/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 225 Headlines ALLIANT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Plan Litigation BELO CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Set for February 2011 BIG IDEAS: Recalls 8,800 Horse-on-a-Stick Toys BLANKE CORP: Accused of Selling Defective Underlayment Product CELL THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit CEPHALON INC: Remains a Defendant in Consumer Protection Lawsuits CHARLES SCHWAB: FBR Lowers Stock Rating on Litigation Concerns CITIGROUP INC: Court Upholds Major Claims in Class Action Suit CLAYTON COLLEGE: Accused in Alabama Suit of Fraud CMS ENERGY: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses "Leggett" Suit CMS ENERGY: CMS ERM Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit CMS ENERGY: No Appeal Yet on Dismissal From "Breckenridge" Suit CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Learjet" Suit Pending CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Heartland" Pending COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Execute MOU, Georgia Suit Dismissal Looms COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Agree to Dismiss Delaware Merger Suit COINSTAR INC: Redbox Class Action Suit Still Ongoing COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit COMMSCOPE INC: Being Sold to Carlyle for Too Little, Suit Claims EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Okla. Police Pension Fund to Lead Fraud Suit ENSIGN GROUP: Accused of Violating Health & Safety Codes FANNIE MAE: TGN Comments on Recent Developments in Class Action FLAG TELECOM: $24 Million Class Action Settlement Approved FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Management-Led Buyout GMAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs in Class Suit Seek Foreclosure Freeze HANOVER: Recalls 495,000 Shades, 28,500 Roller/Roll-Up Blinds HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ILLINOIS: Sued for Promulgating Invalid "RAF Rule" IMAX CORP: NY Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing IMAX CORP: Ontario Securities Lawsuit Remains Pending KINDER MORGAN: Final Hearing on Second Arbitration Set for 2011 LITHIA MOTORS: Awaits Arbitration Decision on Alaska Workers' Suit MCMILLAN CO: Sued for Misrepresenting Liberty Station Community OKLAHOMA GAS: Remains a Defendant in "Price I" Lawsuit OKLAHOMA GAS: Motion to Reconsider Suit Dismissal Pending OMNICARE INC: Calif. Court to Hear Dismissal Motion on Dec. 3 OMNICARE INC: Indiana Suit Plaintiffs Appeals Case Dismissal ONTARIO: Compensation Payments Sought for Hepatitis C Class Suit ONTARIO: Class Action Over Huronia Abuses May Proceed to Trial ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Sued for Misleading Advertising Practices PSCO: Xcel, et al., to Oppose Writ of Mandamus Requesting Review REVLON INC: Stays Two Lawsuits to Allow Merits Discovery REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Collora" on Jan. 10 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Black" Action Set REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Dahl" Action in Minnesota Still Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Likely to Remain Active in 2010 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Cleary" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "VanDyke" Action Underway REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Shaffer" Suit Discovery Underway REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Action in Louisiana Still Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri ROCKING HORSE: Recalls 1,200 Rocking Horses ROVI CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit Pending SANFORD BROWN: Nov. 15 Hearing Set for Fraud Class Action Suit SEACOR HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in Del. "Antitrust" Lawsuit SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Certification Ruling SERVICE CORP: Texas Court Dismisses 2003 Securities Lawsuit SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Dec. 22 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida SUN HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. for Labor Code Violations TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Defends Four Lawsuits Filed Over Grifols TARGET CORP: Sued Over Discount Coupons THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in Missouri Over IPC Merger WADDELL & REED: Lawsuit Demanding Proper Wages Still Pending WELLS FARGO: Accused of Failing to Honor Promises to Modify Loans WESTERN DIGITAL: Final Hearing on Class Action Pact Expected 2011 WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages, Improper Layoff ********* ALLIANT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Plan Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed against Alliant Energy Corporation's Pension Plan remains pending, according to the Company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan, alleging that certain Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Plan participants are limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump sum distribution or received any form of distribution calculated under the Plan's prior formula after that benefit was determined to be more valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's cash balance formula. The court has certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from Jan. 1, 1998, through Aug. 17, 2006, including: (1) persons who received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998, through Feb. 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from Feb. 29, 2002, through Aug. 17, 2006. On June 3, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in the lawsuit. The court also ruled with respect to damages that prejudgment interest on damages will be allowed at the prime rate at the time of the judgment and a pre-retirement mortality discount will apply to the damages calculation. The court later granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the application of a pre-retirement mortality discount. A bench trial on the issue of damages was held in June 2010, at which the court heard evidence on issues related to the amount of damages, including application of the pre-retirement mortality discount. The court has not yet issued a decision. The Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan is contesting the case and intends to pursue appropriate appeals. BELO CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Set for February 2011 --------------------------------------------------------- A final hearing is set for February 2011 to consider approval of a settlement reached by Belo Corp. along with the other parties in a purported class action lawsuit alleging failure to pay wages, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class- action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, the company, Press Enterprise Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the purported class members as independent contractors rather than employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum, hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations applicable to an employer-employee relationship. Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages, unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On May 5, 2010, A. H. Belo and the other parties to the lawsuit reached a preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit, subject to Court approval. The Court granted preliminary approval of the agreement on September 16, 2010; a hearing seeking final approval of the Court is set for February 2011. The parties have agreed to cooperate and take all steps necessary and appropriate to obtain final approval of the settlement, to effectuate its terms, and to record the satisfaction of judgment with the Court. As previously noted, A. H. Belo has agreed to indemnify the Company for any liability arising out of this lawsuit; no payment is required of the Company. BIG IDEAS: Recalls 8,800 Horse-on-a-Stick Toys ---------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Big Ideas Marketing, of Owings Mills, Md., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,800 Horse-on-a-Stick Toys. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The reins on horse-on-a-stick toy's bridle are long enough to form a loop around a child's head and neck, posing a strangulation hazard to young children. CPSC has received one report of a near strangulation involving a 2-year-old boy who became entangled in the reins at his neck. The boy's mother freed him without injury. This recall involves horse-on-a-stick toys with a bridle and reins. The toys are filled with polyester fiber and have a fluffy mane. The horse's ears are embroidered with the words "PRESS HERE" in red. The horse makes neighing and galloping sounds when the ears are pressed. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11034.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Love's Travel Stop and Country stores nationwide from May 2010 through July 2010 for about $6. Consumers should immediately remove or cut the reins to eliminate the hazard. Consumers also can contact Big Ideas Marketing for instructions on how to remove the reins. For additional information, contact Big Ideas Marketing toll-free at (888) 908- 8697 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at htpp://www.bigideasmarketing.com/ BLANKE CORP: Accused of Selling Defective Underlayment Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Tile Unlimited, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situaded v. Blanke Corp., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-48246 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 9, 2010), seeks damages for a defective underlayment product manufactured by Blanke, the Uni-Mat Pro, which emits an edible "crunching sound" when walked upon. Blanke is in the business of producing various products, including underlayment systems, which are used to install tile. Tile Unlimited, which is in the business of installing ceramic and other tiles in residential and commercial buildings within Illinos, says that Blanke knew fully well that its underlayment product was defective, yet continued to manufacture the product despite the fact that its product could cause substantial damage to consumers and those who installed the product. The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by: John S. Xydakis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN S. XYDAKIS, P.C. 7518 W. Madison St., Suite 200 Forest Park, IL 60130 Telephone: (708) 771-8888 - and - Thomas F. Courtney & Associates PC 7000 West 127th Street Palos Heights, IL 60463 Telephone: (708) 448-4400 CELL THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cell Therapeutics, Inc., has asked a Washington court to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the Company for alleged violations of federal securities laws, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On March 12, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Cell Therapeutics, Inc., and certain of the Company's officers and directors, styled Cyril Sabbagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-sv-00414). On March 19, 2010, a substantially similar class action complaint was filed in the same court, styled Michael Laquidari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-cv-00480). On March 31, 2010, a third substantially similar class action complaint was filed in the same court, styled William Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Phillip M. Nudelman, Louis A. Bianco, John H. Bauer, Richard L. Love, Mary O. Mundinger, Jack W. Singer, Frederick W. Telling and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC (Case No. 2:10-cv-00559). The securities actions are pending before Judge Marsha Pechman in the Western District of Washington. The securities complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain alleged false and misleading statements. The plaintiffs in the Sabbagh and Laquidari actions seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities from May 5, 2009, through February 8, 2010. The plaintiffs in the Snyder action seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 5, 2009, through March 19, 2010, including purchasers of securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the Company's July 22, 2009, public offering. On May 11, 2010, motions were filed to consolidate the securities actions and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On August 2, 2010, the court consolidated the three securities actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' counsel. On September 27, 2010, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. On October 27, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The lawsuits are at a preliminary stage in the proceedings. Cell Therapeutics believes that the securities actions are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. CEPHALON INC: Remains a Defendant in Consumer Protection Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits filed for violations of consumer protection laws, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In late 2007, the Company was served with a series of putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of entities that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's approved label in non-cancer patients. The complaints allege violations of various state consumer protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive or treble damages, with interest, and disgorgement of profits. In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that also alleges violations of RICO and conspiracy to violate RICO. The RICO allegations were dismissed with prejudice in May 2009. In February 2009, the Company was served with an additional putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health and welfare trust funds that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside the approved labels for each product. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and treble damages, with interest. The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters and in any similar actions that may be filed in the future. These efforts will be both expensive and time consuming and, ultimately, due to the nature of litigation, there can be no assurance that these efforts will be successful, the Company said in the filing. CHARLES SCHWAB: FBR Lowers Stock Rating on Litigation Concerns -------------------------------------------------------------- FBR Capital Markets lowered its rating November 10 on shares of Charles Schwab Corp. on concerns the stock broker could face more litigation from investors. FBR analysts said they were concerned about Charles Schwab's recent decision to terminate a settlement agreement that would have ended a class action lawsuit from investors the company advised. The move spurred FBR to lower its rating on the broker to "market perform" from "outperform." It maintained its $17 price target for the company's shares. Charles Schwab shares fell 23 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $15.30 in midday trading. FBR said Schwab is exposing shareholders to material risks by backing out of a settlement agreement that would have ended a class action lawsuit over the company's YieldPlus bond fund. The fund lost 30 percent of its value between 2007 and 2008, and investors claim Schwab improperly hid the bond fund's risks. Schwab's settlement would have required the company to pay $35 million to settle California state law claims and another $200 million for the plaintiffs' federal claims. But Schwab decided to drop the agreement after plaintiffs claimed they would still have the right to sue the company after the settlement was signed, FBR said in a note to clients. Backing out of the settlement means the case will go back into litigation with an uncertain outcome, FBR said. CITIGROUP INC: Court Upholds Major Claims in Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney LLP, Court-appointed lead counsel, disclosed that on November 9, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sustained, in substantial part, securities fraud claims against Citigroup, Inc. and certain of its senior officers -- including Citigroup's former CEO Charles Prince, former CFO Gary Crittenden, and former Chairman Robert Rubin -- centering on Citigroup's collateralized debt obligations. The CDO-related allegations were at the center of the fraud alleged. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, set forth in a detailed 68 page opinion, securities fraud claims alleging violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 may proceed, on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of Citigroup common stock during the period between February 2007 and April 2008, against Citigroup and seven of its former officers. The Court also dismissed claims (1) on behalf of investors who purchased Citigroup shares prior to February 2007 and after April 2008, as well as (2) claims that were unrelated to Citigroup's concealment of its CDO exposure. In essence, plaintiffs alleged that during early and mid-2007, Citigroup experienced, recognized, and concealed a CDO crisis. The complaint details, over the course of hundreds of pages, Citigroup's awareness of its massive CDO holdings and of the risk contained in such instruments, as well as how Citigroup's belated disclosures of its CDO exposures and losses in late 2007 and early 2008 were instrumental in the decline of Citigroup's shares from nearly $50 per share to below $1 per share -- a decline that pushed Citigroup to the brink of insolvency. The complaint contrasted Citigroup's internal knowledge and actions with respect to CDOs with its public statements concerning CDO holdings and exposure. As the Court summarized: "Simply put, plaintiffs identify a set of statements that gave the impression that Citigroup had minimal, if any, exposure to CDOs when, in fact, it had more than $50 billion in exposure." The Court noted a contemporary "incongruity between word and deed": at the same time that such statements were issued publicly, Citigroup's internal actions -- as detailed at length in plaintiffs' complaint -- evinced awareness of CDO risk and of CDOs' "impending collapse". The Court ruled that, with respect to Citigroup's CDO exposures, plaintiffs' securities fraud claims against Citigroup had been properly pled pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a claim against certain of Citigroup's senior officers for liability as "control persons" of Citigroup, in violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com/-- has specialized in complex litigation, including securities class action, for several decades. The firm has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various courts that have appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi- district litigation. The firm currently serves as lead counsel in a number of prominent lawsuits relating to CDOs and the financial crisis, and has developed substantial insight into complex financial instruments such as CDOs. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and its achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in numerous published decisions. CONTACT: Ira M. Press, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 888-529-4787 E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 CLAYTON COLLEGE: Accused in Alabama Suit of Fraud ------------------------------------------------- Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that Clayton College of Natural Health, a Birmingham-based college offering "distance education programs," closed without warning after 20 years of business and kept "tens of millions of dollars in advance tuition," four students say in a federal class action. And 24 students sued a second Alabama college in a separate complaint. The students in the class action -- from Massachusetts, Michigan and Virginia -- say Clayton College has "disabled [its] phones and website, vacated their offices, and informed plaintiffs and other members of the class to direct all communications to a post office box to which mail is now sent, and largely ignored." The class claims that Clayton and its co-defendant officers -- Lloyd Clayton, Jeff Goin, William Fishburn and Kay Channell -- and Magnolia Corporate Services used their prepaid tuition to pay bonuses and salaries. They say the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by "failing to take steps to safeguard the funds, failing to ensure that tuition received from plaintiffs for educational programs was utilized for such programs, failing to properly manage and protect tuition funds, and failing to reveal to plaintiffs that the school was in financial difficulty." The students claim that the college has "failed to return the tens of millions of dollars entrusted by and received from plaintiffs and members of the class for prepaid distance education programs that it is now impossible to complete." They also accuse the defendants of conversion, fraud and negligence. In a similar complaint in Marengo County Court, Linden, Ala., 24 students say the National Healthcareer Association, Career 1st and Thomasina Simmons took their money for phlebotomy technician courses, but did not qualify them, as promised, to take the National Certification test for phlebotomists. The students say the defendants' courses were inadequate and did not comply with National Healthcareer Association guidelines. These students seek damages for fraud, breach of contract and negligence. They are represented by Ted Mann of Birmingham. A copy of the Complaint in Goldberg, et al. v. Clayton College of Natural Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02990 (N.D. Ala.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/10/ClaytonCollege.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glen M. Connor, Esq. Richard P. Rouco, Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC P.O. Box 10647 Birmingham, AL 35202-0647 Telephone: 205-328-9576 - and - Thomas H. Howlett, Esq. Dean M. Googasian, Esq. THE GOOGASIAN FIRM, P.C. 6895 Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138 Telephone: thowlett@googasian.com dgoogasian@googasian.com CMS ENERGY: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses "Leggett" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed all claims against all defendants in the matter Samuel D. Leggett, et al., v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al., according to CMS Energy Corp.'s October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In 2005, a class action complaint brought on behalf of retail and business purchasers of natural gas in Tennessee, was filed in the Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee. The defendants included CMS Energy, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company (CMS MST), and CMS Field Services. In April 2010, the Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed all claims against all defendants. CMS ENERGY: CMS ERM Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit --------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Resource Management Company continues to defend a consolidated case pending in the Circuit Court in Wood County, Wisconsin, according to CMS Energy Corp.'s October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas between Jan. 1, 2000 and Oct. 31, 2002. The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Energy Resource Management Company (CMS ERM), and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees. After dismissal on jurisdictional grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new Arandell case in Michigan. The CMS Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss the new Michigan case on statute-of- limitations grounds and that motion remains pending. Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v. CMS ERM, CMS Energy, and Cantera Gas Company, was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy defendants and 19 other non-CMS Energy companies. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. After removal to federal court, both Arandell cases and the Newpage case were transferred to the MDL case. In June 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case; the Arandell (Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM; and the Arandell (Wisconsin) case was consolidated with the Newpage case. These two consolidated cases remain pending only against CMS ERM. CMS ENERGY: No Appeal Yet on Dismissal From "Breckenridge" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corp. discloses that the plaintiffs in the matter Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., have not appealed the dismissal of the company and its subsidiaries in the suit, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in May 2006. Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas price reporting activities. Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages. After removal to federal court, the Breckenridge case was transferred to the MDL case. All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from the Breckenridge case in 2009. The company says it expects the plaintiffs in this case will appeal this decision after all claims against defendants have been dismissed. At this time, there is no pending appeal. There is a pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion is not yet decided. CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Learjet" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs in the matter Learjet, Inc., et al., v. Oneok, Inc., et al., against CMS Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries remains pending, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. In 2005, CMS MST was served with a summons and complaint that named CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from the defendants and others for their facilities, are seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas. After removal to federal court, the Learjet case was transferred to the MDL case. CMS Energy was dismissed from the case but other CMS Energy defendants remain parties. There is a pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion is not yet decided. CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Heartland" Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs in the matter Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., against CMS Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries remains pending, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws. Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas price reporting activities. After removal to federal court, the Heartland case was transferred to the MDL case. CMS Energy was dismissed from the case in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants remain parties. There is a pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion is not yet decided. COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Execute MOU, Georgia Suit Dismissal Looms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., disclosed it has entered into an agreement with class action plaintiffs, which, if approved, could cause the dismissal of a consolidated suit filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, in connection with the company's planned merger with The Coca-Cola Company, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010. In connection with the agreements entered into between the company and TCCC on Feb. 25, 2010, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, between the announcement date, and the present. The lawsuits are all similar and assert claims for various breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the agreement. The lawsuits name the company, its board of directors, and TCCC as defendants. Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the transaction, to declare the deal void and rescind the transaction if it is consummated, to require disgorgement of all profits the defendants receive from the transaction, and to recover damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses. The Georgia cases were consolidated by orders entered March 25, 2010 and April 9, 2010. On September 3, 2010, the parties to the consolidated Georgia action executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) containing the terms for the parties' agreement in principle to resolve the Georgia Action. The MOU called for certain amendments to the transaction agreements as well as certain revisions to the disclosures relating to the transaction. The MOU also contemplates that plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $7.5 million. Pursuant to the transaction agreements, the liability for these attorney fees would be shared equally between the Company and TCCC. Under the MOU, the parties will seek approval of the settlement from the Georgia court, and if approved, the Georgia action will be dismissed with prejudice. COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Agree to Dismiss Delaware Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in a consolidated suit filed in the Delaware Chancery Court in connection with its planned merger with The Coca-Cola Company, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010. In connection with the agreements entered into between the company and TCCC on Feb. 25, 2010, five putative class action lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court between the announcement date, and the present. The lawsuits are all similar and assert claims for various breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the agreement. The lawsuits name the company, its board of directors, and TCCC as defendants. Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the transaction, to declare the deal void and rescind the transaction if it is consummated, to require disgorgement of all profits the defendants receive from the transaction, and to recover damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses. The Delaware cases were consolidated on March 16, 2010. On September 3, 2010, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) containing the terms for the parties' agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware action. The MOU called for certain amendments to the transaction agreements as well as certain revisions to the disclosures relating to the transaction. The MOU also contemplates that plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $7.5 million. Pursuant to the transaction agreements, the liability for these attorney fees would be shared equally between us and TCCC. Under the MOU, the parties will seek approval of the settlement from the Georgia court, and if approved, the Georgia action will be dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs will thereafter dismiss the Delaware consolidated action with prejudice. COINSTAR INC: Redbox Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and other state statutes. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the Illinois District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court. In May 2010, the state court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. No further updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend a consolidated action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan do not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan and the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al., alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants. Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman, et al., v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. This action has not been certified as a class action as yet. COMMSCOPE INC: Being Sold to Carlyle for Too Little, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CommScope shareholders say the company is selling itself too cheaply to the Carlyle Group, for $3.9 billion or $31.50 a share, in Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Schwartz v. Commscope, Inc., et al., Case No. 5967 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/10/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Sara E. Collier, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Okla. Police Pension Fund to Lead Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge on Wednesday named the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System to lead a lawsuit that claims Education Management Corp. defrauded OPPRS and other investors. The class action lawsuit accuses Pittsburgh-based Education Management and certain of its officers and directors of issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements about its growth and potential profits beginning with filings tied to the Company's initial public offering in October 2009. When the true facts about the Company emerged in August 2010, Education Management's stock fell nearly 18%. "Our members are police officers and retired police officers. As they have a duty to serve and protect our citizens, we, too, have a duty to protect their hard-earned retirement money and to take appropriate action to recover that money when someone breaks the law and tries to steal it," said Steven K. Snyder, the OPPRS executive director and chief investment officer. "We are not hesitant to use the courts when they provide the best avenue for recovery." The alleged fraud cost OPPRS losses of more than $426,000, giving it the largest financial interest of any investor actively pursuing the lawsuit, according to court filings. The case, Gaer v. Education Management Corp. et al., 2:10-cv- 01061, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In his November 10, 2010 opinion and order appointing OPPRS, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell agreed that OPPRS is "a sophisticated institutional investor, the paradigmatic lead plaintiff envisioned by Congress" when it created the lead plaintiff mechanism in 1995. As lead plaintiff, OPPRS will represent purchasers of Education Management common stock between October 2, 2009 and August 3, 2010, inclusive, who seek to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It also will represent investors who purchased shares in connection with EDMC's October 2, 2009 initial public offering and seek to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the plaintiffs accuse the defendants of making positive statements throughout the Class Period about the Company's operational performance and future growth projections that they knew were false or recklessly disregarded as false. In fact, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants all along were propping up Education Management's results by fraudulently inducing students to enroll in its scholastic and educational programs and engaging in manipulative recruiting tactics. Furthermore, defendants materially overstated the Company's growth prospects by failing to disclose that they had engaged in illicit and improper recruiting activities. Investors only began to learn the truth on August 2, 2010 when the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report that concluded that for-profit educational companies like Education Management had engaged in an illegal and fraudulent course of action designed to recruit students and overcharge the federal government for the cost of education, according to the plaintiffs. "The facts will show that Education Management and other for- profit education companies were cheating their students, the federal government and investors in a brazen matter," said Jeffrey C. Block, an attorney with Berman DeValerio, the national law firm retained by OPPRS and appointed by the court as lead counsel on the case. "The claims in this case appear strong and we are optimistic about achieving a meaningful recovery for OPPRS and the class." Established in 1981, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System administers $1.6 billion in retirement assets for more than 8,000 qualified police officers and their beneficiaries from participating municipalities around the state. Berman DeValerio prosecutes class actions nationwide on behalf of institutions and individuals, chiefly the victims of securities fraud and antitrust law violations. The firm has 41 attorneys in Boston, San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. ENSIGN GROUP: Accused of Violating Health & Safety Codes -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the Ensign Group violates health and safety codes and endangers the health of residents of its dozens of nursing homes, a class action claims in Superior Court. FANNIE MAE: TGN Comments on Recent Developments in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, P.A. comments on the recent ruling for the Fannie Mae Class Action lawsuits consolidated under docket (1:09-md-02013-GEL) assigned to Judge Paul A. Crotty in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. United States District Judge Paul A. Crotty issued an Opinion and Order in response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Joint Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The decision granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss allegations concerning misrepresentations concerning financial reporting of mortgage loss exposure and denied the Motion to Dismiss allegations concerning internal controls and risk management business practices. These developments provide relief to the Defendants' litigation risk and change significantly the claims brought by the class action Plaintiff attorneys. TGN urges investors in Fannie Mae securities should consider what recourse is available to recover their investment losses in stock held in full-service brokerage accounts. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is a self regulating organization with sales practice rules and regulations that govern the securities industry's conduct and safeguard the investing public. For investors who invested in Fannie Mae securities, the recent developments represent a significant loss in income and investment. According to TGN, many investors in Fannie Mae securities represented a long term holding acquired through investment, inheritance or as an employee of the company. Full-service brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon, brokerage firms for competent, suitable investment advice concerning risk management strategies for concentrated stock positions. Many investors relied upon research analyst recommendations provided by their financial advisors which resulted in an over-concentration in the banking and financial sector. Brokerage firms are required to supervise the activities in brokerage accounts, losses may be attributed to the failure to adequately supervise the stockbroker and the brokerage account. Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or maintaining unprotected concentrated stock positions are both causes of action that may be available to investors against their full-service brokerage firm in an individual securities arbitration claim filed with FINRA. The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell "AV" rated securities law firm. To request a confidential consultation from a TGN attorney to determine whether you have a viable individual securities arbitration claim for investment losses that exceed $250,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our Web site. To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137 and ask for Ben Fernandez, Esquire. FLAG TELECOM: $24 Million Class Action Settlement Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- A $24.4 million cash settlement obtained by Milberg LLP in a case against Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and seven former officers and directors of FLAG Telecom Holdings, Ltd. was approved by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. Southern District Court of New York. Judge McMahon called it an "extraordinary recovery for the class." The Order and Final Judgment was filed on November 8, 2010. FLAG Telecom was a global telecommunications provider that filed for bankruptcy in 2002, just two years after netting approximately $635 million in its initial public offering. Plaintiffs claimed that the IPO Prospectus exaggerated company profits and the market demand for its products, and that the company reported artificially inflated revenues and earnings after the IPO. A team of Milberg litigators, led by Brad N. Friedman, deposed witnesses throughout the U.S. and in London and reviewed more than 2.6 million pages of documents during what the Court described as "eight years of intense, complex and unremitting litigation." The Milberg lawyers conducted complex proceedings in the Southern District of NY, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia and the High Court of Justice in England, ultimately obtaining what Judge McMahon called "a remarkable result for the Class in a complex case that posed a great many obstacles to recovery." About Milberg Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com/-- is widely recognized as the premier class action and complex litigation firm, representing individual and institutional investors, pension funds, hedge funds, unions, and consumers. Founded in 1965, Milberg has offices in New York, Los Angeles, Tampa, and Detroit. The Firm has taken the lead in landmark cases that have set groundbreaking legal precedents and prompted changes in corporate governance that have benefited shareholders in North America and abroad. FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Management-Led Buyout --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven Wednesday disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of shareholders of Fushi Copperweld, Inc. The complaint alleges claims that arise out Fushi's and its Board of Directors' efforts to complete a management-led buyout of Fushi through an unfair process at a grossly inadequate and unfair price of $11.50 per share. Those seeking to acquire the Company include Li Fu, the Company's CEO, who with his affiliates controls over 29% of the Company's common stock, and Abax Global Capital (Hong Kong) Limited. The complaint further alleges that by pursuing the unlawful effort to squeeze out Fushi's public stockholders for grossly inadequate consideration, without a fair process (including without full and fair disclosure of all material information), the Company's Board of Directors and the other defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, candor, good faith and fair dealing, and/or have aided and abetted such breaches. The complaint alleges that because defendants dominate and control the business and corporate affairs of Fushi and are in possession of non-public information concerning Fushi's business and future prospects, there exists an imbalance and disparity of knowledge and economic power between them and the public shareholders of Fushi that makes it unfair for them to pursue any proposed transaction that allows Fu and Abax and/or others to reap disproportionate benefits to the exclusion of maximizing stockholder value. According to the complaint, though the Company has formed a so-called "Special Committee" to evaluate the Buyout, the Special Committee is acting to appease Fu and Abax, who have no interest in a fair evaluation of the Buyout. If you are a current owner of shares of Fushi Copperweld, Inc., you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit by contacting Brower Piven at http://www.browerpiven.com/by email at piven@browerpiven.com by calling 410/415-6701, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153. Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 40 years. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. GMAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs in Class Suit Seek Foreclosure Freeze --------------------------------------------------------------- Trevor Maxwell, Staff Writer for The Portland Press Herald, reports the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against GMAC Mortgage Co. are seeking a court order to freeze foreclosure sales and evictions of homeowners in Maine whose loans are owned or serviced by the mortgage giant. A hearing on the request could be scheduled as early as this week in U.S. District Court, where the case has been assigned to Judge D. Brock Hornby. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say their clients -- and potentially hundreds of others in similar circumstances -- deserve to stay in their homes as the courts sort through allegations that GMAC has used fraudulent paperwork to speed foreclosures through Maine's court system. Revelations about GMAC's back-office practices came to light through depositions taken earlier this year by lawyers for homeowners in Maine and Florida. That prompted attorneys general in all 50 states to announce last month that they would investigate the practices of GMAC, JPChase Morgan, Bank of America and other leading mortgage companies. It's unclear how many homes in Maine are in foreclosure proceedings begun by GMAC, the nation's fourth-largest mortgage lender. According to court documents, the company has initiated 1,156 foreclosure actions in Maine since January 2005, but the documents don't say how many of those cases remain open, or how many are on the brink of sales. "Those situations are the most urgent," said Tom Cox, a lawyer in South Portland whose work on behalf of homeowners helped prompt the national probe. "We don't know how many of these cases are out there because we don't have access to GMAC's records." Cox is one of six lawyers who brought the class-action lawsuit against GMAC last month, on behalf of six plaintiffs who hope eventually to represent a much larger class. The plaintiffs are Michael Holmes, Steven Archibald of Windham, Nicolle Bradbury of Denmark, Thomas True of Belfast, Shawn Morrissette of Saco and Joseph Phillips of Mechanic Falls. Originally filed in Cumberland County Superior Court, the case was transferred last week to federal court at the request of GMAC. Jim Olecki, a spokesman for GMAC's parent company, Ally Financial, said in a prepared statement, "The underlying facts of default in the named plaintiffs' cases are not in dispute. The average property is not foreclosed on until the mortgage is unpaid for 18 months and all other home preservation options have been exhausted. We will vigorously defend the allegations in the class-action lawsuit." The company issued a statement to the media Oct. 12, announcing that it had hired several legal and accounting firms to review its foreclosure procedures in all 50 states. The plaintiffs in Maine earlier filed their motion for a temporary restraining order. Time is of the essence, Mr. Cox said, noting that Mr. True's home in Belfast was scheduled to go to auction Thursday. Like the other plaintiffs, Mr. True claims that the legal paperwork used by GMAC to support the foreclosure was signed by Jeffrey Stephan, a GMAC processor in Pennsylvania. In a deposition for a different Maine foreclosure case, Mr. Stephan admitted that he signed more than 10,000 foreclosure documents a month and did not verify the information those documents asserted, as required by Maine law. That practice by GMAC and other lenders, dubbed "robo-signing," is a main target of the nationwide investigation. Observers have noted that to process 10,000 documents a month during eight-hour workdays, a person would have about 90 seconds to review each file. "I do see this case being about making sure servicers and lenders in general, if they are going to bring a foreclosure action, that they do it correctly and according to the rules of our courts," said Andrea Bopp Stark of the Molleur Law Office in Biddeford. Stark and Charles Delbaum of the National Consumer Law Center in Boston are the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs. Stark said the first issue is the request for the temporary restraining order. A telephone conference between the parties and U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich was set for Thursday morning, and Ms. Stark hoped a hearing on the request would be set up as soon as possible in front of Judge Hornby. "Basically, we're asking the court to stay all sales and evictions until we can get resolution on the merits of the case," Ms. Stark said. That could take months or even years. The next step would be an extensive discovery period, during which the sides would take depositions and gather information. Then the plaintiffs would need Judge Hornby to certify the case as a class action, and to define the class -- the pool of people who would be allowed to seek damages. In their complaint, the lawyers for the plaintiffs say the class should be defined as any homeowner in Maine who had a foreclosure initiated against them by GMAC in the past six years, and whose case included paperwork that was not processed in compliance with state law. "We're essentially asking for the money the former homeowners were charged by GMAC to bring the foreclosure action against them. That cost always gets passed on to the homeowner," Ms. Stark said. "Plus, we're asking for any punitive damages that the court sees fit." Mr. Cox said the plaintiffs also seek a permanent court order to require GMAC to change its practices in foreclosure proceedings in Maine's courts. "What we're doing in Maine is part of the national pattern of trying to make sure that the past improper practices are not continued," Mr. Cox said. HANOVER: Recalls 495,000 Shades, 28,500 Roller/Roll-Up Blinds ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Hanover Direct Inc., (also known as Domestications, The Company Store, and Company Kids) of Weehawken, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 495,000 Roman shades and 28,500 roller/roll-up blinds. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Roman Shades: Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck. Roll-up Blinds: Strangulations can occur if the lifting loops slide off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places his/her neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material. Roller Blinds: Strangulations can occur if the blind's continuous loop bead chain or continuous loop pull cord is not attached to the wall or the floor with the tension device provided and a child's neck becomes entangled in the free-standing loop. Roman Shades: CPSC received a new report of the death of a 22- month-old boy in Cedar Falls, Iowa who was found hanging by his neck from the outer pull cords of a Roman shade in May 2010. The outer pull cords were knotted at the bottom. He was rescued by his father but died later in the hospital. In March 2008, a 2-year- old boy from Ocean View, Delaware climbed up on a toy chest to look out of a window and became entangled in the inner cords of a Roman shade. His parents removed the cord. No permanent injuries were sustained. This incident prompted a previous recall. Roll-up Blinds: No injuries or incidents have been reported. Roller Blinds: No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves all styles of Roman shades with inner cords, all styles of roll-up blinds, and roller blinds that do not have a tension device. A tension device is intended to be attached to the continuous loop bead chain or continuous loop pull cord and installed into the wall or floor. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11036.html The recalled products were manufactured in China, United States, and other countries and sold through Hanover Direct/Domestications, the Company Store/Company Kids; online at http://www.domestications.com/and http://www.thecompanystore.com/ and through catalog sales nationwide from January1996 through October 2009 for between $20 and $579. Consumers should immediately stop using all Roman shades with inner cords, all roll-up blinds, and all roller blinds that do not have a tension device, and contact the Window Covering Safety Council at (800) 506-4636 anytime for free repair kits or visit http://www.windowcoverings.org/ Consumers who have roller blinds with a tension device should make sure the tension device is attached to the continuous loop bead chain or continuous loop pull cord and is installed into the wall or floor. For additional information, contact Domestications or Hanover at (800) 453-1106 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, seven days a week, or visit the firm's Web sites at http://www.domestications.com/or http://www.hanoverdirect.com/ HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Harris Corp. continues to defend a consolidated federal securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., a former subsidiary of the company, and certain of its current and former officers and directors, including certain current officers of the company, were named as defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008, by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities from Jan. 29, 2007, to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc., who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between Stratex and the Company's former Microwave Communications Division to form HSTX. Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and Oct. 30, 2008. The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint filed on July 29, 2009 that added Harris Corp. and Ernst & Young LLP as defendants. This action relates to public disclosures made by HSTX on Jan. 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included the restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 -- the quarters ended March 28, 2008, Dec. 28, 2007 and Sept. 28, 2007 -- and for its fiscal years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to accounting errors. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2010. ILLINOIS: Sued for Promulgating Invalid "RAF Rule" -------------------------------------------------- Regina Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-48339 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 9, 2010), asserts claims against the state agency -- responsible for handling workers' compensation claims -- Mitch Weisz, in his official capacity as Chairman of the agency, the commissioners of the state agency, in their official capacities, and Alexi Giannoulias, in his official capacity as State Treasurer and ex officio custodian of the Rate Adjustment Fund, for violations of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act, 5 ILCS 100/1 et seq. Ms. Johnson says that the administrative rule IWCC promulgated suspending or terminating the RAF benefits of all persons who obtained a permanent total disability or death award and subsequently settled their award for a lump sum amount -- The RAF Rule -- is an invalid rule because it fails to comply with the APA, which contains a detailed, statutory scheme to be followed by Illinois Agencies that desire to adopt, amend, or repeal any rule. Ms. Johnson relates that on April 13, 1984, she sustained accidental injuries while in the employ of Hanes DSD. On May 23, 2001, the Complaint states, Ms. Johnson, Hanes DSD, and the Illinois State Treasurer, as ex officio custodian of the RAF, entered into a Settlement Contract Lump sum Petition and Order. The Settlement Agreement, however, provided that she will continue to receive payments from the RAF on an ongoing basis for the duration of her life. Ms. Johnson relates her monthly payments from the RAF continued until April 15, 2010. On May 18, 2001, however, she received a letter from the IWCC, stating that after reviewing cases in which RAF benefits were being paid, and based on the settlement contract she entered with the IWCC, the Commission has suspended her RAF payments effective immediately. The letter cited that "Settlement Contracts generally terminate a recipient's eligibility to receive benefits." The Plaintiff is represented by: O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. Craig M. Shapiro, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. 25 East Washington, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 IMAX CORP: NY Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- IMAX Corporation continues to face class action litigation over alleged securities fraud, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. IMAX Corp. and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed between August 11, 2006, and September 18, 2006, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue recognition practices. The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a defendant. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 10, 2007. On September 16, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order, denying the motion. On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On October 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Fact discovery on the merits commenced on November 14, 2008, and is ongoing. On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. On June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. Westchester Capital Management, Inc., appealed this decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its petition on October 1, 2009. On April 22, 2010, the new lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion on June 10, 2010, and plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2010. The Company says it will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the proceedings. IMAX CORP: Ontario Securities Lawsuit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------- IMAX Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit pending in Ontario for securities-related disputes, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between February 17, 2006, and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit is in an early procedural stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses. The Company says is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time. For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to the Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any binding conclusions on the factual or legal merits of the claim. The Company has brought a motion seeking Court approval to appeal those decisions and it is not known when the Ontario court will release a decision on that motion. The Company believes the allegations made against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter. KINDER MORGAN: Final Hearing on Second Arbitration Set for 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is scheduled for 2011 to consider the claims and defenses of parties of a second arbitration alleging miscalculation of royalties and other payments, according to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Kinder Morgan CO2 and Cortez Pipeline Company were among the named defendants in CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., an arbitration initiated on November 28, 2005. The arbitration arose from a dispute over a class action settlement agreement which became final on July 7, 2003 and disposed of five lawsuits formerly pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. The plaintiffs in such lawsuits primarily included overriding royalty interest owners, royalty interest owners, and small share working interest owners who alleged underpayment of royalties and other payments on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome unit. The settlement imposed certain future obligations on the defendants in the underlying litigation. The plaintiffs in the arbitration alleged that, in calculating royalty and other payments, defendants used a transportation expense in excess of what is allowed by the settlement agreement, thereby causing alleged underpayments of approximately $12 million. The plaintiffs also alleged that Cortez Pipeline Company should have used certain funds to further reduce its debt, which, in turn, would have allegedly increased the value of royalty and other payments by approximately $0.5 million. On August 7, 2006, the arbitration panel issued its opinion finding that defendants did not breach the settlement agreement. On June 21, 2007, the New Mexico federal district court entered final judgment confirming the August 7, 2006 arbitration decision. On October 2, 2007, the plaintiffs initiated a second arbitration (CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., aka Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., et al.) against Cortez Pipeline Company, Kinder Morgan CO2 and an ExxonMobil entity. The second arbitration asserts claims similar to those asserted in the first arbitration. A second arbitration panel has convened and a final hearing on the parties' claims and defenses is expected to occur in 2011. LITHIA MOTORS: Awaits Arbitration Decision on Alaska Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lithia Motors, Inc., is awaiting outcome of an arbitration held in September to determine its liability with regards to claims asserted by the Company's former employees in Alaska, according to the Company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit against Lithia, captioned Dunham, et al., v. Lithia Support Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, seeking overtime wages, additional liquidated damages and attorney's fees. The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named plaintiffs. The court ordered the dispute to arbitration. In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and former service and parts department employees totaling approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission basis. The Company has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this class certification, but the arbitrator died before issuing his opinion. The reconsideration sought a ruling whether these employees or some of these employees are exempt from the applicable state law that provides for the payment of overtime under certain circumstances. Consequently, a replacement arbitrator has been appointed, and ruled to remove approximately 30 service and parts managers from the case. A class action opt-out notice was mailed to the service and parts employees in October 2009. Lithia and the plaintiffs have agreed to conduct the arbitration in two parts. The first arbitration will determine if liability exists for Lithia. This arbitration was conducted on September 27, 2010, and the Company is currently awaiting a decision. If the outcome of this arbitration determines that valid claims exist, a second arbitration will be conducted to determine the amount of damages, if any. Lithia says it intends to vigorously defend the matter, and to assert available defenses. MCMILLAN CO: Sued for Misrepresenting Liberty Station Community --------------------------------------------------------------- 10News.com reports a homeowner is suing the developers of Liberty Station in Point Loma in a class-action lawsuit after she claims they misrepresented the community where she bought her home. Arguments are scheduled for November 19 as lawyers representing homeowner Bonnie Mann face off against The McMillan Company, asking for certification of a class-action lawsuit. "There was no disclosure in their paperwork," said Ms. Mann, who claims that when she bought her Liberty Station home she was led to believe it would be a quiet community. After she moved in, Ms. Mann said she heard that megachurch The Rock Church was moving in across the street. The church has about 12,000 people attending services on a typical Sunday. From the moment the church opened, Ms. Mann said there were problems. "It was unbelievable: the people, the traffic, the commotion," she said. "We couldn't get in and out of our neighborhood." Ms. Mann said she would like to move out, but said she couldn't because her home's property value dropped and homes on her street sit on the market for months. "Who would purchase on this street or in close proximity to the church?" she asked. "Who would purchase a home knowing that there was constant congestion, noise, pollution [and] litter? We've even seen an increase in crime in the nearby community . . . [and] had we known that there was going to be this mess here we would never have purchased, never." Nancy Carrasco said she is closely watching what happens with Ms. Mann's lawsuit. She is one of 250 original homeowners in Liberty Station who could join the suit if a judge agrees to give it class-action status. "We have no recourse except to go to a class-action lawsuit against McMillan," she said. A spokesperson for The McMillan Company declined an interview with 10News but said the developer plans to let the dispute play out in court. OKLAHOMA GAS: Remains a Defendant in "Price I" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ OGE Energy Corp. continues to defend itself in a complaint filed by Will Price, et al., alleging mismeasurement of natural gas, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp. were served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on non-Federal lands. On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class certification. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs -- now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners -- filed a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In its Fourth Amended Petition, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants. The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition seeks class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas. The Fourth Amended Petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre- judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and the parties fully briefed these same issues. A hearing on class certification issues was held April 1, 2005. In May 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming entitlement to participate in the putative class action. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene. The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law on class certification were filed in 2007. On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On February 10, 2010 the court heard arguments on the rehearing request and by an order dated March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing. OGE Energy intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, OGE Energy said it is unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss to the Company. OKLAHOMA GAS: Motion to Reconsider Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company remains a defendant in a lawsuit commenced by its customers challenging electric bill charges, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On June 19, 2006, two Company customers brought a putative class action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain charges on the Company's electric bills. The plaintiffs claim that the Company improperly charged sales tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers. The plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges, contending that such fees are more than is allowed under Oklahoma law. The Company's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial judge. In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the complaint of billing practices is determined by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the OCC asking the OCC to modify its order which authorizes the Company to collect the challenged franchise fee charges. On December 9, 2009 the OCC issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' request for a modification of the 1994 OCC order which authorized the Company to collect and remit sales tax on franchise fee charges. In its December 9, 2009 order, the OCC advised the plaintiffs that the ruling does not address the question of whether the Company's collection and remittance of such sales tax should be discontinued prospectively. On April 19, 2010, the OCC issued a final order dismissing with prejudice the applicants' claims for recovery of previously paid taxes on franchise fees and approving the closing of this matter. On June 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, asking the court to proceed with the original class action. On July 8, 2010, a hearing in this matter was held and the court granted the plaintiffs motion to lift the stay of discovery previously imposed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court but denied any other specific relief pending further action by the court. On August 4, 2010, the Company filed an application to assume original jurisdiction and a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. On September 13, 2010, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a writ prohibiting the District Court judge from proceeding further in this case except to dismiss the case. On September 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider this matter with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. While the Company cannot predict the precise outcome of this lawsuit, based on the information known at this time, the Company believes that this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. OMNICARE INC: Calif. Court to Hear Dismissal Motion on Dec. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- Omnicare, Inc. is defending itself from a lawsuit stemming from a deal the company made to promote products made by Johnson & Johnson Corp., according to its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010. On April 2, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, against Johnson & Johnson, the Company and certain unnamed defendants asserting violations of federal antitrust law and California unfair competition law arising out of certain arrangements between J&J and the Company. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company violated these laws by entering into agreements with J&J to promote J&J products. On June 28, 2010, J&J and the Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint claiming that plaintiffs failed to state a claim. In response, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their complaint and filed an amended complaint on July 21, 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 6, 2010. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for December 3, 2010. OMNICARE INC: Indiana Suit Plaintiffs Appeals Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a putative class-action lawsuit that was filed in the Indiana District Court are still awaiting the Supreme Court's response over their writ of certiorari regarding the District Court's dismissal of their lawsuit. On Feb. 2, 2006, a putative class-action lawsuit entitled, "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26" was filed against Omnicare and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On Feb. 13, 2006, a substantially similar putative class action lawsuit was filed, entitled, "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31." The suits purport to assert claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The complaints, which purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through Jan. 27, 2006, alleged that Omnicare had artificially inflated its earnings by engaging in improper generic drug substitution and that defendants had made false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects. On April 3, 2006, plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally moved for consolidation and the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the cases were consolidated, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a third officer as a defendant and new factual allegations primarily relating to revenue recognition, the valuation of receivables and the valuation of inventories. On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, which was granted on Jan. 26, 2007, on the condition that no further amendments would be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiffs then filed their second amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2007. The second amended complaint: (i) expands the putative class to include all purchasers of Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, (ii) names two members of the company's board of directors as additional defendants, (iii) adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration statement filed in connection with the company's December 2005 public offering, (iv) alleges that the company failed to timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and (v) alleges that the company failed to timely record certain special litigation reserves. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 12, 2007, claiming that plaintiffs had failed adequately to plead loss causation, scienter or any actionable misstatement or omission. That motion was fully briefed at May 1, 2007. In response to certain arguments relating to the individual claims of the named plaintiffs that were raised in defendants' pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion to add, or in the alternative, to intervene an additional named plaintiff, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on July 27, 2007. On Oct. 12, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing the case and denying plaintiffs' motion to add an additional named plaintiff. On Nov. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit with respect to the dismissal of their case. Oral argument was held on September 18, 2008. On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as affirming the denial of Alaskan Electrical Pension Fund's motion to intervene. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings, including application of the rule requiring plaintiffs to allege fraud with particularity to their Section 11 claim. On November 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking a rehearing or a rehearing en banc with respect to a single aspect of the Court's decision, namely, whether the federal rule requiring pleading with particularity should apply to their claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act. On December 16, 2009, that petition was denied, and on January 13, 2010, that Court issued its mandate by which the Section 11 claim was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the decision and order of October 21, 2009. At a conference on March 4, 2010, the district court stayed further proceedings pending the resolution of plaintiffs' anticipated petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Plaintiffs filed their petition for a writ of certiorari on May 14, 2010. The petition is now fully briefed and awaiting determination. On October 4, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States with respect to the petition. ONTARIO: Compensation Payments Sought for Hepatitis C Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Burden, writing for QMI Agency, reports for the past year, Susan Boismier has been trying to claim a paycheque for her life. But the 51-year-old born-and-raised Orillian with hepatitis C is running into a brick wall -- the federal government. Ms. Boismier is trying to appeal her denied claim for $162,155 in compensation through a class-action settlement. To her, the money would make all the difference in the world. "Yes, to me it's a lot of money," she said on Tuesday. "But to me, if that's the price tag the government puts on a life, you aren't worth too damn much." Ms Boismier's story started nearly 30 years ago. She was officially diagnosed with the infectious disease in 1991 after consulting her doctor about persistent headaches while living in New Brunswick. After her doctor thoroughly screened her, he told her she had hepatitis C and asked whether she had received any blood transfusions in the past, Ms. Boismier recalled. Her memory immediately flashed back to her hometown. In May 1982, Ms. Boismier received a blood transfusion at Orillia Soldiers' Memorial after hemorrhaging during the birth or her son by c-section. Upon returning to Orillia after her diagnosis, Ms. Boismier investigated compensation payments advertised in the media. She submitted claims to the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan (OHCAP,) which provided payment to people who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system in Ontario. She received financial compensation from the province in 1998 and 2000 totaling $25,000. In 2003, she received another $10,000 in two separate checks after her application to the Canadian Red Cross Society for its court- approved settlement of pre-1986/post-1990 hepatitis C claims against the CRCS. All three times, the administrators of the funds told her they confirmed through tracebacks that she contracted hepatitis C from her blood transfusion, Ms. Boismier said. "They look back at where the transfusion was received, the batch of blood it was, and they can tell by the batch of blood if it was tainted or not." All $35,000 of that compensation money has since helped her get by, Ms. Boismier said. She currently works the night shift four days a week at a Tim Hortons in Gravenhurst, which she said doesn't pay much. For the past three years, she has been living with her 28-year-old son in Rama because she can't afford to pay rent for her own place. "I have two kids and five grand-kids. I can't leave my kids anything because I can't even get life insurance (because I have hepatitis C,)" she said. "If I wasn't living with my son, I'd be living in my car. There is no way I can afford even my own little place at what I'm making." Treatment for hepatitis C is out of the question, she said, because the injections needed are $24,000 alone and take 11 months to work. Ms. Boismier was thrilled when she heard about the federal government's $1-billion compensation package, which came in the form of a pre-1986/post-1990 hepatitis C class-action settlement agreement approved by the courts in June 2007. Crawford Class Action Services was selected as the administrator for the compensation fund. The firm established procedures to receive applications and provide compensation payments to approved applicants. In August 2007, the plan was implemented. It took Ms. Boismier nine months to complete the necessary blood work, biopsies and paperwork required to submit a claim to the class action. She submitted her application in April 2008. Ms. Boismier kept calling the administrator to check in and said she was told they were just waiting for her blood traceback to return. If all went well, the firm expected to give her $162,115 because she was a Level 3 claimant on an illness scale of 1-6, she recalled. But in March 2009, her hopes started to dim. Ms. Boismier received a letter from Crawford Class Action Services stating that her claim would be rejected unless she could provide further evidence that she was infected for the first time with hepatitis C by blood received in Canada during the class period. According to traceback results they'd received from Canadian Blood Services, both units of blood used for the transfusion in May 1982 came back negative for the hepatitis C virus (HCV). "According to the results, the HCV antibody was not present in any of the blood or blood products received in the class period," stated the letter. Ms. Boismier was given the opportunity to submit any further evidence within six months that would prove she was infected for the first time by tainted blood during the class period. She didn't send Crawford Class Action Services any additional evidence within those six months. Then, Ms. Boismier was sent another letter in October 2009 stating her claim was denied. She was provided with the opportunity to appeal the decision within 30 days. With the help of Orillia lawyer Tim Anderson, that is what she has been doing ever since. Mr. Anderson has extended the appeal period time and time again, but has yet to be able to track down any of the tracebacks that qualified her to receive her first three compensation payments from the province and CRCS. North-Simcoe MPP Garfield Dunlop said it sounds like a very complicated situation, but before the provincial government gave out anything, it would have analyzed the individual cases very carefully. "That was a very contentious file to begin with because of the tainted blood, etc. With so much attention paid to that file, I would just assume, and I could be wrong, but overall, I think that would be something that would be looked at under a microscope." Nancy Killam, senior project manager for Crawford Class Action Services, could not comment on specific cases for confidentiality reasons. "If anyone is denied from the program, then they get their denial letter and they are offered the right to appeal," Ms. Killam said. "People either receive an approval letter or a rejection letter. In the rejection letter, the appeal process is explained. If they decide to appeal within their appeal period told to them on their letter, the appeal is forwarded on and we wait for a decision on it." As of Oct. 22, 2010, Crawford Class Action Services has received 15,844 claims, approved 12,073 claims (76%), rejected 1,356 claims (8%) and issued a total compensation amount of $803,483,722. ONTARIO: Class Action Over Huronia Abuses May Proceed to Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's motion for leave to appeal on Monday, eliminating the final procedural hurdle for a class action to proceed to trial against the Province of Ontario. The class action arises from alleged abuses suffered by former residents of the Huronia Regional Centre, a government institution in Orillia, Ontario, for people living with developmental disabilities. Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, representing the plaintiffs, is pleased about the court's decision and looks forward to the class action giving a voice to these institutional survivors. "Now that the procedural hurdles for this class action are behind us," said Mr. Baert, "we are looking forward to moving to trial to seek justice for the former residents of Huronia and to bring the alleged abuses and maltreatment they suffered to light." The class action is based on allegations that residents suffered inhumane treatment and abuse in that institution from 1945 to 2009 and that Ontario's failure to properly care for and protect class members resulted in loss or injury suffered by them. The allegations include severe mental and physical abuse such as punishment for "acting out," rooms unnecessarily locked creating a prison-like environment, unnecessarily medicating the residents and forcing residents to work without pay. The class action is based upon the Ontario government's alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duties in the operation, control and management of Huronia from 1945 to 2009, in particular for allowing the alleged abuses to occur unchecked for decades. The Crown argued in its motion for leave to appeal that class members could not sue the Ontario government prior to 1963, the date when the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA) was enacted. Justice Herman ruled that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision certifying the action as a class proceeding and holding that PACA does not bar claims for breach of fiduciary duty prior to 1963. Accordingly, Huronia residents from 1945 to 1963 may continue to participate in the class action, along with those who resided there after 1963 until its closure in 2009. The decision clears the way for the class action to proceed to trial representing former residents from 1945 to 2009. The representative plaintiffs, Marie Slark and Patricia Seth, and their litigation guardians commenced this action in April 2009 seeking to represent all former residents of Huronia and their families. The institution survivors have been gratified by the pace of this action and the respect accorded to their issues by the judiciary. Koskie Minsky LLP represents the plaintiffs in this action. Koskie Minsky LLP has successfully represented plaintiffs in many of the most significant class actions in Canada. On the Net: http://www.institutionalsurvivors.com/ Contact: KOSKIE MINSKY LLP Telephone: (416) 595-2700 E-mail: huroniaclassaction@kmlaw.ca ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Sued for Misleading Advertising Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Orbitz Worldwide charges undisclosed fees for airline tickets, a class action claims in Suffolk County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Shea v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Index No. _____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/10/Orbitz.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth M. Mollins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C. 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 205 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 608-4100 PSCO: Xcel, et al., to Oppose Writ of Mandamus Requesting Review ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xcel Energy Inc., et al., intend to oppose a writ of mandamus filed by class action plaintiffs with the Supreme Court, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In 2006, Xcel Energy, the parent company of Public Service Company of Colorado, received notice of a purported class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi. The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina." Plaintiffs allege negligence and public and private nuisance and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the hurricane. Xcel Energy believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety against all defendants on constitutional grounds. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court decision, in part, concluding that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the constitutional challenges that formed the basis for dismissal by the district court. A subsequent petition by defendants, including Xcel Energy, for en banc review was granted. On May 28, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it lacked an en banc quorum of nine active members to hear the case. It dismissed the appeal, which resulted in the reinstatement of the district court's opinion dismissing the case. Plaintiffs subsequently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a writ of mandamus, which is a procedure requesting the court to order the Fifth Circuit to review plaintiffs' earlier appeal. Defendants intend to oppose this request. REVLON INC: Stays Two Lawsuits to Allow Merits Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits filed against Revlon, Inc., have been stayed until December to allow for a merits discovery in a consolidated class action complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to stockholders -- other than MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. -- 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock tendered in the Exchange Offer. Revlon, Inc. is a direct and indirect majority-owned subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings. On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Each lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s outstanding Common Stock. Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction. On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four Delaware actions referred to as the "Initial Consolidated Action," and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding, as amended in September 2009. On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to those in the amended Sullivan complaint. Revlon initially believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman. Also on December 21, 2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former director by Lawrence Corneck. The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action. On January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action. A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Thereafter, newly appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits discovery would proceed. Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part of the Settlement Agreement. On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. Merits discovery is now proceeding in the Consolidated Action. On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. Defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to stay proceedings in this action until December 15, 2010, to permit plaintiffs to participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action. A similar agreement has been reached with plaintiffs in the Sullivan action, although the stay is in effect until December 17, 2010. Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts. The Company believes the allegations contained in the amended Sullivan complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, and the Garofalo complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Collora" on Jan. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that while nominal trial date of Jan. 10, 2011 has been scheduled in the matter Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., it does not expect trial to proceed at that time. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class on Dec. 31, 2003. On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and these cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of Jan. 10, 2011 has been scheduled, but it is not expected to proceed at that time. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Black" Action Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that while nominal trial date of Jan. 10, 2011 has been scheduled in the matter Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., it does not expect trial to proceed at that time. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005. On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted on March 17, 2006. On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of Jan. 10, 2011, has been scheduled, but it is not expected to proceed at that time. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Dahl" Action in Minnesota Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- The matter Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota remains stayed, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2003, and pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge dismissed the case on May 11, 2005, ruling the "lights" claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District. During the pendency of the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On Feb. 28, 2007, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which on Dec. 4, 2007, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court. On Jan. 20, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order vacating the Feb. 27, 2008, order that granted RJR Tobacco's petition for review. On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in this case and in Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed a motion to consolidate for discovery and trial. On Oct. 7, 2009, the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as discovery progresses. On Feb. 26, 2010, a stipulation and order was entered to stay proceedings in this case, and in Thompson. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Likely to Remain Active in 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that the matter Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is likely to remain active through 2010. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR Tobacco removed the case on Sept. 23, 2005, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On Aug. 7, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case pending resolution of the appeal in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. On Oct. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court remanded the case to the District Court for Hennepin County. In May 2009, the court entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and class certification discovery; and the parties are engaged in class certification discovery. This case is likely to remain active through 2010. On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in this case and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to consolidate for discovery and trial. On Oct. 7, 2009, the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as discovery progresses. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Cleary" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., have filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in connection with the dismissal of their case, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, and pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Dec. 21, 2001, in an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W. The case was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants concealed material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine, (2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants' claimed breach of the public right to defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffs requested that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 per each class member, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs. On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance, and count VI, unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2009, to add a claim of unjust enrichment and to include in the class individuals who smoked "light" cigarettes. RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended complaint on March 31, 2009. On July 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an additional motion for class certification. On Sept. 8, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the pleadings concerning the "lights" claims as to all defendants other than Philip Morris. On Oct. 30, 2009, certain defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' youth-marketing claims. On Feb. 22, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of all three putative classes. However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs may reinstate the class dealing with the conspiracy to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine if they identify a new class representative. On April 18, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion to reinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff. On May 7, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, which was granted on June 22, 2010. On July 22, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider. On Aug. 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "VanDyke" Action Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the matter VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against RJR Tobacco and the company, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004, to the date of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the defendants' cigarettes labeled as "lights" or "ultra lights." The plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including actual, compensatory and consequential damages to the plaintiff and the class but not damages for personal injury or health care claims. Discovery is underway. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Shaffer" Suit Discovery Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the matter Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. "Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October 2009 in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona against RJR Tobacco, the company and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, not for resale, defendants' cigarettes labeled as "light" or "ultra-light" from the date of the defendants' first sales of such cigarettes in Arizona to the date of judgment. The plaintiffs allege consumer fraud, concealment, nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including compensatory, restitutionary and punitive damages. On Nov. 13, 2009, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On Nov. 30, 2009, RJR Tobacco and RAI filed their answers to the complaint. Discovery is underway. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Action in Louisiana Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, relates that the matter Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., remains stayed. In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an exposure to environmental tobacco smoke class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The matter Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, remains stayed. In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. No updates were reported in Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010 Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The matter Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., remains pending in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 16, 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court on February 17, 1999. There has been limited activity in this case, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010 Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and Niconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest U.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10 best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall, Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is the nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi Garrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your- own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands. Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name. ROCKING HORSE: Recalls 1,200 Rocking Horses ------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rocking Horse Depot, of Buckeye, Ariz., announced a voluntary recall of 1,200 Rocking Horses. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The reins on the rocking horse bridle are long enough to form a loop around a child's head and neck, posing a strangulation hazard to young children. CPSC has received one report of a near strangulation incident involving a 21-month old girl who became entangled in the reins at her neck. The girl's parents freed her without injury. This recall involves Rocking Horse Depot's small, medium and large rocking horses with bridles. The rocking horse has a hardwood frame and is covered with synthetic hide. Each rocking horse has fluffy mane and tail, and a leather Rocking Horse Depot emblem on the right side of the saddle. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11035.html The recalled products were manufactured in Poland and sold through RockingHorseDepot.com from November 2006 through December 2009 for between $105 and $185. Consumers should immediately remove or cut the reins to eliminate the hazard. Consumers can also contact Rocking Horse Depot for instructions on how to remove the reins. For more information, please contact Rocking Horse Depot collect at (623) 302-6313 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mountain Times, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rockinghorsedepot.com/ ROVI CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- On August 11, 2009, John Burke filed a purported class action lawsuit claiming that the Rovi Corp.'s former subsidiary, TV Guide Magazine, breached agreements with its subscribers and violated consumer protection laws with its practice of counting double issues toward the number of issues in a subscription. On September 10, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint along with a petition to remove the case to federal court. On December 18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff has filed an appeal of that dismissal. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. SANFORD BROWN: Nov. 15 Hearing Set for Fraud Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports several former Sanford Brown College students are asking a Madison County judge to certify a class action against the college and its corporate parent. The lead plaintiffs, Jenna and Jessica Lilley as well as several others, claim that Sanford Brown and parent Career Education Corp. misled them and other students in the school's medical assistant's program about the value of their degree and what careers it could lead to. The proposed class would include 2,300 students in the medical assistant's program at the school's Collinsville campus. The defendants have denied the claims and have previously tried to have the case dismissed. A hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. on Nov. 15 before Circuit Judge Daniel Stack. Most recently, Sanford Brown successfully argued to have common law fraud allegations tossed from the suit at an Oct. 27 hearing. Judge Stack agreed with Sanford Brown that the state's Private Business and Vocational Schools Act did not extend to allow fraud counts. He denied the rest of the defense motion to dismiss the entire case. The plaintiffs are represented by Corey Sullivan of St. Louis. John Richmond and others represent Sanford Brown and Career Education Corp. Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder previously helmed the case. The case is Madison case number 08-L-113. SEACOR HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in Del. "Antitrust" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seacor Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action alleging antitrust laws violation, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against SEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D.Del.). SEACOR acquired Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., and Era Helicopters LLC in December 2004. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring with each other to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December 2005. The purported class of plaintiffs includes all direct purchasers of such services and the relief sought includes compensatory damages and treble damages. On September 14, 2010, the District Court entered an order dismissing the complaint. On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and amendment and motion for re-argument. On October 12, 2010, Defendants opposed the Motions. The District Court has yet to rule on the Motions. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these claims but believes they are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Certification Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports U.S. Seventh Circuit appeals judges accused lawyers Clinton Krislov and Mark Boling of tactics close to extortion in a class action against retailer Sears Roebuck, and they backed up the accusation with a letter from Boling himself. They attached it to a Nov. 2 opinion enjoining him and Mr. Krislov from pursuing a class action that the Seventh Circuit previously rejected. "As we progress through the various significant stages of this litigation, the cost of settlement will necessarily increase," Boling wrote after District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland, Calif. authorized discovery in a similar action against Sears. "There can be no vindication for defendants in this case, only damage control," Mr. Boling wrote. "At this point, we may want to consider whether an appropriate olive branch for resolution can be mutually created on a class wide basis commensurate with the status of the case," he wrote. "I trust that good business judgment will prevail by all parties," he wrote. Circuit Judge Richard Posner stopped short of calling the letter extortion, but he used the word four times in a broad assault on class action abuse. Mr. Krislov client Steven Thorogood of Tennessee originally sued Sears in Illinois state court, claiming it falsely advertised stainless steel drums on Kenmore clothes dryers. Mr. Thorogood alleged that part of the front of the drum was made of steel with a ceramic coat rather than with chromium that would make it stainless. He claimed the drum rusted and the rust stained his clothes. He sought to represent half a million dryer buyers in 28 states. Sears removed the suit to federal court in Chicago, where District Judge Harry Leinenweber certified it as a class action. Seventh Circuit judges reversed Judge Leinenweber and ordered him to decertify it. Judge Posner's current opinion summarized the earlier one by calling the case a notably weak candidate for class treatment. "It was well nigh inconceivable that the other members of the class had the same understanding of Sears's advertising as Thorogood claimed to have," he wrote. Stainless steel doesn't rust but ceramic doesn't rust either, he wrote. Judge Posner branded Mr. Thorogood's concerns as a confabulation. After the Seventh Circuit decertified the action, Sears offered Mr. Thorogood $20,000 in damages and attorney fees. Judge Leinenweber dismissed the suit because the offer exceeded a $3,000 limit on damages under Tennessee consumer fraud law. Mr. Thorogood appealed for reimbursement of $246,000 in attorney fees, but the Seventh Circuit rejected his argument that the settlement offer vindicated his claim. "The argument for attorneys' fees was beyond weak," Judge Posner wrote. "Sears was paying to rid itself of a nuisance," he wrote. Judge Posner wrote that Mr. Krislov told Judge Leinenweber he needed a judgment on the individual claim so he could preclude Sears from defending itself in other courts. Mr. Krislov "was already planning to circumvent our order decertifying the class by bringing class actions elsewhere," Judge Posner wrote. "The California suit here sought to be enjoined will be the precursor to other class actions materially identical to Thorogood's," he wrote. "For lawyer Krislov is nothing if not determined, indeed pugnacious." Judge Wilken allowed plaintiff Martin Murray to begin discovery, Posner wrote. Sears sought an injunction from Judge Leinenweber, who denied it and held that Sears could pursue other remedies against repetitive litigation, Posner wrote. The Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Leinenweber at high speed, deciding the case three weeks after the parties submitted it. Judge Posner agreed there is no basis for an injunction if there is an adequate remedy. "But this case is unusual both because it involves class action litigation and because of the specific tactics employed by class counsel, which include, as we'll see, something close to settlement extortion," he wrote. He called class action a worthwhile device but wrote that it lends itself to abuse. Class members are interested in relief but lawyers are interested in fees, he wrote. Judge Posner also wrote that stakes for class members are ordinarily too small to motivate them to align the incentives of lawyers with their own and that defendants are willing to trade small damages for high attorney fees. "These convergent incentives forge a community of interest between class counsel, who control the plaintiffs' side of the case, and the defendants, but may leave the class members out in the cold," he wrote. A judge's responsibility to prevent lawyers from selling out a class is "difficult to discharge when the judge confronts a phalanx of colluding lawyers," he wrote. Class action enhances the risk of costly error, creating pressure for settlements out of proportion to the merits of a suit, he wrote. A company sued a number of times for selling a defective product will win some and lose some, so the aggregate outcome reflects the expected value of the claims, he wrote. "But when the central issue in a case is given class treatment and so will be resolved once and for all, a trial becomes a roll of the dice." The risk becomes asymmetric when the number of claims is so great that an adverse verdict would push a defendant into bankruptcy, he wrote. That "in such a case the defendant will be under great pressure to settle even if the merits of the case are slight," he wrote. "A small probability of a large dollar loss can be a large dollar figure. "A variant of this problem arises when class counsel can, as they are attempting to do in their scorched earth campaign against Sears, increase the number of throws of the litigation dice." The cost of pretrial discovery is additionally adverse to defendants, he wrote. "One purpose of discovery -- improper and rarely acknowledged but pervasive -- is: It makes one's opponents spend money," he wrote. In most class actions, plaintiffs can discover far more in defense records than vice versa, he wrote. He included email, "the vast and ever expanding volume of which has made the cost of discovery soar." "[P]laintiffs will want to rummage in quest for smoking guns," he wrote. The merit of the Murray and Thorogood cases was slight but pressure on Sears would mount if discovery continued, he wrote. Judge Posner quoted Mr. Boling's letter telling Sears that discovery would involve "delving into the full extent" of wrongdoing to justify equitable relief and punitive damages. He quoted Mr. Boling on costs increasing and an olive branch. "In other words, unless Sears settles now (implicitly for modest relief for the class and an agreement with class counsel to recommend to the judge generous fees for Krislov and Boling), it will incur that considerable cost of responding to class counsel's distended project of 'delving' and assume the risk of a very large adverse judgment," Judge Posner wrote. "The threat to turn the screws on Sears is all the more credible because Murray's suit is a duplicate of Thorogood's, with just enough differences to confuse the district judge in California. Without an injunction, nothing stood in the way of Mr. Krislov filing carbon copy class actions against Sears in other states, he wrote. Murray's case was removed to federal court in California last December and as of early October had accrued 126 docket entries, he wrote. "There is no way in which Sears can recoup the expense of responding to Murray's extravagant discovery requests and of filing preclusion defenses against duplicative class actions in other states," he wrote. "The harm it faces from the denial of the injunction is irreparable and its remedy at law against settlement extortion nonexistent." He expressed respectful attention to Judge Wilken's ruling but added, "The judge has misunderstood both the ads and our opinion." "The finding is that common issues did not predominate in Thorogood's suit," Judge Posner wrote. "Well, neither do they in Murray's." "If Krislov and the other class counsel are not enjoined, they will continue their state by state quest for certification and will doubtless be able to find at least one lad plaintiff in every state," he wrote. Class members must be enjoined as well as lawyers, "so that additional Murrays don't start popping up, class action complaint in hand, all over the country, represented by other members of the class action bar," he wrote. He directed Judge Leinenweber to apply the injunction to state as well as federal courts. Circuit Judge Michael Kanne and Senior Judge Terence Evans joined the opinion. A copy of the court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/gPqxc from Leagle.com. SERVICE CORP: Texas Court