individuals at issue are covered by the settlement and must be
provided notice thereof giving them the opportunity to participate
in, object to or opt out of the settlement. The plaintiffs might
seek to appeal the inclusion of the 140 individuals into the
settlement or some other aspect of the case. Regardless of the
eventual outcome, this matter, according to the company, may cause
a diversion of its management's time and attention and the
expenditure of legal fees and expenses.
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Rubio's(R) Restaurants,
Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- operates, licenses or franchises
more than 195 restaurants in California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah
and Nevada. Bold, distinctive, Baja-inspired food is the hallmark
of Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill(R). The first Rubio's was opened
in 1983 in the Mission Bay community of San Diego by Ralph Rubio
and his father, Ray Rubio. Rubio's is credited with introducing
fish tacos to Southern California and starting a phenomenon that
has spread coast to coast. In addition to chargrilled marinated
chicken, lean carne asada steak, and slow-roasted pork carnitas,
Rubio's menu features seafood items including grilled mahi mahi
and shrimp. Guacamole and a variety of salsas and proprietary
sauces are made from scratch daily, and Rubio's uses canola oil
with zero grams trans fat per serving. The menu includes tacos,
burritos, salads and bowls, quesadillas, HealthMex(R) offerings
which are lower in fat and calories, and domestic and imported
beer in most locations. Each restaurant design is reminiscent of
the relaxed, warm and inviting atmosphere of Baja California, a
coastal state of Mexico.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Defends "Holden" Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's(R) Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend a complaint
alleging that it failed to provide employees with certain meal and
rest period breaks and overtime pay, according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2010.
On March 24, 2005, one of the company's former employees filed a
California state court action alleging that the company failed to
provide the former employee with certain meal and rest period
breaks and overtime pay. The parties moved the matter into
arbitration, and the former employee amended the complaint to
claim that the former employee represents a class of potential
plaintiffs.
The amended complaint alleges that current and former shift
leaders who worked in the company's California restaurants during
specified time periods worked off the clock and missed meal and
rest breaks.
A class has been certified, consisting of shift leaders employed
from March 25, 2001 to Oct. 19, 2003, which the company may still
elect to challenge by filing a petition to vacate the
certification award.
Holden, a former employee, seeks penalties under California's
Private Attorney General Act of 2004, separate and apart from her
certification of a class of shift leaders.
The company denies the former employee's claims, and intends to
continue to vigorously defend this action.
A decision by the California Court of Appeals in Brinker
Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) held that
employers do not need to affirmatively ensure employees actually
take their meal and rest breaks but need only make meal and rest
breaks "available" to employees. The Brinker case was taken up
for review by the California Supreme Court.
At this time, the company says it has no assurance of how the
California Supreme Court will rule in the Brinker case.
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Rubio's(R) Restaurants,
Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- operates, licenses or franchises
more than 195 restaurants in California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah
and Nevada. Bold, distinctive, Baja-inspired food is the hallmark
of Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill(R). The first Rubio's was opened
in 1983 in the Mission Bay community of San Diego by Ralph Rubio
and his father, Ray Rubio. Rubio's is credited with introducing
fish tacos to Southern California and starting a phenomenon that
has spread coast to coast. In addition to chargrilled marinated
chicken, lean carne asada steak, and slow-roasted pork carnitas,
Rubio's menu features seafood items including grilled mahi mahi
and shrimp. Guacamole and a variety of salsas and proprietary
sauces are made from scratch daily, and Rubio's uses canola oil
with zero grams trans fat per serving. The menu includes tacos,
burritos, salads and bowls, quesadillas, HealthMex(R) offerings
which are lower in fat and calories, and domestic and imported
beer in most locations. Each restaurant design is reminiscent of
the relaxed, warm and inviting atmosphere of Baja California, a
coastal state of Mexico.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Calif. Court Dismisses Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, San Diego County has dismissed a
putative class action lawsuit against Rubio's(R) Restaurants,
Inc., in connection with its planned merger with Mill Road
Capital, L.P., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2010.
On May 9, 2010, the company signed a definitive merger agreement
under which an entity controlled by Mill Road Capital, L.P., will
acquire all of the company's outstanding shares in a cash merger
transaction. On July 18, 2010, an Amendment to Agreement and Plan
of Merger was entered into among Rubio's, MRRC Merger Co., and
MRRC Hold Co., for the purpose of amending and restating the
certificate of incorporation of the surviving corporation.
On May 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County, against the
company, certain of its officers, its directors, Merger Sub,
Parent and Mill Road purportedly on behalf of the holders of the
company's common stock in connection with the announcement of the
merger agreement.
On June 23, 2010, the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed a voluntary
Request for Dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice, and the
court has entered an order dismissing the lawsuit without
prejudice.
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Rubio's(R) Restaurants,
Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- operates, licenses or franchises
more than 195 restaurants in California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah
and Nevada. Bold, distinctive, Baja-inspired food is the hallmark
of Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill(R). The first Rubio's was opened
in 1983 in the Mission Bay community of San Diego by Ralph Rubio
and his father, Ray Rubio. Rubio's is credited with introducing
fish tacos to Southern California and starting a phenomenon that
has spread coast to coast. In addition to chargrilled marinated
chicken, lean carne asada steak, and slow-roasted pork carnitas,
Rubio's menu features seafood items including grilled mahi mahi
and shrimp. Guacamole and a variety of salsas and proprietary
sauces are made from scratch daily, and Rubio's uses canola oil
with zero grams trans fat per serving. The menu includes tacos,
burritos, salads and bowls, quesadillas, HealthMex(R) offerings
which are lower in fat and calories, and domestic and imported
beer in most locations. Each restaurant design is reminiscent of
the relaxed, warm and inviting atmosphere of Baja California, a
coastal state of Mexico.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Wants Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's(R) Restaurants, Inc.'s seeks the dismissal of a second
amended complaint filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2010.
On May 9, 2010, the company signed a definitive merger agreement
under which an entity controlled by Mill Road Capital, L.P., will
acquire all of the company's outstanding shares in a cash merger
transaction. On July 18, 2010, an Amendment to Agreement and Plan
of Merger was entered into among Rubio's, MRRC Merger Co., and
MRRC Hold Co., for the purpose of amending and restating the
certificate of incorporation of the surviving corporation.
On June 1, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company,
certain of its officers, its directors, Merger Sub, Parent and
Mill Road purportedly on behalf of the holders of the company's
common stock. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed an amended
complaint on June 4, 2010 and a second amended complaint on
July 21, 2010, without leave of court.
The lawsuit generally alleges that certain of the company's
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
stockholders in the attempt to sell the company to Merger Sub and
Parent at an unfair price and through an unfair and self serving
process and by omitting material information and/or providing
materially misleading information in the preliminary proxy
statement the company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 28, 2010, June 29, 2010 and July 13, 2010. The
lawsuit further alleges that Merger Sub, Parent and Mill Road
aided and abetted such officers and directors in their alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the merger and seeks other relief,
including plaintiffs' costs, disbursements and reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.
Based on its review of the lawsuit, the company believes that the
claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
against them.
On June 21, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Rubio's(R) Restaurants,
Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- operates, licenses or franchises
more than 195 restaurants in California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah
and Nevada. Bold, distinctive, Baja-inspired food is the hallmark
of Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill(R). The first Rubio's was opened
in 1983 in the Mission Bay community of San Diego by Ralph Rubio
and his father, Ray Rubio. Rubio's is credited with introducing
fish tacos to Southern California and starting a phenomenon that
has spread coast to coast. In addition to chargrilled marinated
chicken, lean carne asada steak, and slow-roasted pork carnitas,
Rubio's menu features seafood items including grilled mahi mahi
and shrimp. Guacamole and a variety of salsas and proprietary
sauces are made from scratch daily, and Rubio's uses canola oil
with zero grams trans fat per serving. The menu includes tacos,
burritos, salads and bowls, quesadillas, HealthMex(R) offerings
which are lower in fat and calories, and domestic and imported
beer in most locations. Each restaurant design is reminiscent of
the relaxed, warm and inviting atmosphere of Baja California, a
coastal state of Mexico.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: On the Verge of Settlement; Hearing Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thadeus Greenson and Matt Drange, writing for The Times-Standard,
report that parties in the class action lawsuit against Skilled
Healthcare have agreed to postpone Tuesday's court date in order
to allow more time for settlement negotiations.
