/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101012.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 201 Headlines ADVANTA CORP: Sued for Breaching Agreement Not to Charge Interest ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Lorcaserin BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds BIO-ENGINEERED SUPPLEMENTS: Accused of Selling Bogus Product BMW: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Turbo Chargers CHRYSLER: N.Y. Suit Complains About Defective Brakes DIAMOND FOODS: Ruling Striking Class Allegations Affirmed DRESS BARN: Tween Awaits Approval of Pact in Wage & Hour Suit DRESS BARN: Final Approval of Credit Card Suit Accord Pending DRESS BARN: Tween Makes $575,000 Fee Award Payment in July EMCORE CORP: IBEW Local No. 58 Appointed as Lead Plaintiff EXCEL STORAGE: Klehr Harrison Files WARN Act Class Action Suit EXPEDITORS INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending HARMAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Columbia HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending HEALTHWAYS INC: Final Okay of Pact in Securities Suit Pending HEALTHWAYS INC: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $1.25 Million JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages LASALLE BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Ill. Over "Sweep" Fees LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed MARSH & MCLENNAN: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued in Kentucky Over Illegal Foreclosures NATIONAL PENN: Defends RICO-Violations Suit in Pennsylvania ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Abuse at Institution PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over Sept. 9 Pipeline Explosion PROMMIS SOLUTIONS: Two Class Action Suits Allege Fee-Splitting RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action Suit SMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suits Over Schlumberger Merger SOUTH FINANCIAL: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending TIKE TECH: Recalls 800 Single City X3 & X3 Sport Jogging Strollers TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Hiding Acceleration Defects TRANSOCEAN LTD: Scott+Scott LLP Corrects Class Action Notice TRUBION PHARMA: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims UNIQUE BABY: Recalls 12,000 Single & Twin Jogging Strollers VERITAS SOFTWARE: 3rd Circuit Affirms Award of 30% for Legal Fees ZENITH INSURANCE: Dec. 9 Status Conference for PPO Class Suit ZYMOGENETICS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Bristol Acquisition * Class Action.org Reviews Claims Over Deceased Relatives Debts ********* ADVANTA CORP: Sued for Breaching Agreement Not to Charge Interest ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chung Choi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Advanta Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04504 (N.D. Calif. October 5, 2010), asserts claims for breach of contract, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, and unjust enrichment. Mr. Choi says that Advanta breached its May 2009 agreement with him not to charge any interest on cash advances made against his new credit card until October 1, 2010, when in October 2009, it charged him interest of $38.43 on his cash advance balance. This was followed by another improper charge of $55.06 on November 18, 2000. Mr. Choi avers that when he requested Advanta to refund all interest payments made by him, Advanta replied that the 0% interest rate had expired on October 1, 2009, and that he would be charged an interest of 7.99% for any balance on his credit card advance after that date. The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by: Thomas Marc Litton, Esq. SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 392-6900 E-mail: tlitton@swhlegal.com - and - Steven L. Wittels, Esq. Jeremy Heisler, Esq. SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com jheisler@swhlegal.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Karl Olson, Esq. RAM & OLSON LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 E-mail: mram@ramolson.com kolson@ramolson.com A copy of the Complaint in Choi v. Advanta Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04504 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/Advanta.pdf Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year history of being a leading innovator in the financial services industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders, including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior to the recent reversals. It has also been a major civic and charitable force in the communities in which it is based, particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area. ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Lorcaserin --------------------------------------------------------- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. Tuesday disclosed that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between December 8, 2008 and September 16, 2010, inclusive. If you purchased Arena securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than November 19, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any subsequent recovery in this action will not be affected by your decision whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, were brought against Arena and certain of its officers for violations of federal securities laws. Arena, headquartered in San Diego, California, is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing, and commercializing oral drugs that target G protein-coupled receptors. Arena's principal drug under development is Lorcaserin, an experimental weight loss drug. The complaints allege that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false statements regarding Lorcaserin. Specifically, defendants allegedly touted Lorcaserin's purported efficacy, safety, and tolerability but failed to disclose certain health risks associated with the drug. On September 14, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration issued a briefing document in advance of its advisory panel meeting that questioned the safety and efficacy of Lorcaserin and revealed, among other things, that the drug was associated with malignant tumors in rats. On this news, the price of Arena common stock fell $2.72 per share, or nearly 40 percent, to close at $4.13 per share on September 14, 2010. On September 16, 2010, the FDA advisory panel reportedly rejected Lorcaserin due to concerns with the drug's efficacy and potential safety problems. The following day, September 17, 2010, Arena's stock fell another $1.75 per share, or approximately 47 percent, to close at $1.99 per share. If you want to consider serving as a lead plaintiff and you bought Arena securities between December 8, 2008 and September 16, 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, Esquire David Felderman, Esquire Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Toll Free: (888) 844-5862 E-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com About SRKW SRKW -- http://www.srkw-law.com/-- 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. BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Tabletops Unlimited, Inc., of Carson, Calif, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Castalon frying pans. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The enamel coating of the pan can crackle and break off after a few uses, posing a burn hazard to consumers. There was one reported incident of a piece of enamel popping off of the pan, and causing a minor burn to a consumer. This recall involves a cast iron cast-lite frying pan with an enamel coating inside and out. The pan was sold in a variety of colors and has model numbers: TTU9203, P9204, P9207, P9208, P9242, P9243, P9244, P9248, P9250, P9261, P9266, P9274, P9275, P9276 on the color sleeve packaging of the product. The models are correlated to pan colors. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11004.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Bed, Bath & Beyond and Wegmans nationwide from May 2010 through September 2010 for about $30. Consumers should immediately stop using this product and contact Tabletops Unlimited for instructions on how to return the product and receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Tabletops Unlimited toll-free at (888) 239-2021 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ttucorp.com/or email at http://www.ttucorp.com/ BIO-ENGINEERED SUPPLEMENTS: Accused of Selling Bogus Product ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Bio-Engineered Supplements and Nutrition sells a bogus product, "Cheaters Relief," a putative "carbohydrate and fat regulator," that allows dieters to eat carbohydrates and fats "without sabotaging your diet," a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. BMW: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Turbo Chargers ---------------------------------------------------------- Sacramento, California based class action law firm Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of individuals who own various BMW vehicles released between the years of 2007-2010. The lawsuit, No. CV10-2257 SI filed in the Northern District of California, seeks to compel BMW to initiate a recall in order to replace all of the high pressure fuel pumps in the affected vehicles. According to the complaint, in 2006, BMW announced with much fanfare the development of its new N54 twin turbo engine. BMW touted the new engine as incorporating state of the art technology that included dual turbo chargers and a newly developed fuel injection system. BMW represented to the public that this new technology would eliminate 'turbo lag,' a common problem in turbocharged vehicles, and that its new state of the art fuel injection system greatly increased the performance and fuel efficiency of its vehicles. Plaintiffs allege that the new engines that were so highly touted by BMW in fact contain serious design flaws that render the vehicles unsafe to drive. There are essentially two design flaws at the center of the case. First, the plaintiff asserts that BMW's new fuel injection system that supposedly incorporates a new 'state of the art' fuel pump actually malfunctions at an alarming high rate. As a result, many BMW owners have had to repeatedly replace their fuel pumps, sometimes within 1,000 miles of vehicle ownership. Lead attorney on the case, Stuart Talley of Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, noted, "When these fuel pumps fail, the car comes to a complete stop or loses substantial power. If this happens while someone is driving on a highway at high speeds, this can create a very serious safety hazard. We believe the defect is so significant that it makes these cars unsafe to drive." The second problem relates to the BMW turbo chargers. Specifically, the complaint alleges that owners of the affected vehicles were told that BMW's new engine had eliminated 'turbo lag.' 