/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110301.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 42
Headlines
AK STEEL: Subsidiary Obtains Final Approval of Butler Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Murray Frank & Sailer Files Class Action
BECKMAN COULTER: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
DOW CORNING: Koreans Win Breast Implant Class Action
DR. PEPPER: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Snapple Labeling
DR. PEPPER: Continues to Await Court OK of "Jones" Suit Settlement
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Ends Administration of "Greenberg" Settlement
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Proposed CD&R Buyout
FORD MOTOR: To Recall Thousands of F-150 Pickup Trucks
FRONTIER OIL: Being Sold to Holly for Too Little, Tex. Suit Says
HURON CONSULTING: Fairness Hearing Set May 6 for $39.6M Settlement
ILLINOIS BELL: Sued for Failing to Pay for All Hours Worked
INTERMIX: May 16 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
ITRON INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
JA SOLAR: Settles Securities Class Action for $4.5 Million
KANSAS CITY CLUBS: Sued for Discriminating Against Black Men
KERN COUNTY, CA: Strip-Search Class Action Settlement Approved
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Gainesville-Related Suit
LABRANCHE & CO: Directors Sued Over Sale of Company to Cowen Group
MEMC ELECTRONIC: MFRA Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Still Faces "Jones" Class Action Suit in Missouri
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Moose Collisions
NYSE EURONEXT: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Deutsche Borse
OASIS LEGAL: 11th Circuit Dismisses Rucker Class Suit
PIER 1: Recalls 400,000 Golden Tea Lights
PUBLICIS GROUPE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
QUICKEN LOANS: Owner Defends Company Culture in Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: Petition for Review of Reversal Still Pending
SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Settles Missouri Data Privacy Class Action
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Harkness" Suit
STATE FARM MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Rejects Kartman Class Certification
TENNCARE: Judge Seeks Speedy Resolution of Class Action
UBS FINANCIAL: Sued in New York Over "Fictitious Storage Fees"
UNITED STATES: FBI Sued in Calif. for Spying on Muslims
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Overtime Pay
WELLS FARGO: Homeowners Due to Receive Class Action Refunds
WESCO FINANCIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action
*********
AK STEEL: Subsidiary Obtains Final Approval of Butler Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of AK Steel Holding Corp. obtained final court
approval of a settlement deal with a group of retirees and former
members of the Butler Armco unions, according to the Company's
February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco
Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel did
not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. On
June 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action sought, among other
things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of
a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding
certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK
Steel with its union. The proposed class the plaintiffs sought to
represent consisted originally of all union-represented retirees
of AK Steel other than those retirees who were included in the
class covered by the Middletown Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits
Litigation described below. On August 21, 2009, AK Steel filed an
answer to the amended complaint and filed a motion for summary
judgment. On September 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial summary judgment and responded to defendant's motion. On
October 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2010
changes to retiree healthcare from taking effect. On November 25,
2009, AK Steel filed its opposition to the motion for a
preliminary injunction, opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment, and reply in support of its motion for
summary judgment. A hearing on the then-pending motions was held
on December 8, 2009. During the course of the hearing,
plaintiffs' counsel notified the court that the pending motion for
a preliminary injunction was limited to retirees from the
Company's Butler Works in Butler, Pennsylvania. On January 29,
2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and barring the
Company from effecting any further benefit reductions or new
healthcare charges for Butler Works hourly retirees until final
judgment in the case.
On February 2, 2010, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a
reversal of the decision to grant the preliminary injunction.
Absent a reversal of the decision to impose the preliminary
injunction, the negotiated changes to retiree healthcare for the
Company's Butler Works retirees would be rescinded and the
Company's other postretirement benefit obligations would increase
by approximately $145.0 based upon then-current valuation
assumptions. This amount reflects the value of the estimated
additional healthcare and welfare benefits the Company would pay
out with respect to the Butler hourly retirees.
In the third quarter of 2010, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement with the Butler Works hourly retirees who
initiated the litigation. The appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals was stayed pending finalization of the Hourly
Class Settlement. The participants in the Hourly Class Settlement
consist generally of all retirees and their surviving spouses who
worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from AK Steel on
or before December 31, 2006. Pursuant to the Hourly Class
Settlement, AK Steel agreed to continue to provide company-paid
health and life insurance to Hourly Class Members through
December 31, 2014, and to make combined lump sum payments totaling
$86.0 to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust and
to plaintiffs' counsel. More specifically, AK Steel will make
three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as follows: $21.4 on
August 1, 2011; $30.0 on July 31, 2012; and $26.0 on July 31,
2013. The balance of the $86.0 in lump sum payments will be paid
to plaintiffs' attorneys on August 1, 2011, to cover plaintiffs'
obligations with respect to attorneys' fees. Effective January 1,
2015, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB
obligations owed to the Hourly Class Members under the Company's
applicable health and welfare plans and will have no further
liability for any claims incurred by the Hourly Class Members
after December, 31, 2014, relating to their OPEB obligations. The
VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund all such future OPEB
obligations to the Hourly Class Members. Trustees of the VEBA
will determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to the
Hourly Class Members.
After reaching the Hourly Class Settlement, the Company was
notified that a separate group of retirees from the Butler Works
who were previously salaried employees and who had been members of
the Butler Armco Independent Salaried Union also were asserting
similar claims and desired to settle those claims on a basis
similar to the settlement with the hourly employees. The
participants in this group consist generally of all retirees and
their surviving spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works
and retired from AK Steel between January 1, 1985, and on or
before September 30, 2006. If the Salaried Class Members were to
prevail on their claims, the Company's other postretirement
benefit obligation would have increased by approximately $8.5
based upon then-current valuation assumptions. This amount
reflects the value of the estimated additional healthcare and
welfare benefits the Company would pay out with respect to the
Salaried Class Members. After negotiation with counsel
representing the Salaried Class Members, the Company also reached
a tentative settlement agreement with the Salaried Class Members.
The stay referenced above of the appeal pending in the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals pending finalization of the Hourly Class
Settlement also applies to the Salaried Class Settlement.
Pursuant to the Salaried Class Settlement, AK Steel agreed to
continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to
Salaried Class Members through December 31, 2014, and to make
combined lump sum payments totaling $5.0 to a VEBA Trust and to
plaintiffs' counsel. AK Steel will make three cash contributions
to the VEBA Trust as follows: approximately $1.2 on August 1,
2011; approximately $1.7 on July 31, 2012; and approximately $1.6
on July 31, 2013. The balance of the $5.0 in lump sum payments
will be paid to plaintiffs' attorneys on August 1, 2011, to cover
plaintiffs' obligations with respect to attorneys' fees.
Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA
Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Salaried Class Members
under the Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will
have no further liability for any claims incurred by the Salaried
Class Members after December 31, 2014, relating to their OPEB
obligations. The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund all such
future OPEB obligations to the Salaried Class Members. Trustees
of the VEBA will determine the scope of the benefits to be
provided to the Salaried Class Members.
The tentative settlements with both the Hourly Class Members and
the Salaried Class Members were subject to approval by the Court.
On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to
File a Second Amended Complaint and an Unopposed Amended Motion
for an Order Conditionally Certifying Classes, and the parties
jointly filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement Agreements and Proposed Class Notice. On
September 24, 2010, the Court held a hearing on these motions and
issued orders granting the joint motion for preliminary approval
of the Butler Retiree Settlement, conditionally certifying the two
classes, and allowing the filing of a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint was deemed filed as of September, 24,
2010 and defined the class represented by the Plaintiffs to
consist of the Class Members. Notice of the settlement was sent
to all Class Members on October 1, 2010. The Class Members were
given the opportunity to object to the Butler Retiree Settlement
in writing and at a hearing conducted by the Court to determine
whether to approve that Settlement. The deadline for filing
objections was November 15, 2010 and only one objection was filed
prior to that date. That objection subsequently was withdrawn.
On December 20, 2010, the parties filed their motions for approval
of the Butler Retiree Settlement. Plaintiffs further filed a
motion for approval of attorney fees and expenses. A Fairness
Hearing with respect to the settlement occurred on January 10,
2011. There were no objections to the Butler Retiree Settlement
or to the proposed attorney fee award expressed during the
Fairness Hearing. On January 10, 2011, the Court issued written
orders granting final approval to the Butler Retiree Settlement,
as well as the proposed attorney fee award. The final judgment
formally approving the Butler Retiree Settlement and the attorney
fee award also was entered on January 10, 2011. The Butler
Retiree Settlement became effective on that date. No appeal from
that Judgment has been taken and the time for filing such an
appeal has expired.
BANK OF AMERICA: Murray Frank & Sailer Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Case No. 11 Civ. 1280) on behalf of all individuals and
institutions who purchased Bank of America Corporation publicly
traded common stock and options during the period between May 9,
2007 and October 19, 2010, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, BofA
engaged in "dollar rolling," a practice whereby it would move
mortgage-backed securities off its books to another entity, but
agree to repurchase the MBS after it reported its quarterly
financial statement. Accordingly, BofA classified such
transactions as "sales," when in reality the transactions were a
form of secured borrowing. Dollar rolling enabled BofA to conceal
from investors the true risks that BofA had incurred as a result
of its investments in MBS. On July 9, 2010, it was revealed that
BofA dollar-rolled $4.5 billion in 1Q 2007, $1.8 billion in 4Q
2007, $10.7 billion in 3Q 2008, and $573 million in 1Q 2009.
The Complaint also alleges that, during the Class Period, BofA
also concealed from investors that, in large part due to its July
2008 acquisition of Countrywide Financial Corporation, it failed
to maintain adequate internal controls regarding the processing of
foreclosures, because (1) it did not possess adequate paperwork
for many of the loans that it purchased or acquired, which could
delay or prevent eventual foreclosures; and (2) it did not have
adequate personnel to process its foreclosed loans, so it resorted
to the improper and illegal practice of ?robo-signing.?
On Oct. 8, 2010, BofA announced that it was indefinitely halting
foreclosures in all 50 states and was reviewing over 100,000
loans. On Oct. 13, 2010, attorneys general for all 50 states
announced that they would conduct a joint investigation regarding
robo-signing. On Oct. 19, 2010, BofA issued a press release,
announcing its third-quarter 2010 financial results, and reporting
a net loss of $7.3 billion. The press release also revealed that
net income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis was down 4% from
the previous quarter, presumably due in significant part to the
problems that BofA was having in effectuating foreclosures.
Between October 8 and October 19, BofA's stock dropped from $13.31
to $11.80, a drop of 11.3%.
If you purchased common stock and options during the period
between May 9, 2007 and Oct. 19, 2010, you may move the Court, not
later than April 4, 2011, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included
in the class. If you purchased BofA common stock and/or options
and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:
Gregory Linkh, Esq.
MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
Telephone: 212-682-1818
800-497-8076
E-mail: glinkh@murrayfrank.com
Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/
BECKMAN COULTER: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Beckman Coulter is selling
itself too cheaply to Danaher Corp. and Djanet Acquisition Corp.,
for $83.50 a share or $6.8 billion, shareholders claim in a class
action in Chancery Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Levin v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 6213 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/24/Biotech.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Strum, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 482-3182
E-mail: jstrum@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Shane Rowley, Esq.
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
E-mail: srowley@faruqilaw.com
jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
DOW CORNING: Koreans Win Breast Implant Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Koo Hui-lyung and Kim Mi-ju, writing for Korea JoongAng Daily,
report that attorney Kim Yeon-ho won a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of Korean customers who suffered from health problems after
getting Dow Corning silicone breast implants, ending an epic,
international legal battle.
Legal experts said the victory in the 17-year case was significant
as it was the first time Koreans have won a class-action lawsuit
against a foreign company.
Kim confirmed on Feb. 23 that Dow Corning paid $3.9 million
(KRW4.38 billion) total in compensation to 660 clients. Mr. Kim
said the amount of compensation varied depending on severity of
side effects experienced by his clients and ranged from $3,000 to
$13,500.
In 1994, 2,600 Koreans and 300,000 people of other nationalities
filed class-action suits against Dow Corning claiming they
suffered health problems from the company's breast implants,
including autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid
arthritis.
Some of the plaintiffs claimed their implants leaked or burst.
In June 2004, a U.S. court acknowledged defects in Dow Corning's
silicone implants and ruled in favor of claimants.
The ruling forced Dow Corning to create a $2.4 billion settlement
fund to compensate victims, which required them to submit
documents to prove their health problems.
According to Kim, some 2,000 out of his original 2,600 Korean
clients submitted documents and 660 received compensation.
Mr. Kim said his other clients are expected to receive
compensation in the future.
Despite the U.S. court ruling on the company's implants, Dow
Corning's settlement standard stirred controversy after it
announced it would pay claimants in Asian countries only 35% of
the compensation that Americans received.
"I have been raising this issue about Dow Corning's compensation
policy for six years, and Korean claimants were able to get 60
percent of what U.S. claimants receive," Mr. Kim said.
After graduating from Sungkyunkwan University School of Law in
1982 and Boston University School of Law in 1992, Mr. Kim
practiced law in Korea and got interested in international legal
disputes concerning Koreans.
When asked if Koreans who suffered health problems from Dow
Corning's implants but failed to join the 1994 class-action suit
can still claim damages, Mr. Kim said "that's possible."
"The deadline for settlement is May 31, 2021," Mr. Kim said.
"Compensation could go to others if there's money left after the
company pays compensation to the original claimants."
DR. PEPPER: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Snapple Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits over labeling claims, according to the
Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.
Snapple Beverage Corp. has been sued in various jurisdictions
generally alleging that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading or deceptive. These cases have been filed as
class actions and, generally, seek unspecified damages on behalf
of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling
practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for
product and treble damages. The cases and their status are:
* In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk in the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey. This
case has been dismissed voluntarily by plaintiff after the
decision in the New York Weiner case.
* In 2007, the attorneys in the Holk case also filed an action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York on behalf of plaintiffs, Evan Weiner and Timothy
McCausland. Class certification of this case was denied and
summary judgment for Snapple was granted on the plaintiffs'
remaining claims. Plaintiff is unlikely to appeal.
* In 2009, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Frances Von
Koenig in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of California. A similar suit filed was consolidated with the
Von Koenig case. Snapple's motion to dismiss was granted as
to the plaintiffs' advertising claims. Discovery is
proceeding on the plaintiffs' remaining claims.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted in each of these cases and will defend itself vigorously.
However, there is no assurance that the outcome of these cases
will be favorable to the Company.
DR. PEPPER: Continues to Await Court OK of "Jones" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, one of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries,
Seven Up/RC Bottling Company Inc., was sued by Robert Jones in the
Superior Court in the State of California (Orange County),
alleging that its subsidiary failed to provide meal and rest
periods and itemized wage statements in accordance with applicable
California wage and hour law. The case was filed as a class
action. The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the
case, pursuant to which the Company denied any liability or
wrongdoing and reserved all rights, but agreed to a compromise to
end litigation and to pay $4.25 million, which amount was accrued
as of June 30, 2010. The settlement is subject to the satisfaction
of the following conditions: (i) court approval and (ii) execution
of an acceptable settlement agreement.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Ends Administration of "Greenberg" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation has completed administration of a
settlement, which resolves a state class action filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.
On October 11, 2006, a state class action was filed by Nikki
Greenberg on her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly
situated plaintiffs, in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all customers or
consumers who allegedly made or received telephone calls from the
Company that were recorded without their knowledge or consent. On
February 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of (1) all persons in California who received
telephone calls from the Company and whose calls were recorded
without their consent within three years of October 11, 2006, and
(2) all persons who made calls from California to the Beverly
Hills branch of the Company on August 8, 2006. Plaintiffs sought
to recover unspecified monetary damages plus injunctive relief,
including punitive and exemplary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs. On October 16, 2009, the court granted final
approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement. Objectors
to the court's order granting final approval of the parties'
settlement agreement filed notices of appeal which were
subsequently dismissed on January 26, 2010. The Company paid the
settlement amount to the Claims Administrator on March 5, 2010.
Administration of the settlement was completed in August 2010 for
an amount that had no material impact on the Company and the
action is now concluded.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Proposed CD&R Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all shareholders of Emergency
Medical Services Corporation.
The complaint alleges violations of state law by the Board of
Directors of EMSC relating to the proposed acquisition of the
company by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC. The complaint alleges
that EMSC's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize shareholder value, among other things.
On Feb. 14, 2011, the complaint states, EMSC and CD&R announced
that they entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger
for EMSC to be acquired by CD&R in a transaction valued at
approximately $3.2 billion. The complaint alleges that under the
terms of the agreement, EMSC shareholders will receive $64.00 in
cash for each share of EMSC Class A common stock and Class B
common stock and each LP Exchangeable Unit. The complaint alleges
that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues EMSC,
since it represents approximately a 9.4% decline over EMSC's
closing share price on February 11, 2011 of $70.66, the last day
before the transaction was announced. The complaint alleges that
analysts have asserted that they "had expected the range to be
between $70 and $75" and that "[m]ost analysts and investors alike
would agree that based on the pure operational potential of the
company in 2011 you could easily value it above $70." The
complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose or
explain the components of the "transactional costs" estimated at
$300 million included in the purchase price for its $3.2 billion
leveraged buyout, when transaction fees on a deal this size
typically amount to $30 million. The complaint states that at
least one analyst speculates that the "costs" must include some
kind of payment to Onex Corporation, which owns 31% of EMS and has
a management agreement that pays it a couple of million dollars a
year. The complaint further alleges that rather than acting in
the best interests of the shareholders, defendants spent
substantial effort in securing material benefits for themselves as
a result of the Proposed Acquisition, including the accelerated
vesting and monetization of illiquid equity holdings in the
Company and change of control severance payments, which will
provide tens of millions of dollars in gains to the Board and
members of EMSC's management.
If you are a current owner of shares of EMSC, you may obtain
additional information about this lawsuit by contacting:
Charles Piven, Esq.
BROWER PIVEN
1925 Old Valley Road
Stevenson, MD 21153
Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/
E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
Telephone: (410) 415-6616
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 60 years. If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.
FORD MOTOR: To Recall Thousands of F-150 Pickup Trucks
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett at The Wall Street Journal reports that the Ford
Motor Co. said it will recall thousands of F-150 pickup trucks for
potential airbag problems, the second safety issue this month with
its best-selling vehicle. The Wall Street Journal relates that
the recall covers 144,000 of the auto maker's 2005 and 2006 pickup
trucks sold in the U.S. and Canadian markets.
Owners reported airbags inadvertently deploying after starting
their pickups, Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood said in a statement
obtained by the news agency.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the problem was traced to
vehicles built during the first shift at the company's Norfolk
Assembly Plant.
Earlier this month, the report notes, Ford Motor recalled 280,000
of its F-150s to repair a door-handle defect which could allow the
vehicle's doors to open in a side-impact crash. That recall
started Feb. 14.
The Wall Street Journal says that as for the airbag recall, Mr.
Sherwood said an improperly installed wire in the steering wheel
can cause a short circuit to occur illuminating the warning lamp.
If not serviced, the airbag could deploy, the report relates.
The Wall Street Journal discloses that Ford Motor will notify
owners in early March who will be asked to take their vehicles to
their local dealers for repair.
FRONTIER OIL: Being Sold to Holly for Too Little, Tex. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Frontier Oil is selling
itself too cheaply to Holly Corp., for $26.99 a share or $2.85
billion, shareholders claim in Harris County Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Walker v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2011-11451 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/24/SCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
EDISON MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
Phoenix Tower
3200 Southeast Freeway, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (713) 337-5580
E-mail: andrew.edison@emhllp.com
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
ricka@rgrdlaw.com
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 682-1818
E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com
HURON CONSULTING: Fairness Hearing Set May 6 for $39.6M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing as been set for May 6, 2011, to consider final
approval of a $39.6 million settlement Huron Consulting Group,
Inc., entered into with plaintiffs of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the
Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.