The hearing -- which was slated to address the issue of punitive
damages, among other things -- has been re-scheduled for Thursday,
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said.
Lawyers have been tight-lipped since breaking for mediation talks
on July 15, refusing to say whether a settlement in the case was
close. But Mr. Gallegos broke that silence Monday, saying both
sides may be at the "threshold" of an agreement.
"Because we feel that we're really at the threshold of a
resolution, we've bumped the trial date to Thursday," he said,
declining to discuss specifics of the settlement. "Everyone is
working very hard at finding a resolution. Very hard. I think, at
this point, we are on the verge of resolving. I think we are more
than 99 percent there -- there are just little details that we're
trying to work out."
Kippy Wroten, lead trial attorney for Skilled Healthcare, said she
was ready to board a plane Monday for Humboldt County, but
received word around noon that both sides had agreed to push back
the hearing to Thursday because of the status of negotiations.
"There's been ongoing efforts for settlement, actually, throughout
the case," Ms. Wroten said in a phone interview. "They continue in
the negotiation for an agreed settlement without having to go
through the remainder of the trial. . . . They deemed there was a
benefit to wait until Thursday to go back into court."
Ms. Wroten said that she has not been part of settlement
discussions and could not comment on any specific proposed terms.
The investing world has kept close tabs on the case for news of a
possible settlement, with the conventional wisdom from outsiders,
including arbitrator Merton Marks, being that the case will be
settled in the end.
The question then is, for how much?
"Now, with the verdict still out there, the options for them
(Skilled Healthcare) are very limited," said Mr. Marks, an
arbitrator who follows the health care industry closely. "If they
don't have the money, it doesn't make a difference what punitive
damages come out to."
While the court works to address outstanding issues in the suit,
defense attorneys for Skilled Healthcare will have the opportunity
to appeal a recent decision to throw out a mistrial motion based
on alleged juror misconduct. The motion was rejected last week by
Judge Bruce Watson, who found no grounds for misconduct in the
numerous declarations filed by jury members since their release.
Health care industry stock analyst Sheryl Skolnick said the
motion, and the dozen or so filed by defense attorneys in the case
-- all of which have been denied -- might become more important
after the case is settled.
"They are clearly establishing a pattern of behavior for any
future shareholder lawsuit," said Ms. Skolnick, adding that a
settlement would be in the best interest of all parties involved.
"Even if those efforts fail, at least they (Skilled Healthcare)
can say they tried."
In the meantime, two separate investigations into the management
of Skilled Healthcare remain ongoing, and are believed to be aimed
at protecting stockholders. SKH shares have taken numerous hits
over the summer, including a record single-day drop of more than
75 percent when the jury verdict of $677 million was announced
July 6.
The verdict found the nursing home chain failed to meet minimum
staffing levels in 22 of its 78 facilities, including five in
Humboldt County. California statute mandates nursing homes
maintain 3.2 nursing hours per patient per day (ppd), a number
that is relatively low when pitted against other states such as
Florida and Maine, some of which require staffing levels as high
as 4.9 ppd.
Skilled Healthcare reported profits in excess of $133 million in
2009, but has seen stock prices plummet as a result of the court
case. Prices, which as recently as June were above $8 a share,
dropped to $2.47 on Monday.
All parties are due to return to court Thursday morning. Mr.
Gallegos seemed cautiously optimistic about settlement talks
moving forward.
"I have not been impressed with the good faith of the defendants
throughout the four years we've had to work with them," Mr.
Gallegos said. "But I think, now, everyone is seriously working
together."
Skilled Healthcare is represented, among others, by:
Kippy L. Wroten, Esq.
WROTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
20 Pacifica, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: 949-788-1790
Facsimile: 949-788-1799
The plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:
Michael L. Crowley, Esq.
550 West C Street, Suite 1960
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: 619-238-5700
Facsimile: 6619-795-0990
The District Attorney can be reached at:
Paul Gallegos, Esq.
County of Humboldt, Office of the District Attorney
825 5th Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
Telephone: (707) 445-7411
Facsimile: (707) 445-7416
E-mail: districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us
ST. JUDE: Trial in One Ontario Silzone-Related Suit Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., is facing two Silzone-related class action
cases in Ontario, according to the company's August 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 3, 2010.