'Turbo lag' is the delay between the time that driver of a vehicle presses the accelerator and the time that turbo chargers on the engine essentially 'kick in' to provide added power to the engine. However, shortly after the vehicles were released, BMW began to receive complaints from owners that they were hearing strange noises from the engine along with a delay in throttle response. BMW eventually discovered that these problems were the result of a design defect in the turbo chargers. Plaintiffs allege, however, that rather than repair the defective turbo chargers, BMW implemented a secret 'software fix' to hide the problems from consumers. Any time a consumer brought their BMW in for repair or routine maintenance, BMW would 'upgrade' the vehicle's software. This software tweak kept the turbo chargers from operating at full capacity, ensuring that their defects would go undetected. Apparently owners aren't happy. A number of user generated forums, petitions and blogs have cropped up criticizing BMW for their handling of the issue. On the BMW Blog, several consumers reported their BMW's going into 'limp mode.' They also complained of excessive power loss and 'turbo lag,' the very condition BMW said it had eliminated with its 'state of the art engine.' The plaintiff's complaint seeks to force BMW to repair the defective turbo charges and/or reimburse consumers for the diminution in value to the vehicles. Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff have demonstrated their dedication to protecting the legal rights of consumers, as well as their ability to devote substantial resources through trials involving large corporations. Their product liability lawyers have represented thousands of victims of defective vehicles and dangerous products in cases throughout the United States, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit recoveries for their clients and the classes they have represented. If you would like more information on this topic, or to schedule an interview with William Kershaw, please call Taryn Smith at 916.448.9800 or 888.285.3333. CHRYSLER: N.Y. Suit Complains About Defective Brakes ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the brakes of Chrysler 2008-09 Caravan, Grand Caravan and Town and Country cars wear out prematurely at 12,000 to 20,000 miles, and the company doesn't stand behind its warranty, a class action claims in Manhattan Federal Court. DIAMOND FOODS: Ruling Striking Class Allegations Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling of the San Joaquin County Superior Court striking all class allegations in the complaint against Diamond Foods Inc., according to the company's Oct. 5, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010. In March 2008, a former grower and an organization named Walnut Producers of California filed suit against the company in San Joaquin County Superior Court claiming, among other things, breach of contract relating to alleged underpayment for walnut deliveries for the 2005 and 2006 crop years. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of walnut growers who entered into contracts with the company. In May 2008, the company argued a motion in front of the judge in the case requesting, among other things, that all class action allegations be struck from the plaintiffs' complaint. In August 2008, the court granted the company's motion. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling, and in August 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the class allegation from the complaint. Diamond Foods Inc. -- http://www.Diamondfoods.com/-- is a high- growth innovative packaged food company focused on building, acquiring and energizing brands including Kettle chips, Emerald(R) snacks, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, and Diamond of California(R) culinary and snack nuts. The company's products are distributed in a wide range of stores where snacks and culinary nuts are sold. DRESS BARN: Tween Awaits Approval of Pact in Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tween Brands, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving a wage and hour lawsuit, according to The Dress Barn, Inc.'s Oct. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Tween Brands is a subsidiary of The Dress Barn, Inc. The suit was filed on Jan. 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The purported class action alleges, among other things, that Tween Brands violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly paying its employees for overtime and missed rest breaks. In September 2010, the parties agreed to a tentative settlement of this wage and hour lawsuit. The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval, notice to the purported class members, and final court approval. The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- is a specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls operating under the dressbarn, maurices and Justice names. The company operates 2,477 stores. DRESS BARN: Final Approval of Credit Card Suit Accord Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of the settlement agreement entered into by Tween Brands, Inc., and plaintiffs in a consolidated suit in California, is pending, according to The Dress Barn, Inc.'s Oct. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Tween Brands is a subsidiary of Dress Barn. Between November 2008 and October 2009, Tween Brands was sued in three purported class action lawsuits alleging that Tween Brands' telephone capture practice in California violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which protects consumers from having to provide personal information as a condition to a credit card transaction. All three cases were consolidated in California state court. A mediation was held in January 2010. The parties settled this lawsuit in the spring of 2010. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 9, 2010. The final court approval hearing is scheduled for Dec. 10, 2010. The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- is a specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls operating under the dressbarn, maurices and Justice names. The company operates 2,477 stores. DRESS BARN: Tween Makes $575,000 Fee Award Payment in July ---------------------------------------------------------- Tween Brands, Inc., in July 2010, made the $575,000 fee award payment to the plaintiffs' counsel as part of the settlement agreement in a consolidated suit, according to The Dress Barn, Inc.'s Oct. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company, the members of the company's board of directors and, in certain of the lawsuits, Dress Barn, Dress Barn's chief executive officer and/or Merger Sub, were named as defendants in several purported class actions lawsuits that were filed by Tween Brands stockholders in either the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio or the Delaware Court of Chancery. Plaintiff Clair Rand filed the first suit in Ohio on June 29, 2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors, Dress Barn, and its chief executive officer. Plaintiff Sarah Elliott filed a similar suit in Ohio on July 8, 2009, naming as defendants only Tween Brands and its directors. Plaintiff Cheryl Dutiel filed a similar suit in Delaware on July 17, 2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, it six directors, Dress Barn, and Merger Sub. Plaintiff Edward Hirsch filed a similar suit in Ohio on Aug. 4, 2009, naming the same defendants as plaintiff Dutiel. Following the defendants' motions to stay the Ohio suits in favor of the Delaware litigation, the three Ohio plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suits and together filed a similar suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on Aug. 28, 2009, but did not include Dress Barn or its chief executive officer as defendants. Amended complaints were filed in each of the two Delaware actions. The amended complaints alleged, among other things, that Tween Brands and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to obtain adequate consideration in the proposed Merger, agreeing to certain provisions in the merger agreement, and issuing allegedly inadequate disclosure documents; and (in the Dutiel complaint) that Dress Barn, by obtaining non-public information about Tween Brands, aided and abetted the Tween Brands directors' alleged breach in failing to obtain adequate consideration for the Merger. The suits seek, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the Merger. The parties engaged in initial discovery proceedings. By letter decision dated Oct. 2, 2009, the Delaware Chancellor consolidated the two Delaware actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Tween Brands put additional disclosure language in its merger proxy statement and agreed to pay legal fees to plaintiffs' law firms. The settlement agreement was approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on June 15, 2010, and in accordance with the parties stipulation and the Order and Final Judgment entered by the Court, Tween Brands made the $575,000 fee award payment to the plaintiffs' counsel in July 2010. The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- is a specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls operating under the dressbarn, maurices and Justice names. The company operates 2,477 stores. EMCORE CORP: IBEW Local No. 58 Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------- IBEW Local Union No. 58 has been appointed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico as the lead plaintiff in a consolidated suit against EMCORE Corporation, according to the company's Oct. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Dec. 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class of company shareholders against the company and certain of its present and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.). The Complaint alleges that company and the Individual Defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the company's Photovoltaics business segment. The Complaint in the Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with the maintenance of the Action. On or about February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the same relief. Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the matters into a single action. On Sept. 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel. On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff, but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel. IBEW has not yet renewed its motion to appoint lead counsel. EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- provides compound semiconductor-based components, subsystems and systems for the fiber optics and solar power markets. EMCORE's Photonic Systems segment is the leading developer and manufacturer of fiber-optic systems and components for a wide range of commercial and military applications including microwave fiber-optic signal transmission and processing, satellite earth-stations, fiber-optic gyroscopes, and terahertz sensing. EMCORE's Fiber Optics segment offers optical components, subsystems and systems that enable the transmission of video, voice and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television (CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks. EMCORE's Solar Power segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial applications. For satellite applications, EMCORE offers high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based gallium arsenide (GaAs) solar cells, covered interconnect cells and fully integrated solar panels. For terrestrial applications, EMCORE offers concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems for utility scale solar applications as well as offering its high-efficiency GaAs solar cells and CPV components for use in solar power concentrator systems. EXCEL STORAGE: Klehr Harrison Files WARN Act Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles A. Ercole, a partner with the firm Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP, was retained by the WASTE MATERIAL, RECYCLING, and GENERAL INDUSTRIAL UNION, LOCAL 108, L.I.U. OF N.A., AFL-CIO (on behalf of its members) and numerous non-union employees as well to pursue a class action on behalf of all employees laid off by Excel Storage Products when it shut down suddenly on September 17, 2010 without providing any advance notice. Failure to give 60 days notice violates the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). As a result of the shutdown, approximately 150 employees were laid off at the East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania facility. Employees were also laid off at other plants operated by Excel in Cadiz, Ohio, Lodi, California, and Brookings, South Dakota. The Company never gave any notice prior to the September 17 shutdown and failed to even notify state or local officials until several days after the shutdown. The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits for the violation of the WARN Act. The case is being pursued in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania where last Monday (September 27, 2010), Mr. Ercole filed a petition with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to force Excel into an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding. On Friday, October 1, 2010, Excel filed its own voluntary petition seeking protection under Chapter 7. "We plan to exhaust all avenues to recover the money owed to these employees. The company clearly knew long before September 17, 2010 that it was going to have to close its doors and there is no reason WARN Act notices shouldn't have been given," said Mr. Ercole. Mr. Ercole and Klehr Harrison have recently achieved settlements of $1.65 million for 500 former employees of Fleetwood Travel Trailers and $1.58 million for 256 former employees of Arrow Trucking in similar WARN Act cases. If you have any questions, please contact Charles A. Ercole or Gianna M. Karapelou. EXPEDITORS INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York. On Oct. 10, 2007, the U. S. Department of Justice issued a subpoena ordering the company to produce certain information and records relating to an investigation of alleged anti-competitive behavior amongst air cargo freight forwarders. The company has retained the services of a law firm to assist in complying with the DOJ's subpoena. As part of this process, the company has met with and continues to co-operate with the DOJ. The company expects to incur additional costs during the course of this ongoing investigation, which could include fines and/or penalties if the DOJ concludes that the company has engaged in anti- competitive behavior and such fines and/or penalties could have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations and operating cash flows. On Jan. 3, 2008, the company was named as a defendant, with seven other European and North American-based global logistics providers, in a Federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York, Precision Associates, Inc. et al v. Panalpina World Transport, No. 08-CV0042. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a number of new third party defendants and various claims which they assert to violate the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs' amended complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of customers (and has not yet been certified), asserts claims that the defendants engaged in price fixing regarding eight discrete surcharges in violation of the Sherman Act. The allegations concerning the company relate to two of these surcharges. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion on Jan. 30, 2010, to which the company filed a reply. The motion is currently pending before the Court, 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. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is a global logistics company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. The company employs trained professionals in 183 full-service offices, 65 satellite locations and 2 international service centers located on six continents linked into a seamless worldwide network through an integrated information management system. Services include air and ocean freight forwarding, vendor consolidation, customs clearance, marine insurance, distribution and other value added international logistics services. HARMAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Columbia ------------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated securites suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim against Harman and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007 and Sept. 24, 2007. The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. and its related funds was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the company's common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of its officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007 and Sept. 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On Jan. 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through Jan. 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose 'significant problems' relating to PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint. The Consolidated Complaint, which extends the Class Period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that Harman and certain of the company's officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and the company's capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of its common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.harman.com/-- designs, manufactures and markets a wide range of audio and infotainment solutions for the automotive, consumer and professional markets -- supported by 15 leading brands including AKG(R), Harman Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), Lexicon(R) and Mark Levinson(R). The company is admired by audiophiles across multiple generations and supports leading professional entertainers and the venues where they perform. More than 20 million automobiles on the road today are equipped with HARMAN audio and infotainment systems. HARMAN has a workforce of about 11,000 people across the Americas, Europe and Asia, and reported sales of $3.4 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al., is still pending. Patrick Russell filed a complaint on Dec. 7, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman International Industries, Incorporated Retirement Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007 to the present, defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaint further claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's Participants." On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on Aug. 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.harman.com/-- designs, manufactures and markets a wide range of audio and infotainment solutions for the automotive, consumer and professional markets -- supported by 15 leading brands including AKG(R), Harman Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), Lexicon(R) and Mark Levinson(R). The company is admired by audiophiles across multiple generations and supports leading professional entertainers and the venues where they perform. More than 20 million automobiles on the road today are equipped with HARMAN audio and infotainment systems. HARMAN has a workforce of about 11,000 people across the Americas, Europe and Asia, and reported sales of $3.4 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. HEALTHWAYS INC: Final Okay of Pact in Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of a settlement agreement resolving a securities suit against Healthways, Inc., is pending. Beginning on June 5, 2008, Healthways and certain of its present and former officers and/or directors were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleged that the company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of Healthways. The amended complaint further alleges that certain of the individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based on their stock sales. The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and August 25, 2008. In support of these claims, the lead plaintiff alleges generally that, during the proposed class period, the company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding (1) the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with customers, (2) the company's participation in the Medicare Health Support pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and (3) the company's guidance for fiscal year 2008. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 13, 2008. On March 9, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 27, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for $23.6 million. The District Court must approve this settlement after notice to the class before it may be considered final. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement on Sept. 24, 2010. In July 2010, all parties to the litigation effected a settlement and stipulation agreement pursuant to which the company's insurers made all required payments to a qualified settlement fund, 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. As a result of the company's insurance coverage, this settlement is not expected to result in any charge to the company. Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides specialized, comprehensive solutions to help millions of people maintain or improve their health and well-being and, as a result, reduce overall costs. Healthways' solutions are designed to help healthy individuals stay healthy, mitigate or eliminate lifestyle risk factors that can lead to disease and optimize care for those with chronic illness. The company's proven, evidence-based programs provide highly specific and personalized interventions for each individual in a population, irrespective of age or health status, and are delivered to consumers by phone, mail, internet and face-to-face interactions, both domestically and internationally. Healthways also provides a national, fully accredited complementary and alternative Health Provider Network and a national Fitness Center Network, offering convenient access to individuals who seek health services outside of, and in conjunction with, the traditional healthcare system. HEALTHWAYS INC: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $1.25 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc., awaits the preliminary approval of an agreement settling a suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for $1.25 million. On July 31, 2008, a purported class action alleging violations of the ERISA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division against Healthways, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan. The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent investment option for the 401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on Sept. 29, 2008, naming as defendants the company, the Board of Directors, certain officers, and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering the 401(k) plan. The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and results of the MHS pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit the plan to hold company stock. It further alleged that the company and its directors should have been more closely monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries. The amended complaint sought damages in an undisclosed amount and other equitable relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2008. On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to disclose with regard to any non-public information and information beyond the specific disclosure requirements of ERISA and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the remainder of the plaintiff's claims. A period of discovery ensued. On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. After the plaintiff failed, without explanation, to appear for his scheduled deposition, the Court issued an Order on July 10, 2009 warning the plaintiff that his failure to participate in the lawsuit could result in sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal. After the plaintiff's failure to participate continued, on July 23, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the action. On Aug. 6, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the named plaintiff but otherwise without prejudice, and the Court entered an Order to that effect on the same date. On Feb. 1, 2010, a new named plaintiff filed another putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, alleging ERISA violations in the administration of the company's 401(k) plan. The new complaint is identical to the original complaint, including the allegations and the requests for relief. Defendants' answer to this complaint was filed on March 22, 2010. A scheduling order was entered on April 1, 2010, and discovery commenced thereafter. On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On June 23, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for $1,250,000, with such settlement being funded by the company's fiduciary liability insurance carrier, 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. The District Court must approve this settlement after notice to the class before it may be considered final. The class settlement will be reduced to writing and presented to the Court for preliminary approval in the coming weeks. Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides specialized, comprehensive solutions to help millions of people maintain or improve their health and well-being and, as a result, reduce overall costs. Healthways' solutions are designed to help healthy individuals stay healthy, mitigate or eliminate lifestyle risk factors that can lead to disease and optimize care for those with chronic illness. The company's proven, evidence-based programs provide highly specific and personalized interventions for each individual in a population, irrespective of age or health status, and are delivered to consumers by phone, mail, internet and face-to-face interactions, both domestically and internationally. Healthways also provides a national, fully accredited complementary and alternative Health Provider Network and a national Fitness Center Network, offering convenient access to individuals who seek health services outside of, and in conjunction with, the traditional healthcare system. JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Mary Ann Adlao and Marian Williams, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04508 (N.D. Calif. October 5, 2010), accuse JPMorgan Chase of failing to pay appropriate overtime compensation as required by federal and state law, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and non-reimbursement of necessary expenditures related to the completion of their job duties. Plaintiffs worked as appraisers for JPMorgan Chase. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Schwartz, Esq. Hillary Jo Baker, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 E-mail: Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com Hillary@BryanSchwartzLaw.com LASALLE BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Ill. Over "Sweep" Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that LaSalle Bank deducted fees from custodian investment accounts for more than two decades without telling accountholders, who found out about the secret charges when LaSalle merged with Bank of America and the fees stopped, according to a class action in Cook County Chancery Court. Named plaintiff Stephen Richek says he opened a custodian account with LaSalle in 1985, authorizing the bank to invest his cash balances in money markets and mutual funds. The bank did not tell him that such transactions triggered a "sweep fee" or "daily cash re-investment fee." "Unbeknownst to plaintiffs, defendants were receiving reinvestment (sweep) fees directly from the investment vehicles," according to the complaint. "The re-investment or 'sweep' fees were as much as 35 or 45 basis points and were based on the average daily invested balance that had been 'swept' from the custodian accounts into the reinvestment vehicle and the unique fee basis of a particular investment vehicle. This fee was not agreed to and was not disclosed on the custodian account statements sent to plaintiff." LaSalle merged with Bank of America in 2007. When Mr. Richeck's account was converted to Bank of America in 2009, he got a letter saying that the sweep fees had been canceled. "This was the first time plaintiff became aware" of the fees, the complaint states. Bank of America said it didn't know how much money had been taken from his account over the decades, saying there were "no recorded fee schedules for 'sweep' fees" and that it "could not accurately portray how sweep fees were assessed from inception to current," according to the complaint. Mr. Richek sued LaSalle Bank Corp., Bank of America, US Trust, Bank of America Corp., and Bana Holding Corp. for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. He seeks an "accounting and full refund" for the class. A copy of the Complaint in Richek, et al. v. U.S. Trust, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-41342 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/SweepFees.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. Jason R. Krol, Esq. SAUNDERS & DOYLE 20 South St., Suite 1720 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 551-0051 - and - J. Stephen Walker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF J. STEPHEN WALKER, P.C. 20 North Clark St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 578-9191 LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The payment of damages as final judgment in a class action complaint alleging race discrimination against Lufkin Industries, Inc., remains stayed pending a decision on appeals filed. On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October 2004. Although plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial. On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the Company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and expenses. The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the company appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiff's appeal for class certification of a class disparate treatment claim. Plaintiff's claim on the issue of the Company's promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion. The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the District Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing authority. On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the company reviewed the plaintiff's submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions that supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the company continued to have significant differences regarding legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests. As a result of these different results, the court requested further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to render a final decision. The judge reviewed both parties arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original request. The company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters. Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling $5.8 million, the company recorded an additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award of attorney fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on Aug. 