/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101215.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 247
Headlines
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $5.5MM Remaining for Settlement
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Hollinger Appeal on Suit Dismissal Pending
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: "Johnson" Suit Dismissed on Final Basis
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: "Thomas" Suit Parties Commence Discovery
AMERICAN EAGLE: Recalls 1,200 Toddler Girl Pants and Shorts
AMERICAN AIR: American Eagle Unit Sued for Not Paying Overtime
AMO CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds Class Certification Ruling
ATMOS ENERGY: Dismissed From Suits Alleging Unpaid Royalties
ATRINSIC INC: Consumer Class Action Complaints Dismissed
CADENCE FINANCIAL: Community Bancorp Merger Prompts Filing of Suit
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Settles Wage & Hour Lawsuit in California
CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Private Placement Suits
CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Class Action for Selling Defective Siding
CHARLES SCHWAB: Jan. 14 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
CHASE HOME: Accused in Mass. Suit of Unfair Trade Practices
CHINA GREEN: Faces Suit for Allegedly Filing Misleading Statements
CONVERTED ORGANICS: Class Cert. Motion in "Leeseberg" Suit Pending
EXOBOX TECHNOLOGIES: Former Director Demands Legal Defense Fees
FIRST DATA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ATM Suit
FIRST FRANKLIN: Faces Cheviot Merger-Related Lawsuit in Ohio
FIRST MERCURY: Will Defend Class Suit Over Fairfax Merger
GENTA INC: Collins Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
HEALTH BENEFITS: Florida Court Dismisses Employee Suit
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Calif. Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Paid $9.15 million to Settle NEGI Class Suit
INTERCLICK INC: Sued Over Browser-History Sniffing
IPAYMENT INC: Continues to Face Suit in New York
J. CREW: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to TPG and Green
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 13 Million++ Rolaids Packages
LOCKLEAR ELECTRIC: Seeks Default Judgment in '08 Faxed Ad Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Conspiring to Use Athletes' Names
NATIONAL SECURITY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Alabama
NUTRACEA: Court Approves Stipulation Resolving "Burritt" Suit
ORIENT PAPER: Continues to Defend Against "Henning" Suit in Calif.
PINNACLE GAS: Continues to Face Consolidated Shareholder Suit
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Objectors' Appeals on Settlement Approval Pending
RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Remains a Defendant in NY Securities Suit
SEATTLE BIKE: Recalls 200 Redline D640 Bicycles
SUNPOWER CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
TELENAV INC: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for Dec. 17
THE SERVICEMASTER CO: Rudd Complaint Remains Pending in Alabama
TICKETMASTER: Sues Insurance Firm Over Class Action Legal Fees
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Personal Injury Claims Rejected
TRAILER BRIDGE: Lawsuit Alleging Price Inflation Still Pending
TRIVIEW GLOBAL: Appeal From MFG Suit Dismissal Still Pending
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Gets Final Okay on 2000 IPO Suit Settlement
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
UNITED STATES: For-Profit Colleges Seek GAO Report Documents
XFONE INC: Continues to Negotiate Settlement in "Tzur" Suit
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
ZYNEX INC: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
* Mexico's Senate Approves Law to Allow Class Actions
*********
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $5.5MM Remaining for Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., estimates it
has $5.5 million remaining for a claims resolution process and
legal fees relating to the settlement of a class action lawsuit,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle Division approved a class action settlement in January
2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to
recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking
for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their
decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking
material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured
before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced
in the manufacturing process.
At September 30, 2010, AERT had a total remaining balance in
accrued expenses and notes payable of $5.5 million associated with
the settlement of the class action lawsuit. The estimate included
$4.9 million remaining for the claims resolution process and $0.6
million remaining to be paid for plaintiffs' attorney fees.
In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for
resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company
increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims
under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised
due to events that occurred and information that became available
after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number
of claims received.
The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed. The claim
resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT
of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is completed.
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Hollinger Appeal on Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Hollinger's appeal from the dismissal of his putative class
action against several county mutual insurance companies and
reinsurance companies, including Affirmative Insurance Company,
remain pending, according to Affirmative Insurance Holdings Inc.'s
November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
In Sept. 2009, plaintiff Toni Hollinger filed a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas against several county mutual insurance companies and
reinsurance companies, including Affirmative Insurance Company.
The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in unfair
discrimination and violated the Texas Insurance Code by charging
different policy fees for the same class and hazard of insurance
written through county mutual insurance companies.
On Aug. 5, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's
claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal on Aug. 25, 2010.
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: "Johnson" Suit Dismissed on Final Basis
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Palm Beach County, Florida, entered a final order of
dismissal of the putative class action filed by Dalton Johnson
against Affirmative Insurance Company, according to Affirmative
Insurance Holdings Inc.'s November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.
In Oct. 2009, plaintiff Dalton Johnson filed a putative class
action in Palm Beach County, Florida, against Affirmative
Insurance Company. The complaint alleges that Affirmative failed
to apply a statutorily-permitted fee schedule for hospital
emergency care and services enacted into law in Jan. 2008, thereby
exhausting prematurely the personal injury protection benefits
available to Affirmative's insureds.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in March 2010, which was
dismissed with prejudice on May 14, 2010. On June 4, 2010,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal, but
subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the appeal
on Sept. 14, 2010.
On Sept. 17, 2010, the Court entered a final order of dismissal.
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: "Thomas" Suit Parties Commence Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the putative class action filed by Valerie Thomas
against Affirmative Insurance Company have commenced discovery,
according to Affirmative Insurance Holdings Inc.'s November 15,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
In Jan. 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, granted
plaintiff Valerie Thomas leave to amend her complaint to assert a
putative class action against Affirmative Insurance Company. The
complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to provide a statutory
5% premium discount to insureds who had anti-theft devices
installed as standard equipment on their vehicles even when the
insureds did not disclose the existence of such devices to
Affirmative.
The case has been consolidated with several identical class
actions against other defendant insurance companies. On June 14,
2010, the court dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract count,
but denied Affirmative's motion to dismiss as to all remaining
counts.
On July 19, 2010, Affirmative filed its answer to the amended
complaint. The parties have commenced discovery. The Company
believes that this claim lacks merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously.
AMERICAN EAGLE: Recalls 1,200 Toddler Girl Pants and Shorts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Eagle Outfitters Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,200 Toddler Girl Pants and Shorts.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.
The metal clasp at the waistband can detach from the garment,
posing a choking hazard to young children.
No injuries or incidents have been reported.
This recall involves toddler girl pants, jeans and shorts sold in
various styles. The style number is printed on a sewn-in label
located under the care/content label on the inside of the
waistband. The garments were sold in sizes 12-18 months through 5
years. Style numbers included in this recall are listed below:
Garment Style Number
------- ------------
Skinny Cord 3007
Boyfriend Vintage Wash 3012
Cut Off Bermuda Short 3013
Flare Vintage Blue Wash 3029
Flare LT Wash 3030
Flare Rip and Repair 3034
Roll Cuff Bermuda Short 3035
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11065.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
77kids by American Eagle stores nationwide and at
http://www.77kids.com/between July 2010 and August 2010 for
between $24 and $34.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled garments away from
children. Consumers who purchased the garments online will
receive a postage-paid envelope with instructions on how return
the garment for a full refund. All other consumers should return
the garments to the nearest 77kids by American Eagle store for a
full refund. For additional information, contact American Eagle
Outfitters toll-free at (888) 307-3672 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
website at http://www.77kids.com/
AMERICAN AIR: American Eagle Unit Sued for Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Eagle Airlines
stiffed its ticket and gate agents and other members of its ground
crews of overtime for years, a class action claims in Superior
Court.
AMO CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds Class Certification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports the Court of Appeal for British Columbia has
dismissed an appeal by AMO Canada Company and Advanced Medical
Optics, Inc., and ruled the certification of a Newfoundland
subclass in British Columbia is valid.
The decision was handed down Wednesday.
The lawsuit alleges a contact lens solution known as Complete All-
In-One MoisturePLUS was contaminated by parasites and caused a
rare eye infection called Acanthamoeba Keratitis (A.K.) in some
users. The disease can be treated in most cases, but may require
corneal transplants, and leads to blindness in rare cases,
according to legal counsel.
St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie represents 10 Newfoundland
residents who he said contacted him complaining of eye infection
from the solution.
"A novel aspect of the case is that the court in B.C. created
subclasses for Newfoundland and other provinces, so that their
claims will be determined by the B.C. court," Mr. Crosbie said.
"With a relatively small number of people in the Newfoundland
class, the most cost-effective approach was to concentrate the
claims in one province, in this case B.C. This is a definite
victory for consumers."
Mr. Crosbie said he expects serious settlement talks to begin, now
that the appeal has been resolved.
ATMOS ENERGY: Dismissed From Suits Alleging Unpaid Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Atmos Energy Corp. was dismissed from lawsuits seeking to recover
alleged unpaid royalties, according to its Nov. 12, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.
Atmos Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed by
Quinque Operating Company, Tom Boles and Robert Ditto in September
1999 in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas against more
than 200 companies in the natural gas industry. The plaintiffs,
who purported to represent a class of royalty owners, alleged that
the defendants had underpaid royalties on gas taken from wells
situated on non-federal and non-Indian lands in Kansas, predicated
upon allegations that the defendants' gas measurements were
inaccurate. The plaintiffs did not specifically allege an amount
of damages.
The Company was also a defendant, along with over 50 other
companies in the natural gas industry, in another proposed class
action lawsuit filed in the same court by Will Price, Tom Boles
and The Cooper Clarke Foundation in May 2003 involving similar
allegations.
In September 2009, the court ruled that the plaintiffs in both
cases had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the standards
of a class action and denied class action status to each of the
plaintiffs in both cases.
In September 2010, Atmos Energy was dismissed from the cases
without liability by the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas.
ATRINSIC INC: Consumer Class Action Complaints Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 2010, Atrinsic Inc., received final approval of its
settlement of a class action in the case known as Allen v.
Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New Motion, Inc., formerly pending in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. This national settlement covers
all of the Company's mobile products, Web sites and advertising
practices through the date the Final Judgment was entered.
All costs of the settlement and defense were accrued for in 2008.
In addition to administrative costs and refunds, during the second
quarter of 2010, the Company paid the $1.0 million settlement for
the Class Action.
Because the terms of the settlement applied nationally, all other
consumer class action cases pending against the Company were
dismissed without payment of any amounts, according to the
Company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.
CADENCE FINANCIAL: Community Bancorp Merger Prompts Filing of Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Financial Corporation is facing a lawsuit in New York in
connection with its merger with a subsidiary of Community Bancorp
LLC, according to the company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On October 28, 2010, RSD Capital, a purported holder of shares of
Cadence common stock, filed a lawsuit allegedly on behalf of a
putative class of holders of shares of Cadence common stock in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York of New York County, Index
No. 651883/2010. The RSD Action names as defendants CBC, Cadence
and the members of the board of directors of Cadence.
The RSD Action alleges that (i) CBC, the Corporation and Cadence's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cadence's
shareholders by entering into a merger agreement that is not in
the best interest of shareholders and (ii) the board of directors
of the Corporation breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by
filing a materially misleading and/or incomplete proxy statement.
The alleged deficiencies in the proxy statement primarily relate
to the fairness opinion provided to us by our financial advisor.
The RSD Action also alleges that CBC aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
The RSD Action seeks, among other relief, (i) class action status,
(ii) an order declaring that the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to Cadence and/or aided and abetted such
breaches, (iii) an award to the plaintiff and the class of
compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law, and (iv)
an award to plaintiffs of the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Settles Wage & Hour Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement with plaintiffs of a lawsuit alleging violations of
wage laws, according to the Company's Nov. 12, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 3, 2010.
On May 19, 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the San Diego
Superior Court against California Pizza Kitchen. The lawsuit was
filed by a former restaurant manager on behalf of himself and
other current and former restaurant managers employed in
California. The lawsuit alleged violations of state wage- and-
hour laws involving the exempt status of managers, resulting in
alleged violations of meal and rest breaks and unpaid overtime,
and sought unspecified monetary damages.
On October 7, 2010, the Company entered into a proposed settlement
of all claims in the action. The proposed settlement is subject
to court approval. The proposed settlement does not involve any
admission of wrongdoing or liability and, subject to court
approval, will result in the dismissal of the lawsuit's claims
against the Company. Under the proposed settlement, class members
can submit claims pursuant to a Court approved process whereby the
Company would pay an amount not to exceed $4.0 million to settle
claims asserted on behalf of the class.
The Company has accrued a legal settlement reserve based on its
best estimate of costs to be incurred relative to the case. The
Company anticipates filing a motion in the Superior Court in the
near future requesting approval of the proposed settlement.
CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Private Placement Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Financial Holdings, Inc., is involved in various disputes
and legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and
regulatory investigations, and a number of investigatory matters
and legal proceedings arising out of customer allegations related
to past commissioned sales of alternative investment products,
according to the Company's November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010.
In 2007 through the first quarter of 2009 a substantial amount
(approximately 10% to 20%) of the Company's sales of commissioned
products were in private placements of alternative products, two
of which as of December 31, 2009 (Medical Capital Corporation and
related issuer entities and Provident Royalties, LLC and related
issuer entities) were placed in receivership by action of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and issuers of
certain other alternative products sold by the Company are in
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy or may have financial difficulties.
Additionally, difficult economic conditions in general and the
stock market decline have contributed to decline in broker-dealer
subsidiary client portfolio values.
As a result of the alleged failings of alternative products and
the uncertainty of client recovery from the various product
issuers, the Company is subject to regulatory scrutiny and a
number of recently instituted legal or arbitration proceedings,
including two recently instituted proceedings seeking
certification as class actions which name the Company as one of a
number of defendants and allege various securities or conduct
violations, one with respect to private placements of Medical
Capital Corporation and related issuer entities for which the
broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $100 million of debt
securities and the other with regard to private placements of
Provident Royalties, LLC, and related issuer entities for which
the broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $60 million of
debt securities.
The Company says it intends to vigorously contest the allegations
of the various proceedings and believes that there are multiple
meritorious legal and fact based defenses in these matters.
CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Class Action for Selling Defective Siding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys working with Class Action.org are available to
review claims of CertainTeed fiber cement siding problems from
property owners across the country. A recent class action lawsuit
has claimed that CertainTeed manufactured and sold defective
siding and failed to properly design and test its products before
releasing them into the marketplace. Furthermore, the lawsuit
claims that CertainTeed has failed to uphold the terms of its
product warranties when presented with customers' claims of
defective siding. If you have experienced CertainTeed siding
problems, such as shrinking or cracking of the siding, visit
http://www.classaction.org/certainteed-fiber-cement-siding.html
and complete the free case review form to find out if you can
recover compensation in light of this recent legal action.
CertainTeed fiber cement exterior siding products have allegedly
been linked to a number of problems, including the following:
cracking, shrinking or warping of the siding; development of large
gaps between the siding boards; poor paint adhesion; and
significant moisture absorption. The CertainTeed siding also
reportedly has a tendency to freeze in cold temperatures. It has
been alleged that this potentially defective fiber cement siding
has been sold since 2002 and may be installed in thousands of
properties across the country.
If you have experienced CertainTeed fiber cement siding problems,
you may be able to submit a claim to recover financial
compensation. Simply visit http://www.classaction.org/certainteed-
fiber-cement-siding.html and complete the Free Case Evaluation
form. The attorneys working with Class Action.org are offering
this online legal consultation at no cost and remain dedicated to
protecting the rights of individuals who were affected by
defective products.
Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org/-- is dedicated to
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices. Information about
consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available
on the site.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Jan. 14 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 2010, a Federal Court authorized the "Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Settlement" in the class action known as IN RE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, United States District
Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 08-cv-01510
WHA, affecting the legal rights of Schwab YieldPlus investors.
The Notice provides in part, "The reason for this notice is that a
clarification has been made to the scope of the release of claims
that you will be giving Schwab, namely, the release encompasses
more claims than just those certified in the litigation for the
federal securities class, of which you have been a member. As a
result, you are being given another opportunity to opt out of the
class action. If you still choose to proceed as a part of the
class and not opt out, you will receive the compensation that the
previous notice about the settlement told you that you would
receive for your federal securities claims, as set forth in the
appended estimate, and which in the Court's judgment is fair and
adequate."
"Alternatively, you can choose to opt out and bring your own
federal securities and/or Section 17200 claims, among other
potential claims. In that case you would not be bound by the
release in the settlement here, but you will also not be entitled
to receive the benefits of the settlement, namely the money
recovery." The Notice also states that, "The California Class
received an additional $35 million for release of their 17200
claims."
For those California Class members who were also members of the
federal securities class, this was in addition to their recovery
for their federal securities claims. The proposed settlement has
also been amended to provide them with an opportunity to exclude
themselves from participating in the settlement and forgo their
estimated payment, as more particularly described in response to
question 3. The entire Supplemental Notice and previous Notices
can be viewed at http://www.schwabyieldplussettlement.com/
California Schwab YieldPlus investors with significant losses
should consult with experienced securities Counsel immediately
regarding the election to remain in the Class Settlement or to opt
out, as California law provides beneficial remedies for securities
fraud victims that are not available in Federal Court. Investors
remaining in the Class Action will receive a settlement check as
per the Court Notices and are required to relinquish all claims.
Investors opting out may be able to pursue the valuable California
claims, and all other viable claims, in arbitration.
Miller & Milove has represented defrauded investors for more than
two decades. For more information please see
http://www.thesecuritiesfraudlawyers.com/or call (619) 696-5200.
Contact: Bradd Milove, Esq.
MILLER & MILOVE
Telephone: (619) 696-5200
CHASE HOME: Accused in Mass. Suit of Unfair Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that Chase Home
Finance overcharged the bank account of a retired Massachusetts
couple, ruined the couple's credit and threatened to foreclose on
them over disputed missed payments, according to a class action in
Worcester Superior Court.
Patricia and Carlton Maggs say they never had any problem paying
the mortgage on their home in Westminster, Mass., which they
bought in 1977, until Chase replaced Washington Mutual as their
mortgage servicer in October, 2009.
Under the Maggs arrangement with WaMu, the bank automatically
withdrew $694 from the Maggs' checking account every month for
monthly mortgage payments, according to the complaint.
The Maggs say WaMu agreed not to take more than the agreed upon
amount from the Maggs' account on any one month without first
obtaining the couple's permission.
But in February 2010 -- without first notifying or receiving
consent from the Maggs -- Chase withdrew $1,667 from the Maggs'
checking account, causing "catastrophic damages to the plaintiffs,
who could not replace the approximately $1,000 excess funds that
should not have been taken," according to the complaint.
The Maggs say their fixed finances have become increasingly tight
in recent years, as Carlton had a series of strokes in January
2004 and Patricia developed health problems in 2009.
Chase claimed the excess funds were for real estate taxes, but the
couple says those bills were taken care of and that Chase has been
"falsely posturing" to take the couple's equity in their $275,800
home, according to the complaint.
Patricia says her credit score has dropped from 750 to 544,
greatly aggravating her already "severe mental stress."
The Maggs' attorney wrote Chase in August about unauthorized
withdrawal and to inform the bank that its mail to the Maggs had
not been delivered, according to the complaint.
Despite this written notice, the Maggs say they have been harassed
by Chase collection agents, while the bank ignores the Maggs'
phone calls and efforts to rectify the situation.
A class action is appropriate because Chase has harmed many people
whose mortgages the bank services, and they do not speak out "for
fear of retaliation."
"Chase, as part of a scheme and/or business practices, has
employees allegedly in the 'Executive Office of the President'
charged with doing nothing to assist consumers," such as the
plaintiffs . . . [and who] refused to assist the plaintiff or even
to consider handling a Home Affordable Modification Program
request even though they are required by law and by Freddie Mac-
written policy to do the same," according to the complaint. "The
Executive Office of the President's mandate is to kill claims not
to do what is fair, reasonable or required to be done and it is a
sham and fraud on consumers."
The Maggs seek compensatory and treble damages, alleging breach of
contract and unfair trade practices.
A copy of the Complaint in Maggs, et ux. v. Chase Home Finance,
LLC, Case No. 10-cv-02494 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/10/ChaseMoney.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Evans J. Carter, Esq.
EVANS J. CARTER, P.C.
860 Worcester Road, Second Floor
Post Office Box 812
Framingham, MA 01701
Telephone: (508) 875-1669
E-mail: ejcatty1@verizon.net
CHINA GREEN: Faces Suit for Allegedly Filing Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc. is defending itself from a lawsuit
for allegedly filing misleading financial statements, according to
the Company's Nov. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 12,
2009 and September 1, 2010. The complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions about
the Company's true financial condition. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the financial statements for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2010 included in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission are
materially false and misleading on the basis that the financial
statements materially differ from certain financial information
the Company reported to certain governmental agencies in the
People's Republic of China. The plaintiffs claim that the
allegedly misleading financial statements inflated the price of
the Company's common stock and seek monetary damages in an amount
to be determined at trial.
CONVERTED ORGANICS: Class Cert. Motion in "Leeseberg" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification filed by Gerald S. Leeseberg, et
al., remains pending, according to Converted Organics Inc.'s
November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On December 11, 2008, the Company received notice that a complaint
had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59
persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing
terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006, captioned Gerald S.
Leeseberg, et al., v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.
The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in
connection with the alleged failure to register certain securities
issued in the FTA, and the redemption of the Company's Class A
warrants in November 2008. The lawsuit seeks damages related to
the failure to register certain securities, including alleged late
fee payments, of approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified
damages related to the redemption of the Class A warrants.
In February 2009, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal
of Complaint. On October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Mr.
Leeseberg has properly stated a claim for actual damages resulting
from the Company's alleged breach of contract, but that Mr.
Leeseberg has failed to state claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and
the Court dismissed such claims.
On November 6, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the Complaint
with the Court. On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a
conference, and began discussing discovery issues. Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Class Certification on June 22, 2010, which is
pending before the District Court. A jury trial has been set for
May 17, 2011. The Company plans to vigorously defend this matter
and is unable to estimate any losses that may or may not be
incurred as a result of this litigation and its eventual
disposition. Accordingly, no loss has been recorded related to
this matter, the Company said.
In December 2009, the Company filed a complaint in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk, captioned
Converted Organics Inc. v. Holland & Knight LLP. The Company
claims that in the event it is required to pay any monies to Mr.
Leeseberg and his proposed class in the matter of Gerald S.
Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., that Holland &
Knight should make the Company whole, because its handling of the
registration of the securities at issue in the Leeseberg lawsuit
caused any loss that Mr. Leeseberg and other putative class
members claim to have suffered. Holland & Knight has not yet
responded to the complaint. Holland and Knight has threatened to
bring counterclaims against Converted Organics for legal fees
allegedly owed, which the Company would contest vigorously. On
May 12, 2010, the Superior Court stayed the proceedings, pending
resolution of the Leeseberg litigation. At this early stage in
the case, the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome, or estimate any loss/gain.
EXOBOX TECHNOLOGIES: Former Director Demands Legal Defense Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exobox Technologies Corp. said on its November 15, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2010, that it has not booked any
liability with respect to the class action lawsuit against its
former director, Dr. Evans.
On Nov. 4, Exobox Technologies Corporation received notice from an
attorney representing former director Dr. Evans that he had been
served in a Class Action Lawsuit and demanded that the company
provide for his legal defense.
The company has not booked any liability for this action.
FIRST DATA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ATM Suit
---------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
First Data Corporation is pending, according to the company's
November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court. Five similar suits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004.
On August 3, 2007, Concord EFS, Inc., filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing
that there are pro-competitive justifications for the ATM
interchange. On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order
granting the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment,
finding that the claims raised in this case would need to be
addressed under a "Rule of Reason" analysis. On February 2, 2009,
the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which was
dismissed by the Court on September 4, 2009. On October 16, 2009,
the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.
On June 21, 2010, the Court granted dismissal of such complaint as
to the single-brand aftermarket derivative theory and ordered the
parties to brief a summary judgment regarding Plaintiffs'
alternative all ATM networks relevant market theory claim.
On September 16, 2010, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the
claims against the defendants except for the claims for equitable
relief and later, on September 17, 2010, granted final judgment
dismissing the case to allow plaintiffs to pursue an appeal.
On October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment.
FIRST FRANKLIN: Faces Cheviot Merger-Related Lawsuit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
First Franklin Corporation is facing a lawsuit in Ohio over
alleged breach of duties of its directors in relation to its
merger agreement with Cheviot Financial, according to the
company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.
On October 25, 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in the
case Burroughs v. First Franklin Corporation, et al., which was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio. The
complaint alleges that the individual directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders
authorizing the Company to enter into a merger agreement to be
acquired by Cheviot Financial. The complaint also requests class
certification. The complaint alleges that Cheviot Financial and
Cheviot Merger Subsidiary, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cheviot Financial formed facilitate the acquisition, aided and
abetted the individual named defendants in their breaches of
fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders. The complaint
requests that the court declare the case to be a proper class
action, certify the named plaintiff as the class representative,
and enjoin the acquisition.
FIRST MERCURY: Will Defend Class Suit Over Fairfax Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
First Mercury Financial Corporation has been sued over its
proposed merger with Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited,
according to the Company's November 12, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A putative class action lawsuit relating to the proposed merger
pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
October 28, 2010, among Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited,
Fairfax Investments III USA Corp. and First Mercury Financial
Corporation has been filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division.
The name of the lawsuit is Sanjay Israni, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated verses First Mercury Financial
Corp., Richard H. Smith, Jerome M. Shaw, George R. Boyer, Thomas
B. Kearney, Louis J. Manetti, Bradley J. Pickard, Hollis W.
Rademacher, Steven A. Shapiro, William C. Tyler and Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited (Case 2:10-cv-14482-GCS-MAR).
The complaint, which purports to be brought as class action on
behalf of all of the Company's stockholders, excluding the
defendants and their affiliates, alleges that the consideration
that stockholders will receive in connection with the Merger is
inadequate and that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement. The complaint further alleges that the Company
and Fairfax aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the
Company's directors. The complaint seeks various forms of
relief, including injunctive relief that would, if granted,
prevent the merger from being consummated in accordance with the
agreed-upon terms.
The defendants believe that the complaints are without merit and
intend to defend the actions vigorously.
GENTA INC: Collins Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs in the matter Collins v. Warrell, on the
dismissal of their lawsuit remains pending, according to Genta
Incorporated's Nov. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.
In September 2008, several stockholders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, the Board of Directors, and certain of its
executive officers in Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned
Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08. The complaint alleged
that in issuing convertible notes in June 2008, the Board of
Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties,
and the Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty.
On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division. On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for relief from judgment based on a claim of new evidence,
which was denied on June 12, 2009. The plaintiffs also asked the
Appellate Division for a temporary remand to permit the Superior
Court judge to resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs
sought to raise and the Appellate Division granted the motion for
temporary remand.
Following the briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court denied
the motion for relief from judgment on August 28, 2009. Thus,
this matter proceeded in the Appellate Division. Plaintiffs'
brief before the Appellate Division was filed on October 28,
2009, and the Company's responsive brief was filed on
January 27, 2010. The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
March 15, 2010.
The Company is currently awaiting a decision from the Appellate
Division on this matter. At this time, the Company cannot
estimate when the Appellate Division will rule on the appeal.
HEALTH BENEFITS: Florida Court Dismisses Employee Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida dismissed all claims
in the national class action complaint filed against Health
Benefits Direct Corporation following a settlement among the
parties, according to the company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On Aug. 28, 2008, one of Health Benefits Direct Corporation's
former employees, the plaintiff, filed a national class action
complaint in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward
County, case no. 062008 CA 042798 XXX CE, alleging that the
company breached a contract with employees by failing to provide
certain commissions and bonuses. The complaint also contained
claims for an accounting and for declaratory relief relating to
the alleged compensation agreement. The plaintiff purported to
bring these claims on behalf of a class of current and former
insurance sales agents.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response,
at the hearing on the company's Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff
stated that he would amend the complaint. The amended complaint
was no longer pled as a class action but, instead, included 64
named plaintiffs.
On April 21, 2010, the company and the plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding whereby the company agreed to pay
$23,500 to settle the case, and the company and the plaintiffs
agreed to: stay all discovery, mutual releases, no admission of
wrongdoing, no further litigation, confidentiality by the
plaintiffs, and non disparagement by the plaintiffs.
The company and the plaintiffs have entered into definitive
settlement agreements and the court issued an order dismissing all
claims in this case.
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Calif. Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a putative class action lawsuit against
HealthMarkets, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, according to HealthMarkets, Inc.'s
November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On December 18, 2008, HealthMarkets and MEGA were named as
defendants in a putative class action (Jerry T. Hopkins,
individually and on behalf all those others similarly situated v.
HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, Case No. BC404133. Plaintiff alleges
invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code Section
630, et seq., negligence and the violation of common law privacy
arising from allegations that the defendants monitored and/or
recorded the telephone conversations of California residents
without providing them with notice or obtaining their consent.
Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the suit as a California class
action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
On December 3, 2009, plaintiff Jerry Hopkins was dismissed as the
class plaintiff and Jerry Buszek was substituted in his place.
On March 10, 2010, defendants' motion for summary judgment was
denied. On August 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.
Discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been set.
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Paid $9.15 million to Settle NEGI Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. alleging
breach of fiduciary duties has been dismissed, according to the
Company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.
National Energy Group, Inc., was a defendant, together with Icahn
Enterprises and various individuals, including one of the current
directors of Icahn Enterprises GP, as additional defendants, in a
purported stockholder derivative and class action lawsuit alleging
that among other things, certain of NEGI's current and former
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to NEGI and
its stockholders in connection with NEGI's sale of its 50%
interest in an oil and gas holding company.
Following the disposition, NEGI had no business and its principal
assets consisted of cash and short-term investments, which
currently aggregate approximately $48 million.
In March 2008, NEGI dissolved and filed a Form 15 with the SEC
deregistering its securities with the SEC under the Exchange Act.
As a result, NEGI's status as a public company has been suspended.
The lawsuit was settled and the settlement received court
approval.
No appeal was filed and defendant Icahn Enterprises paid $9.15
million on August 25, 2010, into an escrow account designated by
plaintiff and the funds, after the withdrawal of plaintiff's
counsel's awarded attorneys' fee and plaintiff's awarded fee, were
distributed to the class of NEGI stockholders represented by
plaintiff.
In addition, all claims against all defendants were dismissed.
INTERCLICK INC: Sued Over Browser-History Sniffing
--------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that
Interclick, a "web ad-serving company," invades privacy and steals
people's personal information with online ads that contain "hidden
code to 'sniff' plaintiff's browser history and to deposit Adobe
Flash local shared objects on her computer to monitor her online
activities on an ongoing basis," a woman claims in a federal class
action.
Named plaintiff Sonal Bose says Interclick does all this knowingly
and purposefully, "to circumvent measures plaintiff took to
prevent just such monitoring." Ms. Bose says the Park Avenue-
based defendant uses "flash cookies" and hidden codes that
"monitored her browsing in ways she would not expect or detect,"
and that "invaded her privacy, misappropriated her personal
information, and interfered with the operability of her computer
-- conduct and consequences for which she now seeks relief."
Advertisers pay Interclick performance-based fees to display their
ads. The fees "vary based on how the consumer viewing an ad
responds, for example, by mousing over the ad, clicking on it, or
clicking through to complete a purchase transaction," according to
the 28-page complaint.
Ms. Bose says that in December 2009, "comScore Media Metrix ranked
Interclick 10th among U.S. Internet and networks, with an audience
of approximately 149 million unique users, over 72% of the total
Internet audience that month."
But Interclick's "audience" is unaware of their computers'
interactions with the company, Ms. Bose says.
"When a consumer visits a web page that includes a third-party
advertisement, the display of the advertisement occurs because the
web page causes the consumer to communicate with the ad network's
systems; thus Interclick's 'audience' consists of consumers who
visited website on which Interclick displayed its clients'
advertisements, not consumers who chose to communicate with
Interclick or necessarily knew of Interclick's existence," the
complaint states.
Ms. Bose says that instead of just depositing "browser cookies,"
which some users know they can delete or block, Interclick places
"flash cookies" on the user's computer, which are stored and
hidden in its Adobe Flash data files as local shared objects
(LSOs). If a user deletes an Interclick browser cookie, the
"flash cookie" will "'re-spawn" it, unbeknownst to the user, an
independent report determined.
Ms. Bose says that Adobe has condemned the use of its software in
this manner.
Interclick engages in "browser-history sniffing," by embedding an
invisible code in ads, which contains "a list of web page
hyperlinks," the class claims.
Since a user's browser changes the color of a hyperlink once the
user has clicked on it, the hidden "history-sniffing code" uses
that color indicator to determine which websites have been
visited, and sends the results to Interclick's servers, the class
says.
An independent study by academic researchers found that
"Interclick was the entity most frequently associated with the
browser-history sniffing," according to the complaint.
Ms. Bose says Interclick combines consumer data it has purchased
"with the information it acquires though its online contact with
consumers to enhance consumer profiles," and that the company
boasts that it "organizes and valuates billions of data points
daily to construct the most responsive digital audiences for major
digital marketers."
Ms. Bose says she "did not expect, receive notice of, or consent
to Interclick's performance of browser-history sniffing on her
computer and did not want Interclick to engage in such activity."
It is unlikely that any publisher has authorized Interclick to use
its web page to "sniff," she adds.
Though Interclick has claimed it no longer uses hidden "flash
cookies" for its ad targeting, many people still have its LSOs on
their computers, which "continue to reside and remain available to
Interclick," according to the complaint.
Ms. Bose demands an injunction, disgorgement, restitution and
damages for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, deceptive practices,
trespass, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stampley, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLC
100 Wall Street 23rd floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com
IPAYMENT INC: Continues to Face Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
iPayment, Inc., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit
brought by L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in New York, according to
the company's November 19, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.
As previously reported, this matter relates to a purported class
action lawsuit filed by plaintiff L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in
December 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, naming the company, Online Data Corporation (one of
the company's subsidiaries), and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.,
as defendants. As the company reported, it filed a motion to
dismiss Counts One (violation of New York Consumer Protection Law
Gen. Bus. Law Section 349) and Two (unjust enrichment) of
plaintiff's Original Complaint.
On August 27, 2010, a Court conference was held regarding the
motion to dismiss. At the August 27 conference, the Court did not
issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss nor did it set a hearing
date for the motion to dismiss. Shortly after the August 27, 2010
conference, Plaintiff, on September 8, 2010, filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint.
The FAC is similar to the Original Complaint, but has two
significant differences. First, it does not include Northern
Leasing Systems, Inc., as a defendant. Second, it does not
include the New York Consumer Protection claim that was initially
included in the Original Complaint, and contains claims only for
unjust enrichment and for a declaratory judgment. On October 8,
2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss Count One (unjust
enrichment) of plaintiff's FAC. Plaintiff filed its opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss on November 3, 2010, and the
company's reply to Plaintiff's opposition was due on or before
November 19, 2010.
Although the company and its subsidiary currently intend to
continue to vigorously defend themselves and currently believe
that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, at
this time the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and their potential
liability associated with the claims asserted against them cannot
be predicted with certainty, and there can be no assurance that
they will be successful in their defense or that a failure to
prevail will not have a material adverse effect on their business,
financial condition or results of operations.
J. CREW: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to TPG and Green
------------------------------------------------------
Nancy St. Louis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., Case No. 652201/2010 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty. December 7, 2010), accuses the Company, certain of
its officers or directors, TPG Capital, and Leonard Green &
Partners, L.P., of violating applicable law by directly breaching
or aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties, in connection with the proposed acquisition of
all of the publicly owned shares of common stock of the Company by
TPG and Leonard Green for $43.50 per share, or a total
consideration of roughly $3.0 billion.
Ms. St. Louis alleges that that the offer price of $43.50
substantially undervalues the Company, whose stock has traded as
high as $43.88 as recently as June 2010 and hit its annual high of
$50 per share in late April 2010. Further, Ms. St. Louis says
that Millard Drexler, the Company's CEO and Board Chairman, will
continue as Chairman and CEO of the Company and maintain a
significant equity investment in the Company, unlike public
shareholders who will be cashed-out if the deal is consummated.
The Merger Agreement provides that the Company must pay a
termination fee of $54 million under certain circumstances, and
also contains a "no shop" provision in which no other potential
buyers may submit bids beginning on January 16, 2011. In
addition, should the Board change its recommendation on the Merger
Agreement, it must notify TPG and Leonard Green at least 3 days
prior to the action of the proposed transaction terms and
financing and negotiate in good faith with TPG and Leonard Green
to enable them to one-up any other proposal. The suit says that
the inclusion of this provision and the onerous termination fee
that the Company (and by extension, the "successful" competing
bidder) will be forced to pay, effectively discourage other
competing bidders from making a superior offer for the Company.
J. Crew is a global multi-channel retailer of women's, men's, and
children's apparel, shoes, and accessories. Defendant TPG Capital
is the global buyout group of TPG, a private investment firm with
more than $48 billion of assets under management. Defendant
Leonard Green is a private equity firm with over $9 billion in
equity capital under management.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Herman Cahn, Esq.
Anita Kartalopoulos, Esq.
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: hcahn@milberg.com
akartalopoulos@milberg.com
bkaufman@milberg.com
arado@milberg.com
jsleater@milberg.com
- and -
Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
KROLL HEINMAN, LLC
Metro Corporate Campus I
99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
Iselin, N.J. 08830
Telephone: (732) 491-2100
E-mail: akroll@krollfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 13 Million++ Rolaids Packages
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus at The Wall Street Journal reports Johnson & Johnson
recalled more than 13 million packages of Rolaids heartburn
products following consumer complaints of foreign materials in the
product, including metal and wood particles.
According to the report, the Rolaids recall adds to the growing
list of over-the-counter products recalled by J&J over the past
year, hurting its sales and tarnishing its once-sterling
reputation for product quality. The report relates that J&J's
McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit said it was recalling all lots of
Rolaids Extra Strength Softchews, Rolaids Extra Strength plus Gas
Softchews and Rolaids Multi-Symptom plus Anti-Gas Softchews
distributed in the U.S.
The company, the report notes, said the foreign materials may have
been introduced during the manufacturing process at a third party
supplier, which it didn't identify. While the risk of serious
adverse health consequences is remote, McNeil advises consumers
who have purchased these recalled products to discontinue use, The
Wall Street Journal discloses.
The report notes that the company suspended production of the
recalled products and won't restart production until corrective
actions have been implemented.
The report says that J&J has issued a series of recalls of
medicines including Tylenol, Benadryl and Motrin, for various
quality lapses such as excessive concentrations of active
ingredients and musty odors. The Wall Street Journal relates that
J&J's handling of the recalls has sparked investigations by
government entities, including a criminal probe by the Justice
Department.
Wells Fargo downgraded its rating for J&J shares, citing the
potential for further regulatory action on J&J that could shut
down a manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico where quality problems
have been detected, the report adds.
LOCKLEAR ELECTRIC: Seeks Default Judgment in '08 Faxed Ad Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a
Wood River electric company that has led a number of class actions
in both Madison and St. Clair counties is moving for a default
judgment in one those suits filed two years ago.
Locklear Electric's motion for default judgment against American
Business Lending and Christopher Parks was set for hearing at 9:00
a.m. Friday, Dec. 10, before Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas
Matoesian.
The company filed suit as a potential lead plaintiff against the
pair for allegedly costing Locklear and other businesses money by
sending illegally faxed advertisements.
Locklear, represented by Lanny Darr of Alton, has filed at least
seven such class actions since 2005.
Neither American Business Lending nor Parks have filed answers or
appearances in the case.
The default motion states that both were served with the suit
Dec. 10, 2008.
The company's complaint claimed that the potential damages in the
case totaled no more than $5 million and no one class member's
damages topped $75,000.
Locklear filed two faxed ad cases last year in Madison County
against Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic and one against a realty
company.
The company also has similar class actions pending in neighboring
St. Clair County.
The 2008 Locklear class action is Madison case number 08-L-1131.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rich Kirchen, writing for The Business Journal, reports MGIC
Investment Corp., has prevailed in what likely was the last matter
related to class-action lawsuits filed against the company during
2008 in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee.
U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman on Wednesday issued rulings
that resulted in his dismissing the case and entering a judgment
that favors the Milwaukee-based private mortgage insurer (NYSE:
MTG). Judge Adelman in February had granted MGIC's motion to
dismiss the cases but the investors who sued filed a motion in
March to amend their complaint in the lawsuit.
Judge Adelman ruled Wednesday that the investors proposed amended
complaint "would not survive a motion to dismiss" and granting the
motion "would be futile."
The plaintiffs, led by the Fulton County Employees' Retirement
System, alleged that MGIC executives had violated federal
securities laws in the company's disclosures about its
relationship with Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization
LLC, also known as C-BASS. C-BASS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Nov. 12 in New York City.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Conspiring to Use Athletes' Names
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby C. Maze and Jordan Dixon, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-05569 (N.D. Calif. December 8, 2010), accuse
the NCAA and defendants Collegiate Licensing Company (aka "CLC"),
Electronics Arts, Inc., and the six major athletic conferences of
the NCAA, namely, the Southern Conference, the Big Ten Conference,
the Big East Conference, the PAC-10 Conference, the Big 12
Conference, and the Atlantic Coast Conference, of:
(i) conspiring to use the names, likenesses, images and
identities of former student-athletes (who competed in the
six major athletics conferences of the NCAA) without their
voluntary consent.
Defendants, the Complaint states, accomplish this restraint
of trade in part by requiring all student-athletes to sign a
"Form 3a" that is interpreted by the NCAA and the Defendants
to relinquish "all of a student-athlete's rights in
perpetuity" to the commercial use of their names,
likenesses, images, and identities on products, including
after the student-athlete graduates and is no longer subject
to NCAA regulations. One example of this violation, the
Complaint cites, is Defendant Electronic Arts' 2006, 2008
and 2009 versions of the video game "NCAA Basketball", where
virtual players closely resemble real-life college
basketball players, including Plaintiff Bobby Maze and other
former student-athletes: they share the same jersey numbers,
have similar physical characteristics and come from the same
home state.
(ii) unlawfully agreeing to refuse to offer multi-year
scholarships to current and former student-athletes (who
competed for men's basketball teams and men's football
teams), in restraint of trade. The Plaintiffs state that
far from protecting student-athletes' amateur status, the
NCAA's rules against multi-year scholarships are merely
devices "to divert [that] money elsewhere," i.e., into the
pockets of the NCAA and its member-institutions.
(iii) unlawfully and inequitably seizing and converting federal
Pell Grant funds of current and former student-athletes (who
competed for men's basketball and men's football teams) for
their own use. The Complaint says that Pell Grant funds
(which are federal funds made available to college students
who qualify based upon financial need) are the property of
the individual qualified student, and should not be used to
reduce the college's athletics grant.
Plaintiff Bobby C. Maze signed scholarship papers with the
University of Tennessee and was its starting point guard during
the 2008-2010 season. Mr. Maze says his image and likeness appear
in the EA Sports NCAA Basketball video game for 2006, 2008 and
2009, and that despite being a highly-recruited basketball player,
due to NCAA prohibitions, no college or university offered him a
multi-year scholarship. He says he was only offered and signed a
one-year scholarship, renewable annually.
Plaintiff Jordan Dixon, a scholarship basketball player for
Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City, Tennessee from 2006-09
and was awarded a Pell Grant.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an association of
1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations and individuals
that organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and
universities in the United States and Canada. CLC, a subsidiary
of IMG Worldwide, Inc., is the largest collegiate licensing
company in the United States. Electronics Arts, Inc., is an
international developer, marketer, publisher and distributor of
video games.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon Ball, Esq.
W. Allen McDonald, Esq.
BALL & SCOTT LAW OFFICES
Bank of America Center, Suite 601
550 Main Street
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
E-mail: mcdonald@ballandscott.com
- and -
William H. Parish, Esq.
PARISH & SMALL
A Professional Law Corporation
1919 Grand Canal Boulevard, Suite A-5
Stockton, CA 95207-8114
Telephone: (209) 952-1992
E-mail: whparish@parishsmall.com
- and -
Jerrold Becker, Esq.
BUNSTINE, WATSHON, McELROY & BECKER
First Tennessee Plaza, Suite 2001
800 South Gay Street
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 523-3032
- and -
Tom Jones, Esq.
JONES, MEADOWS & WALL PLLC
Walnut Building, Suite 500
706 Walnut Street
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 540-8777
- and -
John G. Felder, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER
1517 Hampton Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 779-0100
- and -
Thomas C. Jessee, Esq.
JESSEE & JESSEE
P.O. Box 997
Johnson City, TN 37605
Telephone: (423) 928-7175
- and -
Robert M. Bailey, Esq.
BAILEY & BAILEY
708 S. Gay Street, 2nd Floor
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 54603533
NATIONAL SECURITY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc., has filed an appeal from a trial
court's decision certifying the class in a putative class action
filed in Alabama, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.
The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the State
of Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not
receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit in the
proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of the
Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff alleges that said failure to include
GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of its
contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary damages in
the form of contractual damages.
A class certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010, with the
trial court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
under advisement. On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its
ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.
The Company filed its Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010. The
Company denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
NUTRACEA: Court Approves Stipulation Resolving "Burritt" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NutraCea received approval from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Arizona on October 27, 2010, of a stipulation
and agreement of settlement resolving a pending securities class
action under the case name Burritt v. NutraCea, Inc., et al., Case
No. CV 09-00406-PHX-FJM, according to the Company's November 12,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The order became final and non-appealable on November 11, 2010.
The District Court for the District of Arizona had previously
approved the Stipulation on October 4, 2010, and that order became
final and non-appealable on November 4, 2010.
The lead plaintiff, on behalf of all investors who acquired
NutraCea stock from April 2, 2007, through and including
February 23, 2009, were seeking damages against NutraCea and
certain former officers and directors for alleged federal and
Arizona state securities law violations.
The Stipulation provides that as full and complete settlement for
all claims against NutraCea and the other defendants under the
class action, NutraCea's directors and officers' liability insurer
will create a settlement fund in the amount of $1,500,000, plus
fifty percent of any funds remaining under NutraCea's directors
and officers insurance policy after payment of all valid claims
made under the insurance policy and payment of all legal fees
related to the valid claims, as long as there is $150,000 or more
of funds remaining in the policy.
ORIENT PAPER: Continues to Defend Against "Henning" Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc., intends to mount a vigorous defense against
the stockholder class action lawsuit filed by Mark Henning in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
the Company, certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP, according to the
company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.
On Aug. 20, 2010, the Company was served notice of a stockholder
class action lawsuit filed on Aug. 6, 2010 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company,
and Roth Capital Partners, LLP. The complaint in the lawsuit,
Mark Henning v. Orient Paper et al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx),
alleges, among other claims, that the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements and omitted to state material
facts that rendered its affirmative statements misleading as they
related to the Company's financial performance, business
prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed
to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees. Mr. Henning
purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class
consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).
One group of three shareholders with a total alleged loss of
approximately $150,000 has filed a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff. That motion was scheduled to be heard on Nov. 22,
2010.
The Company and the defendant officers and directors have retained
the law firm DLA Piper US LLP to represent them in connection with
the lawsuit. The Company believes that the lawsuit has no merit
and intends to mount a vigorous defense. Nevertheless, at this
stage of the proceedings, management cannot opine that a favorable
outcome for the company is probable or that an unfavorable outcome
to the company is remote.
While certain legal defense costs may be later reimbursed by the
Company's insurance carrier, no reasonable estimate of any impact
of the outcome of the litigation or related legal fees on the
financial statements can be made as of date of this statement.
PINNACLE GAS: Continues to Face Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
shareholder class action litigation arising from its merger with
Powder Acquisition Co., and Powder Holdings, LLC, according to the
company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.
The Company is a party to two stockholder class action lawsuit
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On March 24, 2010, the
Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two
actions under the caption In re Pinnacle Gas Resources Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 5313-CC (Del. Ch.) and appointing co-lead
counsel.
The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
entering into the merger agreement with Powder and Powder
Holdings, taking actions designed to deter higher offers from
other potential acquirers and failing to maximize the value of
Pinnacle to its stockholders. In addition, the lawsuit alleges
that DLJ Merchant Banking, as a controlling stockholder of
Pinnacle, violated fiduciary duties to Pinnacle stock holders and
that Powder and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the other defendants.
The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Merger, and costs of the action including
reasonable attorneys' fees.
On May 24, 2010, the Company and its directors entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in anticipation of settling the
shareholder lawsuit. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company
agreed to make additional proxy disclosures regarding the
interests of its executive officers in the surviving entity and
furnish additional information regarding FBR's analysis and
fairness opinion.
In return, the shareholders will provide a release of their claims
against the Company, its directors, Powder and DLJ. The Company
and its directors, Powder and DLJ do not admit any wrongdoing and
entered into the MOU to avoid the distraction, burden and expense
of further litigation.
The settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery, negotiation
of a definitive settlement agreement, and approval by the Delaware
Chancery Court. The MOU is also conditioned upon consummation of
the merger. Powder and DLJ have agreed to the terms of the MOU.
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Objectors' Appeals on Settlement Approval Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quicklogic Corporation discloses in its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended October 3, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 12, 2010, that appeals filed by certain
objectors from the order approving a settlement of a securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York remains pending.
On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's
initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's
officers and directors. The complaint alleges excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary
public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in"
arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of
the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's
stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14,
1999, and December 6, 2000.
Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against over 300 other public companies,
their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out
of each company's public offering. These actions, including the
action against QuickLogic, have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities Litigation.
In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including QuickLogic, was submitted
to the court for approval. On August 31, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the
appellate Court overturned the certification of classes in the six
test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and
plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Because class
certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely
that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June
25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed
settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the
settlement. Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and
amended complaints, in the six test cases. On March 26, 2008, the
Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaints.
On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
final approval of the settlement, plan of allocation and class
certification. Under the terms of the settlement, the insurers
are responsible for paying the full amount of settlement share
allocated to the Company, and the Company bears no financial
liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, have received complete dismissals from the
case.
Certain objectors have filed appeals.
RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Remains a Defendant in NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
RHI Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws, according
to the company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.
On October 9, 2009, RHI Entertainment, Inc., and two of its
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities
laws by issuing a registration statement in connection with the
Company's June 2008 initial public offering that purportedly
contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted other
facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading. The
central allegation of the Lawsuit is that the registration
statement and prospectus overstated the projected number of made-
for-television (MFT) movies and mini-series the Company expected
to develop, produce and distribute in 2008, while it failed to
disclose that the Company would not be able to complete the
expected number of MFT movies and miniseries in 2008 due to the
declining state of the credit markets, changing media technologies
and other negative factors then impacting the Company's business.
The Lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and interest.
On May 3, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on
June 25, 2010, and defendants filed a reply brief on August 2,
2010. The motion is pending.
The Company believes that the Lawsuit has no merit and intends to
defend itself and its officers vigorously in this litigation.
SEATTLE BIKE: Recalls 200 Redline D640 Bicycles
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Seattle Bike Supply of Kent, Wash., announced a voluntary recall
of about 200 Redline D640 Bicycles. Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
The head tube can separate from the frame, causing the rider to
lose control and fall. This poses a risk of serious injury.
Seattle Bikes is aware of eight reports of head tubes separating
from the frame, including four reports of minor scrapes and cuts.
This recall involves all 2008 Redline D640 bicycles. The bicycles
were sold in black and have aluminum frames. "REDLINE" is written
down the frame's tube. The model number is written on the frame's
top tube. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11064.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from December 2007 to May 2010
for about $900.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact a local Redline bicycle dealer to receive a free frame
replacement. For additional information, contact Redline Bicycles
at (800) 283-2453 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.Redlinebicycles.com/
SUNPOWER CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California,
according to SunPower's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2010.
Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired
the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through November 16,
2009. The cases are captioned Plichta v. SunPower Corp. et al.,
Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November 18, 2009); Cao
v. SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5488-RS (N.D. Cal.)
(filed November 18, 2009); and Parrish v. SunPower Corp. et al.,
Case No. C-09-05520-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November 20, 2009). The
Cao lawsuit also includes the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a
defendant. The actions arise from the Audit Committee's
investigation announcement on November 16, 2009. The complaints
allege that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seek an unspecified amount of damages, and allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
The court held a hearing on the defendant's motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010, and took the motions
under submission.
TELENAV INC: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for Dec. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc., is named as a defendant in a stockholder class
action lawsuit filed by David Smith pending in California,
according to the company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
September 30, 2010.
On September 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed by David Smith in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC)
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the Company's underwriters for its May 13, 2010 initial
public offering. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
pursuant to its May 13, 2010 initial public offering, traceable to
the Company's Form S-1/A Registration Statement and Prospectus
filed with the SEC on May 13, 2010. The complaint alleges that
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of
the Company's underwriters for the initial public offering
violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Act, by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which
the plaintiff alleges contained material misstatements and
omissions in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose in its May 13, 2010 Registration Statement and
Prospectus that the Company would soon be renegotiating its
current contract with Sprint, the Company's largest customer,
which would result in the Company's revenue being reduced. The
complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.
David Smith and his attorneys have filed a motion for appointment
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which will be heard on
December 17, 2010. No other such motions have been filed. The
Company denies the plaintiff's allegations and believes that its
defenses to this action have merit. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against this action and file a motion to dismiss
the complaint.
Due to the preliminary status of the lawsuit and uncertainties
related to litigation, the Company is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. The
Company said it cannot currently estimate a range of any possible
losses it may experience in connection with this case.
Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the
effects of this lawsuit on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
THE SERVICEMASTER CO: Rudd Complaint Remains Pending in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ServiceMaster Company is a national company serving both
residential and commercial customers. Its products and services
include lawn care, landscape maintenance, termite and pest
control, home service contracts, cleaning and disaster
restoration, house cleaning, furniture repair and home inspection.
ServiceMaster provides these services through a network of
company-owned locations and franchise licenses operating under
these leading brands: TruGreen, TruGreen LandCare, Terminix,
American Home Shield, ServiceMaster Clean, Merry Maids, Furniture
Medic and AmeriSpec. ServiceMaster is organized into six
principal reportable segments: TruGreen LawnCare, TruGreen
LandCare, Terminix, American Home Shield, ServiceMaster Clean and
Other Operations and Headquarters.
American Home Shield Corporation was sued in a putative class
action on May 26, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by Abigail Rudd, et al., and is
alleged to have violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act in connection with certain payments made to real
estate agencies.
The plaintiffs seek damages equal to three times the amount of the
allegedly improper payments occurring after May 26, 2008.
No further updates were provided in the Company's November 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.
TICKETMASTER: Sues Insurance Firm Over Class Action Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Branch Jr., writing for Ticket News, reports ticketing
giant Ticketmaster, embroiled in a class action lawsuit over its
processing and delivery fees, is suing its insurance carrier,
Illinois Union Insurance Co., for more than $4 million over the
insurance company's alleged refusal to pay the legal expenses in
the class action.
Ticketmaster claims that its $10 million insurance policy with
Illinois Union should cover the legal expenses in the case, but
the insurer denied the claim, according to the Los Angeles Times,
which first reported the story.
In the class action lawsuit, ticket buyers in Illinois and New
York, who represent the class, accused Ticketmaster of allegedly
misleading them into believing that the company's "Order
Processing Charge" and "UPS Delivery" charge were passed on fees,
not profit generators. The fees ranged from $14.50 to $25 for
various forms of ticket delivery.
The class action case was originally filed in 2003, but it was not
granted class status until earlier this year. It covers consumers
who purchased tickets between 1999 and early 2010.
Such processing and delivery fees have long been a staple of the
ticketing industry, but have been a source of frustration for many
fans for an equal amount of time. Ticketmaster, which is a
division of Live Nation, has maintained that the fees are
necessary and fair, and in some cases are not entirely set by them
but by venues, promoters or teams.
In addition to the number of years in question, the class could
end up being substantial because attorneys representing the
consumers launched a Web site in an effort to attract more
plaintiffs.
Illinois Union allegedly denied Ticketmaster's claim for the
insurer to pay for the more than $4 million in legal fees because
the insurance company believes lawsuit is based on profit that
Ticketmaster allegedly should not be receiving, according to the
Los Angeles Times. Ticketmaster's lawsuit was filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court.
A spokesperson for the law firm Dickstein Shapiro LLC, which
specializes in insurance litigation and represents Ticketmaster,
did not respond to a message seeking comment.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Personal Injury Claims Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a federal judge largely rejected Toyota Motor
Corp's attempts to dismiss personal injury claims brought over
sudden unintended acceleration, according to a tentative order
posted on Wednesday.
The personal injury cases are proceeding at the same time as a
proposed consumer class action over economic loss suffered by
people who purchased Toyota vehicles.
Last month U.S. District Judge James Selna similarly kept intact
the bulk of the economic loss case.
Toyota claimed that the personal injury plaintiffs failed to offer
specific allegations of an actual defect in their vehicles'
electronic throttle control system.
But Judge Selna ruled that he "has no trouble" discerning facts
that could support a design-defect claim.
Plaintiffs estimate that Judge Selna has jurisdiction over 100
personal injury cases, while the company puts the number closer to
60.
Toyota did not immediately comment on Judge Selna's order.
Lead plaintiff lawyer Elizabeth Cabraser said she expects
Judge Selna to finalize his order with few changes, along the
lines of his recent ruling on the economic claims.
"I think this tentative is perfectly consistent with his final
ruling in economic loss complaint," Ms. Cabraser said.
The Japanese carmaker insists its electronic throttles are glitch-
free. Toyota has instead acknowledged just two defects as the
root cause for its vehicles speeding out of control -- ill-fitting
floor mats and sticking gas pedals.
Both problems were addressed earlier this year in safety recalls
encompassing 5.4 million U.S. vehicles.
Judge Selna did dismiss one of plaintiffs' theories involving
manufacturing defects. His tentative ruling is expected to be
discussed at a court hearing Thursday in Santa Ana, California.
TRAILER BRIDGE: Lawsuit Alleging Price Inflation Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2008, Trailer Bridge, Inc., received a subpoena from
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a grand jury investigation
of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico ocean carriers.
Company representatives have met with United States Justice
Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full and complete
cooperation with the DOJ investigation. The Company has made
document submissions to the DOJ in response to the subpoena.
To date, neither the Company nor any of its employees has been
charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation, and the Company
is continuing to cooperate with government officials.
Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008 and as late as September 27, 2010, shippers in the
Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one case indirect consumer
purchasers within Puerto Rico, filed approximately 40 purported
class actions against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon
Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner Services and the Company.
The actions alleged that the defendants inflated prices and
engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive conduct in violation
of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.
The actions, which were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated
into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in
the District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.
Plaintiffs' lead counsel has filed a number of amended class
action complaints under seal. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints.
On April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted the
Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the claims
of the named plaintiffs. This order will not become final and
appealable until further order or judgment is entered by the
Court. The Company says it intends to continue its vigorous
defense of these actions, if necessary.
Horizon Lines, Crowley Liner Services, Sea Star Lines, LLC,
Saltchuck Resources, an affiliate of Sea Star Lines, LLC, and
their related companies entered into settlement agreements with
certain named direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a purported
class of claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying any
liability for the underlying claims.
All of these settlements received Preliminary Approval from the
court in August 2010, and notices to the putative class members
were mailed in September, 2010. The court set a final fairness
hearing for November 18, 2010, to determine whether to finally
approve the proposed settlements.
The Company says the court could approve the settlements or reject
the settlements. Additionally, even if the settlements are
approved, certain individual direct purchasers may opt-out of one
or more of the proposed settlements and proceed to prosecute their
claims as an individual action. It is not clear whether an
individual opt-out plaintiff would attempt to bring an action
against the Company in such a proceeding or even whether they
could do so in light of the Company's dismissal with prejudice
from the underlying MDL. Moreover, it is not clear what, if any,
impact these settlements, whether or not approved, will have on
further prosecution of the MDL 1960 or other claims on the
Company, or on the trade, in general. The Company is not a party
to any of the settlements.
No further updates were provided in the Company's November 15,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.
TRIVIEW GLOBAL: Appeal From MFG Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by plaintiffs from the dismissal of their
consolidated class action against MF Global Inc. and MF Global
Ltd. remains pending, according to TriView Global Fund, LLC's
November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On March 6, 2008, and thereafter, five virtually identical
proposed class action securities suits were filed against MF
Global Inc.'s parent, MF Global Ltd., certain of its officers and
directors, and Man Group plc. These suits have now been
consolidated into a single action.
The complaints seek to hold defendants liable under Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by alleging that the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with MF
Global's initial public offering in July 2007 were materially
false and misleading to the extent that representations were made
regarding MF Global's risk management policies, procedures and
systems.
The allegations are based upon MF Global's disclosure of $141.5
million in trading losses incurred in a single day by an
associated person in his personal trading account, which losses
MFG was responsible to pay as an exchange clearing member.
The consolidated cases have been dismissed on a motion to dismiss
by defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed.
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Gets Final Okay on 2000 IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. has settled a lawsuit related to its 2000
initial public offering, according to the Company's Nov. 12, 2010
Form 10-K filed for the year ended September 24, 2010.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors were subject
to a number of lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state
securities laws and related claims. Since June 2007, the Company
has resolved substantially all of these claims, although a number
of matters have not reached final resolution. The most
significant of these is the previously disclosed settlement for
$79 million of the Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd. matter, a
class action lawsuit arising from Tyco's July 2000 initial public
offering of common stock of TyCom Ltd.
The settlement received final court approval on August 25, 2010
from the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, although certain contingencies for the matter will remain
outstanding until the end of calendar year 2010. The settlement
is subject to the liability sharing provisions of the Separation
and Distribution Agreement with Covidien and Tyco Electronics.
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Odrick, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Unionbancal Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05565 (N.D. Calif.
December 8, 2010), brings charges for non-payment of overtime and
other wages previously earned, in violation of the wage and hour
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California's overtime
statutes and regulations, and California's unfair competition
laws.
Ms. Odrick has worked for defendants since December 2004 as a
Trust Administrator, Sr. Trust Administrator, Senior Relationship
Manager I - IS and Relationship Manager III. Unionbancal
Corporation is a financial holding company with assets of
$84 billion. Co-defendant Union Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of
Unionbancal, is a full-service commercial bank with 396 banking
offices in California, Oregon, Washington and Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin E. Krakow, Esq.
Michael s. Morrison, Esq.
ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 394-0888
E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com
mmorrison@akgllp.com
- and -
Cory H. Hurwitz, Esq.
Douglas B. Hayes, Esq.
HURWITZ, ORIHUELA & HAYES, LLP
10 Universal City Plaza, 20th Floor
Universal City, CA 91608
Telephone: (818) 753-2381
E-mail: chh@hohlawyers.com
dbh@hohlawyers.com
UNITED STATES: For-Profit Colleges Seek GAO Report Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that a trade
association of for-profit colleges demands documents from the U.S.
Department of Education relating to the Government Accountability
Office's recent report "critical of the for-profit college
sector," and information about short-selling of stocks in those
colleges. The Coalition for Educational Success claims Congress
unfairly singled out profit-making colleges for scrutiny --
because the abuses occur at other colleges too.
The Chicago-based Coalition demands a range of documents,
including those "relating to the dealing between ED [Department of
Education] and various individuals, some of whom are investors who
may have 'shorted' stock of for-profit colleges, and others of
whom [sic] are employed by the not-for-profit sector."
The Coalition filed the FOIA complaint in Federal Court. It
claims to represent "many of the nation's leading career or for-
profit college, serving more than 350,000 students at 478 campuses
in 41 states."
It is particularly interested in documents related to the Aug. 4
GAO report, "For Profit Colleges: Testing Finds College Encouraged
Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing
Practices."
The coalition complaints that "the requested investigation was
limited to for-profit career colleges even though fraudulent and
deceptive abuses that exploit students are no less problematic
when they occur at not-for-profit colleges or public institutions,
and even though, on information and belief, such abuses occur on
occasion at all three types of college."
The FOIA complaint criticizes Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, "a
prominent critic of the for-profit colleges," and chairman of the
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee.
"Senator Harkin never sufficiently explained why he was not
interested in an across-the-board, even-hand review of abuses at
all colleges, rather than targeting just for-profit career
colleges that predominantly cater to minorities, lower income
students, and working families, particularly working mothers.
"In the report, the GAO alleges that it found fraudulent or
deceptive practices at all 15 for-profit colleges to which it sent
its undercover investigators. Yet the GAO has never explained how
or why it chose those 15 schools to investigate. Despite repeated
requests, the GAO has refused to disclose the documents, including
tapes, videos, notes and other documents that underlie its report
that would provide the full context for the quotations used in the
GAO report."
The Coalition claims that GAO "has damaged the reputation of the
entire sector, consisting of more than 2,500 schools," though the
GAO report focused on "a nonrepresentative sliver of the for-
profit sector."
It also claims that the final GAO report, of Nov. 30, corrected "a
series of mistakes" in the original "that skewed its findings to
the detriment of career colleges."
The Coalition also claims that "even rumors" of short-selling
stock in for-profit colleges "have caused the decline in such
share values and substantial capital losses in the stock market
for companies owning career colleges."
It claims the market capitalization of "the 15 publicly traded
organizations that own and operate career colleges dropped nearly
$4.4 billion -- or about 14%."
The scorching GAO report cited a number of questionable practices
at for-profit chain colleges: lying about their certification and
the credentials of their employees, canceling classes or entire
programs after taking tuition for them, lying about their
graduation rates and job placement rates, lying about the ability
of graduates to take certification exams in their fields,
exaggerating their enrollment, and encouraging students to take as
much federal tuition aid and loans upfront, and pay it to the
college, before classes begin.
Hundreds of students have filed lawsuits, including class actions,
alleging all this and more. Courthouse News has reported these
complaints for years, long before the GAO report was issued. The
release of the GAO report set off a flurry of shareholder class
actions against the for-profit colleges.
The Coalition wants to see the documents.
A copy of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief in Coalition for
Educational Success v. Department of Education, Case No. 10-cv-
02084 (D.D.C.) (Huvelle, J.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/10/ForProfit.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Smith, Esq.
Matthew E. Price, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 639-6000
E-mail: psmith@jenner.com
mprice@jenner.com
- and -
Susan C. Levy, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 222-9350
E-mail: slevy@jenner.com
XFONE INC: Continues to Negotiate Settlement in "Tzur" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A former subsidiary of XFone, Inc., continues to negotiate a
settlement with one of the petitioners of a class action request
brought against it and other four unrelated Israeli telecom
companies, according to the company's November 15, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur, et al., filed a request to
approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the
company's former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other
Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to
the company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel. The
Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers.
One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli Sharvit, seeks damages from Xfone
018 for the cost such telephone calls allegedly made by him during
the 5.5-year period preceding the filing of the Class Action
Request, which he assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately $14.95).
The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018,
states total damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately $2,060,440)
which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to
all consumers that (pursuant to the Class Action Request)
allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support number during a
certain period defined in the Class Action Request.
A court hearing with respect to the approval or disapproval of the
Class Action Request has been scheduled for January 16, 2011.
Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit are currently negotiating a settlement.
In the event the negotiations fail, or the settlement is not
approved by the Israeli Court, as required by law in such cases,
Xfone 018 intends to vigorously defend the Class Action Request.
On May 14, 2010, the company entered into an agreement with
Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of its majority (69%) holdings
in Xfone 018. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement, the
company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all amounts,
payments or expenses which will be incurred by Xfone 018 as a
result of the Class Action Request.
Section 10 provides that the company shall bear any and all
expenses or financial costs which are entailed by conducting the
defense on behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results
thereof, including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was
agreed that in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to
provide services at a reduced price, the company shall bear only
the cost of such services). Section 10 further provides that the
defense by Xfone 018 will be performed in full cooperation with
the company and with mutual assistance.
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint against
YTB International, Inc., remain pending in Illinois, according to
the Company's Nov. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the Company, three Company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. On August 14, 2008, a second,
substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
The two cases have now been consolidated and are proceeding
together before the same judge. The plaintiffs have filed a
consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100 million. On
February 9, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.
On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motions and
dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's
ruling.
On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
purported to conform to the Court's ruling. The amended complaint
asserts claims similar to those contained in the dismissed
complaint. On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its own motion,
struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety based on
the Court's belief that the amended complaint does not pass muster
under the applicable federal pleading standards.
As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with
the Court to amend their complaints. The Court granted their
motions and a second amended complaint was filed on December 24,
2009. On February 12, 2010, the Company filed motions to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint. On April 19, 2010, the Court
granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all the out-of-state
plaintiffs. As a result, there is only one remaining plaintiff
who is a citizen of Illinois.
Consequently, the Court has requested further briefing on the
issue of whether the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter
when both plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of the same
state.
The additional briefing was due on May 19, 2010. On May 26, 2010,
the Court dismissed the last remaining Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
have subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh
Circuit. Plaintiffs' appellate brief is due to be filed
November 17, 2010.
Additionally, on June 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs have filed a new
class action complaint with substantially the same allegations in
Illinois state court. This state court complaint has been removed
to Federal Court and motions to dismiss the suit are currently
pending before the Court.
ZYNEX INC: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.
A lawsuit was filed against the company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on April 6,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al.).
On April 9 and April 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants.
These lawsuits alleged substantially the same matters and have
been consolidated. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-
REB-KLM).
The consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement
of the company that it would restate its unaudited interim
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.
The plaintiffs ask for a determination of class action status,
unspecified damages and costs of the legal action.
On May 17, 2010, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss. The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and on July 5, 2010, the company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The company is awaiting a ruling
on the Motion to Dismiss from the Court.
* Mexico's Senate Approves Law to Allow Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Adriana Lopez Caraveo and Jens Erik Gould, writing for Bloomberg
News, report Mexico's Senate approved Thursday legislation that
aims to allow class action lawsuits in a bid to better protect
consumers.
The bill, which now moves to the lower house, would allow Mexicans
to bring class action suits against companies that provide
consumer goods and services, financial services or that cause
environmental damage, according to the bill. Mexican law doesn't
currently allow for such lawsuits.
The legislation, if approved by the lower house, would help
consumers challenge companies that overcharge for goods and
services and fail to meet quality standards. Such practices occur
most often in industries dominated by few players, such as
telecommunications, said Alfonso Ramirez, director of El Barzon, a
Monterrey-based consumers' rights advocacy group.
"We have a big problem of overcharging," said Mr. Ramirez, whose
group participates in a consumers' rights campaign with the
Oxford, England-based development charity Oxfam. "Now consumers
may be able to challenge this abuse in an important way."
The bill doesn't allow for class action lawsuits in government-run
sectors such as education, Mr. Ramirez said.
Prices, Competition
Mexico's lack of competition in many sectors curbs job creation
and economic growth by keeping prices for utilities such as
telecommunications higher than in other Latin American countries
such as Brazil, according to the World Bank and Mexico's Federal
Competition Commission, known as Cofeco.
A 2007 World Bank report said Brazil's telecommunications sector
"outperformed Mexico's in all dimensions," including charges to
connect commercial and residential calls.
America Movil SAB, the mobile-phone carrier that controls 71% of
Mexico's wireless market, and Telefonos de Mexico SAB, which has
79% of Mexico's land lines, have argued their prices are
competitive with other countries.
An analysis of prices in the first quarter of this year showed
that America Movil's prices are lower than those of rivals in
Mexico and carriers in other countries for customers who make a
few dozen calls a month, and more expensive for customers who make
hundreds of calls, according to Teligen, a London-based unit of
Strategy Analytics Inc.
America Movil and Telmex are controlled by billionaire Carlos
Slim, named the world's richest man this year by Forbes magazine.
Antitrust Bill
Mexican lawmakers approved on Dec. 7 a watered-down version of
legislation that seeks to boost competition by imposing fines on
companies that act as monopolies.
The bill would allow Cofeco to fine companies as much as 10% of
the revenue they report in Mexico if they act as monopolies.
Senators modified the bill so that fines only apply to the
division or service that a company may have used to violate
regulations, rather than applying to total income.
The lower house must approve the Senate's antitrust bill before it
can be signed by President Felipe Calderon.
While energy and water utilities in Mexico are operated by state-
run companies, several major Mexican industries in addition to
telecommunications are dominated by one or two players.
Grupo Televisa SAB and TV Azteca SA dominate the broadcasting
business, while Grupo Modelo SAB and Cerverceria Cuauhtemoc
Moctezuma, the Mexican brewery owned by Heineken, control most of
the beer market.
*********
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. Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, 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 * * *