Dismisses 2003 Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- A securities lawsuit filed against Service Corporation International in 2003 captioned Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corporation International, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, has been terminated, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The 2003 Securities Lawsuit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits: * Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; * Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; and * Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The 2003 Securities Lawsuit names as defendants SCI and several of SCI's current and former executive officers or directors. The 2003 Securities Lawsuit is a purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and burial sites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on August 31, 2010, and this lawsuit has been terminated. SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Dec. 22 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Rochon Genova LLP on Wednesday disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has released an Order dated November 10, 2010 certifying for settlement purposes a class action in Maggissano v. Skyservice Airlines Inc. On June 2, 2005, a proposed class action lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, against Skyservice Airlines Inc. on behalf of passengers of Skyservice Flight No. 5G560, which departed from Toronto en route to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005, and their family members. The class action seeks to recover damages for injuries and economic losses following the Flight 560 hard landing accident in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. A formal settlement agreement has been executed by the parties. The Settlement requires approval by the Court. The Plaintiff will bring a motion for approval of the Settlement on Wednesday December 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve the claims of all Class Members who do not opt out of the class action, who are defined as: A) All persons who were passengers on Skyservice Flight No. 560 which departed from Toronto en route to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005 -- Primary Class Members; and B) Persons related to persons listed in subparagraph (a) above who are entitled to claim pursuant to section 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3 -- Derivative Class Members. The Proposed Settlement provides that: * Skyservice shall pay all Class Member Bodily Injury damages and damages of Derivative Class Members arising from the landing of Skyservice Flight 560; * Skyservice shall pay any associated subrogated claims of OHIP for those Class Members with Bodily Injury claims; and * Skyservice shall pay pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act. The Settlement resulted from lengthy negotiations and represents is a compromise. The Settlement is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of the Defendant. A Settlement Approval Motion Will Be Held in Toronto, Ontario The Settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be implemented. Class Members may, but are not required to, attend at the Approval Motion. If the Settlement is approved, another notice will be mailed to Class Members which will provide instructions on how to make a claim to receive compensation from the Settlement and how to object to, or opt out of, the class action if the Class Member does not wish to share in, or be bound by, the Settlement. Class Members who approve or do not oppose the Settlement do not need to appear at the Approval Motion or take any other action at this time. STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A putative securities class action has been filed against Strayer Education, Inc., in Florida, according to the Company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The lawsuit, styled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed on October 15, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will contest the lawsuit vigorously. SUN HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. for Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., has been named a defendant in a lawsuit filed in California for alleged Labor Code violations, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On September 2, 2010, Michelle Nesbit v. ProCare One Nurses, LLC was filed in California Superior Court by a former employee of a subsidiary of Sun Healthcare's medical staffing company, alleging violation of various wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code. The lawsuit has been filed as a purported class action on behalf of the former employee and all those similarly situated. The complaint alleges that the aggregate claim is less than $5 million. Sun Healthcare says it is in the process of investigating the allegations set forth in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Defends Four Lawsuits Filed Over Grifols ------------------------------------------------------------------ Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself from four lawsuits filed by its stockholders over the sale of the Company to Grifols, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010. Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed by Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp.'S stockholders challenging the proposed Grifols transaction. Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have been consolidated under the caption: In re Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 5614-VCL. The other two lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of North Carolina and are captioned Rubin v. Charpie, et al., No. 10 CV 004507 (North Carolina Superior Court, Durham County), and Kovary v. Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10 CV 011638 (North Carolina Superior Court, Wake County). The lawsuits name as defendants Talecris, the members of the company's board of directors, Grifols, S.A. and its subsidiary, Grifols, Inc., and, in the Delaware consolidated action, Talecris Holdings LLC and Stream Merger Sub, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Talecris. The two North Carolina actions have been stayed. All of the lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction with Grifols, and that Grifols aided and abetted those breaches. The Delaware complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered to the Company's stockholders pursuant to the proposed transaction is inadequate; that the company's board of directors failed to take steps to maximize stockholder value; that the company's IPO and debt refinancing in 2009 were intended to facilitate a sale of Talecris; that Cerberus and Talecris Holdings LLC arranged the proposed merger for the benefit of affiliates of Cerberus Associates, LLC, without regard to the interests of other stockholders; that the voting agreements impermissibly lock up the transaction; that the merger agreement contains terms, including a termination fee, that favor Grifols and deter alternative bids; and that the preliminary Form F-4 filed on August 10, 2010 contains material misstatements and/or omissions, including with respect to the availability of appraisal rights in the merger; the purpose and effects of the Virginia reincorporation merger; the antitrust risks of the proposed transaction; the financial advisors' analyses regarding the Grifols' non-voting stock to be issued in connection with the transaction; and the fees to be paid to Morgan Stanley by us and Grifols in connection with the proposed transaction. The Delaware complaint also alleges that the company's stockholders are entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the transaction pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, and that the transaction violates the Delaware General Corporation Law by failing to provide such rights. The Delaware action seeks equitable and injunctive relief, including a determination that the stockholders have appraisal rights in connection with the merger, and damages. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was scheduled to be heard on November 8, 2010. TARGET CORP: Sued Over Discount Coupons --------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Target does not discount the full value of discount coupons, a class action claims in Superior Court. THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in Missouri Over IPC Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Thermadyne Holdings Corporation is facing a class action complaint filed by Robert Israeli in Missouri, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On October 19, 2010, Robert Israeli filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against the Company, the Company's directors, and Irving Place Capital. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, including their duties of loyalty, good faith and independence, and the Company and Irving Place Capital aided and abetted the Company's directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement with IPC, or in the event the defendants consummate the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of such transactions, and attorney's fees and expenses. The Company and the other defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it. WADDELL & REED: Lawsuit Demanding Proper Wages Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit filed against Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., demanding proper wage payments remains pending in a California court, according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The Company, along with various of its affiliates, were sued in December 28, 2009, in an individual action, class action and Fair Labor Standards Act nationwide collective action by two former advisors asserting misclassification of financial advisors as independent contractors instead of employees. The case, captioned Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young, individuals, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Waddell & Reed Development, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors, a fictitious business name; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, with case no. 09- CV-2909 DMS WVG, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages and overtime wages, and under California Labor Code Statutes for timely pay wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal periods, reimbursement of losses and business expenses and itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair Business Practices under Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages. Waddell & Reed says it intends to vigorously contest plaintiffs' claims. WELLS FARGO: Accused of Failing to Honor Promises to Modify Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip R. Corvello, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No. 10-cv-05072 (N.D. Calif. November 9, 2010), accuses Wells Fargo Bank of failing to honor its promises and obligations under the Treasury Department's Home Affordable Modification Program by refusing to provide permanent modifications to residential property owners' mortgages, in breach of its contractual obligations to said homeowners who dutifully made trial payments and who complied with all documentation requirements. Mr. Corvello relates that in October 2008, Wells Fargo accepted $25 billion in Troubled Relief Program funds, and its receipt of those funds obligates it to comply with HAMP for those loans serviced by it. HAMP requires banks, among others, to provide permanent modifications to all residential property owners who are able to make the modified payments for a three-month trial period and who comply with all requirements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1550 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - James R. Patterson, Esq. Alisa A. Martin, Esq. HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 E-mail: jpatterson@hpolaw.com amartin@hpolaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 756-6978 E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311 Telephone: (602) 798-5860 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com eryan@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com WESTERN DIGITAL: Final Hearing on Class Action Pact Expected 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement resolving a putative class action complaint filed against Western Digital Corporation is awaiting final court approval, according to Western Digital's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010. On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the Alameda County (California) Superior Court. The complaint alleges that certain of Western Digital's engineers have been misclassified as exempt employees under California state law and are, therefore, due unspecified amounts for unpaid hourly overtime wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest periods. By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now pending. On June 16, 2009, the Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice by stipulation, leaving Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (WDTI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Digital, as the sole remaining defendant. On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its answer to the complaint, denying the substantive allegations and raising several affirmative defenses. Formal discovery has commenced. The parties participated in a mediation of the case on June 3, 2010, which led to a proposed settlement of the case. The proposed settlement would resolve the case on a class-wide basis for an amount that was accrued by the Company in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010. The proposed class action settlement must receive preliminary and final approval by the court before the settlement will become final and binding. A hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement was heard on October 18, 2010, and the court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing is expected to be scheduled for early 2011. Western Digital says absent final approval of the settlement, it intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages, Improper Layoff ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been against filed Western Digital Corporation by former employees over labor disputes, according to the Company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010. On August 23, 2010, plaintiffs Tarriq Sadaat and Rasheed Yusuf, former employees of the Company, filed an amended putative class action complaint in the Orange County (California) Superior Court against the Company; Western Digital Technologies, Inc.; Kelly Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and certain other unnamed individuals. The named plaintiffs seek to represent certain hourly employees who were assigned to work at certain of the Company's facilities by Kelly Services, a temporary staffing agency. In this regard, the complaint alleges that the hourly employees are due unspecified sums for unpaid overtime wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest periods. The named plaintiffs also seek to represent an alleged class of employees who they claim were improperly laid off on the basis of age and national origin. Finally, the complaint alleges that certain employees of the Company were improperly displaced by foreign workers. The complaint seeks unspecified damages including lost wages, penalties under the California Labor Code and other statutes, compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Western Digital denies the allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously. ********* 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 * * *