The company has two outstanding class action cases in Ontario:
-- a class action case involving Silzone patients that has been
certified, and the trial began in February 2010.
-- a second case seeking class action status in Ontario that
has been stayed pending resolution of the ongoing Ontario
class action.
The complaints in the Ontario cases request damages up to CDN2.0
billion (the equivalent of $2.0 billion at April 3, 2010).
The company said that based on its historical experience, the
amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed.
St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems. The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve
replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers
and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems
and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices.
ST. JUDE: Securities Suit Pending in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., continues to face a securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, according to the company's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 3, 2010.
The suit was filed on March 18, 2010, against the company and
certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical
common stock between April 22, 2009 and Oct. 6, 2009. The lawsuit
relates to the company's earnings announcements for the first,
second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary
earnings release dated Oct. 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks
unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees,
alleges that the company failed to disclose that it was
experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not
receiving anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management
devices. Class members allege that the company's failure to
disclose the above information resulted in the class purchasing
St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price.
The Company said it intends to vigorously defend against the
claims asserted in the lawsuit.
St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain.
The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems. The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve
replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers
and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems
and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices.
STRONG CAPITAL: $13.7 Million Settlement to Be Heard in October
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gores of the Journal Sentinel reports it's taken years, but
investors in Strong Funds finally are receiving payments from a
settlement between the defunct Menomonee Falls mutual fund company
and regulators.
The checks, which are being mailed to shareholders affected by
questionable transactions in the funds going back as far as 1998,
aren't going to make investors wealthy.
Nonetheless, the shareholder-by-shareholder distribution of more
than $154 million from the settlement should go a long way toward
bringing to a conclusion the unhappy story of Wisconsin's major
connection to the national mutual fund scandals of the early
2000s.
But it won't end the story altogether. A separate shareholder
class-action settlement for a proposed $13.7 million still is
pending in U.S. District Court in Maryland. That proposal is
scheduled for a hearing in October.
The checks now being distributed are from a settlement between the
Securities and Exchange Commission and Strong Capital Management
Co. and its founder, Richard S. Strong, in 2004. The settlement
amount -- made up of forfeitures and civil penalties -- started at
more than $140 million but has grown with interest.
"The smallest check I've heard is $11, and I think the largest was
$120," said George Reis, a Two Rivers money manager with some
clients who had invested in Strong mutual funds during the period
of 1998 to 2003.
One investor told the Journal Sentinel he received checks ranging
from $12 to $675. Another said his settlement checks so far have
been from $23.50 to $188. According to the SEC, the minimum check
is $10.
The amount of the checks is based on a formula used by an
independent distribution consultant who measured the harm to the
share price of Strong Funds done by frequent trading, including
some trading by Richard Strong himself.
Frequent traders typically try to take advantage of differences
between the share price of a fund and the actual value of the
securities it holds, which can hurt the interests of fund
shareholders who are in it for the long run.
The settlement followed an investigation by the SEC, the office
of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and other
agencies -- part of a series of probes of the mutual fund industry
led by Spitzer. Strong mutual funds were sold in 2004 to San
Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., which merged them into its
Advantage Funds.
College Savings
Those who invested in Strong mutual funds through the State of
Wisconsin's college savings program won't be getting checks. The
board overseeing the EdVest and Tomorrow's Scholar program run by
the state has opted to use more than $790,000 it expects to
receive from the settlement to offset future expenses for
participants, such as audit fees.
The board determined that the potential costs of identifying
specific investors, calculating their individual shares of the
settlement, finding them and then mailing more than 100,000 checks
could exceed the value of the settlement.
EdVest Director James DiUlio said annual audit fees cost
participants about two cents per $1,000 invested. The required
independent audit costs about $170,000, Mr. DiUlio said.
"So what it would do is it would give us a number of years where
the audit would be paid for by this," Mr. DiUlio said.
The state has not yet received the SEC settlement payout, Mr.
DiUlio said.
Mr. Strong, who was banned from the securities industry for life
as part of the settlement, now runs a management firm, Baraboo
Growth LLC. The firm's general counsel, Susan Hollister, said
Friday, "While Mr. Strong has no role in the distribution, he is
pleased that it will soon be resolved."
Moved to Maryland
About 40 class-action lawsuits against Strong were consolidated in
2004 and transferred to U.S. District Court in Maryland, where
other mutual fund scandal cases have been handled. The class-
action suits alleged market timing in the Strong Funds. Market
timing is the short-term, in-and-out trading of shares to take
advantage of inefficiencies in how mutual fund shares are priced.
The proposed settlements in the case call for payment of almost
$13.7 million, with more than 20% going to attorney's fees. The
class of investors represented in the suit includes Strong fund
holders at any time from 1999 through 2004.
The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the fairness of the
settlements Oct. 21 and 22.
Clifford Goodstein, a partner with the lead attorneys in the case,
Milberg LLP, of New York, said he couldn't predict what would
happen at the hearing.
"It's up to the court to do what it wants. Commonly the approval
comes pretty quickly after the hearing, but it doesn't
necessarily," Mr. Goodstein said.
Mr. Goodstein said a range of the amount of individual payments
isn't known yet because investors can submit claims until Dec. 8.
The class action automatically includes people who had invested
directly through Strong Investor Services Inc., but people whose
shares were held through brokers or other intermediaries must
submit a claim.
"Those people for whom we have the trading records, we've told
them we have the trading records and they don't have to do
anything," Mr. Goodstein said.
Mr. Goodstein can be reached at:
Clifford S. Goodstein, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: 212-631-8624
Facsimile: 212-273-4380
E-mail: cgoodstein@milberg.com
SUNOPTA INC: Ontario and New York Settlements Declared Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc.'s settlement of class action lawsuits filed by
shareholders in the U.S. and Canada has become effective,
according to the Company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 3, 2010.
SunOpta and certain officers, one of whom is a director, and a
former director were named as defendants in proposed class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of shareholders who acquired securities of the Company from
February 23, 2007, to January 27, 2008, inclusive.
Cleugh's Frozen Foods, Inc. and Pacific Fruit Processors, Inc. --
each of which are now part of the merged subsidiary, SunOpta Fruit
Group, Inc. -- and Organic Ingredients, Inc., now known as SunOpta
Global Organic Ingredients, Inc., were also named as defendant in
the U.S. action.
On September 24, 2009, the Company announced that it entered into
a tentative agreement to settle all claims raised in these class
action proceedings. In return for the dismissal of the class
actions and releases from proposed class members of settled claims
against the Company and other named defendants, the settlement
agreement provided for a total cash contribution of $11,250 to a
settlement fund, the adoption of certain governance enhancements
to the Company's Audit Committee charter and Internal Audit
Charter and the adoption of an enhanced information technology
conversion policy. The settlement has been entirely funded by the
Company's insurers.
The settlement has been approved by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and Ontario Superior
Court of Justice and the terms of the settlement have become
effective, including the dismissal of the U.S. and Ontario class
actions and releases of settled claims against the Company and
other named defendants.
SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets. The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for the
bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.
SUNOPTA INC: Seeks Court Okay of Agreement to Settle "Vargas" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta, Inc., is seeking preliminary approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit for labor law violations, according to
the company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2010.
In September 2008, a single plaintiff and a former employee filed
a wage and hour dispute, against SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc., as a
class action alleging various violations of California's labor
laws.
A tentative settlement of all claims was reached at mediation on
January 15, 2010, and the parties executed a settlement agreement
resolving all claims of the class.
The terms of the proposed settlement were scheduled to be reviewed
by the court for preliminary approval on August 19, 2010.
As a result of the tentative settlement, the Company accrued a
liability of $1.2 million, as of December 31, 2009.
SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets. The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for
the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.
SUNOPTA INC: Insurer Shells Out $11.25MM for Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2010, SunOpta, Inc., disclosed that both the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice and the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York approved an agreement to settle
all claims raised in class action proceedings previously announced
arising from the Company's restatement of interim financial
results for the first three quarters of 2007.
The settlement became effective on May 17, 2010, upon expiry of
the period for filing an appeal.