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had not been issued. The court commented that this issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment. On Jan. 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas notified the company that it had entered a final judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Court ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The company hadpreviously estimated the total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment issued by the Court on January 15, 2010, related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Company recorded provisions for these judgments in 2009. On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's final judgment. On Jan. 21, 2010, The company filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same court. In addition, the company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay. No updates were reported in the company's company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Lufkin Industries, Inc. sells and services oil field pumping units, power transmission products, foundry castings and highway trailers throughout the world. The company has vertically integrated all vital technologies required to design, manufacture and market its products. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of a settlement agreement resolving a suit against Putnam Investments Trust, remains pending. Under the terms of a stock purchase agreement with Great-West Lifeco Inc. related to GWL's purchase of Putnam Investments Trust from Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., in August 2007, MMC agreed to indemnify GWL with respect to certain Putnam-related litigation and regulatory matters. Two putative class actions by investors in certain Putnam Funds pending against Putnam in the District of Maryland are based on similar allegations as those at issue in Putnam's 2003 and 2004 settlements with the SEC and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding excessive short-term trading by certain former Putnam employees in shares of the Putnam mutual funds, and directly involve MMC and/or may be subject to MMC's indemnification obligations. The first action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The second action purports to assert derivative claims under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. Both suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly suffered by the Putnam Funds and their investors as a result of purported market-timing and late trading activity in certain Putnam Funds. In the first action, the parties have entered into a settlement agreement. That agreement is subject to final approval by the district court, 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 the derivative action, the court denied Putnam's motion for summary judgment. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of the world's leading risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance specialist; Mercer, the provider of HR and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman, the management consultancy. With over 50,000 employees worldwide and annual revenue of $10 billion, MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued in Kentucky Over Illegal Foreclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, GMAC Mortgage and others fraudulently file foreclosures on mortgages with forged signatures, before they acquire a legal interest in the properties, falsely claiming to have an interest in notes they do not hold. Here are the defendants in the foreclosure RICO class action: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Merscorp; GMAC Mortgage LLC; Residential Accredit Loans Inc.; Residential Funding Company LLC; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; Nationstar Mortgage; Aurora Loan Services; BAC Loan Services; Citimortgage; US Bank; LSR Processing; DOCX; Lender Processing Services; Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss; Manley Deas Kochalski PLLC; Dinsmore & Shohl LLP; Reisenfeld & Associates LPA; Middleton & Reutlinger. A copy of the Complaint in Foster, et al. v. Mortgage Electroic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00611 (W.D. Ky.) is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/Foreclose.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heather Boone McKeever, Esq. MCKEEVER LAW OFFICES PLLC 3250 Delong Rd. Lexington, KY 40515 Telephone: 859-552-7388 NATIONAL PENN: Defends RICO-Violations Suit in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- National Penn Bancshares, Inc., defends the matter Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On Jan. 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., against multiple defendants, including National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345). The complaint essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class, 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. National Penn Bancshares, Inc. -- http://www.nationalpennbancshares.com/-- with $9.2 billion in assets, is the fourth largest bank holding company based in Pennsylvania. Headquartered in Boyertown, National Penn operates 127 offices. It has 124 community banking offices in Pennsylvania and one office in Maryland through National Penn Bank and its HomeTowne Heritage Bank, KNBT and Nittany Bank divisions. National Penn also currently has two offices in Delaware through its wholly-owned subsidiary Christiana Bank & Trust Company. National Penn's financial services affiliates consist of National Penn Wealth Management, N.A., including its National Penn Investors Trust Company division; National Penn Capital Advisors, Inc.; Institutional Advisors LLC; National Penn Insurance Services Group, Inc., including its Higgins Insurance division; and Caruso Benefits Group, Inc. ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Abuse at Institution ---------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a man has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other developmentally disabled people alleging decades of abuse at an Ontario institution he claims was a "prison-like environment." David McKillop of Gananoque, Ontario, was admitted to the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, Ontario, in 1955 when he was five, and stayed a ward of the institution until 1972. He is suing the province of Ontario claiming "punitive damages." Mr. McKillop alleges he was forced to clean floors and toilets with a toothbrush, wear embarrassing nightgowns all day, and says he was violently kicked in the groin by a staff member, which left him unable to have children. The allegations contained in the statement of claim have not been proven in court. The Rideau operated from 1951 to March 2009. In July, an Ontario Superior Court officially certified a $1- billion class action suit launched by former residents of another facility for the developmentally disabled, the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, Ontario. PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over Sept. 9 Pipeline Explosion ------------------------------------------------------------- Bay City News reports a San Bruno man filed a class action lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court last week alleging that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. was negligent and at fault for the Sept. 9 pipeline explosion that tore through the city's Crestmoor Canyon neighborhood. Attorney Vahn Alexander filed the class action lawsuit on Wednesday for resident Daniele DiTripani. The suit claims he was home when the gas pipeline exploded and was injured and "suffered damages." The suit is on behalf of "all San Bruno residents who have been impacted by the explosion," which destroyed at least 37 homes and killed eight people. It alleges that PG&E was negligent in its management of the pipeline, which was "a direct and legal cause of the PG&E explosion," causing residents to suffer economic harm, injury and future economic loss. The plaintiff is asking for "an award of appropriate damages" as well as third-party supervision of a $100 million "Rebuild San Bruno Fund" that PG&E has established to provide relief to residents and the community. PG&E spokeswoman Katie Romans said the company received a copy of the suit on Tuesday and is reviewing it. This is the second lawsuit filed against PG&E in San Mateo County seeking damages for the explosion. Attorneys for San Bruno resident Steve Dare filed suit on Sept. 17, also seeking compensation for damage caused by the explosion. PROMMIS SOLUTIONS: Two Class Action Suits Allege Fee-Splitting -------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry Curry, writing for HousingWire magazine, reports two lawsuits allege illegal fee-splitting involving two large outsourcers in the mortgage industry, reviving a long-running debate about fee arrangements between outsourcers and the attorneys who work with them. In a case filed Sept. 30, a couple involved in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Mississippi has filed a class-action complaint against Prommis Solutions Holding Corp., its majority owner, venture capital firm Great Hill Partners; and the law firm of Johnson & Freedman. The suit also names as defendants Lender Processing Services (LPS: 27.31 0.00%), which provides a variety of third-party mortgage services, and its wholly owned subsidiary, LPS Default Services. The suit seeks class-action status for people who filed for bankruptcy protection in the Northern District of Mississippi in which the defendants were involved in various legal motions. The lawsuit alleges that the mortgage outsourcers have secret contracts with attorney firms with fee-splitting arrangements "disguised as administrative fees, document review 'views,' document download fees, document execution fees, technology facilitation fees, etc.," according to the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Johnathan R. and Darlene S. Thorne, who are in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. The suit contends the allegedly secret agreements constitute fee- splitting with non-lawyers, which is illegal, as well as the unauthorized practice of law. Ultimately, the borrower allegedly gets saddled with inflated fees, which gets charged back to their loans, according to the lawsuit. The model used by firms such as Prommis and LPS, in which the outsourcer uses a network of attorneys who are paid a flat fee but who in turn receive fees from attorneys working foreclosure cases, has enabled such companies to generate "billions of dollars in fees since this system was implemented," the complaint alleges. Kentucky lawsuit The second case involves a borrower in the Bourbon Circuit Court in Kentucky. In that case, William Stacy countersued Wells Fargo (WFC: 26.2525 0.00%) in a foreclosure action, claiming that the bank did not own his mortgage note due to improper assignment. Mr. Stacy also names as defendants the law firm of Manley, Deas, Kochalski LLC, LPS and LPS Default Solutions. The case alleges that the mortgage assignment allowing Wells to foreclose was "a sham, a fabrication, a forgery and a fraud upon the court." But buried in the lawsuit is the same allegations of illegal splitting of fees as in the Mississippi case, this time between Manley Deas, LPS and LPS Default. Its allegations are similar, as well, claiming that fees are disguised as other things and are ultimately charged back to the borrowers. The Wooten Law Firm in Auburn, Ala., is listed as "of counsel" to the plaintiffs in both cases, with a post office box listed as a mailing address on both legal filings. Nick Wooten owns the firm, which has operated since 1998, according to Wooten's LinkedIn page. The firm focuses on wrongful foreclosure and predatory lending cases, and sources suggest to HousingWire that Wooten has been extremely active in filing motions to contest foreclosure actions within Alabama during the past year. A message with Wooten regarding his firm's involvement in both cases was not immediately returned. According to lawyers and other legal experts that spoke with HousingWire on condition of anonymity, both legal cases take a so- called 'shotgun approach' to a lawsuit. "In both cases, an entire book of claims has been thrown up against a wall, in an effort to see if any of it sticks," said one attorney experienced in class action lawsuits, who reviewed the cases and asked not to be identified. "Typically, this is done out of the hope that something survives past summary judgment, because if so, the borrower and their counsel will just have hit paydirt." A summary judgment is a pretrial dismissal of claims. LPS declined comment on both lawsuits, saying that it has been served with neither and that, as a general rule, the company does not comment on pending litigation. Dick Volentine, corporate counsel for Prommis, was reached by e- mail late Tuesday. Volentine said he was familiar with the lawsuit in Mississippi, but said Prommis has yet to be served. "I can't comment on this litigation other than to say that we will vigorously defend ourselves against these claims," he said. A voice message was also left with Ted Manley, a partner in the Manley Deas law firm. Old issue, new wrinkles The issue of fee-splitting isn't new. It has arisen before, including in a 2008 Houston bankruptcy case involving Ernest and Mattie Harris. The couple said its loan servicer, Saxon Mortgage Services, never told the court it had hired Fidelity National Information Services as its agent. (LPS was spun off from Fidelity in 2008.) The borrowers claimed that Fidelity's involvement resulted in higher legal fees. Fidelity steadfastly denied wrongdoing in that case, arguing that its business model created efficiencies that lowered costs for all. HousingWire magazine wrote about the case in its inaugural issue, in September 2008. While Fidelity/LPS prevailed in that case, an attorney familiar with the two new lawsuits said outsourcers may have a harder time defending themselves against such suits going forward. Part of the reason is a shift in courts' view of the mortgage industry, as high-profile cases of abuse continue to hit the airwaves and newspapers. Courts are currently turning a more friendly ear toward consumers' complaints about the way the industry operates, the attorney said. The Harris case, however, was dismissed by a Texas federal court in December 2008. Judge Lynn N. Hughes also barred the Harris' from refiling similar claims against LPS at a later date. At the time, that case had been seen by industry insiders as a litmus test for the firm's core business model. RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Black, writing for Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, reports that Restaurant Technologies Inc. has reached a $5.5 million settlement in a class-action suit brought against the company alleging executives and directors manipulated the company to devalue earlier investments. The suit, filed in July by former directors Michael Tate of Plymouth and Joseph Shuster of New Prague and investors Jack Ayers and Lyle Evanson, claimed that CEO Jeffrey Kiesel, Chief Financial Officer Robert Weil and three Restaurant Technologies directors conspired to devalue the holdings of about 150 common stockholders by as much as $39 million. In March, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis denied the company's request to have the suit tossed out, and allowed the case to proceed. The recent settlement, if approved by the court, would create a minimum fund of $5.5 million with the potential for additional amounts if RTI is sold prior to June 1, 2013 for an amount in excess of $170 million, according to a notice filed Sept. 30 in U.S. District Court in Minnesota. The court didn't rule on the merits of any of RTI's defenses, including the company's claim that a recapitalization in 2009 was done in the best interest of the company and that it may not have survived if it had not received financial support from investor Parthenon Capital. CEO Kiesel told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that the company decided to settle the suit rather than go through an expensive, time-consuming trial. RTI helps restaurants such as McDonald's and Burger King collect and recycle cooking oil. The case was resolved through a mediator. Attorneys for both parties exchanged and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, consulted with experts and participated in over 30 depositions. A hearing will be held Nov. 29 at 9 a.m. to allow members of the class action suit to weigh in on the merits of the settlement proposal. SMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suits Over Schlumberger Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Smith International, Inc., defends suits in connection with its merger with Schlumberger Limited. On Feb. 21, 2010, the company, Schlumberger Limited and Turnberry Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Turnberry Merger Sub, Inc. will merge with and into the company, with the company surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger, and each share of Company common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.6966 shares of Schlumberger common stock. Subsequent to the announcement of the Merger, five putative class action lawsuits were commenced on behalf of stockholders of the company against the company and its directors, and in certain cases against Schlumberger and one of its affiliates, challenging the Merger. Four of the lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, and have been consolidated into a single action in the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas, and one lawsuit is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The parties in the Actions have agreed to an expedited discovery schedule and to the coordination of pleadings and discovery in advance of any preliminary injunction hearing, which will be heard only in the Texas Action. On April 19, 2010, the court in the Delaware Action approved the parties' agreement concerning the coordination of the Actions and agreed to otherwise stay the Delaware proceedings through any preliminary injunction hearing in Texas. Plaintiffs in the Actions have served a consolidated amended petition for breach of fiduciary duty and a verified amended class action complaint, respectively. The amended pleadings are substantively similar and allege that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing the company to enter into the Merger Agreement at an allegedly inadequate and unfair price, agreeing to transaction terms that improperly inhibit alternative transactions and failing to provide material information to the company's stockholders in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger. Specifically, the pleadings allege that the preliminary proxy statement omits material information relating to, among other things: the analyses performed by, and the information relied upon by, UBS; any strategic alternatives to the Merger considered by UBS; UBS's involvement in the negotiations between the Company and Schlumberger; the fee to be paid to UBS in connection with the Merger; and any negotiations or plans concerning the employment of Smith management after consummation of the Merger. The pleadings also allege that the company and Schlumberger aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The pleadings seek, among other things, an injunction barring defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, declaratory relief and attorneys' fees, 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 an Aug. 24, 2010, the company disclosed that its stockholders voted in favor of the company's merger agreement with Schlumberger Limited. Over 99% percent of the shares voted at the meeting were voted in favor of the merger. Smith International, Inc. is a leading supplier of premium products and services to the oil and gas exploration and production industry. The company employs over 23,000 full-time personnel and operates in over 80 countries around the world. SOUTH FINANCIAL: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The approval of a settlement agreement resolving the matter In re The South Financial Group, Inc., is pending. On May 16, 2010, The South Financial Group, Inc., The Toronto- Dominion Bank, and a wholly owned subsidiary of TD entered into the Merger Agreement (providing for the Merger of TSFG with a TD subsidiary) and a share purchase agreement, pursuant to which TD agreed to purchase 100 newly issued shares of TSFG's Series M Preferred Stock, which will vote together with TSFG common stock as a single class and represent 39.9% of the total voting power of holders of TSFG capital stock entitled to vote, for consideration of 1,000 TD common shares. Subsequent to the entry into the Merger Agreement, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas relating to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and the Share Purchase Agreement, each on behalf of a putative class of TSFG stockholders and each naming TSFG, the TSFG directors, and TD as defendants. Those actions were consolidated on June 28, 2010, under the caption In re The South Financial Group, Inc., CA No. 2010-CP-23-2001. The plaintiffs in the Action generally challenge the proposed Merger and Issuance. On July 22, 2010, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the MOU, TD agreed not to engage in any additional purchases of TSFG common stock from July 22, 2010 through the record date for the special meeting of TSFG shareholders to vote on the Merger. In addition, TSFG and TD agreed to make certain additional disclosures relating to the Merger in the registration statement on Form F-4 to be filed with the Securities Exchange Commission by TD that includes a preliminary proxy statement for the purposing of soliciting the vote of TSFG shareholders, 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. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including Court approval following notice to TSFG's shareholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, and any disclosure made or shareholder vote held in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. Upon Court approval, plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The South Financial Group Inc. -- http://www.thesouthgroup.com/-- is a bank holding company focused on serving small businesses, middle market companies, and retail customers in the Carolinas and Florida. At June 30, 2010, it had approximately $11.6 billion in total assets and 176 branch offices. TSFG operates Carolina First Bank, which conducts banking operations in North Carolina and South Carolina (as Carolina First Bank), and in Florida (as Mercantile Bank). At June 30, 2010, approximately 44% of TSFG's total customer deposits were in South Carolina, 45% were in Florida, and 11% were in North Carolina. The TD Bank Financial Group, in an Oct. 1, 2010, press release disclosed that it had completed its acquisition of The South Financial Group, Inc. TIKE TECH: Recalls 800 Single City X3 & X3 Sport Jogging Strollers ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Tike Tech Ltd., of Toronto, Ontario, announced a voluntary recall of about 800 Tike Tech Single City X3 and X3 Sport Jogging Strollers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller can allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at the neck by the grab bar, posing a strangulation hazard to young children when a child is not harnessed. When using a stroller, parents and caregivers are encouraged to always secure children by using the safety harness and never to leave them unattended. To learn more about the importance of stroller safety, download CPSC's safety alert: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5096.pdf/ No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves the grab bar on Tike Tech Single City X3 and X3 Sport strollers. "Tike Tech" is printed on the footrest and on the back of the stroller on the left and right sides. The ID codes are located on the interior left side frame. The following ID codes are included in this recall: ID-Codes -------- TT-18-01 TT-18-02 TT-18-03 TT-18-04 TT-18-05 TT-18-06 TT-18-07 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11002.html The grab bar is optional and can be removed from the stroller. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Juvenile product stores nationwide and Web sites including http://www.amazon.com/from October 2009 through February 2010 for about $300. Consumers should immediately remove the grab bar from the stroller and contact Tike Tech to receive a free replacement grab bar. For additional information, contact Tike Tech at (800) 296-4602 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or email the firm at recall@tiketech.com or visit firm's Web site at http://www.tiketech.com/ TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Hiding Acceleration Defects ---------------------------------------------------- Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Toyota Motor Corp. was accused by U.S. investors of violating securities law by failing to disclose acceleration-related defects that it knew about, according to a consolidated complaint in a class- action lawsuit. The shareholders, led by the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, said in the Oct. 4 filing in federal court in Los Angeles that internal documents show Toyota deliberately concealed unintended sudden acceleration problems in the U.S. They said the company knew about the defects as early as 2000 and "stonewalled" regulators to avoid recalls. "As government regulators and the media began to focus on this serious safety problem in the Toyota vehicles, defendants initially denied that any unintended acceleration problem existed, despite a plethora of internal evidence to the contrary, and instead blamed driver error and media-induced publicity," the investors said. Toyota's recalls related to sudden acceleration defects have erased $30 billion in market capitalization, the investors said. The Maryland pension fund seeks to represent investors who bought Toyota's American depositary receipts from May 10, 2005, to Feb. 2, 2010. The fund also wants to represent investors who bought the carmaker's common stock in domestic transactions during that period as well as, through claims made under Japanese law, all investors who bought the common stock during that time, according to the complaint. U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer, who is overseeing the case, said in July that a U.S. Supreme Court decision may exclude securities- law claims by investors in Toyota's common stock. Gerald Silk, a lawyer for the Maryland fund, said in August that the decision as to which claims will be allowed to proceed will be made through a motion to seek class certification or a motion to dismiss the complaint. "Toyota believes that the claims contained in the recently filed shareholder securities consolidated complaint are unfounded," Celeste Migliore, a spokeswoman for Toyota Motor Sales USA in Torrance, California, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. "We look forward to presenting our position to the court." The case is In re Toyota Motor Corp. Securities Litigation, 10-00922 (C.D. Calif.). TRANSOCEAN LTD: Scott+Scott LLP Corrects Class Action Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ The Early Notice, under 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A) issued by Scott+Scott LLP on October 4, 2010 announcing the filing of a class action lawsuit against Transocean Ltd. and others on behalf of investors is corrected as follows: the deadline for seeking lead plaintiff appointment identified in the second paragraph of the Notice should have read "December 3, 2010," not "November 30, 2010." The full text of the corrected Notice is as follows: On September 30, 2010, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against Transocean Ltd., the former CEO of Transocean, and the former CEO of GlobalSantaFe Corporation. As alleged in the Complaint, the action for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of all GlobalSantaFe shareholders and their successors-in-interest who suffered harm during the period beginning October 2, 2007 through April 20, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period") as a result of the Company's false October 7, 2007 proxy. If you are a member of this Class and wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than December 3, 2010. Any member of the investor Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott- scott.com; (800) 404-7770; (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott Web site, http://www.scott-scott.com)for more information. There is no cost or fee to you. The complaint in this action alleges that, on October 2, 2007, in advance of a planned shareholder vote regarding the proposed merger of Transocean and GlobalSantaFe, Defendants disseminated a proxy statement to the Class that contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements that were made not misleading in violation of §14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Transocean is alleged to have misrepresented the quality of its drilling fleet and its safety practices. In fact, as was first revealed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster and its aftermath, Transocean was dramatically underinvesting in safety and exposing itself to a high risk of a catastrophic event. The false proxy induced the Class to approve the merger with Transocean for inadequate consideration, thereby harming the Class. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide. CONTACT: Scott+Scott, LLP Telephone: (800) 404-7770 (860) 537-5537 scottlaw@scott-scott.com http://www.scott-scott.com TRUBION PHARMA: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Trubion Pharmaceuticals are selling the company too cheaply, through an unfair process, to Emergent BioSolutions, for the equivalent of $4.55 a share, or $97 million, shareholders say in Seattle Federal Court. A copy of the Complain in Sloboda v. Gillis, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01591 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Hathaway, Esq. JOHN W. HATHAWAY, PLLC 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 624-7100 - and - Joseph Levi, Esq. William Scott Holleman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 - and - Abe Shainberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ABE SHAINBERG 132 East 43rd St., Suite 512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 425-7286 Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Tuesday disclosed that on October 4, 2010, they filed a class action complaint on behalf of all current stockholders of Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in connection with Trubion's attempt to merge with Emergent BioSolutions Inc. The complaint charges Trubion and Trubion's board of directors with, among other things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9. In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants have issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the proposed transaction wherein Trubion intends to merge with Emergent. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Tuesday, October 5. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Eduard Korsinsky, at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500 or, or via e-mail at ek@zlk.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.zlk.com/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. AT THIS TIME YOU MAY DO NOTHING AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. YOU MAY ALSO RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a national law firm that represents the rights of shareholders and victims of corporate abuse. It is headquartered in New York City and have offices in Los Angeles, California and New Jersey. With over 50 years of combined litigation experience, the members of L|K have been involved in hundreds of class action lawsuits and have obtained multi-million dollar recoveries. L|K has been appointed lead counsel or has played a major role on behalf of shareholders in a majority of the merger-related lawsuits that have been filed on behalf of shareholders throughout the country. The firm has therefore developed a specialization of knowledge in shareholder rights and fiduciary duty law. UNIQUE BABY: Recalls 12,000 Single & Twin Jogging Strollers ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Unique Baby Products USA LLC, of Brooklyn, N.Y, announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 Valco Baby Tri Mode Single and Twin Jogging Strollers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller can allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at the neck by the grab bar, posing a strangulation hazard to young children when a child is not harnessed. When using a stroller, parents and caregivers are encouraged always to secure children by using the safety harness and never to leave them unattended. To learn more about the importance of stroller safety, download CPSC's safety alert: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5096.pdf/ No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves the grab bar on Tri Mode Single and Twin strollers. "Valco Baby" is printed on the head rest and the padding on the footboard. The grab bar is optional and can be removed from the stroller. The stroller's model numbers are located on a white sticker on the left hand side of brake bar. The recalled strollers with the affected grab bars are listed in the chart below. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11003.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Juvenile product stores and Web sites including http://www.amazon.com/between November 2007 and March 2010 for between $480 to $700. Consumers should immediately remove the grab bar from the stroller and contact Valco Baby to receive a free replacement grab bar. For additional information, contact Valco Baby at (800) 610-7850 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.valcobaby.com/or email at recall@valcobaby.com VERITAS SOFTWARE: 3rd Circuit Affirms Award of 30% for Legal Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court order awarding 30% of a settlement fund as attorneys' fees to the attorneys representing a class in the case In Re Veritas Software Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-3627. The appellants Peter A. Spitalieri and 771 Freedom Street LP purport to be members of a class which settled a securities fraud class action lawsuit with the defendant Veritas Software Corp. The appellants sought reversal of the District Court's approval of an award of 30% of the settlement fund as attorneys' fees to the attorneys representing the class. On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs commenced a class action securities lawsuit against Veritas arising out of a press release that allegedly contained misleading information regarding the company's revenue and earnings for the second quarter of that year. On March 3, 2005, the District Court appointed the lead plaintiffs, Tay Siew Choon and Mark Leonov, for the class and approved their selection of class counsel. In August 2006, the case was referred to mediation. After almost two more years of mediation and negotiation, on April 8, 2008, class counsel reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $21.5 million with Veritas. Pursuant to the instructions of the District Court, on July 24, 2008, class counsel formally filed a fee application seeking 30% of the settlement fund. On July 29, 2008, more than four weeks after the deadline for filing any objection to the fee application, the appellants filed their Objection. Two days later, on July 31, the District Court approved the settlement agreement and fee application. With regard to the appellants' objection, the District Court denied it as untimely, noting that the objection was filed well after the deadline for filing such an objection, and that the objection failed to address the substance or detail of the fee application itself. The District Court entered a final judgment approving the settlement and fee on August 6, 2008. The appellants filed a timely Notice of Appeal on August 22, 2008. A copy of the Third Circuit's opinion is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20101004084 ZENITH INSURANCE: Dec. 9 Status Conference for PPO Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports the setting of a status conference is the first action since last year in a St. Clair County class action suit against Zenith Insurance Co. brought by plaintiff chiropractor Kathleen Roche. In December Zenith filed a motion to dismiss the case involving allegations that the insurer allegedly gave improper Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) discounts. The suit has been stalled since the settlement of a nearly identical case in Madison County against defendant First Health Insurance Co. Roche unsuccessfully tried to stop that settlement. She is now appealing the First Health case at the appellate court in Mount Vernon. The status conference in the Zenith case is set for Dec. 9 before St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young. Both the Madison County and St. Clair County class actions center on claims that the insurers operated "silent PPO" networks and that they took improper discounts from claims submitted by Roche and other healthcare providers. The Madison County case was filed in 2004 by the former teams of the Freed & Weiss Law Firm and Lakin Law Firm, now Lakin Chapman LLC. Its settlement was announced last year and eventually netted $10,000 for lead plaintiff chiropractors Richard Coy and Lawrence Shipley. Their attorneys from LakinChapman, led by Robert Schmieder III, netted more than $650,000 in fees. The remainder of the settlement was to be paid for continuing medical education to various non profits. Roche, represented by Mr. Schmieder's former firm mate, Richard Burke, filed an objection in April 2009 claiming the Madison County settlement was unfair. She claimed it would shelve a competing class action against First Health that she had filed in St. Clair County. Roche then filed the Zenith class action in St. Clair County last year as well. Mr. Schmieder and defense attorney Eric Brandfonbrener of Perkins Coie pointed to the filing of the Zenith suit as proof that Roche's attorneys did not believe in the merit of their previously filed class actions and their arguments against the fairness of the First Health settlement in Edwardsville. Mr. Burke claimed that Mr. Brandfonbrener had colluded with Mr. Schmieder and that the defense attorney had engaged in bad-faith settlement negotiations with Burke in Belleville. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel approved the $1.25 million over Roche's objection. Zenith moved to dismiss the August 2009 class action against it, claiming that it is the fourth time Roche has tried to sue it on behalf of a class. It claims it honored its agreements with Roche and that her claims must be overseen by a regulatory body such as the Illinois Industrial Commission. The motion to dismiss remains pending. The Zenith case is St. Clair case number 09-L-452. The Madison County First Health class action is Madison case number 04-L-1055. The competing Roche First Health class action in St. Clair is case number 07-L-224. ZYMOGENETICS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Bristol Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seattle Times reports ZymoGenetics said it has settled purported class-action lawsuits filed in King County Superior Court over its agreement to be acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb. In a regulatory filing, the Seattle biotechnology company said it had agreed to provide additional disclosures about the process of reaching a deal with Bristol-Myers. The companies also will pay $625,000 in legal fees and expenses for the litigation. The settlement must be approved by the court and is contingent on the acquisition being completed. * Class Action.org Reviews Claims Over Deceased Relatives Debts --------------------------------------------------------------- The consumer fraud lawyers working with Class Action.org are available to review claims from surviving family members who have been coerced into paying a deceased family member's debt. Surviving relatives usually have no legal obligation to pay a deceased relative's debt; however, a new trend has developed in the debt collection industry in which creditors coerce or guilt surviving family members into paying debts for which they are not responsible. If you have been subjected to this practice by a debt collector, visit http://www.classaction.org/debts-of-deceased- relatives.html to receive a free evaluation of your case. In general, when a person dies, their estate is responsible for paying any debts. If the money from the estate cannot fulfill the outstanding debts, they would typically remain unpaid. Most surviving family members have no legal obligation to pay a deceased relatives' debts, though there are certain exceptions regarding outstanding spousal debts. Still, even a spouse's obligation to pay may be limited under state laws. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law enforced by the nation's consumer protection agency, prohibits debt collectors from using deceptive practices and provides a certain amount of protection to surviving relatives. If a debt collector has coerced you into paying a deceased relative's debt, he or she may have violated federal debt collection law and you may be entitled to financial damages as a result. To find out if you can file a lawsuit stemming from an illegal debt collection practice, visit http://www.classaction.org/debts-of-deceased-relatives.htmland complete the free case review form. The consumer fraud attorneys working with Class Action.org are providing this initial consultation at no cost and remain dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers who have been subjected to illegal debt collection practices. About Class Action.org Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org/-- is dedicated to protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of defective products, drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site. ********* 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 * * *