/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101011.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 200 Headlines AMERICAN INT'L: PwC Agrees to $97.5 Million Settlement Pact APPLE INC: Class Suit Over Backdated Stock Options Settled CITIGROUP INC: Accused of Selling Unregistered Credit Insurance CLEAR CHANNEL: No Hearing Date Yet in Motion for Reconsideration COMVERSE TECHNOLGY: Four Suits in Israel Remain Stayed FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Accused in N.Y. of Misleading Investors FILA ACADEMY: Accused in Maryland Suit of Deceptive Trade GREAT-WEST LIFE: Merchant Lauds Class Action Settlement HELIO LLC: Settles Suit Over Flat-Rate Early Termination Fees JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Falsely Advertising Listerine LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Fee-Splitting Charge in Mississippi MAXIM INTEGRATED: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod MONSANTO: April 2011 Trial Set for Nitro Class Action Suit OIL COMPANIES: Court Authorizes Settlement in Price-Fixing Suit PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Missouri PANERA BREAD: Labor Violations Suit Still Pending in California PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY: Trial Court Ordered to Compel Arbitration SONOCO PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Suit Over Stucco Work May Move Forward SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss LFG-Related Suit Still Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Defends Remaining Claim in ATM Fee Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in "Buffington" Pending in 11th Circuit SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend "Bailey" Suit in Louisiana SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: "Krinsk" Suit Stayed Pending Appeal SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman Related Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over TruPs Still Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Waterford's Suit Still Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Still a Defendant in Suit Against Colonial TELENAV INC: Investigation Into Securities Violations Ongoing WRIGHT COUNTY: Conditions at Egg Farm "Deplorable," Lawyers Say ********* AMERICAN INT'L: PwC Agrees to $97.5 Million Settlement Pact ----------------------------------------------------------- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to create a $97.5 million cash settlement account to resolve claims of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities issued by American International Group, Inc., from Oct. 28, 1999, through Apr. 1, 2005, inclusive, asserted in In re American International Group, Inc., Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04-cv-08141 (S.D.N.Y.). The Honorable Deborah A. Batts will hold a hearing at 3:00 a.m. on Nov. 30, 2010, in Manhattan to determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved. Investors should have filed claims on or before Jan. 28, 2009. Documents relevant to the settlement with PwC are available at http://www.AIGSecuritiesLitigationPwCSettlement.com/ APPLE INC: Class Suit Over Backdated Stock Options Settled ---------------------------------------------------------- Karen Freifeld, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Apple Inc. has agreed to pay $16.5 million to settle a class action suit by the New York City Employees' Retirement System that the company improperly backdated stock options between 2001 and 2006, the city said in a statement. Apple will return $14 million to shareholders and contribute a total of $2.5 million to corporate governance programs at various U.S. universities, including Harvard, Yale and Columbia, the city Comptroller's office and Law Department said in a statement. Administrative and attorneys' fees of $4 million will be paid separately by Apple, the statement said, bringing the total value of the settlement over $20 million. "This settlement is an excellent example of shareholder advocacy and compensates shareholders for systemic options backdating at the company," Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo, the city's chief legal officer and counsel to the city's pension funds, said in the statement. "We are happy to have reached an accord with Apple after four years of litigation." Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple, said in a telephone interview that Apple and the city's pension system "agreed to resolve their dispute in order to avoid lengthy and costly litigation." He said the company was "glad to put this matter behind us." The city will seek preliminary approval of the settlement in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California tomorrow, the statement said. Those eligible for distributions from the settlement fund purchased Apple common stock at a price in excess of $65.71 between Aug. 24, 2001, and June 29, 2006, the statement said. The New York City Employees' Retirement System, the court- appointed lead plaintiff in the class action, is the largest municipal public employee retirement system in the country with more than 300,000 active members and retirees. CITIGROUP INC: Accused of Selling Unregistered Credit Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup bilks customers by selling them unregistered credit insurance, a class action claims in Milwaukee Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Kobleski v. Citigroup Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00868 (E.D. Wis.) (Gorence, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/Citigroup.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. David J. Syrios, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com dsyrios@ademilaw.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 South LaSalle St., Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market St., Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 CLEAR CHANNEL: No Hearing Date Yet in Motion for Reconsideration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clear Channel Communications, Inc.'s request for a hearing date on the argument of its motion for reconsideration of a class certification order, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company and a subsidiary are co-defendants with Live Nation -- which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005 -- in 22 putative class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country. These actions generally allege that the defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct. They seek damages in an undetermined amount. On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the Central District of California. On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in five "template" cases involving five regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver. Defendants opposed that motion and, on Oct. 22, 2007, the district court issued its decision certifying the class for each regional market. On Feb. 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order, which is still pending. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on Sept. 25, 2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature and ordered the entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues its en banc opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a case that may change the standard for granting class certification in the 9th Circuit. On April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion adopting a new class certification standard which will require district courts to resolve Rule 23 factual disputes that overlap with the merits of the case. In response, the defendants asked the court to set a hearing date for argument on the Company's Motion for Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order. In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between the company and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with the spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for legal actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in which the Company is a defendant if such actions relate in any material respect to the business of Live Nation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify the company with respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including those pertaining to the claims. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/ -- is a diversified media company with three primary business segments: radio broadcasting, outdoor advertising and live entertainment. Clear Channel Communications is the operating subsidiary of San Antonio, Texas-based CC Media Holdings, Inc. COMVERSE TECHNOLGY: Four Suits in Israel Remain Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ Four potential class action litigations against Comverse Technology, Inc., in the State of Israel remains stayed, according to the company's Oct. 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. The company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly prevented certain current or former employees from exercising certain stock options. Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against the company on March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd. employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of the company's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements, which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the parties, on Sept. 30, 2009, the court ordered that these cases, including all claims against the company in Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the actions pending in the United States regarding stock option accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in these cases. Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain company stock options by certain employees and former employees. The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd. The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court. The Katriel case has been consolidated with the Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1334/09) and is subject to the stay. On Dec. 16, 2009, the company entered into a settlement to resolve the matter In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV- 1825. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement on June 23, 2010. Comverse Technology, Inc. -- http://www.cmvt.com/-- through its subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., is a provider of software and systems enabling network-based multimedia enhanced communication and billing services. FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Accused in N.Y. of Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP on Wednesday disclosed that it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc. common stock during the period between February 5, 2009 and September 29, 2010. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must seek such an appointment with the court no later than November 30, 2010. A "lead plaintiff" directs the litigation and participates in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement offer 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. 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 plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq., at (888) 300-3362 x302, (303) 861-1764, or via email at jeff@dyerberens.com On September 29, 2010, FalconStor disclosed that its President, CEO and Chairman of the Board, ReiJane Huai, resigned from all of his positions with the Company, effective immediately. According to the Company's statement, "Mr. Huai tendered his resignation following his disclosure that certain improper payments were allegedly made in connection with the Company's contract with one customer." On this troubling news, FalconStor's stock price plummeted more than 20 percent. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and its prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing weak demand for its products and services; (ii) that the Company was making improper payments to secure a contract with at least one of the Company's customers; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP focuses on complex class action litigation on behalf of injured investors throughout the nation. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation 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 E. 17th Ave., Ste. 300 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302 FILA ACADEMY: Accused in Maryland Suit of Deceptive Trade --------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that students claim in a class action that the Fila Academy promised they "would make as much in salary as doctors and lawyers" if they graduated from the beauty school, but made them clean toilets and work as sales reps selling Fila products. Eight named plaintiffs say that Larry Fila Jr. charged them as much as $9,995 to go to the school, which Fila falsely claimed to be "connected with Paul Mitchell," the beauty products manufacturer, which is not a party to the case. The class seeks punitive damages for fraud, deceptive trade, breach of contract and battery, in Anne Arundel Circuit Court. The students say they were lured into Fila's $6,975 "career training in basic barbering, nail technology and skin care therapy," by Fila's promises that he "operates an education program in a state-of-the art facility, and that it provides a quality education designed to develop students into licensed professionals." However, the class claims, "The defendants failed to inform plaintiffs that they have to purchase their own tools, bring their own customers, and that they must meet a quota for the sales of defendants' products in order to succeed in the program." The students say the academy also lied about having a job placement program. They say the placement program was nothing more than "a board with post-it notes." They also claim that Fila also did not provide enough instructors, and that "students are unable to fully perform tasks beyond the core component of the program." The class claims that Larry Fila "is notorious amongst the students for being an unprofessional bully who is incapable of respecting the students, and whose intentional and outrageous actions have caused severe emotional distress to plaintiffs." One student says the academy wouldn't let her graduate until she met her sales quota, and told her "she would be charged extra per hour for continuing her education" until she met her quota. Five students say one skin care instructor was so incompetent that she caused one student's forehead to be scarred because "she did not appear to know anything about skin allergies to different chemicals." The class wants the academy and its owner to pay it $18 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages six counts. A copy of the Complaint in Schweitzer, et al. v. The Fila Academy, Inc., et al., Case No. C-10-155542 (Md. Cir. Ct., Arundel Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/Fila.