In return for the dismissal of the Class Actions and releases from
Class Members of settled claims against the Company and the named
defendants, the settlement agreement provided for a total cash
contribution of US$11.25 million, funded entirely by the Company's
insurer, to a settlement fund and the adoption of certain
corporate governance enhancements. The settlement agreement
contains no admission of wrongdoing by SunOpta or any of the other
named defendants, according to the Company's August 11, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 3, 2010.
SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/-- is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets. The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for
the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.
TREX CO: Hagens Berman Dismisses Appeal on Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP has dismissed their appeal on the
ruling granting final approval to a settlement in a class action
against Trex Company, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On Jan. 19, 2009, a class action case was commenced against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by
the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S.
Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs. These plaintiffs
generally allege certain defects in the company's products, and
that the company has failed to provide adequate remedies for
defective products. On Feb. 13, 2009, the company removed this
case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On Jan. 21, 2009, a class action case was commenced against the
company in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on
behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs. This case
was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as
a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case.
On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the company's product, and on March
15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.
On April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their appeal,
effectively making the settlement final.
Trex Company, Inc. -- http://www.trex.com/-- is a manufacturer of
wood-alternative decking, railing, fencing products and trim
products, which are marketed under the brand name Trex. The
company manufactures its products in a process that combines waste
wood fibers and reclaimed polyethylene. Its decking,
railing and fencing products are provided in a selection of sizes
and lengths, and are also available with several finishes and
numerous colors. The products are used primarily for residential
and commercial decking and railing. Trex sells its products
through wholesale distribution and primarily to retail lumber
dealers, retail building material specialty builders and Home
Depot and Lowe's.
UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit Over Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., still faces a putative class-action suit
related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada.
Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of 14 defendants in a
class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada. This
action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with
economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The
plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is also seeking
authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding,
which motion has not yet been ruled on.
No further updates were reported in the company's August 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Derivative Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc., the global leader in secure electronic
payment solutions, said it received notice Friday that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed, with prejudice, the Amended Complaint in In Re VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation No. C 07-6347
MHP, a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in December 2007
against certain of the company's present and former directors and
officers. The lawsuit arose out of the Company's 2007 restatement
of certain of its quarterly financial results.
According to the Court, the plaintiff failed to make proper demand
and provided no substantial reason to question the
disinterestedness or independence of a majority of the company's
board of directors. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice,
terminating the matter and thus prohibiting plaintiffs from
amending their pleadings.
"We are extremely pleased with the Court's ruling as we believed
from the beginning that this case had no foundation," said Douglas
G. Bergeron, Chief Executive Officer of VeriFone. "We believe the
Court properly recognized the right of the board of directors to
manage the company's affairs."
VeriFone Systems, Inc., is the global leader in secure electronic
payment solutions. VeriFone provides expertise, solutions and
services that add value to the point of sale with merchant-
operated, consumer-facing and self-service payment systems for the
financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum, government and
healthcare vertical markets. VeriFone solutions are designed to
meet the needs of merchants, processors and acquirers in developed
and emerging economies worldwide.
VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by plaintiffs regarding a ruling of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida granting final
judgment in favor of the defendants in a consolidated securities
suit against Vertro, Inc., remains pending.
In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.
The complaints alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA. Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the
putative class period, the Company made certain misleading
statements and omitted material information.
The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Nov.
16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all
Defendants on Dec. 7, 2009.
On Dec. 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Vertro, Inc., formerly MIVA, Inc., -- http://www.miva.com/-- is
an Internet company that owns and operates the ALOT product
portfolio. The company operated its range of products and
services through two divisions: MIVA Direct and MIVA Media as of
Dec. 31, 2008. MIVA Direct offers home page, desktop application
and Internet browser toolbar products under the ALOT brand. The
ALOT Home Page, ALOT Desktop and ALOT Toolbar are designed to make
the Internet easy for consumers by providing direct access to
affinity content and search results. The products generate
approximately two million Internet searches per day. MIVA Media
connected buyers and sellers online by displaying advertisements
in response to consumer search or browsing activity on select
Internet properties. Prior to the MIVA Media Sale, MIVA Media was
an auction based pay-per-click advertising network that was
operated across North America and in Europe. On March 12, 2009,
Adknowledge, Inc. acquired MIVA Media, the media division of the
company.
WMG ACQUISITION: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Music Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMG Acquisition Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated
complaint relating to the pricing of digital music downloads,
according to the company's Aug. 24, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
On Dec. 20, 2005 and Feb. 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the
State of New York served the company with requests for information
in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to whether
the practices of industry participants concerning the pricing of
digital music downloads violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, New
York State General Business Law Sections 340 et seq., New York
Executive Law Section 63(12), and related statutes. On Feb. 28,
2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice
served the company with a request for information in the form of a
Civil Investigative Demand as to whether its activities relating
to the pricing of digitally downloaded music violate Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. Both investigations have now been closed.
Subsequent to the announcements of the governmental
investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits
concerning the pricing of digital music downloads were filed and
were later consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Southern
District of New York.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of
their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of
CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages.
All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. On Oct. 9,
2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to
all defendants, including the company.
On Nov. 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the
order of the District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second
Circuit. Oral argument took place before the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals on Sept. 21, 2009. On Jan. 12, 2010, the Second
Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded
the case for further proceedings.
On Jan. 27, 2010, all defendants, including the company, filed a
petition for rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit. On
March 26, 2010, the Second Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing en banc.
New York City-based WMG Acquisition Corp. is a music-based content
company and the successor to substantially all of the interests of
the recorded music and music publishing businesses of Time Warner
Inc.
WORLDWIDE DIRECT: Court OKs Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldin Associates, L.L.C., as the Liquidating Trustee of Worldwide
Direct Liquidation Trust, filed with the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware a motion for summary judgment
on the complaint filed against it by Robert H. Lorsch, Richard M.
Teich, and Ahmed O. Alfi. After considering the arguments of both
parties, the Court granted the Liquidating Trustee's Motion.
The complaint seeks declaratory relief to determine Robert H.
Lorsch, Richard M. Teich, and Ahmed O. Alfi's interests in the
Worldwide Direct Liquidation Trust, which they believe is a trust
created by a settlement agreement resolving a number securities
class action lawsuits to which they are included as defendants.
On April 1, 2010, the Liquidating Trustee filed a motion for
summary judgment contending that, as a matter of law, no trust was
created by the Settlement Agreement and the D&O Plaintiffs have no
valid claims under the plain language of the Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the court's memorandum opinion is available at:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inbco20100827685
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Faces New Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a 2008 fraud lawsuit against YTB International,
Inc., have initiated a new class action against the company in an
Illinois state court, the company noted in its Aug. 12, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the company, three company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. On August 14, 2008, a second,
substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same
defendants in the Court. The two cases have now been consolidated
and are proceeding together before the same judge. The plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100
million.
On February 9, 2009, the company filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the
company's motions and dismissed the class action complaint, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that
conformed with the Court's ruling.
On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
purported to conform to the Court's ruling. The amended complaint
asserts claims similar to those contained in the dismissed
complaint. On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its own motion,
struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety based on
the Court's belief that the amended complaint does not pass muster
under the applicable federal pleading standards.
As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with
the Court to amend their complaints. The Court granted their
motions and a second amended complaint was filed on December 24,
2009.
On February 12, 2010, the company filed motions to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint. On April 19, 2010, the Court
granted the company's Motion to Dismiss as to all the out-of-state
plaintiffs. As a result, there is only one remaining plaintiff
who is a citizen of Illinois. Consequently, the Court has
requested further briefing on the issue of whether the Court
retains jurisdiction to hear the matter when both plaintiffs and
defendants are citizens of the same state. The additional
briefing was due on May 19, 2010. On May 26, 2010, the Court
dismissed the last remaining Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the
Seventh Circuit.
On June 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a new class action
complaint with substantially the same allegations, now in Illinois
state court. Responses to the new complaint were due in mid-
August 2010.
YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- provides E-
commerce business solutions for individual consumers and home-
based independent representatives in the United States, Puerto
Rico, the Bahamas, Canada, Bermuda, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Company operates through three subsidiaries: ZamZuu, Inc.
(formerly YTB Marketing, Inc.), YTB Travel Network, Inc., and YTB
Franchise Services, Inc.
*********
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 * * *