These purported shareholder class action complaints were filed in
connection with the Company's restatement in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: (1) a
complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron Consulting Group
Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L. Burge, filed on August 4, 2009;
(2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis v. Huron
Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne
Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5, 2009;
(3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron
Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne
Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5, 2009;
(4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron Consulting
Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed
on August 5, 2009; (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 7, 2009, (6) a
complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron Consulting Group
Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed on
August 7, 2009 and (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on September 3,
2009.
On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed
his complaint. On November 16, 2009, the remaining suits were
consolidated and the Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement
Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System,
the City of Boston Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement
System and the Bristol County Retirement System were appointed
Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
January 29, 2010. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Gary Holdren and
Gary Burge and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Gary Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski. The
consolidated complaint contends that the Company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with
GAAP. Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class
action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.
On March 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne
Lipski jointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss.
On December 6, 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with Lead Plaintiffs to settle the litigation, pursuant to which
the plaintiffs will receive total consideration of approximately
$39.6 million, comprised of $27.0 million in cash and the issuance
by the Company of 474,547 shares of its common stock. The
Settlement Shares had an aggregate value of approximately $12.6
million based on the closing market price of the Company's common
stock on December 31, 2010. As a result of the Class Action
Settlement, the Company recorded a non-cash charge to earnings in
the fourth quarter of 2010 of $12.6 million representing the fair
value of the Settlement Shares and a corresponding settlement
liability. The Company will adjust the amount of the non-cash
charge and corresponding settlement liability to reflect changes
in the fair value of the Settlement Shares until and including the
date of issuance, which may result in either additional non-cash
charges or non-cash gains. As of December 31, 2010, in accordance
with the proposed settlement, the Company also recorded a
receivable for the cash portion of the consideration, which was
funded into escrow in its entirety by the Company's insurance
carriers, and a corresponding settlement liability. There was no
impact to the Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the cash consideration as the Company concluded that a right of
setoff existed in accordance with Accounting Standards
Codification Topic 210-20-45, "Other Presentation Matters". The
total amount of insurance coverage under the related policy was
$35.0 million and the insurers had previously paid out
approximately $8.0 million in claims prior to the final $27.0
million payment. As a result of the final payment by the insurance
carriers, the Company will not receive any further contributions
from the Company's insurance carriers for the reimbursement of
legal fees expended on the finalization of the Class Action
Settlement or any amounts (including any damages, settlement costs
or legal fees) with respect to the SEC investigation with respect
to the restatement, the United States Attorney's Office's request
for certain documents and the purported private shareholder class
action lawsuit and derivative lawsuits in respect of the
restatement. The proposed Class Action Settlement received
preliminary court approval on January 21, 2011 and is subject to
final court approval and the issuance of the Settlement Shares. A
Fairness Hearing is currently scheduled to consider final approval
of the settlement on May 6, 2011. The issuance of the Settlement
Shares is expected to occur after final court approval is granted.
There can be no assurance that final court approval will be
granted. The proposed settlement contains no admission of
wrongdoing. Additionally, the Company has the right to terminate
the settlement if class members representing more than a specified
amount of alleged securities losses elect to opt out of the
settlement.
ILLINOIS BELL: Sued for Failing to Pay for All Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Brown, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Case No.
2011-CH-06870 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. February 23, 2011),
accuses Illinois Bell for failing to pay all wages due, in direct
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820
ILCS Sec. 115 et seq.
Mr. Brown worked as a customer service representative and later a
zone manager for Illinois Bell from Nov. 6, 2000, until June 6,
2009.
Mr. Brown relates that Illinois Bell only paid the proposed class
members for time worked while they were logged into the
defendant's phone system rather than paying them for the hours
they actually worked. Mr. Brown adds that the proposed class
members also performed work during their meal and rest breaks, for
which they were not paid. Class members were also not paid
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
Peter Lubin, Esq.
DiTOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
332 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60604-4408
Telephone: (312) 220-0922
E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
psl@ditommasolaw.com
- and -
Terrence Buehler, Esq.
Touhy, Touhy & Buehler, LLP
55 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
Chicago IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 372-2209
INTERMIX: May 16 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 24 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court, Central
District of California, Western Division:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
JIM BROWN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,
vs.
BRETT C. BREWER, et al., Defendants.
CLASS ACTION
No. 2:06-cv-03731-GHK-SH
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD THE COMMON STOCK OF INTERMIX
MEDIA, INC. CONTINUOUSLY FROM JULY 18, 2005 (THE DATE THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF INTERMIX BY THE NEWS CORPORATION FOR $12.00 PER
SHARE WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED) THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2005 (THE CLOSING DATE OF THE ACQUISITION).
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division:
that a settlement of this litigation for $45 million in cash for
the benefit of the Class has been proposed.
A hearing will be held before the Honorable George H. King, at the
Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, at 9:30 a.m. on May 16, 2011 (i) to
determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to determine
whether the Settled Claims against Defendants and other Released
Persons should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) to determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) to consider the application of
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the
full printed Notice of Settlement of Class Action and Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents
by contacting the Claims Administrator:
Intermix Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 808061
Petaluma, CA 94975-8061
Telephone: (888) 290-6316
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form may also be downloaded from
the Claims Administrator's Web site at http://www.gilardi.com/
If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form no later than June 22, 2011. If you are a Class Member and
did not timely and validly exclude yourself in accordance with the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action mailed to former Intermix
shareholders in November and December 2009, you will be bound by
any Judgment entered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and expenses
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiff's Lead
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel no later than April 21, 2011 in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will
not share in the Settlement Fund but you will nevertheless be
bound by the Judgment of the Court.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
Claim Form, may be made to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
ITRON INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Itron,
Inc. securities between the period of April 28, 2010 and
Feb. 16, 2011, inclusive.
Itron provides products and services for the energy and water
markets worldwide. Plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain
of its executive officers issued false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly
recognized revenue on a contract due to an extended warranty
obligation; (2) the Company's revenue and financial results were
overstated during the Class Period; (3) the Company's financial
results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP); (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On Feb. 16, 2011, Itron announced it was restating its financial
results for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and
Sept. 30, 2010, to correct improperly recognized revenue on a
contract due to an extended warranty obligation. The Company's
restatement reduced total revenue for the first nine months of
2010 by $6.1 million, and both GAAP and non-GAAP diluted earnings
per share were reduced by $0.11 over this same period. On this
news, Itron shares declined $6.33 per share, to close on
Feb. 17, 2011, at $57.29 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Itron during the
Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Itron shares
during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction
or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to
serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than April 25, 2011.
A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.
If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Itron
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com
Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer
and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for
its clients.
You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.
Contact: Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (877) 779-1414
Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com/
JA SOLAR: Settles Securities Class Action for $4.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. on Feb. 24 disclosed that it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class
action lawsuits, Lee R. Ellenburg III, et al. v. JA Solar Holdings
Co., Ltd. et al, pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, initially filed on December 3,
2008, and later consolidated by order of the court dated April 17,
2009.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, a sum of $4.5 million
(less any award of attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
class that may be approved by the Court) will be made available to
shareholders who may qualify for a distribution under the
settlement. As part of the settlement, the plaintiff has agreed
to dismiss the action and drop all claims against JA Solar and the
Individual Defendants. The settlement, which is not final until
the class receives notice of the settlement and the Court grants
final approval of the settlement terms, is within the limits of
the Company's D&O policy.
The Court has issued preliminary approval of the settlement, and
notices of settlement will be issued to eligible shareholders.
Shareholders will be offered an opt-out period, and the Court has
set June 24, 2011, as the hearing date for final approval of the
settlement.
The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability and
the Company denies specifically all of the allegations in the
consolidated complaint and any misconduct in connection with the
issuance of its securities. However, the Company has determined
that continued litigation will be both costly and distracting and,
accordingly, has elected to settle the case.
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq:JASO) is one of the world's
largest manufacturers of high-performance solar cells and solar
power products.
KANSAS CITY CLUBS: Sued for Discriminating Against Black Men
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, four black men claim businesses in Kansas City's
popular Power & Light entertainment district enforce dress codes
so selectively against African Americans that the district has
come to be known as the "Power & White District." The class
claims that white men wearing identical clothing to black men are
admitted, while black men are turned away.
"Defendant has been aware of hundreds of complaints by African-
American patrons to its Kansas City development: 'Power and Light
District' and, instead of seriously addressing these issues, has
instead chosen to consider this documented treatment of African-
Americans as an 'unnecessary distraction,'" the complaint states.
"This purposeful exclusion has led some to dub this district the
'Power and White District'. Indeed, at least two African-
Americans were denied entry to KCLive! and told to visit other
black oriented clubs in the city."
The plaintiffs say the dress code is unfairly applied, based upon
race.
Three plaintiffs -- Robert Jackson, Kirk Proctor and Jerome Porter
-- say they were allowed into the district on Aug. 28, 2009 but
denied entry into the Maker's Mark bar and lounge because of their
baggy clothing, though white people who were dressed similarly
were allowed in.
Plaintiff Marcus McMiller claims he was denied entry into the
district on Sept. 23, 2008 for his dress, though similarly dressed
whites were allowed in.
Messrs. Jackson, Proctor and Porter said they were assaulted by a
security guard while trying to leave Maker's Mark peacefully.
"After the security guard told Mr. Proctor that his shirt was
'excessively long' Mr. Proctor told the security guard that
KCLive! was excessively racist," the complaint states. "The
security guard then began shoving the gentlemen toward the Walnut
street exit.
"The gentlemen did not push the guard back and continued to try to
leave the premises. The gentlemen headed toward the Grand Street
exit. Then, the guard forcefully shoved Mr. Jackson extremely
hard about 10-15 ft. into a table and barstool."
Mr. McMiller says he tried to enter KCLive! with his wife but was
stopped because his necklace was too long. After he told the
security guard he would take it to his car, he was told his shorts
were too long.
"Mr. McMiller identified two individuals, including a white male,
who had on the same style shorts that Mr. McMiller was wearing,"
the complaint states. "Mr. McMiller asked the guard if the
Caucasian man was properly dressed and the guard stated 'yep.'
"Mr. McMiller asked the guard what the difference between he and
the Caucasian gentleman wearing the same style shorts was and the
guard replied 'He's in and you're not'.
"At that time, although Mr. McMiller had not raised his voice,
several security guards surrounded Mr. Miller and made it clear to
him that he was not going to be allowed in despite the fact that
he violated no policies or rules. On Mr. McMiller's way out of
the KCLive! area, he saw an African-American guard, also an agent
for defendants, and asked the guard 'why do they do people like
that?' and the guard stated 'they don't want blacks in there, it
ain't for us.'"
The plaintiffs claim KCLive's discriminatory policies were
revealed by a tester group sent by the City of Kansas City after
it received numerous complaints. The testers included 11 men:
whites, blacks and Hispanics.
"The tester group was sent to KCLive! on September 18-19th, 2009
after 9:30 p.m. on both nights," the complaint states. "Wearing
garments that did not violate the City's Ordinance, the results of
the test showed that: a. The Caucasian individuals were not denied
entry at all; b. The African-American individuals were denied
entry four times; and c. The Hispanic individuals were denied
entry three times.
"The reasons provided to the African-American and Hispanics were:
a. Shirt too long; b. Sleeves too long; c. Shorts too baggy; d.
Shirt too baggy; e. Shorts too long.
"However, the KCLive! dress code does not restrict the length of
shirttails, length of sleeves or the length of shorts. As such,
the reasons provided were a pretext for the real reason for
denial: discrimination."
The plaintiffs claim KCLive's discriminatory policies extend to
entertainment. Of the 27 acts that were scheduled in 2010, there
were no African-American acts and only two of the groups contained
one African-American member.
The class seeks an injunction and at least $5 million in damages
for violations of the Civil Rights Act.
The plaintiffs filed a previous federal class action in August
2010. The complaint was dismissed on Feb. 16 due to improper
service.
A copy of the Complaint in Proctor, et al. v. The Cordish
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00200 (W.D. Mo.) (Fenner,
J.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/24/WhitePower.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
WILLIAMSON LAW FIRM, LLC
218 Delaware St., Suite 207
Kansas City, Mo 64105
Telephone: (816) 256-4150
E-mail: l.williamson@williamsonfirm.com
KERN COUNTY, CA: Strip-Search Class Action Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crosby Shaterian, writing for 23ABC, reports that the Kern County
court on Feb. 23 granted preliminary approval of a $7 million
class action settlement against the Kern County Sheriff's
Department, according to Julia White, senior paralegal of Litt
Estuar and Kitson LLP.
In a class action, one or more people sue on behalf of a group of
people who have similar claims -- the class members. One court
then resolves the issues for all class members, except for those
who exclude themselves from the class.
The lawsuit was filed March 27, 2007 on behalf of those
individuals who had been strip-searched and body-cavity-searched
in the Kern County Jails in two different categories, Ms. White
said.
The settlement covers former inmates who were strip-searched after
having been ordered released by a court, and those who were strip-
searched in a group without any privacy, Ms. White said.
Instead of continuing with the case, both sides agreed to a
settlement, according to court documents.
Before the settlement agreement becomes final and binding on the
parties, the court shall hold a fairness hearing to determine
whether to enter the final order of approval.
According to court documents, a person who was subjected for the
first time during the class period (between March 27, 2005, and
Oct. 1, 2007) to a Kern County strip search after a court ordered
him or her to be released from all pending charges, and the person
was in fact entitled to immediate release based on that order,
will receive a payment of $1,500.
According to court documents, a person who was subjected for a
second time or more during the class period (between March 27,
2005, and Oct. 1, 2007) to a Kern County strip search after a
court ordered him or her to be released from all pending charges,
and the person was in fact entitled to immediate release based on
that order, will receive a payment of $750 in addition to the
$1,500 for the first strip-search. But if someone was strip
searched after being ordered released more than two times during
the class period, they will not receive additional money for those
searches.
In addition, the agreement provides for the following separate
payment by defendants of settlement administration fees.
Separate payment by defendants of a total of $90,000 to the three
individuals, or $30,000 each, who were named plaintiff and class
representatives, and whose individual damages could be assessed
prior to settlement.
These plaintiffs will receive more under the settlement than other
class members because of the role that they played in the
litigation, and because of individualized damages determinations
made in their cases.
The court will finally approve whether to allow this amount or a
different (but not higher) amount.
An award of attorneys' fees, to be separately paid by the
defendants, in the amount of $2 million, subject to the final
approval of the court, and costs of litigation not to exceed
$65,000.
As a result of this case, the Kern County Jail no longer engages
in routine strip searches in groups or of those who are ordered by
a court to be released, and are entitled to immediate release.
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Gainesville-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Koppers, Inc., continues to
defend itself from a class action lawsuit in Florida related to
its sale of a utility pole treatment plant to Beazer East, Inc.,
according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.
Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from 1988 until its closure late in 2009. The property
upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located was sold
by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in the first quarter of 2010.
In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, by
residents of Gainesville, Florida which named Koppers Inc., Beazer
East and Cabot Corporation, Inc. as defendants. In October 2010,
an amended class action complaint was filed which added the
Company and Beazer Limited as defendants and dropped Cabot
Corporation as a defendant. On December 6, 2010, the court denied
class certification and on January 11, 2011 the plaintiffs' filed
a notice to voluntarily dismiss the case. This motion was granted
on January 18, 2011. The plaintiffs had alleged that their
property has been contaminated by various toxic substances.
In November 2010, another class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Aluchua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in
neighborhoods adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant
in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Inc., Beazer East and
several other parties as defendants. The complaint alleges that
chemicals and contaminants from the plant have contaminated
plaintiffs' properties, have caused property damage and have
placed residents and owners of the properties at an elevated risk
of exposure to the alleged chemicals. The complaint seeks damages
for diminution in property values and injunctive relief. The case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida in December 2010, and plaintiffs have
requested that the case be remanded back to state court.
The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.
LABRANCHE & CO: Directors Sued Over Sale of Company to Cowen Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley L. Moskal, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Labranche & Co., Inc., et al., Case No.
650472/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 22, 2011),
accuses Labranche's directors of violating applicable law by
directly breaching and/or aiding breaches of fiduciary duties of
loyalty and due care owed to Labranche's public shareholders
arising out of the agreement to sell the Company to Cowen Group,
Inc.
On Feb. 16, 2011, LaBranche entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger pursuant to which Cowen will acquire all of LaBranche's
outstanding shares of common stock for approximately
$192.8 million, after which LaBranche will merge into a Cowen-
controlled entity. The proposed transaction has been approved by
LaBranche's Board of Directors. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, LaBranche shareholders will receive upon closing a
fixed ratio of 0.9980 of a share of Cowen Class A common stock for
each outstanding share of LaBranche common stock. The total Cowen
shares to be issued to LaBranche shareholders will represent
approximately 35.1% of the combined company and 33.8% percent on a
fully diluted basis.
The plaintiffs say that the offer price represents a mere 16%
premium to LaBranche's closing price on Feb. 16, 2011, which is
inadequate considering the Company's promising revenue growth and
the recent cost cutting and restructuring initiative. Further,
according to the plaintiffs, the proposed transaction is the
product of "a flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale
of LaBranche to Cowen on terms preferential to Cowen, but
detrimental to plaintiffs and the other public stockholders of
LaBranche."
The Merger Agreement also contains terms designed to favor the
proposed transaction and deter alternative bids.
The Agreement, the plaintiffs state, includes a "no solicitation"
provision barring the Board and any Company personnel from
initiating or soliciting any offer that attempts to procure a
price in excess of Cowen's offer price.
In addition, should an unsolicited bidder appear, the Company must
notify Cowen of the bidder's offer within 24 hours from receiving
the alternative proposal. Thereafter, should the Board determine
that the unsolicited offer is superior, Cowen is granted five
business days to amend the terms of the Agreement to make a
counter-offer so that the competing bid no longer constitutes a
superior proposal.
Moreover, the Company has agreed to pay an improper termination
fee of $6,250,000 payable to Cowen in certain circumstances,
including if the Company terminates the Merger Agreement because
the Board has determined to pursue another alternative superior
offer. Furthermore, in an attempt to "lock-up" the proposed
transaction, certain executive officers of LaBranche, concurrently
with the execution of the Agreement on Feb. 16, 2011, have entered
into a Voting Agreement with the Company, pursuant to which they
each agreed, among other things, to vote the shares of LaBranche
Common Stock held by them in favor of the proposed transaction and
against any other proposal or offer to acquire LaBranche.
Certain members of the Company's Board likewise secured ongoing
Board positions with Cowen. Upon consummation of the Agreement,
individual defendant Michael LaBranche, the Company's Chairman of
the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, will join
Cowen's Board of Directors and will be appointed a Senior Managing
Director. In addition, individual defendant Katherine Elizabeth
Dietze, a director of the Company, will join Cowen's Board of
Directors at closing, and William "Chip" Burke, III, Chief
Operating Officer of LaBranche, will join Cowen as a Senior
Managing Director. "Thus, these directors will get the best of
both worlds -- lump sum cash payments due to the acceleration of
their under-the-water equity interests and keeping their jobs."
Shareholders, however, will not receive anything "similar in the
way of material benefits."
LaBranche, a Delaware corporation, operates, through its
subsidiaries, as a registered broker-dealer. It operates as
market-maker in options, futures, and exchange-traded funds (ETF)
traded on various exchanges.
Cowen Group, also a Delaware corporation, is a publicly owned
asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the
firm provides alternative investment management, investment
banking, research, and sales and trading services for its clients.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
Daniella Quitt, Esq.
HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 935-7400
E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
dquitt@hfesq.com
- and -
Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
Henry J. Young, Esq.
Loren R. Ungar, Esq.
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 225-2677
E-mail: pw@weiserlawfirm.com
hjy@weiserlawfirm.com
lru@weiserlawfirm.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
519 Allegheny Building
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
MEMC ELECTRONIC: MFRA Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter Minneapolis
Firefighters' Relief Association v. MEMC Electronic Materials
Inc., et al., from the dismissal of their consolidated class
action complaint remains pending, according to MEMC's February 22,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
On September 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association asserting
claims against MEMC and Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's former Chief
Executive Officer. On October 10, 2008, a substantially similar
putative class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Donald
Jameson against MEMC, Mr. Gareeb and Ken Hannah, MEMC's former
Chief Financial Officer and currently MEMC's Executive Vice
President and President - Solar Materials. These cases
purportedly are brought on behalf of all persons who acquired
shares of MEMC's common stock between June 13, 2008 and July 23,
2008, inclusive. Both complaints allege that, during the Class
Period, MEMC failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
MEMC's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating MEMC's stock price in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs further
allege that Messrs. Gareeb and Hannah are subject to liability
under Section 20(a) of the Act as control persons of MEMC.
Plaintiffs seek certification of the putative class, unspecified
compensatory damages, interest and costs, as well as ancillary
relief. On December 12, 2008, these actions were consolidated,
and the Court appointed Mahendra A. Patel as lead plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 23,
2009. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties by June
24, 2009. On March 8, 2010, the Court dismissed the consolidated
class action complaint with prejudice. On March 31, 2010,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On June 15, 2010, plaintiff filed
his appellant brief. On July 15, 2010, defendants filed their
appellee brief. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on July 29, 2010.
A date for oral argument has not been set.
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Still Faces "Jones" Class Action Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit captioned Jerry Jones v. MEMC
Electronic Materials Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.
On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan between
September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint
asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its directors,
employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full
disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in
MEMC's stock and that the Company's stock should not have been
made available as an investment alternative in the Plan.
On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock, equitable relief and
an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun. The Company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the
motion to dismiss. The MEMC defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of
June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of
supplemental authority and corresponding responses.
On October 18, 2010, the court granted the MEMC defendants' motion
for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the MEMC
defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the
issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties
supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties filed
briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010, and the
parties each subsequently filed additional notices of supplemental
authority.
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Moose Collisions
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a man calling on the provincial government
to dramatically reduce the number of moose in Newfoundland and
Labrador says the number of road collisions with the animals is
alarming.
Eugene Nippard said an access to information request for numbers
from the RCMP found that there were 741 moose-vehicle collisions
in the province in 2010 -- twice the number that was reported a
decade ago.
"The numbers being doubled like we're seeing. Something has to be
done, and we can't wait," said Mr. Nippard who is with a group
called the Save Our People Action Committees.
Mr. Nippard supports a proposed class-action lawsuit to hold the
provincial government responsible for injuries due to moose
collisions.
Lawyer Ches Crosbie has filed an application to have the lawsuit
certified in St. John's.
"Wildlife practices of the defendant have allowed the moose
population on the Island to reach numbers in the range of 120,000
to 200,000 . . . multiplying the danger of moose collisions for
users of the highways," says a statement of claim filed Jan. 10.
Mr. Nippard said a map of the province that will show where most
moose accidents occur is also being created.
Earlier this year, provincial officials said about 700 moose-
vehicle accidents are reported annually across Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Moose aren't native to the island of Newfoundland. Wildlife
officials estimate that, since they were introduced to the
province more than a century ago, their population has grown to
about 120,000 animals.
Last fall, more than 20,000 people signed the action committee's
petition calling on the provincial government to do more to
control moose.
In March, the province announced it would increase the number of
moose hunting licences it issues this coming fall.
NYSE EURONEXT: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Deutsche Borse
----------------------------------------------------
William Steiner, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NYSE Euronext, et al., Case No. 650460/2011 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty. February 22, 2011, accuses NYSE Euronext's
directors and officers of breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public shareholders in connection with their approval of
the acquisition of the Company by Deutsche Borse AG.
Pursuant to the business combination agreement, announced Feb. 15,
2011, DB and NYSE will combine, with each NYSE share converted
into 0.4700 of a share of the new company and each share of DB
converted into one share of the new equity in a transaction valued
at approximately $10 billion. Following the proposed acquisition,
NYSE shareholders will own approximately 40% of the combined
company, while DB shareholders will hold approximately 60%. DB
will have the right to appoint 10 of the 17 directors and NYSE
only 7 of the directors of the combined company. The proposed
acquisition, according to the plaintiff, "provides no meaningful
premium to NYSE shareholders."
Based upon NYSE's closing price on Feb. 7, 2011, and DB's closing
price the same day, NYSE shareholders will receive stock valued at
approximately $36.86 -- at best a 9% premium. The suit alleges
that NYSE's CEO and director Duncan L. Niederauer, among other
substantial insider benefits, will be appointed CEO and a member
of the board of the combined company, and will receive "millions
of dollars" in salary, awards and perquisites.
The Complaint says that the members of the board of directors of
NYSE Euronext also agreed to a set of preclusive deal protections
to seal the deal. These include: (i) a no solicitation provision;
(ii) a matching rights provision; and (iii) a termination fee that
will obligate the Company to pay $340 million, if it accepts a
superior offer.
NYSE is a leading global operator of financial markets and
provider of innovative trading technologies. With approximately
8,000 listed shares (excluding European Structured Products),
NYSE's equities markets -- the New York Stock Exchyange, NYSE
Amex, NYSE Alternext and NYSE Arca -- represent one-third of the
world's equities trading. NYSE also operates NYSE Liffe, one of
the leading European derivatives businesses and the world's
second-largest derivatives business by value of trading.
Defendant DB, an "Aktiengesellschaft" organized undeer the laws of
the Federal Republic of Germany, operates the Frankfurt Exchange.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
Nicholas W. Moyne, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
nmoyne@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Emily Komlossy, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
3595 Sheridan St., Suite 206
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 239-0280
E-mail: Ekomlossy@faruqilaw.com
OASIS LEGAL: 11th Circuit Dismisses Rucker Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Beverly B. Martin remanded a district court ruling in the
action, John Rucker, Carolyn Williams, Wanda Anderson, Melanie
House, Thomas R. Prince, Jr., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Oasis Legal Finance, L.L.C., Global
Financial Credit, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 09-14695, with
instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice based on
improper venue. Oasis filed the appeal.
Oasis provides "non-recourse funding" to plaintiffs involved in
pending litigation. Rucker et al. are Alabama residents who
entered into agreements with Oasis, where the residents sold an
interest in the proceeds of their pending claims to Oasis in
exchange for a fixed sum. A forum selection clause in the Oasis
agreements requires all disputes between parties to be litigated
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The purported
class action was commenced in March 2009 by the plaintiffs in the
Northern District of Alabama, seeking a declaratory judgment that
the Oasis agreements were void under Alabama law as illegal
gambling contracts.
A copy of Judge Martin's Feb. 14, 2011, ruling is available
at http://is.gd/U8tAsQfrom Leagle.com.
PIER 1: Recalls 400,000 Golden Tea Lights
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pier 1 Imports(R), of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 370,000 Golden tea lights sold with ornament tea
light holders in United States and 30,000 tea lights in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.
The flame from the tea lights can burn with a high flame, posing a
fire hazard.
The firm has received four reports of high flames. In one of
these incidents, the consumer suffered a minor burn.
This recall involves all tea lights in golden tin cups sold in
sets of five with either the Red Ornament Tea Light Holder (SKU
2473959) or the White Ornament Tea Light Holder (SKU 2473961).
The SKU number is found on the packaging. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11144.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Pier 1 Imports stores from September 2010 through January 2011 for
between $2 and $8.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tea lights
and return them to their nearest Pier 1 Imports store to receive
new tea lights. For additional information, contact Pier 1
Imports at (800) 245-4595 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central
Time, Monday through Friday or visit Pier 1 Imports' Web site at
http://www.pier1.com/
PUBLICIS GROUPE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
"Viva La Difference!" celebrates the slogan for diversity at
Publicis Groupe, one of the world's "big four" advertising
conglomerates. But for women employed at Publicis, there may be a
"La Difference" but it gives them nothing to celebrate. A gender
hierarchy haunts Publicis. The company's diversity program
announces explicitly: ". . . every employee -- both male and
female -- has his or her place . . ." And at Publicis, a woman's
place is second place -- far removed from senior management
positions, almost all of which the company reserves for the men.
Of the 45,000 PR professionals employed by Publicis, women account
for approximately 70% of the staff and men for only 30%. Yet, men
dominate the senior management ranks throughout Publicis
worldwide; women hold only approximately 15 percent of leadership
positions.
Seeking to shatter the glass ceiling at Publicis Groupe,
Monique da Silva filed a class action gender discrimination
lawsuit on Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York on behalf of herself and other female public
relations employees in the U.S. who were denied equal pay,
promotion and other employment opportunities by Publicis and its
member, MSLGroup. Ms. da Silva, a former Global Healthcare
Director for MSLGroup, worked for Publicis' leading public
relations network for 13 years.
The Feb. 24 filing seeks certification of a class of female
employees who worked in MSLGroup in the United States from 2008
until the date of judgment. Ms. da Silva and the class seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, front pay,
compensatory, nominal and punitive damages and legal expenses in
an amount of at least $100 million.
The Plaintiff and the class are represented in this matter by
David Sanford, Janette Wipper and Deepika Bains of Sanford Wittels
& Heisler, LLP. The firm recently secured the largest jury award
in the U.S. in an employment discrimination case in May 2010 when
a jury returned a verdict of $253 million in compensatory and
punitive damage against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
"Women began dominating the public relations industry in the
1980's; but, even three decades later, they have had little
success in advancing to the highest levels of management at
Publicis Groupe," said Janette Wipper, Class Counsel in the case.
"While a woman might be able to reach the Director level at
Publicis, it is nearly impossible for her to advance beyond that
level no matter how well she performs."
After the reorganization of the MSLGroup beginning in 2008, the
company promoted and hired more men at a disproportionately higher
rate, and the few women hired through the reorganization had no
children. And the company is fully aware of this issue -- in
their 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, when
identifying the "number of women in senior management positions,"
Publicis actually refers to its "Management Board" which is
"composed of 5 men." Without acknowledging a problem with its
underrepresentation of women in management, Publicis admits that
its "agencies have already had discrimination claims brought
against them (especially in the USA)."
Publicis also wrongly terminated Ms. da Silva and other female
employees immediately after their return from maternity leave,
which the Complaint characterizes as typical of the corporation's
discrimination against working mothers. At the same time Publicis
terminated Ms. da Silva, Publicis also forced other women out of
the Company under similar circumstances.
"Being the fourth largest communications group in the world,
Publicis sets the industry standard," said David Sanford, Counsel
for Plaintiff and the class. "As long as Publicis and its members
continue to allow such blatant gender discrimination, particularly
in terms of its glass ceiling, other PR agencies will follow suit.
Publicis needs to improve in order for the industry as a whole to
do so."
"The obstacles that come with being a female employee at Publicis
are exacerbated when a female employee becomes a mother. At that
point, females face more than a glass ceiling -- which often
causes them to leave the company voluntarily, or they face
termination," Deepika Bains said, Counsel for Plaintiff and the
class.
Defendant Publicis Groupe, based in Paris, France, employs
approximately 45,000 professionals. In 2009, its revenues were
more than EUR4.5 billion ($6.2 billion).
Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex
corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of
individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United
States. The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.
QUICKEN LOANS: Owner Defends Company Culture in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Duggan, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
Quicken Loans founder and Chairman Dan Gilbert defended his
company's culture and business model on Feb. 24 during sometimes
heated exchanges during a jury trial over Quicken's overtime
policy.
Mr. Gilbert was confronted with e-mails he wrote that encouraged
staff to sell loans during Thanksgiving, questioned peoples' use
of time off and equated work at Quicken to the birth of a child.
He brushed off the communications as being either out of context
or part of his overall motivational style.
The questioning was part of the case put on by attorneys
representing more than 300 former Quicken employees in a class-
action suit before Judge Stephen Murphy III in the U.S. District
Court's Eastern District in Detroit.
At issue is a portion of the labor law that spells out overtime.
Specifically, an exemption from overtime requirements is given for
financial services employees who have discretion to make decisions
and whose duties are primarily office-related and focused on
clients of the company.
But if the job duties are primarily sales-oriented, the exemption
does not apply, Paul Lukas an attorney with Minneapolis-based
Nichols Kaster Attorneys at Law, has argued on behalf of the
former Quicken loan officers.
Quicken's attorneys, Jeff and Mayer Morganroth of Morganroth and
Morganroth PLLC in Birmingham, have argued that the employees are
not due overtime and that their commissions and bonuses are far
greater than any overtime pay.
Mr. Gilbert echoed that idea during testimony.
"The compensation they are given, with bonuses and commissions,
dwarfs overtime," he said.
Mr. Gilbert also said people working as telemarketers handle the
cold-calling and clerical duties of taking down the basic
information from potential clients. Those people are paid
overtime, he said, and pave the way for loan officers to be more
efficient in working with the loans themselves.
The loan officers, he said, are not required to be paid overtime
because most of their time is spent handling the closing of a
loan.
"They are the quarterback for the loan as it goes through the
system," Mr. Gilbert said. "Two hours out of a day are spent on
the phone; the rest of the time is spent on the financial side,
working with the loan, recommending loan products and ensuring
that the loan goes through.
"It's a very detailed and complex process. It's not like selling
a hot dog or even a television. You have to know your stuff
because it's possibly the most important financial product a
person will use in their lifetime."
The exchanges between Mr. Gilbert and Lukas were, at times, heated
-- at one point drawing a warning from Judge Murphy.
Mr. Lukas asked whether a loan officer is more analogous to a
pitcher, who only spends a short amount of time throwing the ball
as it leaves his hand and reaches the catcher's mitt.
Mr. Gilbert responded with a veiled mention to his legal team's
allegation that Mr. Lukas and his legal partners have filed the
case as a way for former employees to win money in a settlement
after they've left the company.
"I'll tell you what it's not, and that's being like lawyers who
spend all their time selling a case to a group of plaintiffs
rather than handling their lawyerly duties," Mr. Gilbert said.
"Is that a shot at our legal team?" Mr. Lukas asked.
"Stop it," Judge Murphy interjected. "Get back on track."
During Mr. Gilbert's testimony, which lasted most of the day,
Mr. Lukas questioned the Quicken chairman on his company's
business practices. In his opening argument for the case, Lukas
painted Quicken as being a company where the loan officers are
really salespeople working in an environment where they are forced
to sell at all times and are chastised for working less than 60-
to 70-hour weeks.
He pointed to Mr. Gilbert's e-mail telling employees to have a
nice Thanksgiving, but adding: "How many mortgages will you sell
at your Thanksgiving dinner?"
Mr. Gilbert said friends and family of employees are given a
discount on loans and are encouraged to promote the products.
"That was kind of tongue-in-cheek," Mr. Gilbert said. "The rates
had come down, and we had some great products, so there was some
truth to it."
Mr. Gilbert also responded to an e-mail Mr. Lukas displayed in
which Mr. Gilbert equated the time people spend at Quicken as
being a time in their life that "passes in a moment but leaves a
memory that lasts forever," similar to the birth of a child or
hitting a home run in the bottom of the ninth inning in a big
game.
"I send e-mails like this from time to time," Mr. Gilbert said.
"I've had fun with them. They're meant to motivate people."
The case, in its third week, is expected to last four to six
weeks.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Petition for Review of Reversal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for review of the California Court of Appeals' decision
reversing a trial court order which granted RadioShack
Corporation's second motion for class decertification in the
lawsuit captioned Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation remains
pending, according to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
On October 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
the Company's second Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit of Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation. Plaintiffs'
claims that the Company violated California's wage and hour laws
relating to meal periods were originally certified as a class
action on February 8, 2006. The Company's first Motion for
Decertification of the class was denied on August 29, 2007. After
a California Appellate Court's favorable decision in the similar
case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the
Company again sought class decertification. Based on the
California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker, the trial court
granted the second motion. The plaintiffs in Brookler have
appealed this ruling. Due to the unsettled nature of California
state law regarding the employers' standard of liability for meal
periods, the Company and the Brookler plaintiffs requested that
the California appellate court stay its ruling on the plaintiffs'
appeal of the class decertification ruling, pending the California
Supreme Court's decision in Brinker. The appellate court denied
this joint motion and then heard oral arguments for this matter on
August 5, 2010. On August 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court's decertification of the class, and the Company's
Petition for Rehearing was denied on September 14, 2010. On
September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Petition for Review with
the California Supreme Court, which is currently pending. The
outcome of this action is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of
this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the
period in which any such resolution is recorded.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Settles Missouri Data Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached with Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T, to resolve a case filed on Nov. 13, 2009
involving the acquisition of databases of information from the
Missouri Department of Revenue, which contained personal
information of licensed drivers in Missouri. Plaintiffs claimed
that the Defendant's alleged actions violated the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act. AT&T denies any violation of the DPPA or any
liability.
As part of the settlement terms, AT&T will delete the data from
the Missouri Department of Revenue from its systems and that it
will not obtain the entire Mo DOR driver's license database from
Mo DOR in the future unless there is either: (i) a clarification
in the law, or (ii) statutory amendment further clarifying that
AT&T is allowed to obtain Mo DOR driver's license data in that
manner. AT&T also agrees to make a payment of $900,000.00, which
includes any Third Party Administration Costs, the costs of
Notice, Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees and Costs, Incentive
Awards to the named class representatives in the amount of
$1,500.00 each, and a donation of the remainder of the $900,000.00
to Legal Aid Western Missouri, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri,
Inc., Mid-Missouri Legal Services Corporation, Legal Services of
Southern Missouri.
Class members affected by this settlement are all persons whose
personal information and/or highly restricted personal information
from their State of Missouri motor vehicle or driver's records, as
defined by 18 U.S.C. section 2725, was obtained, disclosed, or
used by AT&T from November 13, 2005 to the date of execution of
the Settlement Agreement.
A hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. in the U.S.
District Court Western District of Missouri, in Jefferson City to
determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
Attorney Mitch Burgess noted that class members may obtain more
information about the proposed settlement by contacting his law
firm, Burgess & Lamb, P.C., in Kansas City, Missouri or by
visiting the settlement Web site at
http://MissouriDPPAsettlement.com/
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a
motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs relating to an
order that its lawsuit would not be allowed to proceed as a class
action, according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.
In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex
Partners LP, Onex Corporation, and The Boeing Company alleging age
discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing
sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex. The complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas and seeks class-
action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
more than $1.5 billion in punitive damages. The Asset Purchase
Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages
resulting from the employment decisions that were made by the
Company with respect to former employees of Boeing Wichita, which
relate or allegedly relate to the involvement of, or consultation
with, employees of Boeing in such employment decisions. On June
30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted defendants' dispositive
motions, finding that the case should not be allowed to proceed as
a class action. The plaintiffs have asked the Court to reconsider
its ruling but the Court has not yet ruled on that motion.
Depending on the nature of that ruling, some of the plaintiffs
could possibly pursue individual claims or, could decide to appeal
the District Court's decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which could reverse the District
Court's June 30 ruling. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter. Management believes the
resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Harkness" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in an ERISA class action lawsuit against
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., pending in Kansas, according to
the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.
On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July 2007.
The defendants include Spirit Holdings, Spirit, the Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement Plan for the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit
(SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA
WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(IAM) Employees, along with The Boeing Company and Boeing
retirement and health plan entities. The named plaintiffs are
twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are
employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general contract
law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of similarly
situated individuals. The putative class consists of approximately
2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. The parties agreed to
class certification and are currently in the discovery process.
The sub-class members who have asserted claims against the Spirit
entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed
by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing
pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the
Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the
ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about
June 17, 2005. Although there are many claims in the suit, the
plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under
various theories, are (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed
to determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early
retirement "bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical
benefits that were allegedly triggered by their separation from
employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits
were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their
claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded
these individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing,
thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs seek a
declaration that they are entitled to the early retirement pension
benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that
the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of
contract claims and attorney fees.
Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to
indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may
incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the Asset
Purchase Agreement from the Boeing Acquisition. Spirit disputes
Boeing's position on indemnity. Management believes the resolution
of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.
STATE FARM MUTUAL: 7th Cir. Rejects Kartman Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Diana S. Sykes remanded the class action captioned as
Cynthia Kartman, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Defendants-
Appellants, Case No. 09-1725 (7th Cir.), back to the district
court and instructed the lower court to decertify the case.
State Farm issues homeowner's insurance providing coverage for
"accidental direct physical loss to property," including damage
resulting from windstorms or hail. Kartman et al. brought a class
action on behalf of about 7,000 State Farm policyholders, alleging
that State Farm engaged in pervasive undercompensation of roof-
damage claims stemming from an April 2006 hailstorm that struck
Indiana.
The class action sought an injunction that would require State
Farm to reinspect all class members' roofs pursuant to a "uniform,
reasonable and objective" standard for evaluating hail damage.
The Seventh Circuit held that there is no contract or tort-based
duty requiring State Farm to use a particular standard for
assessing hail damage.
A copy of Judge Sykes' Feb. 14, 2011, ruling is available
at http://is.gd/TP3Gqefrom Leagle.com.
TENNCARE: Judge Seeks Speedy Resolution of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Anita Wadhwani, writing for The Tennessean, reports that a federal
judge on Feb. 23 pledged a speedy resolution in a 13-year-old
class-action lawsuit over whether Tennessee is providing adequate
health care to 750,000 children on TennCare.
The case affects more than a third of all children in Tennessee,
and it has stalled without resolution for years through appeals,
battles over e-mails, state documents, witnesses and allegations
of improper behavior by two of its prior judges.
Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman Jr. -- the third and latest judge
assigned to the case in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee -- told lawyers at a hearing that he was a
practical man and impatient with delays.
He suggested that the state's attorneys and children's lawyers
take a day to come up with a plan of action in the case, while
outlining how he expects to rule if there's no meeting of the
minds.
"This case is 13 years old," Mr. Wiseman said. "From this point,
it's going to be expedited."
If attorneys for both sides can't agree on how the case will
proceed, Mr. Wiseman signaled that he was inclined to void parts
of a 1998 legal agreement that sets up complex standards governing
how medical care for TennCare children is to be provided.
A trial on unresolved issues could then start in as little as two
weeks.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice also has weighed in on
some of the legal issues, siding with children's attorneys to keep
the 1998 consent decree in force. The state wants the entire
agreement set aside, arguing that it has done everything required
of it.
The case, known as John B. after one of the original plaintiffs,
is a class-action lawsuit first filed in 1998 by attorneys with
the Tennessee Justice Center, representing children on TennCare.
The suit claimed that children weren't getting access to regular
medical and dental checkups or necessary medical care under
Tennessee's Medicaid program, TennCare. Early and periodic
screening, and diagnostic and treatment services are federal
requirements under the Medicaid program.
The state, the federal court in Nashville and children's lawyers
settled the case with a legal agreement known as a "consent
decree," which outlines the requirements the state must follow.
Children affected include those in poor families, children with
disabilities and others in state custody, including those in
foster care.
Among other things, the state agreed to make sure that 80 percent
of children on TennCare get regular checkups and medical and
dental care. It also agreed to regularly do outreach, advertise
its services and ensure there were enough doctors (even in remote
areas of the state) to treat children.
For children in state custody, the agreement went even further,
requiring the state to guarantee that 100% of those kids get
regular checkups and medical care.
Disputes stalled case
State lawyers sought to dismiss the case in 2006, arguing that
TennCare was complying with the consent decree and that should
invoke a "sunset provision."
Lawyers for children affected, however, said the state wasn't in
compliance.
Since then, disputes over state data, questions of judicial
impartiality and other squabbles have stalled the case's progress.
And in the meantime, the issue of whether children on TennCare are
receiving adequate health care remains unresolved.
Washington, D.C., attorney Michael Kirk, a lawyer hired by the
state to argue its case, said Wednesday that the state is meeting
the screening goals of the legal agreement and can prove it has
screened 80% of children in the program for the past two years.
"There's not a single allegation" of kids not getting screenings
who asked for it, said Kirk, who argues that the state was
diligent in providing care whenever it was sought. The legal
agreement itself defining how the state must operate has
ultimately become the chief problem, he said.
"When there's a 54-page consent decree with a whole bunch of
regulations about the 'how,' you . . . start to litigate,"
Mr. Kirk said.
"I'm going to stop that," Mr. Wiseman responded from the court
bench.
Later, the judge addressed lawyers representing TennCare children.
"How is it now?" Mr. Wiseman asked them. "Have we made any
progress or are they (the state) still the bad guys?"
Gordon Bonnyman, executive director of Nashville-based Tennessee
Justice Center, said: "We think there are serious and legitimate
questions about whether kids are getting the services to which
they are entitled. The state is not the bad guy. It's a system
whose dysfunction is evidenced by the fact that good people . . .
cannot make the system work."
Mr. Wiseman indicated that he was ruling from the bench on several
immediate legal matters, including setting aside the requirement
that the state meet an 80% rule for reaching children. Reached
after the hearing, Mr. Wiseman responded through his clerk that
his comments "were not a ruling. He just told counsel" how he was
thinking. The hearing was set to resume at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 23.
UBS FINANCIAL: Sued in New York Over "Fictitious Storage Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in Manhattan claims UBS Financial Services and affiliates charged
investors "fictitious storage fees" for 26 years, for precious
metals it never bought, segregated or stored for them -- and
doubled the fictitious fees in that time.
UNITED STATES: FBI Sued in Calif. for Spying on Muslims
-------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, Muslims claim the FBI hired an "agent
provocateur" to infiltrate mosques and "indiscriminately collect
personal information on hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent
Muslim Americans in Southern California."
The class claims the agents had their snitch provide illegal drugs
to Muslims and snoop on their sex lives, and that the fruitless
"dragnet investigation" did not end until "members of the Muslim
communities of Southern California reported the informant to the
police because of his violent rhetoric, and ultimately obtained a
restraining order against him."
Represented by the ACLU and Council on American-Islam Relations,
the three named plaintiffs say the FBI's agent provocateur's
"violent rhetoric" about "jihad and armed conflict" disrupted
their religious practice.
The class claims the FBI has been profiling Muslim communities
since Sept. 11, 2001, and requested interviews with hundreds of
Muslims, "often by sending FBI agents to appear unannounced" to
their homes or workplaces, to question them about religious
practices.
This despite the fact that in 2006, the FBI's Assistant Director
for the Los Angeles area, Stephen Tidwell, assured a Muslim group
that the FBI would never send an undercover informant to spy on
believers.
But in July 2006, FBI agents Kevin Armstrong and Paul Allen
directed undercover informant Craig Monteilh to infiltrate the
mosques in Southern California and paid him $6,000 to $11,000 per
month create video and audio recordings of Muslim activities, the
plaintiffs claim. They add that Mr. Monteilh was provided with
"sophisticated audio and video recording devices."
Mr. Monteilh then publicly declared his Muslim faith during a
prayer in front of hundreds of members of the Islamic Center of
Irvine (ICOI), and immersed himself in the religion, the class
says.
Mr. Monteilh went to 10 mosques in the area to interact with
followers, and attended up to four mosques in one day.
Messrs. Armstrong and Allen ordered him to "gather as much
information on as many people in the Muslim community as
possible," the class claims.
Messrs. Armstrong and Allen told Mr. Monteilh "that they could get
in a lot of trouble if people found out what surveillance they had
in the mosques, which Monteilh understood to mean that they did
not have warrants," the complaint states. It continues:
"Nonetheless, Agent Armstrong told Monteilh that the FBI had every
mosque in the area under surveillance -- including both the ones
he went to and the ones he didn't."
Halfway through the 75-page complaint, the class claims: "Agents
Armstrong and Allen were well aware that many of the surveillance
tools that they had given Monteilh were being used illegally.
Agent Armstrong once told Monteilh that while warrants were needed
to conduct most surveillance for criminal investigations,
'National security is different. Kevin is God.' Agent Armstrong
also told Monteilh more than once that they did not always need
warrants, and that even if they could not use the information in
court because they did not have a warrant, it was still useful to
have the information. He said that they could attribute the
information to a confidential source if they needed to."
The class claims: "Apart from the electronic surveillance program,
Agents Armstrong and Allen also directed their surveillance at
people on the basis of their religion by instructing Monteilh to
look for and identify to them people with certain religious
backgrounds or traits, such as anyone who studied fiqh (a strand
of Islamic law concerning morals and etiquette), who was an imam
or sheikh; who went on Hajj; who played a leadership role at a
mosque or in the Muslim community; who expressed sympathies to
mujahideen; who was a 'white' Muslim; or who went to an Islamic
school overseas."
They also told Mr. Monteilh to look particularly for people
attracted younger Muslims, and to discuss extreme Islamic
attitudes and leaders to observe people's reactions, the class
claims.
Mr. Monteilh was ordered to work under cover as a "fitness
consultant," and, following orders, he "worked out with Muslims in
various gyms around the Orange County area and elicited a wide
variety of information, including travel plans, political and
religious views," the class claims.
He collected names, phone numbers, email addresses and license
plate numbers of mosque members and turned them over to his
handlers, the class says.
The agents sought to collect incriminating information about
certain Muslims -- "such as immigration issues, sexual activity,
business problems, or crimes like drug use. Agents Armstrong and
Allen instructed Mr. Monteilh to pay attention to people's
problems, to talk about and record them, including marital
problems, business problems, and petty criminal issues. Agents
Armstrong and Allen on several occasions talked about different
individuals that they believed might be susceptible to rumors
about their sexual orientation, so that they could be persuaded to
become informants through the threat of such rumors being
started," the complaint states.
The agents told Mr. Monteilh that "everybody knows somebody," and
then "explained" what that meant: "They explained that if someone
is from Afghanistan, that meant that they would likely have some
distant member of their family or acquaintance who has some
connection with the Taliban. If they are from Lebanon, it might
be Hezbollah; if they are from Palestine, it might be Hamas. By
finding out what connections they might have to these terrorist
groups, no matter how distant, they could threaten the individuals
and pressure them to provide information, or could justify
additional surveillance.
"Agents Armstrong and Allen also instructed Monteilh to engage in
acts that would build his reputation as a devout Muslim who had
access to black market items. On one occasion, Agents Armstrong
and Allen instructed Monteilh to provide Vicodin to a person whose
father was sick in a foreign country. On another occasion, Agent
Allen instructed Monteilh to provide prescription anabolic
steroids to another two individuals to similarly further his
credibility, which he did."
In early 2007, the agents told Mr. Monteilh "to start asking more
pointedly about jihad and armed conflict, then to more openly
suggest his own willingness to engage in violence," according to
the complaint. "Pursuant to these instructions, in one-on-one
conversations, Monteilh began asking people about violent jihad,
expressing frustration over the oppression of Muslims around the
world, pressing them for their views, and implying that he might
be willing or able to take action.
"In about May 2007, on instructions from his handlers, Monteilh
told a number of individuals that he believed it was his duty as a
Muslim to take violence actions, and that he had access to
weapons. Many members of the Muslim community at ICOI then
reported these statements to community leaders, including Hussam
Ayloush. Ayloush both called the FBI to report the statements and
instructed the individuals who had heard the statements to report
them to the Irvine Police Department, which they did.
"As a community, ICOI also brought an action for a restraining
order against Monteilh to bar him from the mosque. A California
Superior Court granted the restraining order in June 2007."
Mr. Monteilh's identity was eventually revealed, "first in court
documents where the FBI and local law enforcement revealed his
role, and then through his own statements which were reported
widely in the press," the class claims.
Mr. Monteilh sued the FBI for $10 million in January 2010. As
Courthouse News reported at the time, Mr. Monteilh claims he "was
arrested in December 2007 and 'forced under the color of authority
by the FBI and its agents, to plead guilty to grand theft, suffer
a felony conviction, and endure sixteen months in prison for work
performed at the direction of the FBI.'" He also claimed that he
was endangered by being placed in the general population in prison
after it was revealed that he was an FBI snitch.
In the new class action, named plaintiff Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, an
imam with the Orange County Islamic Foundation, says that he can
no longer counsel congregants at the mosque because they fear
surveillance.
Mr. Fazaga claims that since having contact with Mr. Monteilh, he
"has also been subjected to secondary screening and searches upon
return to the U.S. from various international trips, being held up
between 45 minutes and three hours most times he travels."
The complaint states: "By targeting Muslims in the Orange County
and Los Angeles areas for surveillance because of their religion
and religious practice, the FBI's operation not only undermined
the trust between law enforcement and the Southern California
Muslim communities, it also violated the Constitution's
fundamental guarantee of government neutrality towards all
religions."
It adds that the 14-month "dragnet investigation did not result in
even a single conviction related to counterterrorism."
"Approximately 500,000 Muslims live in Southern California, more
than 120,000 of them in Orange County, making the area home to the
second-largest population of Muslims in the United States," the
complaint states.
The class demands damages from the FBI, its Director Robert
Mueller, Assistant Director Steven Martinez, Agents Armstrong and
Allen and three other agents, for violations the First, Fourth and
Fifth Amendments, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The class also wants destruction of the information the FBI
obtained illegally.
A copy of the Complaint in Fazaga, et al. v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00301 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/24/FBI.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Bibring, Esq.
Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Esq.
Jennifer T. Pasquarella, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1313 West Eighth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
E-mail: pbibring@aclu-sc.org
jpasquarella@aclu-sc.org
- and -
Ameena Mirza Qazi, Esq.
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA
2180 W. Crescent Avenue, Suite F
Anaheim, CA 92801
Telephone: (714) 776-1847
E-mail: aqazi@cair.com
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products.
In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States. The cases are filed
as class-action lawsuits and claim treble damages for the period
2005 to present, but do not allege any damage amounts.
No further details were reported in the Company's Feb. 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe. The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons in the North America and 7.4
million tons in Central Europe. U.S. Steel is also engaged in
several other business activities, most of which are related to
steel manufacturing. These include the production of coke in both
in North America and Central Europe, and the production of iron
ore pellets from taconite, transportation services (railroad and
barge operations), real estate operations and engineering and
consulting services in North America.
VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journals reports that Verizon is facing a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed by a FiOS field manager who alleges the
company cut costs by refusing to pay overtime and forcing
employees to work through mandated meal and rest breaks.
In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, plaintiff Ulysses Aburto says Verizon told
him and other FiOS field managers that they were salaried
employees and therefore exempt from the overtime requirements of
California wage and hour laws.
However, he and others did jobs that lacked the characteristics of
exempt employment and were managers "in name only," according to
the complaint.
The plaintiffs "do not have managerial duties or authority and
should therefore have been properly classified as non-exempt
employees," Mr. Aburto claims.
He defines the proposed class as current and former field managers
who worked for Verizon in the four-year period before Jan. 14,
2011.
The field manager's primary job duty is to "relay information back
and forth between the technicians and management" while strictly
following Verizon's procedures "which govern every aspect of work
performed by field managers," Mr. Aburto says. These procedures
require a uniformity that "negates any exercise of independent
judgment and discretion as to any matter of significance."
Therefore, they are not "administrative" or "professional"
employees exempt from overtime, the complaint says.
The fact that field managers engage only in communications and
clerical activities and do not use independent judgment and
discretion makes them non-exempt employees, Mr. Aburto says.
Thus, they are entitled to overtime for the 12-to-14-hour workdays
they put in.
Class members work between 20 and 40 hours of overtime per
workweek but are not paid for that time, the suit says.
This misclassification by Verizon is part of a corporate policy
and practice that is "affirmative, willful and deceitful,"
Mr. Aburto alleges.
To avoid having to pay overtime and otherwise comply with
California wage-and-hour laws, the company created a multi-tiered
management structure to give the impression that several unique
jobs exist, Mr. Aburto says. However, the jobs are substantially
similar and "can easily be grouped together for the purpose of
determining whether they were all misclassified."
The complaint alleges unlawful business practices, failure to pay
overtime or provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201.
In seeking class certification, Mr. Aburto is asking the court to
order the defendant to pay any unlawfully withheld compensation.
He also seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, and an
injunction to end Verizon's alleged illegal wage and hour policy.
Aburto v. Verizon California Inc., No. 11-00088, (S.D. Cal.
Jan. 14, 2011).
WELLS FARGO: Homeowners Due to Receive Class Action Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Rector, writing for The Warner Robins Patriot, reports that
some 60,000 homeowners who refinanced Veterans Affairs Department
mortgage loans through Wells Fargo, Wachovia or SouthTrust are due
refunds following settlement of a $10 million class action suit.
The suit focused on loans refinanced between Jan. 20, 2004, and
Oct. 7, 2010, according to a story carried on Feb. 21 in Air Force
Times. Wells Fargo officials in Warner Robins declined comment,
referring questions to the bank's home office.
According to the Times article, a suit filed in Georgia alleged
that Wells Fargo "improperly rolled attorneys' fees" into expenses
charged to veterans, a practice prohibited under VA rules. The VA
requires the lender to cover all attorneys' fees except for title
searches.
The average refund is expected to be $175 and Wells Fargo is
expected to mail letters to affected borrowers over the next month
with application details and additional information.
Cara Heiden, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, told the
Times that her company had diligently worked with veteran
customers since the lawsuit was raised and made refunds to those
charged improperly.
"We hope that by settling this matter, we can demonstrate to
veterans our steadfast commitment to doing right by them," she
added.
The three banks are involved since SouthTrust merged with Wachovia
and both later merged with Wells Fargo.
WESCO FINANCIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Krieger
v. Wesco Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 6176, on behalf of the
public shareholders of Wesco Financial Corp.
The complaint seeks to enjoin an alleged self-dealing transaction
by which the controlling and more than 80% majority shareholder of
Wesco -- defendant Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. through its wholly
owned subsidiary Montana Acquisitions, LLC -- seeks to acquire the
remaining 19.9% of the shares of Wesco's common stock that it does
not presently own in exchange for cash or shares of Berkshire
Hathaway Class B common stock, at the election of each
shareholder. Based on the estimated shareholders' equity of Wesco
as of Jan. 31, 2011, the Proposed Transaction values the 19.9% of
Wesco at approximately $547.6 million.
The complaint further alleges that the Proposed Transaction is the
product of a flawed process designed to sell Wesco to Berkshire on
terms detrimental to the plaintiff and the other public
shareholders of Wesco.
Request more information now by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/WSCor call us at 877-247-4292.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents
investors and individuals in class action litigation. The firm is
focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex
litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and
consumer litigation, through all phases of litigation. The firm
has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant
victories on behalf of the firm's clients.
If you have lost in excess of $100,000.00 in connection with your
ownership of common stock in Wesco and wish to obtain additional
information, please visit us at http://www.faruqilaw.com/WSCor
contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
*********
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 2011. 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 * * *