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allan W. Steinhorn, Esq. CLARK & STEINHORN, LLC 11720 Beltsville Dr., Suite 1001 Betsville, MD 20705 Telephone: (301) 572-5000 - and - George Hermina, Esq. John Hermina, Esq. HERMINA LAW GROUP Laurel Lakes Executive Park 8327 Cherry Lane Laure, MD 20707 Telephone: (301) 206-3166 GREAT-WEST LIFE: Merchant Lauds Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- MAARS News reports high profile Canadian lawyer E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C, also known as Tony Merchant has lauded the US$455.7 million Great-West class action settlement. The settlement money is set to be distributed among 1.8 million Canadians after a judge in London, Ontario, on Oct. 1 ruled that Great-West breached sections of the Insurance Companies Act when it transferred money from the accounts of subsidiaries London Life and Great-West Life Assurance Co. to finance the 1997 takeover of London Insurance Group. Great West Life has said it will appeal the decision and that several aspects of the decision are "in error." After 12 years of fighting Great West Lifeco Inc., Bill Rudd, who led the class action, told Winnipeg Free Press that he feels vindicated that an Ontario court awarded the payouts. "I'm 80 now, I started this when I was in my 60s," said Mr. Rudd, a small shareholder and participating policyholder in London Life Insurance Co. and the lead plaintiff in a class-action case against Great West Lifeco and its subsidiaries for violating the Insurance Companies Act. "I was very pleased that it worked out the way it did. We got the major part of the award that we wanted to get," he said in a phone interview on Oct. 4. Tony Merchant, who was not involved in the case, told CBC.ca that it's rare to see a US$456 million judgment like the one the Ontario court handed down. He added that the ruling is a positive step and shows the courts are accepting responsibility for monitoring the way business functions. Rudd and all other Canadians who held a participating life insurance policy of London Life Insurance Co. or The Great-West Life Assurance Co. between 1997 and the judgment issued Oct. 1 will be eligible for the one-time dividend if the ruling holds up on appeal. Depending on the type of policy and how much was invested, the amount each policyholder receives could vary from as little as US$50 to as much as US$6,000, but the average will be about US$300 each, said a source familiar with the case. HELIO LLC: Settles Suit Over Flat-Rate Early Termination Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Helio LLC has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit involving claims that Helio improperly charged its customers flat-rate early termination fees when the customers terminated their wireless telephone contracts prior to the contracts' expiration dates. The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, preliminarily approved the settlement on September 20, 2010. Under the agreement, Helio has established a fund of $950,000 for the payment of refunds to settlement class members, as well as administrative expenses, attorneys' fees, and an incentive award to the class representative. Settlement class members include all current and former Helio customers in the United States and its territories who, at any time prior to October 4, 2010, were parties to a contract with Helio for wireless telephone service that contained an ETF provision. Such customers are class members whether or not they paid any portion of the ETF to Helio or to any third party collection agency or any other party to which Helio assigned its rights. Former employees, officers, or agents of Helio may not participate in the settlement. Settlement class members are eligible to receive either: (1) a cash award of $10.00, or (2) a refund equal to the difference between the flat-rate ETF they paid and what they would have paid had the ETF been pro-rated. In addition to the fund, Helio has agreed to refrain from charging flat-rate ETFs. The Settlement also makes possible the disbursement of significant monies to charities to be approved by the Court. Helio denies any wrongful conduct, and the settlement is in no way a judgment or ruling by the Court that any party engaged in any wrongful or unlawful conduct. Steven L. Lezell and Sean Reis of Edelson McGuire, LLC were appointed by the Court to serve as the attorneys for the Class. Full details can be found at the settlement website, http://terminationfeessettlement.com. Class members may also call the claims administrator at (888) 701-8252 or class counsel at (866) 354-3015. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Lezell, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC Telephone: (312)-589-6370 E-mail: slezell@edelson.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Falsely Advertising Listerine --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that Johnson & Johnson pushes its Listerine Total Care mouthwash with false claims that it fights dental plaque above the gum line, in San Francisco Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Britton v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04450 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/Listerine.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. Hannah R. Salassi, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: scole@scalaw.com mbainer@scalaw.com hsalassi@scalaw.com LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Fee-Splitting Charge in Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Basch, writing for jacksonville.com, reports that after being sued in a Mississippi bankruptcy court for allegedly engaging in an illegal fee-splitting scheme, officials of Lender Processing Services Inc. said Wednesday that it already successfully defended itself against similar allegations in a Texas court in 2008. The class action lawsuit filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Mississippi charged that Jacksonville-based LPS has an illegal fee-splitting arrangement with law firms in exchange for referrals from LPS in bankruptcy and foreclosure cases. LPS provides processing services to lenders for mortgages and foreclosures and in a weak housing market, foreclosures have become a big part of the company's business. In a conference call with analysts Wednesday, LPS Chief Executive Officer Jeff Carbiener said the company has not been served with that lawsuit. But he said from what officials know about it, the allegations "inaccurately describe the business of LPS." He also said the case appears similar to a 2008 case filed in Houston. "In that case, it was clearly demonstrated that the allegations of fee splitting were meritless and the action was dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff," he said. "LPS believes it will achieve similar results in the recent filings by again clearly demonstrating the legitimacy of its business model." Mr. Carbiener said LPS provides services to financial institutions in foreclosure cases, and law firms selected by those institutions may then use LPS's technology. The default services business accounted for nearly half of LPS' $1.2 billion in revenue in the first six months of this year. Mr. Carbiener said less than 10 percent of the default services revenue comes from law firms, with most of it coming from services provided to mortgage lenders. The Houston case was dismissed with prejudice by U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes in December 2008, meaning that the plaintiffs are not allowed to try and re-file the allegations. Mortgage industry magazine HousingWire reported in 2008 that "the case had been seen by industry insiders as a litmus test for the firm's core business model." LPS held the conference call early Wednesday after its stock fell as much as $7.73 over three trading days to an 18-month low of $25.50 on Tuesday. The stock drop was prompted by concerns about LPS's role in the mortgage foreclosure process nationwide, amid reports that lenders seeking to foreclose don't have the proper documentation to proceed and are producing false documents. An LPS subsidiary in Georgia, Docx LLC, has been accused of falsifying documents used in foreclosure proceedings. LPS officials Wednesday reiterated the company's contention that when it found out about possible wrongdoing at Docx, it took the necessary steps to fix it. And the company does not think it will face any material legal liability because of errors at Docx "When we discovered an error in that process, we corrected it and we stand behind those processes and procedures," said LPS General Counsel Todd Johnson. In addition to the Mississippi lawsuit, LPS is also one of several defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Kentucky alleging wrongdoing by lenders and related parties in the foreclosure process. Mr. Carbiener described the lawsuits as "fishing expeditions." "LPS stands by its technology and related services, and believes the lawsuits are nothing more than an attempt by plaintiff's counsel to exploit the recent negative press surrounding residential foreclosures," he said. "I'm confident that once the courts in these cases have been presented with all the facts, the default management services provided by LPS will be found once again to be legal, ethical and responsible in all respects," he said. MAXIM INTEGRATED: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement in the matter In Re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-08-00832-JW, according to the company's Oct. 4, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Feb. 6, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed against the company, its former chief executive officer, now deceased, and its former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of Maxim stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired their shares between April 29, 2003 and Jan. 17, 2008, asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's stock option accounting practices. On May 15, 2008, the Court appointed the Cobb County Government Employees Pension Plan, the DeKalb County Pension Plan and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP as co-lead counsel. On May 3, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs and the company entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants in the action, which provided for the payment of $173 million in cash by the company. In connection with this memorandum of understanding, the company recorded a charge for the three and nine months ended March 27, 2010, to accrue the $173 million settlement amount, which has been recorded in Other operating expenses, net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and in Accrual for litigation settlement in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. On June 18, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs and the company entered into, and Lead Plaintiffs filed with the Court, a formal stipulation of settlement memorializing the agreement to settle all claims against all defendants in the action. On July 14, 2010, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, which remains subject to notice to the putative class and final approval by the Court. On July 23, 2010, the company paid the $173 million settlement amount into an escrow fund in accordance with the terms of the settlement. Pending further Court order, litigation activity in the action has been stayed, and all hearings, deadlines and other proceedings in the action, other than the final approval hearing, which is scheduled for Sept. 27, 2010, have been taken off the calendar. The Sept. 27, 2010, hearing was held before Judge James Ware for final approval of the previously disclosed settlement between Maxim and Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action. A Final Order and Judgment approving the Securities Class Action settlement was issued by Judge Ware on Sept. 29, 2010. A copy of the Court's order is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100929e33 Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. -- http://www.maxim-ic.com/-- is a publicly traded company that designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance semiconductor products. The company was founded over 25 years ago with the mission to deliver innovative analog and mixed-signal engineering solutions that add value to its customers' products. To date, it has developed over 6,300 products serving the industrial, communications, consumer, and computing markets. Maxim reported revenue in excess of $1.6 billion for fiscal 2009. MONSANTO: April 2011 Trial Set for Nitro Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicky Walters, writing for WOWKTV.com, reports as many as 80,000 people who have lived, worked, attended school or who currently own property in Nitro have started receiving letters about a class action lawsuit. Charleston lawyer Stuart Calwell along with Bibb Medical Monitoring Class in Minneapolis filed the suit alleging that Monsanto manufactured an herbicide and allowed dioxin to escape the plant and contaminate the surrounding communities. The class action suit dates back several years but Mr. Calwell says he was just released by the courts to send out those notices as of Sept. 30. The letters give those affected by the suit an opportunity to opt out if they do not want to participate. 13 News contacted Monsanto for comment. They say the case lacks merit and they plan to defend themselves vigorously. Monsanto Director of Corporate Affairs, Tom Helscher says there are many sources of dioxin in the environment and the levels in the town of Nitro do not appear to be unusual. The trial is set to begin in April 2011 in Putnam County Circuit Court before Judge O.C. Spaulding. Monsanto has not operated in the Kanawha Valley since the 1970s. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Calwell, Esq. THE CALWELL PRACTICE Law & Arts Center West 500 Randolph St. Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: 304-343-4323 OIL COMPANIES: Court Authorizes Settlement in Price-Fixing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Marianne White, writing for Postmedia News, reports a Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a settlement with two defendants who pleaded guilty to fixing gas prices in exchange for their co-operation in a class-action lawsuit. The class action was filed by drivers against what they're alleging was a cartel in the retail gas markets in Quebec. Under the deal for their pleas, the defendants, from Sherbrooke, Que., will be released from the class action and will work with the Automobile Protection Association, which is spearheading the legal challenge on behalf of some 12,000 Quebec drivers. Association president George Iny said Justice Dominique Belanger's decision is a milestone. "It's a very important development in the case," Mr. Iny said. The class action was authorized in December 2009 against 12 oil companies and 19 individuals. The targeted companies include: Ultramar, Esso, Imperial, Shell, Couche-Tard, Provigo, Irving, Olco and la Coop federee, which operates Sonic stations. The plaintiffs are seeking between $7 and $15 million in damages -- $1,500 for each motorist and $250,000 for the association to be spent on protecting drivers' rights. The class action was filed a day after a Competition Bureau of Canada investigation alleged, in June 2008, that gas station owners in four Quebec cities called one another to set the pump price. A total of 13 Quebecers and 11 companies were charged with gas price-fixing. In her decision, the judge has agreed to set up a process to allow the plaintiffs to have access to some of the evidence held by the Crown. "The tribunal maintains that the results of the Competition Bureau's investigation are not the property of the Crown, but belong to the public who can use it to seek justice," she wrote. Mr. Iny said this is an unusual process and it will be modeled after that of Ontario in the case of D.P. v. Wagg in which a committee was set up to determine which prosecution records would be released publicly. The class action process is in the midst of a timeline that is expected to last about 10 years. Mr. Iny said parties will be back in court shortly to hear a challenge from Couche-Tard. The company, a big player in the alleged cartel according to the Automobile Protection Association, wants to suspend the case or to keep all evidence confidential because of an ongoing criminal investigation. According to the Competition Bureau investigation, price-fixing is alleged to have been going on between 2002 and 2006 in Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines, Que. PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Company continues to defend a consolidated suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On Jan. 25, 2008 and Feb. 26, 2008, purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and three of the company's current or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock during the period between Nov. 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006. Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division. Each complaint alleges that the company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with the company's disclosure of system-wide sales and earnings guidance during the period from Nov. 1, 2005 through July 26, 2006. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead plaintiff. On Aug. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the class period to Nov. 1, 2005 through July 26, 2007. On Oct. 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in this lawsuit. Following filings by both parties on the company's motion to dismiss, on June 25, 2009, the Court converted the company's motion to one for summary judgment and denied it without prejudice. The Court simultaneously gave the company until July 20, 2009 to file a new motion for summary judgment, which deadline the Court subsequently extended until Aug. 10, 2009. On Aug. 10, 2009, the company filed a motion for summary judgment. On Sept. 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a request to deny or continue the company's motion for summary judgment to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery. Following a hearing and subsequent filings by both parties on the plaintiff's request for discovery, on Nov. 6, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion for summary judgment on Dec. 12, 2009, and the company filed its reply in support of its motion on Dec. 21, 2009. On March 16, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion for summary judgment. On April 5, 2010, the Court granted a joint motion by the parties staying the case through July 6, 2010, which stay was subsequently extended by the Court until July 30, 2010, pending an attempt by the parties to resolve through mediation. The company was required to answer the complaint by Aug. 30, 2010 if mediation has not been successful. On July 1, 2010, the Court extended the stay until July 30, 2010 and set Aug. 30, 2010 as the deadline for the company's answer to the complaint. The company discloses, in its Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2010, that an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. Panera Bread Company -- http://www.panerabread.com/-- owns and franchises 1,399 bakery-cafes as of June 29, 2010 under the Panera Bread(R), Saint Louis Bread Co.(R), and Paradise Bakery & Cafe(R) names. PANERA BREAD: Labor Violations Suit Still Pending in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Company continues to defend a purported class action filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa. On Dec. 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of the company. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2010. Panera Bread Company -- http://www.panerabread.com/-- owns and franchises 1,399 bakery-cafes as of June 29, 2010 under the Panera Bread(R), Saint Louis Bread Co.(R), and Paradise Bakery & Cafe(R) names. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY: Trial Court Ordered to Compel Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant, Professional Community Management, Inc., appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of a putative class action filed by plaintiff, Ray A. Maiorano. Based solely on the parties' agreement, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, concludes it cannot be compelled to arbitrate on a class basis. However, the California Court of Appeals reversed the order and directed the trial court to compel arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims. A copy of the California Court of Appeals' decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100930057 The California Court of Appeals pointed out that it is undisputed that the present case is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. "The question remains whether plaintiff can be compelled to arbitrate his individual claims or whether the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as a whole. We apply principles of state contract law and conclude the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Therefore, plaintiff must arbitrate his individual claims," the California appellate court stated. The defendant is represented by: E. Sean McLoughlin, Esq. HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP One California Plaza, 37th Floor 300 So. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147 Telephone: (213) 620-0460 Facsimile: (213) 624-4840 E-mail: smcloughlin@hillfarrer.com Representing the plaintiff and respondent are: George R. Kingsley, Esq. Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Steve L. Hernandez, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: 818-990-8300 Facsimile: 818-990-2903 SONOCO PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terry L. Wooten of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina certified the case, City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Sonoco Products Co., Harris E. DeLoach, Jr., and Charles J. Hupfer, Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-2348-TLW-TER, as a class action. The class consists of all purchasers of common stock of Sonoco Products Co. between February 7, 2007 and September 18, 2007, inclusive and who were damaged thereby. A copy of the Court's order is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100930f86 The City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System originally filed the action on June 26, 2008. An amended class action complaint was filed on October 14, 2008. The defendants opposed the motion for class certification. Sonoco is a global supplier of industrial and consumer packaging and packaging services, headquartered in Hartsville, South Carolina. With over 16,500 employees and sales of approximately $3.6 billion in 2009, it is also among the largest companies in its industry. The plaintiff asserts that while Sonoco had met or exceeded earnings estimates for fourteen periods, in late 2006, it had to provide certain customers price concessions. Additionally, the plaintiff asserts that the company lost certain accounts around the same time. The plaintiff argues that even though the defendants knew that these issues would adversely impact financial results, the defendants failed to report this information. Moreover, the plaintiff purports that this failure to disclose artificially inflated the company's stock price, and the CEO sold 155,000 shares of stock during this time period. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 5, 2008, but the Court denied it as well as the subsequent motion for reconsideration. SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Suit Over Stucco Work May Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------ Allison Stice at islandpacket.com reports a state Supreme Court decision may allow Sun City Hilton Head homeowners to pursue a class-action lawsuit for alleged defective stucco work. The opinion released Oct. 4 reverses a Circuit Court ruling that struck down class-action status for a suit alleging improper stucco application, which caused water damage and rot. A court must first certify the class before such a lawsuit can be filed. A Circuit Court hearing on that issue has not been scheduled. The suit against South Carolina State Plastering LLC was filed three years ago by Anthony and Barbara Grazia of Sun City and alleges negligent construction on more than 2,500 homes in the gated community that "would require . . . stripping the homes of the existing stucco and recladding with a properly installed stucco system," the Supreme Court's opinion reads. State Plastering filed a third-party complaint against developer Del Webb Communities Inc., builder Pulte Homes Inc. and Kephart Architects Inc. A statement from Del Webb says a third-party engineering firm surveyed the homes and repairs already have been made "in isolated incidents where a stucco issue was present." Representatives for Pulte did not respond Wednesday to requests for comment. W. Jefferson Leath Jr. of Charleston-based law firm Leath, Bouch & Seekings said the four attorneys in the Grazia case collectively represent more than 140 Sun City homeowners claiming stucco defects. "If Pulte follows their standard course, they will take some action to prolong (the lawsuit), whether it be a petition to the Supreme Court to reconsider or some other action," Mr. Leath said. Everett Kendall of the Columbia-based firm Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, one of four lawyers representing the defendants, said they may petition for a rehearing. They may also seek clarification from the legislature on its original intent in creating the law that he lower court used to deny class-action status. The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Jefferson Leath Jr., Esq. LEATH, BOUCH, CRAWFORD & VON KELLER, L.L.P. 92 Broad St., P.O. Box 59 Charleston, SC 29402-0059 Telephone: 843-937-8811 South Carolina State Plastering LLC is represented by: Everett Kendall, Esq. SWEENY WINGATE & BARROW, P.A. 1515 Lady Street, P.O. Box 12129 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: 803-256-2233 SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss LFG-Related Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. et al., remains pending. Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, Inc, a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on Jan. 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The second of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on Feb. 2, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. On June 12, 2009, the Multi-District Litigation Panel issued a transfer order designating the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson Division, as MDL Court for IRS Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation (MDL 2054). Plaintiffs' allegations in these cases are that LES and certain of its officers caused them to suffer damages in connection with potential 1031 exchange transactions that were pending at the time that LES filed for bankruptcy. Essentially, Plaintiffs' core allegation is that their damages are the result of breaches of fiduciary and other duties owed to them by LES and others, and fraud and other improper acts committed by LES and certain of its officers, and that the company is partially or entirely responsible for such damages because it knew or should have known about the alleged wrongdoing and failed to take appropriate steps to stop the same. The company believes that the allegations and claims made against it in these actions are both factually and legally unsupported, and has filed a motion to dismiss all claims, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. In addition, the company has been made aware that the bankruptcy trustee representing the estates of LFG and LES currently is investigating whether to bring claims against SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., and other entities related to the purchase of auction rate securities by LES through STRH. The total par amount of auction rate securities bought through STRH and held by LES at the time of the collapse of the auction rate market in February 2008 was approximately $152 million. At this time, no legal action has been filed by the trustee. The underlying bankruptcy proceeding is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: Defends Remaining Claim in ATM Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend the remaining claim in the matter In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation. The company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco, California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. C04-2676 CR13. In these actions, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee for participants in the Star ATM Network. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants' conduct was illegal per se. In August 2007 Concord and the bank defendants filed motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' per se claim. In March 2008, the Court granted the motion on the ground that Defendants' conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed under the rule of reason. The Court certified this question for interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal on Aug. 13, 2008. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint in which they asserted a rule of reason claim. This complaint was dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were given leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed yet another complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same. The Court granted this motion in part -- dismissing one of Plaintiffs two claims -- but denied the motion as to one claim. The Court has ordered the parties to submit briefs in July and August 2010 regarding the Plaintiffs' standing (or lack thereof) to assert the sole remaining claim, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in "Buffington" Pending in 11th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s appeal on the denial of its Motion to Compel Arbitration in the matter Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The company has been named as a defendant in several putative class actions relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft fees to customers. One case is captioned Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al. filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009. This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036 on Dec. 1, 2009. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of the company's assessment of overdraft charges to their joint checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges." Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both motions were denied. The denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration currently is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend "Bailey" Suit in Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend the matter Bailey v. SunTrust Bank et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The company has been named as a defendant in several putative class actions relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft fees to customers. One case captioned Bailey v. SunTrust Bank et al. was filed in the Orleans Parish Civil Court, State of Louisiana, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Dec. 22, 2009. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, conversion, abuse of right, unjust enrichment, fraud, redhibitory vice, product liability, breach of obligation, and violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and its implementing regulations for alleged injuries he suffered as a result of the company's assessment of overdraft charges to his deposit account. Plaintiff purports to bring the class action on behalf of "all SunTrust Bank checking account holders whose indebtedness was accelerated by the collection of unwarranted penalty fees, and for transactions despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover the transaction, and for transactions negotiated without proper endorsement." Plaintiff seeks restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. On Jan. 20, 2010, the matter was conditionally transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036, but on Feb. 26, 2010, that transfer order was vacated by the MDL Panel. On Feb. 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Individual Complaint and Second Amended Class Complaint, which motion was granted on Feb. 22, 2010. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint alleges claims against the Company for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and its implementing regulations, and "fault." Plaintiff alleges that his injuries arise from illegal conduct associated with his purchase and electronic payment for an Apple computer and the assessment of certain overdraft charges to his deposit account. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint adds Apple, Inc. and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta as Defendants. The Third Amended Complaint purports to bring the class action on behalf of two separate classes: (1) all Apple customers who made a purchase through an Apple Symbol at an Apple Retail Store, and were subjected without warning or notification by Apple to an Apple pre-authorization requirement; and (2) all SunTrust customers who were charged an overdraft fee when their SunTrust checking accounts were not overdrawn. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The Court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration on Feb. 24, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter In Re SunTrust Banks, Inc. ERISA Litigation, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. This is a consolidated putative class action case filed by participants in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan concerning the performance of certain investment options available under the Plan. In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the company's publicly traded stock was an imprudent investment option that should not have been offered by the Plan because of the company's alleged exposure to losses related to subprime mortgages. The complaint names the company, members of the company's Board of Directors, the company's Benefits Plan Committee, and other members of the company's management as defendants, and contends that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income security Act of 1974, as amended by offering the company's common stock as an investment option in the Plan. The complaint does not quantify the alleged damages that the plaintiffs seek, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Dec. 10, 2009, the company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: "Krinsk" Suit Stayed Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------- The matter Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank remains stayed pending SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s appeal on the denial of its Motion to Comple Arbitration. This is a lender liability action in which the borrower claims that the company has taken actions in violation of her home equity line of credit agreement and in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiff filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida as a putative class action, and is currently attempting to have the class certified. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's first complaint, and she subsequently filed an Amended Complaint asserting breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of TILA. Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. The company filed its Answer to the Complaint, has opposed class certification, and has filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration and this decision is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The case has been stayed pending the resolution of this appeal, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., remains a defendant in the matter In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation. STRH is a broker-dealer affiliate of SunTrust Banks, Inc. Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and seek unspecified damages. All cases have now been transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over TruPs Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint relating to the offer and sale of Trust Preferred Securities, remains pending. Beginning in May 2009, the company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., SunTrust Capital IX and officers and directors of the company and others were named in three putative class actions arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (TRUPs) of SunTrust Banks, Inc. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant registration statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the company's capital position and its internal risk controls. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the TRUPs. These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Nov. 30, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. On Jan. 29, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Waterford's Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., remains pending. The company and several of its executive officers are named as defendants in putative class action securities litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. These cases were consolidated under the caption Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al. As lead plaintiff, the Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System filed the Lead Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint on Dec. 23, 2009. The plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the company's stock during the period July 22, 2008 through Jan. 21, 2009, and allege that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to understate the company's allowance for loan and lease loss (ALLL) reserves, its provision for loan losses, and the amount of charge-offs related to its loans. They further allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding, among other things, the ALLL, its provision for loan losses, and the amount of charge-offs related to its loans. Waterford seeks certification of the class and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed in February 2010 and remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Still a Defendant in Suit Against Colonial --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., remains a defendant in the matter In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. STRH is a broker-dealer affiliate of SunTrust Banks, Inc. Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was denied in May 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations, serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and institutional clients. As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion. The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels. The company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment services. Through various subsidiaries the Company provides mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management, equipment leasing and investment banking services. TELENAV INC: Investigation Into Securities Violations Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. Tuesday disclosed that it is continuing its investigation of reports that TeleNav, Inc. filed a false and misleading Registration Statement in connection with the company's May 13, 2010 initial public offering. Sunnyvale, California-based TeleNav, a provider of wireless location-based services, filed a Form S-1/A Registration Statement on May 13, 2010 for the purpose of selling 7 million shares of its common stock at $8 per share to the public market. The Registration Statement stated that 55 percent of TeleNav's business came from wireless carrier Sprint Nextel Corp. and that the contract with Sprint was not due to expire until December 31, 2011. Following the IPO, TeleNav's stock traded as high as $9 per share until July 29, when the company dropped the "Sprint Bombshell." Less than three months after its IPO, TeleNav revealed that it was already in "active negotiations" with Sprint to amend material terms of its contract with the wireless carrier. On July 30, TeleNav's stock price plunged, eventually closing at $5.44 per share, a one-day decline of 39 percent. Over the next several weeks, the share price continued to decline as stock analysts from JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank Securities downgraded the stock due to the potential revenue loss associated with the evolving contract with Sprint. A class-action lawsuit has already been filed. The complaint charges TeleNav and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 . Any investor with significant losses from purchases of TeleNav stock before July 30, 2010 who wishes to serve as lead plaintiff must file with the court by November 2, 2010. If you purchased TeleNav stock prior to July 30, 2010, or wish to discuss this matter further, you are encouraged to contact the following SRKW attorneys via telephone or e-mail: Robert M. Roseman, Esq. David Felderman, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Toll Free: (888) 844-5862 About SRKW SRKW has been representing individual and institutional investors for nearly three decades, serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions in U.S. federal and state courts. Please visit the firm's Web site -- http://www.srkw-law.com/-- for more information about the firm. WRIGHT COUNTY: Conditions at Egg Farm "Deplorable," Lawyers Say --------------------------------------------------------------- KETV Omaha reports attorneys in a class action lawsuit on Oct. 5 said that they saw first-hand the problems at an Iowa egg plant that lead to a nationwide egg recall. The group toured Wright County Egg plant and said they found piles of manure, rats and insects inside the plant. The attorneys represent many of the 1,500 people sickened by eggs that were part of the recall. They said the conditions were just as disturbing as what FDA inspectors discovered in August. Attorneys said the conditions inside the barns are deplorable, very similar to the reports by FDA inspectors that detailed leaking manure, rodents and other problems. "You saw rats, rodents, insects; all kinds of things that shouldn't be in a food plant," said attorney Ron Simon. "The piles of manure reach up to where the hen layers are. here are rodents everywhere," said attorney Ken Moll. Mr. Moll said a court order prevented Wright County Egg from cleaning up and fixing some of the problems until attorneys had a chance to document the evidence, but he said that in his opinion there's been little effort by the company to fix what they could. "We haven't seen any signs that they have cleaned up anything that would prevent the contamination of salmonella, still to this day, to its eggs," said Mr. Moll. The attorneys will also have a chance to go through a feed mill for Wright County Egg. "I just don't see that they can change it enough in the near future to prevent the contamination of people in the future," said Mr. Moll. The attorneys touring the facilities said that, based on the evidence they're collecting, they are troubled that Wright County Egg is still in production. "These are people who are eating a ubiquitous product, eggs. They eat it every day, it's part of their routine, it's part of their daily diet and they certainly didn't expect that when they opened that egg to be biting into a poison pill of salmonella," said Mr. Simon. The attorneys also went through Hillandale Farms and said they saw many of the same poor conditions. A spokesperson for Wright County Egg said they sympathize with those who were sickened by the eggs, but they are not in a position to comment on the pending lawsuit that brought the attorneys to Iowa to tour the farms. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ken Moll, Esq. THE LAW GROUP, LTD. 3 First National Plaza, 50th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (888) 882-3453 - and - Ron Simon, Esq. SIMON & LUKE, L.L.P. 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 335-4900 E-mail: ron@simonluke.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *