/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110317.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 54 Headlines ACCELERATED SERVICES: Sued in Calif. Over "Snake Oil Warranties" ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bang" Suit Over Acurox Remains Pending ADVOCAT INC: Still Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Arkansas BALTIMORE GAS: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: Clients Can Proceed With Class Action BOEING: Class Action Tossed After "Confidential Witness" Recants BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Lawsuits CAPITAL ONE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Rubio" Suit CAPITAL ONE: Obtained Final Okay of "Spinelli" Suit Settlement CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Class Action Suit Still Pending CEDAR FAIR: "Mortiz" Suit Over Apollo Merger Remains Pending CELGENE CORPORATION: Abraxis Shareholder Lawsuit Still Pending CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Securities Class Suit in New York Still Pending CVB FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Calif. DEAN FOODS: Trial in "Dairy Farmer" Suits Set for June DEAN FOODS: Awaits Court Okay of "Indirect Purchaser" Suits Deal DELPHI FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on "Moore" Suit Settlement DEMETRIOS KATSARAS: Sued for Violation of Illinois Statute DONALDSON CO: MDL Against Filter Manufacturers Remains Pending DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Final Administration of Settlement FOSTER POULTRY: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages FRASER MILNER: Sued Over Failed Donation Tax Shelter GENERAL MOTORS: Pension Fund Case Over GM Merger Dismissed GENZYME CORP: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Research Coverage Lawsuits GOLDMAN SACHS: Specialist Class Action Suits Still Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in Treasury Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Refco Litigation Settlement Approved in Oct. 2010 GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Mortgage-Related Lawsuits GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Lawsuit Over Hudson CDO Securities Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Washington Mutual Securities Suit Remains Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Intervene Securities Suit Still Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Face Wage & Hour Suit in New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Discrimination Suit in New York HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets March 18 Case Conference on Chavez Suit HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets April 14 Hearing in Amended Cunha Suit HUGHES NETWORK: Awaits Approval of Settlement in California HUGHES NETWORK: Faces Lawsuits Over EchoStar Merger KABA ILCO: Lead Counsel Appointed in Simplex Lock Class Actions KKR & CO: Continues to Defend Antitrust Violation Suit in Mass. KKR & CO: SEC Seeks Information on Del Monte Acquisition KKR & CO: Time to Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit Has Passed KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Haley Paint Suit Still Pending in Maryland LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend Alaska Workers' Suit LOUISIANA: Public Defender Board Sued Over $35 Statutory Fee LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling on Texas Suit Appeal Before June M/I HOMES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Chinese Drywall MASSEY COAL: Trial Held on Medical Monitoring Class Action MASSEY ENERGY: Motions to Consolidate Two Securities Suits Pending MATCH.COM LLC: Accused of Misrepresenting Number of Active Members MBIA INC: 2005 Securities Suit Remanded to New York District Court MBIA INC: 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending MBIA INC: Aurelius Suit Stayed Pending ABN AMRO Appeal MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Motion Pending MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Shareholder Suit MERRILL LYNCH: Seeks Dismissal of Second "Tipsword" Complaint MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending MERRILL LYNCH: Still Defends "Kurrus" Suit in Illinois MGIC INVESTMENT: RESPA Case Still Pending in District of Columbia MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Lockout NATIONAL PENN: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Pennsylvania NATIONWIDE HEALTH: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Ventas Merger NETFLIX INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Deaf Members NEUROMETRIX: Appeal From Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending NEW MEXICO GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Outage NGAS RESOURCES: Awaits Court Approval of Kentucky Suit Settlement PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Removing adultBasic Health Care Program POPULAR INC: Agrees to Settle Securities & ERISA Class Actions POWER BALANCE: Sued for False Advertising in Violation of CLRA PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Amended Securities Class Action Suit Pending RADIAN GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Filed Against Unit SCANA CORP: Awaits Court Okay of South Carolina Suit Settlement SINGAPORE AIR: May Opt for Settlement in Surcharges Class Action TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend "Highstein" Suit TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Amends Accord on Suits Over Verizon Merger TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Rhode Island TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Highlander Hybrid Inverter UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeals in Suit vs. TEP Remain Pending UNITED STATES: Guatemalans File Class Action Over Syphilis Tests USA TRUCK: Expects Approval of Suit Settlement Later This Year VALASSIS COMMS: No Appeal Filed on Final Approval of Settlement VERENIUM CORP: Appeals in Shareholder Suit Remain Pending VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Calif. Suit to be Heard on April 22 VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Brookshire Suit to be Heard on March 30 VIVUS INC: Court Stays Discovery in Securities Fraud Lawsuit WILMINGTON TRUST: Consolidated Suit Over Sale to M&T Bank Pending WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals in Securities Suit Deal Remain Pending ZORAN CORP: Faces Two Class Suits Relating to CSR Merger * Individuals Can't Settle Class Action After Certification * U.S. For-Profit Colleges Face Class Actions From Students ********* ACCELERATED SERVICES: Sued in Calif. Over "Snake Oil Warranties" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Accelerated Services International aka Choice Manufacturing Co., and National Dealer Warranties Canadian Auto Warranty Services aka National Dealer Warranty aka Stop Repair Bills.com sell "snake oil warranties" for auto parts. A copy of the Complaint in Sanders v. Accelerated Services International, et al., Case No. 11-00571 (Calif. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/SnakeOil.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bang" Suit Over Acurox Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself against an Illinois class action lawsuit commenced over Acurox(R). A lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al., was filed on September 10, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case 1:10-cv-05757, against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 21, 2006 and April 22, 2010. The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's officers made false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts in order to make statements not misleading, relating to the Company's Acurox(R) with Niacin Tablets product candidate, resulting in violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint further alleges that such false or misleading statements or omissions had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. On January 11, 2011, the Court appointed a group of three stockholders as Lead Plaintiffs. The Lead Plaintiffs have not yet filed their amended complaint. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. Acura Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in research, development and manufacture of product candidates intended to provide abuse deterrent features and benefits utilizing the Company's proprietary Aversion(R) and Impede(TM) Technologies. ADVOCAT INC: Still Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- Advocat Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class action complaint filed in Arkansas, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the residents of the Facility over the past five years. The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. BALTIMORE GAS: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's parent remains pending in a Maryland district court, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation Energy Group between January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class actions also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted public statements including in connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages. The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred for coordination with the securities class action filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 17, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On August 13, 2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the Securities Act of 1934 and restricting the suit to those persons who purchased debentures in the June 2008 offering. The Company is unable at this time to determine the ultimate outcome of the securities class actions or their possible effect on Constellation Energy's, or BGE's financial results. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. -- http://www.bge.com/-- provides electricity and natural gas services without having to pull anyone's finger. The company not only provides services in Baltimore, but to all or parts of 10 surrounding central Maryland counties as well in a service area of 2,300 square miles. The company's regulated power transmission and distribution system consists of 24,500 circuit miles of distribution lines, and 1,300 circuit miles of transmission lines, and serves more than 1.2 million customers; its gas system serves 648,900 homes and businesses in an 800- square-mile service area. BGE is a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: Clients Can Proceed With Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that litigators involved in a Great Southern class action against Bendigo and Adelaide Bank have been given the go ahead to file a statement of claim. A Supreme Court judge has cleared the way for 2000 Great Southern clients to proceed with class action claims against Bendigo and Adelaide Bank over unpaid loans. On March 11, Victorian Supreme Court judge Justice Clyde Croft said investors in the 2005 and 2006 Great Southern plantation schemes had earned the right to move ahead with their claims under various provisions of the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act. Macpherson + Kelley (M+K) principal accredited commercial litigation specialist Ron Willemsen said the March 11 decision now allowed the firm to file its amended statement of claim and was a huge result for clients. "This very significant breakthrough now clears the path for similarly based claims to be filed for all the scheme types sold by Great Southern through the years 2005 to 2008," Mr. Willemsen said. He said many of the clients who invested in that project borrowed money from Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd. and continued to challenge the validity of the loans, including the loans which were subsequently sold to Bendigo and Adelaide Bank or Javelin Asset Management. Mr. Willemsen said according to an announcement to the Australian Securities Exchange on Aug. 4, 2009, the bank's exposure to borrowers in Great Southern managed investment schemes stood at about $550 million. "Those investors who are represented by Macpherson + Kelley will now press ahead with their available claims which, if ultimately successful, could see orders made declaring the subject loans void and requiring Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and others to fully or partially refund money previously paid under those loans," he said. "The outcome will depend on proof that Great Southern Finance as the company which originated the loans acted unlawfully during the course of procuring and establishing those loans." He said the class action case would also be looking to the directors of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd. -- John Young, Cameron Rhodes and Philip Butlin -- and the company itself for an award of damages on behalf of cash investors. The case for cash investors would be based on claims ordinarily covered by professional indemnity insurance policies, he said. Great Southern's sales revenue from just the 2005 plantation scheme alone was $241 million in its financial year ended 30 September 2005, M+K said. In December last year, M+K was ordered to pass on an amended statement of claim to legal representatives of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank after the banking group was successful in striking out select information in the litigator's statement of claim. BOEING: Class Action Tossed After "Confidential Witness" Recants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes' Full Disclosure, reports that with so much stock-market volatility and thus companies to sue, it's understandable that class-action attorneys can feel a little overworked. That must explain why Robbins Geller, successor to the firm founded by convicted felon Bill Lerach, filed a pleading in federal court that included false allegations from a "confidential witness" who wasn't. A federal judge in Chicago tossed the suit against Boeing after defense lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell dug up the witness, deposed him, and found out he couldn't have known about undisclosed structural problems with the 787 Dreamliner that plaintiffs blamed for a precipitous drop in Boeing shares. Plaintiff lawyers claimed the witness, Bishnujee Singh, was a former Boeing senior structural analyst and chief engineer who worked on the 787 problem. According to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Suzannne Conlon, "he was employed as a line engineer by an outside contractor doing work at Boeing three or four months after the events in issue." Like most securities suits, this one accused Boeing of hiding important information from shareholders which, when disclosed, caused the stock price to fall. The rise of the "confidential witness" can be traced to the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, under which class-action lawyers are required to do more than just point out the obvious, that a stock price fell. They need to state "particularized facts" giving a strong inference that somebody in management, not just a faceless corporate entity, did something he or she knew was fraudulent. To get over this hurdle, class-action lawyers frequently call upon nameless "confidential witnesses" who apparently are willing to speak with plaintiff lawyers but live in fear of their identities being revealed to anyone else. In another example of pleading malfunction, Law.com reports that last year lawyers at Milberg (it dropped the "Weiss" from its name after founder Mel Weiss went to jail) were reprimanded for including misleading statements attributed to confidential witnesses in a lawsuit against Sony. BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bucyrus International, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits filed over its merger with a subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc., according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Between November 16, 2010 and December 30, 2010, six putative class actions -- five in Wisconsin Circuit Court and one in Delaware Chancery Court -- were filed concerning the proposed merger between Badger Merger Sub., a wholly owned subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc., and the Company. On November 16, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and each of the Company's directors, Caterpillar Inc., and Badger Merger Sub. The case is captioned Evelyn Greenberg, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al. Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Case No. 10CV19342. The lawsuit was filed by a person claiming she is a stockholder of ours and purporting to act on behalf of herself and a class of other similarly situated stockholders. Two other putative class actions were filed on the same date against the same defendants in the same court in Wisconsin; another putative class action was also filed in the same court on November 19, 2010. These cases have been removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and are captioned Evelyn Greenberg, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1103-CNC; Daniel Himmel, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1104-CNC; Thomas Turberg, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1105-CNC; and City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-1106-CNC. On December 30, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and each of the Company's directors, Caterpillar Inc., and Badger Merger Sub Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and is captioned Edmund J. Impens, et al. v. Sullivan, et. al., Case No. 10-CV-1179-CNC. In addition, on November 17, 2010, a putative class action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Margaret C. Richardson, et al. v. Bucyrus International, Inc., et al., Case No. 5998, against the Company and each of the Company's directors and Caterpillar Inc. In each of the actions, the plaintiffs allege that, by approving the merger agreement, the Company's directors allegedly violated a fiduciary duty owed to the Company's stockholders because the price to be paid pursuant to the merger agreement is allegedly inadequate and the process through which it was obtained was allegedly unfair. The plaintiffs further allege that Caterpillar Inc. aided and abetted such alleged violations. Plaintiffs allege that the class has and will be damaged by these breaches of duty, and that the class is entitled to an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger, monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On December 14, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Greenberg and Turberg actions amended their complaints, restating their claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. They also added claims that the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing a misleading proxy statement, and that the individual defendants had "controlling person" liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act with respect to the proxy statement. On December 28, 2010, the Company filed motions to dismiss arguing that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. A briefing schedule has been set. On December 20, 2010, the plaintiffs in the City of Sterling Heights action amended their complaint, adding claims that the individual defendants and Caterpillar, Inc. violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On January 3, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss asserting that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. A briefing schedule has been set. On December 21, 2010, the plaintiffs in Himmel, filed a motion for remand to state court instead of filing an amended complaint. A briefing schedule has been set. The Company, Caterpillar Inc. and Badger Merger Sub believe the actions are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. CAPITAL ONE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Rubio" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal an appellate court's ruling in the class action lawsuit entitled Rubio v. Capital One Bank, according to Capital One Financial Corporation's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a dismissal entered in favor of Capital One Bank (USA), National Associtation, in Rubio v. Capital One Bank, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2007. The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in a putative class action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act and California's Unfair Competition Law when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The District Court granted COBNA's motion to dismiss all claims as a matter of law prior to any discovery. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal with respect to the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, finding that COBNA was contractually allowed to increase interest rates. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied COBNA's Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. In January, 2011, COBNA filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling. About Capital One Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/ -- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products and services. Capital One, National Association (CONA), which offers a range of banking products and financial services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. The company operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and Consumer Banking. The company's principal subsidiaries include Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and deposit products. CAPITAL ONE: Obtained Final Okay of "Spinelli" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a final approval order of the settlement resolving the issues raised in the class action lawsuit entitled Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, et al., according to Capital One Financial Corporation's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In September 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida certified a statewide class action in Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, et al. with respect to the marketing of the payment protection product in Florida. In May 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied COBNA's and COSI's petition for interlocutory review of the class certification order, allowing the case to proceed toward the summary judgment stage. In May 2010, COBNA and COSI entered into a preliminary global settlement with the various putative class counsel in The Payment Protection Class Actions. In August 2010, the Florida federal court issued a preliminary approval order for the settlement. After hearings in November and December, 2010, the Florida federal court issued a final approval order for the settlement. The Company believes the total expected costs of the settlement will be within the non-material litigation reserve amount established in the second quarter of 2010, and as a result, it does not believe the amount necessary to resolve the litigation will be material to its financial conditions or results of operations. About Capital One Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/ -- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products and services. Capital One, National Association (CONA), which offers a range of banking products and financial services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. The company operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and Consumer Banking. The company's principal subsidiaries include Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and deposit products. CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Class Action Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, styled Leathermon, et al., v. Grandview Memorial Gardens Inc., et al., filed against the subsidiaries of Carriage Services Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's March 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a punitive class action against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana -- including the Carriage subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001 -- on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts, and made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the Company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other claims. The Company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On March 31, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. In that order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain new counsel. In addition, all discovery has been stayed and all pending motions including Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification were dismissed without prejudice to re-file with leave of Court upon retention of new counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, the Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs have now retained new counsel and the trial Court provided the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel ninety 90 days to review the case and 120 days to advise the Court with respect to whether or not Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are currently stated therein and whether or not they will seek leave to amend the proposed class representatives for class certification. Following the expiration of the 120 days, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new allegations as well as change the proposed class representatives. Defendants have filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. Carriage intends to defend this action vigorously. Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to the Company or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at this time. CEDAR FAIR: "Mortiz" Suit Over Apollo Merger Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Cedar Fair, LP, continues to defend itself in a class action complaint related to the Company's merger agreement with Apollo Management, according to the Partnership's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 5, 2010, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by Leo Mortiz, a unitholder, on behalf of himself and all other unitholders of the Company, against the Company seeking to enjoin the merger agreement with Apollo Management and its related affiliates, and alleging that the preliminary proxy statement regarding the merger on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2010, was materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The case is still pending but is currently dormant. On February 18, 2011 the Court issued an order granting the Plaintiff 10 days to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute the claim. The Company does not expect the pending lawsuit to materially affect its financial results in future periods. Cedar Fair, together with its affiliated companies, is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1987 and managed by Cedar Fair Management, Inc.. The Partnership is one of the largest regional amusement park operators in the world and owns eleven amusement parks, six outdoor water parks, one indoor water park and five hotels. CELGENE CORPORATION: Abraxis Shareholder Lawsuit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action complaints related to Celgene Corporation's October 2010 acquisition of Abraxis BioScience, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Abraxis, the members of the Abraxis board of directors and Celgene are named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits brought by Abraxis stockholders challenging the Abraxis acquisition in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiffs in such actions assert claims for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the acquisition and allege that Abraxis' directors engaged in self- dealing and obtained for themselves personal benefits and failed to provide stockholders with material information relating to the acquisition. The plaintiffs also allege claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company and Abraxis. On September 14, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the actions pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, or the MOU. Without admitting the validity of any allegations made in the actions, or any liability with respect thereto, the defendants elected to settle the actions in order to avoid the cost, disruption and distraction of further litigation. Under the MOU, the defendants agreed, among other things, to make additional disclosures relating to the acquisition, and to provide the plaintiffs' counsel with limited discovery to confirm the fairness and adequacy of the settlement. Abraxis, on behalf of itself and for the benefit of the other defendants in the actions, also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' counsel $600,000 for their fees and expenses. Plaintiffs agreed to release all claims against the Company and Abraxis relating to the Company's acquisition of Abraxis, except claims to enforce the settlement or properly perfected claims for appraisal in connection with the acquisition of Abraxis by the Company. On November 15, 2010, the parties executed and filed a stipulation and settlement with the Court and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On Jan. 26, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes only and approved the form of notice of the settlement of the class action. Celgene and its subsidiaries is a global integrated biopharmaceutical company primarily engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies designed to treat cancer and immune-inflammatory related diseases. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Securities Class Suit in New York Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ A securities class action lawsuit filed against Chesapeake Energy Corporation remains pending in New York court, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors along with certain underwriters of the company's July 2008 common stock offering. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009, alleging that the registration statement for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied on September 2, 2010. No updates were provided in the Company's latest Sec filing. CVB FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CVB Financial Corp. continues to defend itself against a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10- 06256-MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich Jr. (Chief Financial Officer) are also named as defendants. The complaint alleges violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company in an action captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint, which names the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint, makes allegations that are substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel. The Company expects the Jacksonville Fund to file a consolidated complaint, which was due to be filed by March 7, 2011. A response from the Company is due to be filed 30 days after the filing of a consolidated complaint. DEAN FOODS: Trial in "Dairy Farmer" Suits Set for June ------------------------------------------------------ Trial in the class action lawsuits filed by dairy farmers against Dean Foods Company and several others in the milk industry is set to begin in June 2011, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Company was named, among several defendants, in two purported class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. A third purported class action antitrust complaint was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. The complaint in the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008. The amended complaint alleges generally that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Plaintiffs in both the dairy farmer actions and the retailer action are seeking damages for the alleged violations. If plaintiffs are successful and the Company is judged to have violated the antitrust laws, plaintiffs are entitled to three times the damages caused by the violations found. Four additional purported class action complaints were filed on August 27, 2007, October 3, 2007, November 15, 2007 and February 13, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy farmer actions. On January 7, 2008, a United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the pending cases to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. On April 1, 2008, the Eastern District Court ordered the consolidation of the six dairy farmer actions, and ordered the retailer action to be administratively coordinated with the consolidated dairy farmer actions. A motion to dismiss the dairy farmer actions was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on June 20, 2008. A motion to dismiss the retailer action was denied on July 27, 2009. Motions for class certification were filed in both actions on May 1, 2009. The motion for class certification in the dairy farmer action was granted on September 7, 2010. A petition seeking leave to appeal that decision was filed with the Sixth Circuit on September 21, 2010 and is currently pending. On June 29, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk. The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in this complaint substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, on September 1, 2009, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. The motion for class certification in the retailer action is still pending. A motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in part on August 4, 2010. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims on September 27, 2010. Those motions are currently pending before the court. A motion for summary judgment in the dairy farmer action was filed on July 27, 2010 and remains pending. Fact discovery and expert discovery are complete in these matters, and expert reports have been submitted. Presently, trial in the dairy farmer action is scheduled to begin in June 2011. If the Sixth Circuit grants the petition to appeal the class certification motion, the Company expects that the trial will be postponed. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The company has two segments: the Dairy Group and WhiteWave Foods Co. The Dairy Group manufactures and sells its products under a variety of local and regional brand names and under private labels. The company WhiteWave Foods Co. develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products. DEAN FOODS: Awaits Court Okay of "Indirect Purchaser" Suits Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Company is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving issues alleged in the class action lawsuit filed by indirect purchasers of the Company's milk, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On October 8, 2009, the Company was named, among several defendants, in a purported class action antitrust complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. The original complaint was amended on January 21, 2010, and contained allegations similar in nature to that of the class action lawsuit filed by dairy farmer and alleges generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the price dairy farmers in the Northeastern United States are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. A second similar complaint was filed by a different plaintiff on January 14, 2010. The Company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle all claims against the Company in this action. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval, and multiple motions related to the settlement agreement are currently pending before the court. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties. Pursuant to the agreement the Company would be obligated to pay $30 million, and would agree to other terms and conditions with respect to its raw milk procurement activities at certain of its processing plants located in the Northeast. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The company has two segments: the Dairy Group and WhiteWave Foods Co. The Dairy Group manufactures and sells its products under a variety of local and regional brand names and under private labels. The company WhiteWave Foods Co. develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products. DELPHI FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on "Moore" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Reliance Standard Life Insurance, a subsidiary of Delphi Financial Group, Inc., is awaiting a court's decision on a negotiated settlement of a Mississippi class action complaint related to insurance policy payments, according to Delphi's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. A putative class action, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against the Company's subsidiary, RSLIC. The action challenges RSLIC's ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained asset account and contains related claims of breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The parties have entered into an agreement to settle this litigation, which is subject to the approval of the court, and have filed a motion with the court seeking such approval. It is not anticipated that this settlement, if approved and effectuated, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. DEMETRIOS KATSARAS: Sued for Violation of Illinois Statute ---------------------------------------------------------- Serena Lofton, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Demetrios Katsaros, M.D., d/b/a ChicagoLand Center for Cosmetics and Surgery, Case No. 2011-CH-09310 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. March 11, 2011), charges Dr. Katsaros over the publication of photographs taken of her body for commercial purposes without her written consent, in violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. Demetrios Katsaros, M.D., is a cosmetic surgeon who performs surgical procedures upon patients including, but not limited to breast augmentation and liposuction procedures. Plaintiff relates that she underwent a liposuction procedure of her torso in March 2009 and was photographed both before and after the procedure. In June 2010, however, she found out that the various "before and after" photographs of her torso were being displayed on Defendant's Web site. The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Barr, Jr., Esq. WILLIAM L. BARR, LTD. 55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP 55 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 DONALDSON CO: MDL Against Filter Manufacturers Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The multidistrict litigation against filter manufacturers, including Donaldson Company, Inc., remains pending in Illinois, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This lawsuit seeks various remedies including injunctive relief and monetary damages of an unspecified amount and is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of automotive aftermarket filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of a variety of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. In addition, on April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations. The Company will vigorously defend the claims raised in these lawsuits. The Company understands that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) was investigating the allegations raised in these suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that investigation. The Company has not been contacted by the DOJ in connection with the DOJ investigation, but public reports indicate that the DOJ officially closed that investigation in January 2010. In June 2010, the United States gave notice of its election to decline intervention in a qui tam action entitled United States of America, ex rel. William G. Burch v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., which had been filed under seal in December 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. After that notice, the matter no longer remained under seal. In August 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a purported class action entitled County of Suffolk, New York, v. Champion Laboratories, et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Both the Burch qui tam action and the Suffolk action contain allegations similar to those made in the multi-district litigation already pending in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company denies any liability in either action and intends to vigorously defend the claims raised in these lawsuits. In June 2010, the Attorney General of the State of Washington served the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand inquiring into the same issues as those raised in the complaint filed by the State of Florida. The Company is cooperating with the Washington investigation but has denied any wrongdoing. DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Final Administration of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Dycom Industries, Inc., is awaiting the final administration of the terms of its settlement with its former employees, who commenced a class action against it in Washington, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 29, 201. In May 2009, Dycom Industries, Inc., and Prince Telecom LLC were named as defendants in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs, all former employees of the subsidiary, alleged various wage and hour claims, including that employees were not paid for all hours worked and were subject to improper wage deductions. Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class current and former employees of the subsidiary who worked in the State of Washington. The Company estimated the liability of the proposed settlement at $2.0 million and recorded a pre-tax charge for this amount during the quarter ended October 24, 2009. In November 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys, the Company and the subsidiary entered into a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which the parties agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement with respect to the lawsuit. In January 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Notice of the terms of the proposed settlement and claim forms were mailed to members of the plaintiffs' class in February 2010. The Court held a hearing regarding the plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement in April 2010, at which time it entered an Order approving the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice subject to final administration of the terms of the settlement. Excluding legal expenses of the Company, approximately $1.6 million was incurred pursuant to the settlement and was paid in June 2010. FOSTER POULTRY: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Foster Poultry Farms of failing to pay overtime and regular wages, among other things. A copy of the Complaint in Avalos v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 11CECG00784 (Calif. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/Employ.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. Jason P. Fowler, Esq. Kitty Szeto, Esq. Douglas Han, Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 42220 10th Street West, Suite 109 Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 - and - Philip A. Downey, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 1021 Unionville, PA 19375 Telephone: (610) 324-2848 FRASER MILNER: Sued Over Failed Donation Tax Shelter ---------------------------------------------------- Drew Hasselback, writing for the Financial Post, reports that law firm Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP and accounting firm BDO Dunwoody LLP are among defendants named in a proposed class-action that seeks more than $300-million in damages from a failed donation tax shelter. Marc Charette of Pickering, Ont., is the representative plaintiff in the proposed class action, which alleges he faces higher tax bills after the Canada Revenue Agency refused to grant him tax credits under the scheme. Mr. Charette claims he relied on tax opinions written by both FMC Law and BDO Dunwoody when he put $1.1-million into a "leveraged" donation tax shelter called the Donation Program for Medical Science and Technology. The program, set up by a Toronto-based company called Trinity Capital Corp., was designed to fund large charitable donations using borrowed money. Taxpayers would put only a portion of their own money into the scheme, but claim a tax deduction based on the sum of both their own donations plus any borrowed amounts. Mr. Charette participated in the program in 2002 and 2003 when he made two leveraged donations, one for $1-million and another for $100,000. Leveraged tax-shelter schemes ran into trouble in 2009, when the Tax Court of Canada ultimately ruled that they didn't pass muster in a test case called Marechaux v. The Queen. For something to qualify as a "gift," Canadian law says a donor isn't supposed to receive anything in return. This isn't the case with leveraged tax donation programs. The tax court found taxpayers did in fact receive significant benefits through the interest-free loans provided to boost the size of the supposed gifts. Where there's a benefit, there's no gift. The case was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal last October, and leave is being sought to argue the matter before the Supreme Court of Canada. The lawsuit claims the defendants were negligent for helping put the scheme before program participants, who now face elevated tax bills from the government. "Had the donors known that they would not be entitled to income tax credits, they would not have participated in the program," the statement of claim alleges. None of the allegations made in the civil claim has been proven in court. What's more, the lawsuit was only filed on March 11 and the plaintiffs must still get the case certified by an Ontario judge before the matter is to proceed as a class action. Contacted on March 14, FMC Law said it would defend the claim. "Fraser Milner Casgrain has a well-earned reputation for consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and counsel to our clients and we firmly stand behind our lawyers and the quality of their counsel." A spokesman for BDO couldn't be reached for comment. In addition to FMC Law and BDO, named as defendants are lawyer Graham Turner, accountant Ralph Neville, businessmen James Arnold and James Beatty, the John McKeller Charitable Foundation and several corporate entities: Trinity Capital, Trinity Wood Capital Corp., Capital Structures Ltd., Capital Structures 2002 and TC Capital Ltd. The case is at least the second filed in Ontario pursuant to the collapse of donation tax shelter schemes. A year ago, Madame Justice Joan Lax of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class action for taxpayers who lost out in a plan called the Banyan Tree Gift Progam. FMC Law is a defendant in that action as well. GENERAL MOTORS: Pension Fund Case Over GM Merger Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- A Canadian pension fund has voluntary withdrawn its complaint against General Motors Company over the merger deal with AmeriCredit Corp on January 4, 2011. The disclosure was made General Motors Financial Company, Inc.'s March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from July 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010. On October 1, 2010, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 21, 2010, with General Motors Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Company, and Goalie Texas Holdco Inc., a Texas corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of GM Holdings -- the Merger Sub -- GM Holdings completed its acquisition of AmeriCredit Corp. via the merger of Merger Sub with and into AmeriCredit Corp., with AmeriCredit Corp. continuing as the surviving company in the Merger and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of GM Holdings. Following the Merger, the Company's name was changed to General Motors Financial Company, Inc. On July 28, 2010, an action styled Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al, was filed in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No. 236 246960 10. The plaintiff sought class action status and alleged individual defendants, which include GM Financial's officers and directors, breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the proposed transaction between GM Financial and Old GM and that Old GM aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Among other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin both the transaction from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the pending transaction; however, no motion for an injunction was filed. On January 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-suit, dismissing its claims without prejudice. GENZYME CORP: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Genzyme Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in Massachusetts is pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In July 2009 and August 2009, two purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and its President and Chief Executive Officer. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from June 26, 2008 through July 21, 2009 and allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Each of the lawsuits is premised upon allegations that, among other things, the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions by failing to disclose instances of viral contamination at two of the Company's manufacturing facilities and the Company's receipt of a list of inspection observations from the FDA related to one of the facilities, which detailed observations of practices that the FDA considered to be deviations from GMP. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. In November 2009, the lawsuits were consolidated in In Re Genzyme Corp. Securities Litigation and a lead plaintiff was appointed. In March 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint that extended the class period from October 24, 2007 through November 13, 2009 and named additional individuals as defendants. In June 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss in August 2010 and the Company filed a reply in support of the Company's motion to dismiss in September 2010. Oral arguments on the Company's motion to dismiss were heard on January 26, 2011. GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Research Coverage Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- A unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) obtained court approval of settlement agreements resolving lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the firm's research coverage, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several investment firms that have been named as defendants in substantively identical purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with research coverage of certain issuers and seeking compensatory damages. One such action, relating to coverage of RSL Communications, Inc., commenced on July 15, 2003. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on August 23, 2010, which received final court approval on February 23, 2011. Under the settlement agreement, GS&Co. paid approximately $3.38 million. Group Inc. and GS&Co. were named as defendants in a purported class action filed on July 18, 2003 on behalf of purchasers of Group Inc. stock from July 1, 1999 through May 7, 2002. The complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection with the firm's research activities and sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and/or rescission. On July 12, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the settlement has been funded by the firm's insurers. The settlement received court approval on December 15, 2010 and has become final. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Specialist Class Action Suits Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., remains a defendant in various class action suits alleging violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist activities, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. and Goldman Sachs are among numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist activities. The actions, which have been consolidated, seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between October 17, 1998 and October 15, 2003. By a decision dated March 14, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants' petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking review of the certification ruling was denied by an order dated October 1, 2009. The specialist defendants' petition for a rehearing and/or rehearing en banc was denied on February 24, 2010. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in Treasury Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s motion to dismiss an appeal filed in a lawsuit involving treasury matters remains pending, according to Goldman Sachs' March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. GS&Co. has been named as a defendant in a purported class action filed on March 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of short positions in 30-year U.S. Treasury futures and options on the morning of October 31, 2001. The complaint alleges that the firm purchased 30-year bonds and futures prior to a forthcoming Treasury refunding announcement that morning based on non-public information about that announcement, and that the purchases increased the costs of covering the short positions. The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.-based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the information, a former GS&Co. economist who allegedly received the information, and another company and one of its employees who also allegedly received and traded on the information prior to its public announcement. The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law, and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including treble damages under the antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois state law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims to proceed. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied by a decision dated August 22, 2008. GS&Co. moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion but only insofar as the claim relates to the trading of treasury bonds. On October 13, 2009, the parties filed an offer of judgment and notice of acceptance with respect to plaintiff's individual claim. On December 11, 2009, the plaintiff purported to appeal with respect to the district court's prior denial of class certification, and GS&Co. moved to dismiss the appeal on January 25, 2010. By an order dated April 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that GS&Co.'s motion would be entertained together with the merits of the appeal. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Refco Litigation Settlement Approved in Oct. 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement resolving class action lawsuits filed against Refco Inc., and a unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., was approved and became final in October 2010, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. GS&Co. and the other lead underwriters for the August 2005 initial public offering of 26.5 million shares of common stock of Refco Inc. are among the defendants in various putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in October 2005 by investors in Refco Inc. in response to certain publicly reported events that culminated in the October 17, 2005 filing by Refco Inc. and certain affiliates for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws. The actions, which have been consolidated, allege violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seek compensatory damages. In addition to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint names as defendants Refco Inc. and certain of its affiliates, certain officers and directors of Refco Inc., Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. (which held a majority of Refco Inc.'s equity through certain funds it manages), Grant Thornton (Refco Inc.'s outside auditor), and BAWAG P.S.K. Bank fur Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Osterreichische Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft (BAWAG). Lead plaintiffs entered into a settlement with BAWAG, which was approved following certain amendments on June 29, 2007. GS&Co. underwrote 5,639,200 shares of common stock at a price of $22 per share for a total offering price of approximately $124 million. On April 20, 2010, certain underwriting defendants including GS&Co. entered into a settlement of the action, pursuant to which they will contribute $49.5 million to a settlement fund. The settlement received court approval on October 27, 2010 and has become final. GS&Co. has, together with other underwriters of the Refco Inc. initial public offering, received requests for information from various governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations. GS&Co. has cooperated with those requests. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Gives Updates on Mortgage-Related Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) continues to face class action lawsuits pertaining to mortgage-related matters, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the collateralized debt obligations market. The purported class action complaints, which name as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages. On June 25, 2010, certain shareholders and groups of shareholders moved to consolidate these actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Group, Inc.'s unit, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on December 11, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts in 2007 and underwritten by GS&Co. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or recessionary damages. Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted on January 28, 2010, with leave to replead certain claims. On March 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint relating to two offerings, which the defendants moved to dismiss on June 22, 2010. This motion to dismiss was denied as to the plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claims on September 22, 2010, and granted as to the plaintiff's Section 11 claims on October 15, 2010, and the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 17, 2010. On December 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final judgment or certification of an interlocutory appeal as to plaintiff's Section 11 claims, which was denied on January 11, 2011. On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to an additional offering pursuant to the 2007 registration statement. The defendants moved to dismiss this separate action on November 1, 2010. GS&Co. underwrote approximately $951 million principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaint (excluding those offerings for which the claims have been dismissed). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Lawsuit Over Hudson CDO Securities Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit over collateralized debt obligations filed against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s unit, Goldman, Sachs & Co., remains pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The complaint, which was amended on February 4, 2011, asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. GOLDMAN SACHS: Washington Mutual Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for partial judgment in a putative securities class action lawsuit, which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., as a defendant, has been denied, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action amended complaint filed on August 5, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various securities offerings by Washington Mutual, Inc. failed to describe accurately the company's exposure to mortgage-related activities in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. The defendants include past and present directors and officers of Washington Mutual, the company's former outside auditors, and numerous underwriters. By a decision dated May 15, 2009, the district court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to replead and, on June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. By a decision dated October 27, 2009, the federal district court granted and denied in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss. On October 12, 2010, the court granted class certification (except as to one transaction). On December 1, 2010, the defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings as to two of the offerings. By a decision dated January 28, 2011, the district court denied the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. GS&Co. underwrote approximately $520 million principal amount of securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaint (excluding those offerings for which the claims have been dismissed). On September 25, 2008, the FDIC took over the primary banking operations of Washington Mutual, Inc. and then sold them. On September 27, 2008, Washington Mutual, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Intervene Securities Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to intervene in class action lawsuits wherein a unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is named a defendant remain pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Goldman, Sachs & Co., is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various securitizations of mortgage- related assets violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. The defendants include IndyMac-related entities formed in connection with the securitizations, the underwriters of the offerings, certain ratings agencies which evaluated the credit quality of the securities, and certain former officers and directors of IndyMac affiliates. On November 2, 2009, the underwriters moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was granted in part on February 17, 2010, to the extent of dismissing claims based on offerings in which no plaintiff purchased, and the court reserved judgment as to the other aspects of the motion. By a decision dated June 21, 2010, the district court formally dismissed all claims relating to offerings in which no named plaintiff purchased certificates (including all offerings underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss in various other respects. On May 17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking to intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.). On July 6, 2010, another additional investor filed a motion to intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings (none of which were underwritten by GS&Co.). GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May 2010 motion to intervene. On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank was placed under an FDIC receivership, and on July 31, 2008, IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, California. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Face Wage & Hour Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) continues to face a class action lawsuit in New York alleging failure to pay overtime pay, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On May 27, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by several contingent technology workers who were employees of third-party vendors. The plaintiffs are seeking overtime pay for alleged hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were de facto employees of Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and that GS&Co. is responsible for the overtime pay under federal and state overtime laws. The complaint seeks class action status and unspecified damages. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Discrimination Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A unit of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuits in New York alleging gender discrimination, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three former female employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On November 22, 2010, Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to stay the claims of one of the named plaintiffs and to compel individual arbitration with that individual, based on an arbitration provision contained in an employment agreement between Group Inc. and the individual. HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets March 18 Case Conference on Chavez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ A California district court has set a March 18, 2011, case management conference in the class action lawsuit filed by Christopher Chavez against Hansen Natural Corporation, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair business practices, false advertising, violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior Court action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or transfer. On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The hearing for all three motions occurred on May 27, 2010. On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was no preemption by federal law, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The class that the District Court certified initially consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006. The Company subsequently filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to file an appeal to reverse the decision to certify a class. On August 27, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's petition. On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of December 10, 2010, and a trial date for March, 2011. On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Request for Leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order certifying the class action. On November 11, 2010, the Company filed two dispositive motions: a motion to decertify the class and a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed his motion for partial summary judgment. The District Court took all motions under submission without oral argument. The District Court judge assigned to the case, Judge Vaughn Walker, recently announced his retirement from the bench, with such retirement effective February 2011. On January 31, 2011, Judge Jeffrey S. White was assigned to the case and subsequently vacated all pending hearing dates. A case management conference has been set for March 18, 2011, and the pending motions have been rescheduled to be heard on April 1, 2011. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all the allegations and plans a vigorous defense. HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Hansen Natural Corporation and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of the energy drink products. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario). The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive damages of C$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The plaintiff's certification motion materials have not yet been filed. In accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company will not file an answer to the complaint until after the determination of the certification motion. The Company believes that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. No updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. HANSEN NATURAL: Court Sets April 14 Hearing in Amended Cunha Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on a motion to dismiss an amended consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against Hansen Natural Corporation and other parties has been scheduled for April 14, 2011, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007. It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (AB) and its sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On July 12, 2010, following a hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify which statements Plaintiff claimed were false or misleading, failed adequately to allege that certain statements were actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter. On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. The Amended Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on November 8, 2010. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion was filed on January 14, 2011, and defendants' reply brief was filed on February 11, 2011. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint is currently scheduled for April 14, 2011. HUGHES NETWORK: Awaits Approval of Settlement in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Hughes Network Systems, LLC, awaits the approval of its settlement relating to the consolidated lawsuit commenced by subscribers of its HughesNet service, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On May 18, 2009, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, and Hughes Communications Inc. received notice of a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by two California subscribers to the HughesNet service. The plaintiffs complain about the speed of the HughesNet service, the Fair Access Policy, early termination fees and certain terms and conditions of the HughesNet subscriber agreement. The plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims as a class action on behalf of other California subscribers. On June 4, 2009, the Company and HCI received notice of a similar complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California. The plaintiff in this case also seeks to pursue his claims as a class action on behalf of other California subscribers. Both cases have been consolidated into a single case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In January 2011, the Company agreed to settle this consolidated case on a nationwide basis, subject to court approval. As a result, the Company has accrued $1.9 million for estimated settlement costs, plaintiffs' attorney fees and other related expenses. In the event that the settlement is not effectuated, the Company would revert to its previous position of vigorously defending these matters as it believes that the allegations in these complaints are not meritorious. HUGHES NETWORK: Faces Lawsuits Over EchoStar Merger --------------------------------------------------- Hughes Network Systems, LLC, face numerous lawsuits in different states relating to its merger with EchoStar Corporation, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Some or all of Hughes Communications Inc., its Directors, EchoStar Corporation, EchoStar Satellite Services, L.L.C., Broadband Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC have been named as defendants in four shareholder class action lawsuits in connection with the proposed transaction in which EchoStar will acquire all of the outstanding equity of HCI and its subsidiaries. On February 18, 2011, the Gottlieb Family Foundation filed its class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. On February 23, 2011, Plymouth County Retirement System filed its shareholder class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On February 24, 2011, Edward Ostensoe filed a shareholder class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. On February 28, 2011, Nina J. Shah Rohrbasser Irr. Trust filed a shareholder class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Each complaint alleges that the directors of HCI breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the transaction. The complaints also allege that some or all of HCI, EchoStar, EchoStar LLC, Merger Sub and AGM aided and abetted such breaches by the directors of HCI. In each case, the Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the proposed transaction and/or damages, costs, and attorney fees. HCI believes that the allegations in all of these complaints are not meritorious and it intends to vigorously defend these matters. KABA ILCO: Lead Counsel Appointed in Simplex Lock Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Recently filed class action lawsuits against Kaba Ilco Corp., a multinational company that is a leading manufacturer of the Simplex line of electronic and mechanical pushbutton locks, alleges that almost every lock sold by the company is easily bypassed with a magnet leaving homes, office buildings, businesses and high security areas such as airports, U.S. Customs offices, courthouses, police and fire stations, and post offices subject to easy break-in. The suit alleges that by placing a magnet up to the side of the lock the user can bypass the locking mechanism without having to input the correct combination. The lawsuits have been consolidated before Judge Donald Nugent in the Northern District of Ohio. Simplex Pushbutton lock, manufactured by North Carolina based Kaba Ilco Corp., are used in a wide variety of applications. They can be seen protecting anything from homes and businesses to bathroom doors and airport high security areas. The locks have prominent use in the Jewish community due to the fact that they don't require a key; carrying keys is forbidden on the Sabbath. One of the first suits filed alleges that the Brooklyn plaintiff discovered he was able to open his Kaba Simplex lock with a magnet and in order to rule out it being an isolated defect, he also opened 25 of his neighbor's Kaba locks. The technique is simple, some reports have shown children with no guidance whatsoever were able to open the locks after only a few minutes. Replacing or fixing these lock could cost Kaba hundreds of millions of dollars, but until fixed it leaves homes and businesses vulnerable to burglary. Mr. Shkolnik has stated, "that he wants to move the litigation quickly forward to ensure that Kaba takes responsibility and either replaces the defective locks or provides immediate payment for its customers to change out the defective locks to ensure their safety." Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, Shkolnik & McCartney was one of the first firms to file suit and is leading the Class Action to get owners of these locks just compensation. Contact: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. RHEINGOLD, VALET, RHEINGOLD, SHKOLNIK & MCCARTNEY LLP 113 E 37th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 684-1880 KKR & CO: Continues to Defend Antitrust Violation Suit in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- KKR & CO. L.P. and other defendants continue to defend themselves against a consolidated lawsuit pending in Massachusetts alleging violation of antitrust laws, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two of the original nine challenged transactions. On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a putative damages sub-class in connection with the acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by the court is ongoing. KKR believes that this action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. KKR & CO: SEC Seeks Information on Del Monte Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------- KKR & CO. L.P. received a request from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the proposed acquisition of Del Monte Foods Company by entities controlled by private equity funds affiliated with the Company, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2010. KKR, along with two other private equity firms, is a defendant in purported shareholder class actions arising out of the proposed acquisition of Del Monte Foods Company by Blue Acquisition Group, Inc. and Blue Merger Sub Inc., entities controlled by private equity funds affiliated with the Sponsors. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the Del Monte directors breached their fiduciary duties to Del Monte stockholders by agreeing to sell Del Monte at an unfair price and through an unfair process and by filing an allegedly materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement. The complaints also generally allege that the Sponsors, the Acquisition Entities and Del Monte aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints all seek injunctive relief, rescission of the merger agreement, damages and attorneys' fees. The various complaints filed in the Delaware Chancery Court were consolidated on December 31, 2010, under the caption In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation, No. 6027-VCL. On February 14, 2011, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a ruling which, among other things, found on the preliminary record before the court that the plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its aiding and abetting claim against the Sponsors, including KKR. The ruling enjoined defendants from proceeding with the Del Monte stockholder vote, previously scheduled for February 15, 2011, for twenty days and preliminarily enjoined certain deal protection provisions of the merger agreement pending the stockholder vote. On February 18, 2011, an amended complaint was filed in the Delaware action. The amended complaint asserts claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty against the Del Monte directors, (ii) aiding and abetting the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty against the Sponsors, the Acquisition Entities, and Barclays Capital, Inc., which served as a financial advisor to Del Monte in connection with the proposed acquisition, (iii) breach of contract against the Sponsors arising from a confidentiality agreement between the Sponsors and Del Monte, and (iv) tortuous interference with contract against Barclays arising from the aforementioned confidentiality agreement between the Sponsors and Del Monte. Similar shareholder actions are pending against the Del Monte directors, Sponsors and/or the Acquisition Entities in California Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company says that there has been limited activity in these California cases to date. KKR is still evaluating these Delaware and California actions and expects to defend them vigorously. On March 4, 2011, KKR received a request from the SEC for information regarding issues relating to the Del Monte transaction. KKR says it is cooperating with the SEC's inquiry. KKR & CO: Time to Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit Has Passed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The time to appeal the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System against KKR Financial Holdings LLC has passed and, hence, the judgment is now final, according to KKR & CO. L.P.'s March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In August 2008, KKR Financial Holdings LLC, the members of KFN's board of directors and certain of its former executive officers, including certain of KKR's current and former personnel, were named in a putative class action complaint filed by the Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which deleted as defendants the members of KFN's board of directors and named as individual defendants only KFN's former chief executive officer, KFN's former chief operating officer, and KFN's former chief financial officer. The amended complaint alleges that KFN's April 2007 registration statement and prospectus and the financial statements incorporated therein contained material omissions in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, regarding the risks and potential losses associated with KFN's real estate-related assets, KFN's ability to finance its real estate-related assets, and the adequacy of KFN's loss reserves for its real estate-related assets. The amended complaint further alleges that, pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act, the KFN Individual Defendants have legal responsibility for the alleged Section 11 violation. The amended complaint seeks judgment in favor of the lead plaintiff and the putative class for unspecified damages allegedly sustained as a result of the KFN Defendants' alleged misconduct, costs and expenses incurred by the lead plaintiff in the action, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, and equitable or injunctive relief. In April 2009, the KFN Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Securities Act. In November 2010, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs' time to take an appeal has run, and the judgment is now final. KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Haley Paint Suit Still Pending in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated purported class action captioned Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., in Maryland is still pending against Kronos Worldwide, Inc., according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In March 2010, the Company is served with two complaints which were subsequently consolidated as Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, Northern Division of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB). The defendants include the Company, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased titanium dioxide in the United States directly from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. In May 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs opposed in June 2010. The case is proceeding in the trial court. LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend Alaska Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Lithia Motors, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed by former employees in Alaska, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit against Lithia (Dunham, et al. v. Lithia Support Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, Superior Court for the State of Alaska) seeking overtime wages, additional liquidated damages and attorney's fees. The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named plaintiffs. The court ordered the dispute to arbitration. In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and former service and parts department employees totaling approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission basis. Lithia filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this class certification. The arbitrator granted the Company's motion in part and removed approximately 30 service and parts managers from the case. A class action opt-out notice was mailed to the remaining class members in October 2009. Lithia and the plaintiffs agreed to conduct the arbitration in two parts. The first part of arbitration determined if liability exists for Lithia. This arbitration was conducted from September 27 to 29, 2010. The arbitrator ruled in Lithia's favor and determined that there were no valid claims. The plaintiff has appealed the decision; however, the Company believes the likelihood of overturning the decision is remote, as the appeal is to the arbitrator who made the initial ruling. Accordingly, the Company does not expect the ultimate resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com/-- is the ninth largest automotive retailer in the United States and a Fortune 800 company. Lithia sells 26 brands of new and all brands of used vehicles at 85 stores, which are located in 12 states. Lithia also sells used vehicles; arranges finance, warranty, and credit insurance contracts; and provides vehicle parts, maintenance, and repair services at all of its locations. LOUISIANA: Public Defender Board Sued Over $35 Statutory Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ Michelle Massey, writing for Louisiana's Legal Journal, reports that on behalf of criminal defendants, the Tulane Law Clinic has filed a class action against the Louisiana Public Defender Board for violating the rights of criminal defendants by collecting a $35 statutory fee. Steven Bice, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated indigent criminal defendants, filed suit against Louisiana Public Defender Board on Feb. 28 in federal court in New Orleans. The lawsuit claims that the statutory fee -- indigent defender fund -- imposed by the Public Defender Board creates an unconstitutional conflict of interest. The $35 fee is only imposed if the criminal defendants are convicted after a trial, a guilty plea or nolo contendere or forfeiting bond. Mr. Bice also claims the fee creates an attorney-client conflict between Louisiana public defenders and their indigent clients. The plaintiff is asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that collecting the statutory fee violates the rights of Mr. Bice and similarly situated individuals and to issue an injunction preventing the Louisiana Public Defender Board from accepting the fee. Mr. Bice is also asking for an award of costs and attorney's fees. Mr. Bice is represented by Stacy Seicshnaydre and M. Lucia Blacksher of Tulane Law Clinic in New Orleans. U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey is assigned to the case. Case No. 2:11-cv-00477 LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Ruling on Texas Suit Appeal Before June ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lufkin Industries, Inc., is expecting a ruling on an appeal it filed in a class action lawsuit pending in Texas before the end of the second quarter of 2011, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October 2004. Although plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial. On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the Company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney fees that the Company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and expenses. The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the Company appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiff's appeal for class certification of a class disparate treatment claim. Plaintiff's claim on the issue of the Company's promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion. The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the District Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing authority. On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiff's submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions that supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests. As a result of these different results, the court requested further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to render a final decision. The judge reviewed both parties arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original request. The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters. Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling $5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award of attorney fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had not been issued. The court commented that this issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment. On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas notified the Company that it had entered a final judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's final judgment. On January 21, 2010, the Company filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same court. On January 15, 2010, in its final judgment, the Court ordered Lufkin Industries to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The Company had previously estimated the total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. The plaintiffs were required to submit this request within 14 days of the final judgment. On January 21, 2010, the Company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay. On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the Company recorded a provision of $1.0 million for these legal expenses and accrual adjustments for the final judgment award of damages. On September 28, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for supplemental attorney's fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $0.7 million for the period of January 1, 2009 through January 15, 2010. In order to cover these cost, the Company recorded an additional provision of $1.0 million in September 2010 for anticipated costs through the end of 2010. On February 2, 2011 the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the oral arguments from the plaintiffs and the Company on their respective appeals to the court. The Company anticipate the court's decision before the end of the second quarter of 2011. M/I HOMES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Chinese Drywall ----------------------------------------------------------- M/I Homes, Inc., continues to be a defendant in a lawsuit over Chinese manufactured drywall. On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the Company's homes filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the United States or alternatively in Florida, against the company and certain other identified and unidentified parties -- Initial Action. The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging metals. The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees. The Company filed a responsive pleading on or about April 30, 2009. This case has been consolidated with other similar actions not involving the company and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings -- In Re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation. In connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same homeowner and five other homeowners are named as plaintiffs in an omnibus class action complaint filed in December 2009 against a certain identified manufacturer of drywall and others, including the Company, and one other homeowner is named as a plaintiff in another omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010 against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others, including the Company. As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek substantially the same relief. During the third quarter of 2010, the Company entered into agreements with three of those homeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company agreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs made to the homes of other homeowners. As a result of those agreements, the Initial Action has been resolved, and those three homeowners are no longer parties to any of the MDL Omnibus Actions. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. No updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/ -- is a builder of single-family homes. The company's homes are marketed and sold under the trade names M/I Homes and Showcase Homes. The company has homebuilding operations in Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa and Orlando, Florida; Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina; and the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. MASSEY COAL: Trial Held on Medical Monitoring Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The State Journal reports that a class action lawsuit went to trial on March 14 in Raleigh County Circuit Court requesting medical monitoring for children attending Marsh Fork Elementary School. Jurors were being chosen on March 14 in Raleigh County Circuit Court in a medical monitoring lawsuit. The lawsuit filed against Massey Coal claims hundreds of children were exposed to coal dust and now face health problems as a result. Massey has a coal silo a couple of hundred feet away from Marsh Fork Elementary School. Massey officials said there's no evidence to support that claim or to justify medical monitoring. Opening arguments were set to begin on March 15. MASSEY ENERGY: Motions to Consolidate Two Securities Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Massey Energy Company continues to defend itself against two securities class action lawsuits asserting similar claims, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On April 29, 2010, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System filed a purported class action, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by certain Company officers and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by these same officers, as well as certain current and former directors in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's safety record. Macomb seeks (1) an award of damages to Macomb and the members of the purported class and (2) an award to Macomb of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On May 28, 2010, the Firefighters' Retirement System of Louisiana brought a purported class action, alleging substantially similar violations as Macomb, against the same defendants, as well as another director and officer. Firefighters seeks (1) an award of damages to Firefighters and the members of the purported class and (2) an award to Firefighters of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On June 28, 2010, four purported class members filed separate motions requesting that the court consolidate the Macomb and Firefighters Actions, appoint each purported class member as lead plaintiff and approve each purported class member's choice of lead counsel. The MEE Investor Group subsequently withdrew its motion. The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System subsequently filed notice stating that it supported the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust's motion, and the court thereafter denied the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System's motion as moot. David Wagner's and the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust's Motions for Consolidation are pending before the court. MATCH.COM LLC: Accused of Misrepresenting Number of Active Members ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gail Fitzpatrick, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Match.com, L.L.C., Case No. 11-cv-01206 (N.D. Calif. March 11, 2011), assert claims for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent and deceptive prongs, violation of California's False Advertising Law, money had and received, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs and members of the class are all current or past paying members or subscribers to Match's online dating service. Match is a Delaware limited liability corporation that maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Match is a wholly owned subsidiary of IAC/InteractiveCorp and operates a website for single adults to meet each other online. Members pay a monthly fee to access all features of the website. The plaintiffs say that Match negligently or fraudulently misrepresented to Class members that millions of individuals were active members, when, in fact, more that 60% of the profiles of alleged subscribers are inactive, fake or fraudulent members who could not be reached via Match's website because their subscriptions have expired or are illegitimate. Plaintiffs allege that Match subscribers were also misled into joining Match or were misled into renewing their memberships based on communications from Match that active members were trying to contact them when such representations were false. The plaintiffs are represented by: Vahn Alexander, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 461-1426 E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com MBIA INC: 2005 Securities Suit Remanded to New York District Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ An appellate court has reversed a lower court's dismissal of a consolidated securities class action against MBIA, Inc., the Company disclosed in its March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Company was named as a defendant, along with certain of its current and former officers, in private securities actions that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation; (Case No. 05-CV-03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed October 3, 2005). The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005. The lawsuit asserts, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's allegedly false and misleading statements about its financial condition and the nature of the arrangements entered into by MBIA Corp. in connection with a health care transaction loss. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading statements or omissions, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on various grounds. On February 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other defendants. On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, but remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on February 18, 2009. On September 24, 2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 22 and 24, 2010, individual defendants Juliette Tehrani and David Elliot, respectively, were voluntarily dismissed from the litigation. On February 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of the Company's motion to dismiss and remanded the case back to the district court for reconsideration of the statute of limitations analysis in light of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds as well as to consider additional arguments in favor of dismissal propounded by the Company. MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, as well as related reinsurance, advisory and portfolio services, for the public and structured finance markets, and asset management advisory services, on a global basis. The Company was incorporated as a business corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut in 1986. MBIA INC: 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit commenced in 2008 against MBIA, Inc., remains pending in New York. On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint in a separate shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Lead plaintiff, the Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased MBIA stock between July 2, 2007 and January 9, 2008. The amended complaint alleges that defendants MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's exposure to CDOs containing RMBS, specifically its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities, which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at inflated prices. On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed on behalf of Messrs. Chaplin and Dunton was fully briefed as of October 29, 2010. No updates were reported in the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. MBIA INC: Aurelius Suit Stayed Pending ABN AMRO Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ The complaint captioned Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al., 09-cv-2242 (S.D.N.Y.) has been stayed pending resolution of an appeal in another lawsuit involving MBIA, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On March 11, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company and its subsidiaries, MBIA Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation. The lead plaintiffs, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., Aurelius Capital Partners, LP, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P., and Fir Tree Mortgage Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. purport to be acting as representatives for a class consisting of all holders of securities, instruments, or other obligations for which MBIA Corp., before February 18, 2009, issued financial guarantee insurance other than U.S. municipal/governmental bond securities. The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the transactions entered into by the Company and its subsidiaries, which were approved by the New York State Insurance Department, constituted fraudulent conveyances under Sections 273, 274 and 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York common law. The Complaint seeks, inter alia, (a) a declaration that the alleged fraudulent conveyances are null and void and set aside, (b) a declaration that National is responsible for the insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. up to February 17, 2009, and (c) an award of damages in an unspecified amount together with costs, expenses and attorneys' fees in connection with the action. On February 11, 2010, Judge Sullivan entered an order denying MBIA's motion to dismiss. On January 20, 2011, in light of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court's order dismissing the ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al., Judge Sullivan stayed this action pending plaintiffs' appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals. MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Motion Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class certification in a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation is pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv- 01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24, 2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single proceeding and on May 18, 2009, an amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements in 2008. On December 2, 2009, the court granted the Company's and other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On January 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on August 9, 2010, the court denied the Company's and other defendants' related dismissal motions. On December 17, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The defendants' opposition to the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification is due March 8, 2011. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the claims in these consolidated matters. MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- MedQuist Holdings Inc. has entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a shareholder litigation pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 8, 2011 and February 10, 2011, plaintiffs Victor N. Metallo and Joseph F. Lawrence filed purported shareholder class action complaints in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County (Chancery Division). In their complaints, the plaintiffs purported to be shareholders of MedQuist Inc. and sought to represent a class of MedQuist Inc. minority shareholders in pursuit of claims against defendants, MedQuist Inc., MedQuist Holdings Inc. and MedQuist Inc. board members. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties they owed to minority shareholders of MedQuist Inc. in connection with the structuring and disclosure of the exchange offer by MedQuist Holdings to exchange shares of MedQuist Holdings common stock for properly tendered and accepted shares of common stock of MedQuist Inc. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that (a) the Exchange Offer is procedurally and financially unfair, (b) the January 21, 2011 and February 16, 2011 Schedules 14D-9 that MedQuist Inc. filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the February 3, 2011 Prospectus that MedQuist Holdings filed with the SEC are materially misleading and incomplete, and (c) the Exchange Offer was structured by the defendants in order to circumvent the provisions of the New Jersey Shareholders' Protection Act. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Exchange Offer, unspecified damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The two Plaintiff actions were consolidated on February 22, 2011 under the caption In Re: MedQuist Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Docket Number C-018-11. On March 4, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding with respect to settling the shareholder litigation. Under the terms of the MOU, MedQuist Holdings has agreed to extend the expiration of the Exchange Offer until 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on Friday, March 11, 2011 (unless further extended or earlier terminated) and has further agreed that if, as a result of the Exchange Offer, it obtains ownership of at least 90% of the outstanding common stock of MedQuist Inc., MedQuist Holdings will conduct a short-form merger under applicable law to acquire the remaining shares of MedQuist Inc. common stock that it does not then own at the same exchange ratio applicable under the Exchange Offer. MedQuist Inc. has agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Exchange Offer, which will be contained in a filing on Schedule 14D-9 to be made by MedQuist Inc. with the SEC. The settlement and dismissal of the shareholder litigation are conditioned upon, among other things, execution of a final settlement stipulation and court approval. MERRILL LYNCH: Seeks Dismissal of Second "Tipsword" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the matter David Tipsword as Trustee of Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al., is pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. MLPF&S is a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. On June 16, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a proposed class of pre-need contract holders, David Tipsword as Trustee of Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against MLPF&S, among other defendants. The complaint alleges that MLPF&S breached purported fiduciary duties and committed negligence. MLPF&S filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, however, the Tipsword complaint was subject to a court-imposed stay until October 4, 2010. On November 22, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Claudia Burns for Mr. Tipsword as plaintiff in an amended complaint. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. MLPF&S has filed a motion to dismiss. MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeals of plaintiffs from the dismissal of two purported class actions against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. ML & Co., Bank of America and other financial institutions were also named in two putative antitrust class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in both actions assert federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants conspired to restrain trade in ARS by placing support bids in ARS auctions, only to collectively withdraw those bids in February 2008, which allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail. The plaintiff in the first action, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., seeks to represent a class of issuers of ARS that the defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003 and February 13, 2008. This issuer action seeks to recover, among other relief, the alleged above-market interest payments that ARS issuers allegedly have had to make after the defendants allegedly stopped placing "support bids" in ARS auctions. The plaintiff in the second action, Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., seeks to represent a class of investors that purchased ARS from the defendants and held those securities when ARS auctions failed on February 13, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other relief, unspecified damages for losses in the ARS' market value, and rescission of the investors' ARS purchases. Both actions also seek treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's private civil remedy. On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed both actions with prejudice and the plaintiffs' appeals are currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. MERRILL LYNCH: Still Defends "Kurrus" Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. is still defending itself against a lawsuit filed by a funeral home in Illinois, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On July 28, 2010, Charles G. Kurrus, III, P.C., a funeral director and owner of a funeral home, filed an action in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, against MLPF&S, MLLA and MLBT-FSB, among others, including present and former Merrill Lynch employees. The complaint, entitled Charles F. Kurrus, III, P.C. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al., asserts causes of action for breach of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and civil conspiracy against all defendants; breach of fiduciary duty against MLPF&S and MLBT-FSB; and negligence and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against MLPF&S. The complaint seeks: disgorgement and remittance of all commissions, premiums, fees and compensation paid to MLPF&S, MLLA, and MLBT-FSB; an accounting; compensatory damages in an unliquidated amount; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss. MGIC INVESTMENT: RESPA Case Still Pending in District of Columbia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against MGIC Investment Corporation in the District of Columbia alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act remains pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. Seven mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGIC settled class action litigation against it under RESPA in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December 2004 following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. On November 29, 2010, six mortgage insurers (including MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the plaintiffs' lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a class action, filed in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of this mortgage lender, including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying the lender's captive reinsurer excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. The named plaintiffs' loan was not insured by MGIC and it is the Company's understanding that it was not reinsured by this mortgage lender's captive reinsurance affiliates. The Company intends to defend itself against this complaint vigorously but is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or its effect. While the Company is only a defendant in this RESPA case, there can be no assurance that it will not be subject to future litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any litigation would not have a material adverse effect on the Company. No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC filing. MGIC INVESTMENT: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a court's decision dismissing a class action complaint against MGIC Investment Corporation remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed against the Company and several of its executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint n June 22, 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that the Company and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS, including its liquidity. MGIC's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010. On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for its investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS. The purported class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007. The Amended Complaint sought damages based on purchases of MGIC stock during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws. On April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. On December 8, 2010, the plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On January 6, 2011, the plaintiff appealed the February 18, 2010 and December 8, 2010 decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated cases or estimate associated expenses or possible losses. Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be brought against the Company. No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC failing. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action Over Lockout --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Tom Brady and other top stars sued the NFL and its teams in an antitrust class action, claiming the teams' anticompetitive contracts include a lockout that destroys the free agent market and boycotts rookie players seeking an NFL contract. A copy of the Complaint in Brady, et al. v. National Football League, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00639 (D. Minn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/NFL.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barbara P. Berens, Esq. Justi Rae Miller, Esq. BERENS & MILLER, P.A. 3720 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-6171 E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com jmiller@berensmiller.com - and - Timothy R. Thornton, Esq. BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A. 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 977-8550 E-mail: pvolk@briggs.com - and - James W. Quinn, Esq. Bruce S. Meyer, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com bruce.meyer@weil.com - and - Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq. David G. Feher, Esq. David L. Greenspan, Esq. DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 259-8000 E-mail: jkessler@dl.com dfeher@dl.com dgreenspan@dl.com NATIONAL PENN: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- National Penn Bancshars, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345). The complaint essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class. National Penn plans on vigorously defending this lawsuit. Each of the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint. On November 3, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants' motions. The Company expects, but cannot guarantee, that a decision will be issued in the first quarter of 2011. If National Penn's motion to dismiss is denied, the parties will take discovery and the Court will establish a schedule for a class certification motion and related briefing. To date, a class has not been certified. NATIONWIDE HEALTH: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Ventas Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit over its merger with Ventas, Inc., according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 28, 2011, a putative class action entitled Palma v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al., was filed purportedly on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County Superior Court. It names the Company and members of its Board of Directors as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed merger transaction between the Company and Ventas because the proposed transaction would not maximize shareholder value and would allegedly provide the directors personal benefits not shared by the Company's shareholders. Along with other relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the closing of the proposed merger. The Company intends to defend against this suit vigorously. NETFLIX INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Deaf Members ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Netflix discriminates against the deaf by subtitling only "a minuscule portion" of the movies it rents. A copy of the Complaint in Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01199 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/Netflix.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 2811 Sykes Ct. Santa Clara, CA 95051 Telephone: (408) 459-0305 E-mail: jack@westonfirm.com - and - Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 888 Turquoise Street San Diego, CA 92109 Telephone: (858) 488-1672 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com NEUROMETRIX: Appeal From Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action in Massachusetts against NeuroMetrix, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the same defendants. These two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed, which alleged, among other things, that between October 27, 2005 and February 12, 2008, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information to the investing public. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages. On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 6, 2010. Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal were conducted on September 15, 2010. The appeal is currently pending. The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and the Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of the above lawsuit will be favorable for the Company or that it will not be material to its business, results of operations, or financial position. However, the Company does not believe that a loss related to this litigation is probable. Accordingly, no accrual relating to this matter has been recorded at December 31, 2010. NEW MEXICO GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Outage -------------------------------------------------- J.R. Logan, writing for Taos News, reports that a Ranchos de Taos resident has filed a lawsuit against New Mexico Gas Company, alleging that the company's negligence contributed to a gas outage that affected tens of thousands of its customers for several days. The suit, filed last week at district court in Taos, seeks class action status, meaning multiple plaintiffs could collectively seek compensation. Documents filed at the court name Ernest S. Mondragon as the plaintiff "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated." The Albuquerque attorneys who filed the complaint attest that the state awarded New Mexico Gas Co. a "lucrative" monopoly when it made the company the sole provider of natural gas service in many areas of the state. The suit claims that New Mexico Gas Co. cut off natural gas service to some of New Mexico's poorest areas during record- breaking cold temperatures in February. Attorneys for the plaintiff allege that the gas company was inadequately prepared for such an event and that the company failed to have a plan in place to properly handle an outage. New Mexico Gas Co. has maintained that it had secured an ample supply ahead of the arctic storm that hit New Mexico and Texas at the beginning of February. The company said the storm disrupted the supply of gas from West Texas, eventually causing a drop in pipeline pressure. The company has said that shutting off gas to rural areas was necessary to prevent the collapse of its entire gas delivery system. To restore service, the company had to go door-to-door to manually turn off, then turn on meters -- a time-consuming process that came under fire from several officials, including Gov. Susana Martinez. New Mexico Gas Co. President Annette Gardiner told reporters in February that her company's response to the crisis was "not acceptable." Days after the outage, New Mexico Gas Co. announced it would be setting up a fund of $1 million to pay for damage claims from its customers. But the suit filed last week argues that the fund is far too small. "Indeed, the failure and/ or refusal of NMGC to make adequate refund payments has made this class action inevitable, necessary, and the only way to achieve fairness and refunds for the affected citizens," case documents read. The plaintiff is asking the court to award compensation proportionate to damages incurred by New Mexico Gas Co. customers. Attorneys are also asking for punitive damages "to deter (New Mexico Gas Co.) and others from committing such violations in the future." New Mexico Gas Co. spokeswoman Monica Hussey said the company would not comment on the litigation until it had a chance to review the case. The Mondragon suit comes a few weeks after the state Legislature voted to appoint a task force to look into the gas outage. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ordered the investigation Feb. 15 to study the causes of the outage. The commission also stated that it would consider whether the "curtailments" could reasonably have been avoided, and whether the company's response to the outage was adequate. Several local governments, including Taos County, the village of Red River, and the city of Espanola have asked the commission to be party to the investigation. The state Public Regulation Commission has set a May 3 hearing regarding the outage. Gas company gets extension for rate case The state Public Regulation Commission has granted a request from New Mexico Gas Co. that will give the company until March 29 to file a rate case. The move is the first step toward securing a rate increase, and any rate hike would have to first be approved by the Public Regulation Commission. New Mexico Gas Co. asked the commission for a 30-day extension of the Feb. 28 deadline, stating that its staff was tied up with investigations related to a February gas outage and would not be able to submit necessary paperwork on time. In its response to the request, the commission granted the extension, stating that New Mexico Gas Co. had "provided good and sufficient cause for an extension of time". At the end of 2008, when New Mexico Gas Co. acquired its assets from Public Service Company of New Mexico, New Mexico Gas Co. agreed to freeze rates for three years. According to New Mexico Gas Co. spokeswoman Monica Hussey, the utility's existing rates were put in place in July 2007, and were based on data from 2005. Ms. Hussey said the rate freeze will end Jan. 30, 2012, and that the company has been preparing a rate case for several months. Ms. Hussey declined to give specifics about how much of an increase the company will seek. She did say that New Mexico Gas Co. would not use revenue generated through increased rates to pay damage claims related to last month's outage. The company has set up a $1 million fund to pay those claims. NGAS RESOURCES: Awaits Court Approval of Kentucky Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- NGAS Resources, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in Kentucky, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On January 12, 2011, a putative class action captioned David Matranga and Bill Hubbard v. NGAS Resources, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-C1-250, was filed in the Fayette Circuit Court, Division 9, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The defendants are NGAS and the members of the NGAS board of directors, and Magnum Hunter. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated British Columbia law by breaching their fiduciary duties and other obligations to the company's shareholders in connection with the arrangement agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed transaction arises out of a flawed process in which the individual defendants engaged in self-dealing and agreed to certain provisions in the arrangement agreement, which resulted in an unfair price for NGAS shares and a failure to maximize shareholder value. The suit further alleges that NGAS and Magnum Hunter aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining the NGAS defendants and Magnum Hunter from consummating the arrangement, rescission of the arrangement agreement, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 2, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. On February 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reiterating the allegations in their original pleading and adding allegations challenging the sufficiency of the disclosures in NGAS Resources' preliminary proxy statement. On February 18, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On the same date, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited discovery. While the company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and that it and the other defendants named in the lawsuit have valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the burden and expense of further litigation relating to such complaints, on March 1, 2011 the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and resolve all allegations by the plaintiffs against the defendants in connection with the arrangement. The settlement, which is subject to further definitive documentation and court approval, provides for a settlement and release by the purported class of NGAS shareholders of all claims against the defendants in connection with the arrangement. In exchange for such settlement and release, the parties agreed, after arm's length discussions between and among the defendants and the plaintiffs, that the company would provide certain additional disclosures to those in its preliminary proxy statement relating to the arrangement agreement, although the company does not make any admission that such additional disclosures are material or otherwise required. After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the settlement, the parties also agreed that plaintiffs may apply to the court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, which, under certain circumstances, defendants have agreed not to oppose. In the event the settlement is not approved by the court or the conditions to settlement are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend these actions. PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Removing adultBasic Health Care Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Philly reports that a Pittsburgh law firm on March 14 filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Corbett and the legislature over the elimination of the state-supported health insurance program for the working poor. Attorneys representing the lead plaintiffs -- individuals lost their adultBasic insurance on Feb. 28 -- said the state violated both the constitution and state law failing to use tobacco settlement money to continue to fund the program as stipulated under the 2001 Pennsylvania Tobacco Settlement Act. "Governor Corbett and the Pennsylvania legislature are in blatant violation of the law and the only way to hold them accountable is to take them to court," said attorney William Caroselli, of Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan and Conboy, who filed the suit on behalf of three lead plaintiffs in Commonwealth Court. "Pennsylvania receives significant payments from the tobacco settlements every year, and state law mandates that those proceeds go toward making Pennsylvanians healthier, and that a portion be specifically directed to fund adultBasic." More than 42,000 people lost adultBasic medical coverage on Feb. 28 when the Corbett administration said the fund that supported the program was bankrupt. The fund is expected to be replenished on Apr. 15 when the state receives its $370 million payments from tobacco companies. The Pennsylvania Tobacco Settlement Act provides that the tobacco settlement monies would be "used to make Pennsylvanians healthier and provide for the health of future generations of Pennsylvanians," and specifically that 30% of the proceeds would be shared between adultBasic Insurance and Medicaid for workers with disabilities. POPULAR INC: Agrees to Settle Securities & ERISA Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc., and the other named defendants have entered into settlements of class action lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act pending in Puerto Rico, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al. (consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Monta�ez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.). On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock, among others. The consolidated action purported to be on behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24, 2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading. The consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act by making allegedly untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock. The consolidated securities class action complaint sought class certification, an award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees. On January 11, 2010, Popular, the underwriter defendants and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint. On August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants on statute of limitations grounds. The Court also dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite state of mind. On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January 24, 2008 to the date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular, certain directors, officers and members of plan committees, each of whom was alleged to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated complaint alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular stock as an investment alternative in the plans. The complaint sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust, along with costs and attorneys' fees. On December 21, 2009, and in compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended complaint. Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion be granted. On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision. No opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement in principle. The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v. Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of nominal defendant Popular, Inc., against certain executive officers and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of assets and abuse of control in connection with the Company's issuance of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and financial reports and the offering of the Series B Preferred Stock. The derivative complaints sought a judgment that the action was a proper derivative action, an award of damages, restitution, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On October 9, 2009, the Court coordinated for purposes of discovery the Garcia action and the consolidated securities class action. On October 15, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia complaint for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors prior to initiating litigation. On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended complaint. At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010, the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Garcia action. The Court dismissed the gross mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Diaz case, filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On October 13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions. On October 26, 2009, plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion pending the outcome of the remand proceedings. On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. On October 13, 2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand Order. On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved for reconsideration of the remand order. The court denied Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter. On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the Corporation in support of the pending derivative action. The Court held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose" under Puerto Rico law for such inspection. On April 28, 2010, plaintiff in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals. On June 11, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. On June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. On July 6, 2010, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to nonbinding mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be settled. On January 18-19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases engaged in nonbinding mediation before the Honorable Nicholas Politan. As a result of the mediation, the Corporation and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle this matter. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the amount of $37.5 million will be paid by or on behalf of defendants (of which management expects approximately $30 million will be covered by insurance). The parties intend to file a stipulation of settlement and a joint motion for preliminary approval within 45 days of the execution of the memorandum of understanding. Popular's recognized a charge, net of the amount expected to be covered by insurance, of $7.5 million in December 2010 to cover the uninsured portion of the settlement. The Garcia and Diaz actions were not included in the settlements. However, since these are derivative actions the Corporation does not expect to be liable for the payment of any money award, other than the possible payment of the plaintiff's attorneys fees. The Corporation is aware that a suit asserting similar claims on behalf of certain individual shareholders under the federal securities laws was filed on January 18, 2011. Prior to the Hoff and derivative action mediation, the parties to the ERISA class action entered into a separate memorandum of understanding to settle that action. Under the terms of the ERISA memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the amount of $8.2 million will be paid by or on behalf of the defendants (all of which management expects will be covered by insurance). The parties intend to file a joint request to approve the settlement by approximately the middle of April 2011. POWER BALANCE: Sued for False Advertising in Violation of CLRA -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Patrick, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Power Balance, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01202 (N.D. Calif. March 11, 2011), accuses Power Balance of making misleading and deceptive advertisements about its wristbands, pendants and other jewelry with "Mylar Holograms" and the holograms themselves. The defendant marketed the products as improving balance, strength, flexibility, endurance and stamina, when, in fact, there is no credible scientific evidence to support these claims, in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff Dennis Patrick, a resident of California, purchased a Power Balance bracelet in June 2009. Defendant Power Balance, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its 4 principal place of business in Laguna Niguel, California. Defendant distributes and sells the products in California and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Reginald Terrell, Esq. THE TERRELL LAW GROUP P.O. Box 13315, PMB # 148 Oakland, CA 94661 Telephone: (510) 237-9700 E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com - and - Donald Amamgbo, Esq. AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES 6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 325 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 337-1134 E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com - and - Sydney J. Hall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SYDNEY J. HALL 1308 Bayshore Highway, Suite 220 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 342-1830 PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Amended Securities Class Action Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An amended securities class action lawsuit filed against PrivateBancorp, Inc., is pending in Illinois court, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On October 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the Company on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009. Certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and directors and firms that participated in the underwriting of the Company's June 2008 and May 2009 public offerings of common stock are also named as defendants in the litigation. On January 25, 2011, the City of New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and State-Boston Retirement System were together named as the lead plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2011. The amended complaint alleges various claims of securities law violations against certain of the named defendants relating to disclosures the Company made during the class period in filings under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and rescission. RADIAN GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of Lawsuit Filed Against Unit ------------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group Inc. intends to seek dismissal of a lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On November 29, 2010, a lawsuit Moses vs. SunTrust Banks, Inc., alleged to be a class action, was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against SunTrust Bank, its affiliates and a number of mortgage insurers, including Radian Guaranty Inc., the Company's primary mortgage insurance subsidiary. The complaint alleges various causes of action related to captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements with SunTrust Bank, including that the defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by paying the lender's captive reinsurer excess premiums in relation to the risk assumed by that captive. The mortgage insurer defendants demanded that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss from the lawsuit any mortgage insurer who has not insured the plaintiffs' loan. The plaintiffs responded informally that they would do so in an amended complaint they intend to file sometime after March 2, 2011. Plaintiffs disclosed at the time of their response to the demand for dismissal that they intend to add another plaintiff in the amended complaint and have identified one potential plaintiff. Radian Guaranty does not insure the loan of the original plaintiffs nor the one potential new plaintiff who has been identified. The Company intends to move to dismiss the claims against its unit in the event that the plaintiffs do not voluntarily dismiss it from the lawsuit. SCANA CORP: Awaits Court Okay of South Carolina Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- SCANA Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement it entered into with plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit pending in South Carolina, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit currently styled as Douglas E. Gressette and Mark Rudd, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and SCANA Communications, Inc. was filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. The plaintiffs alleged that SCE&G made improper use of certain electric transmission easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to transmit communications other than SCE&G's electricity-related internal communications and asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment, but did not assert a specific dollar amount for the claims. In June 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the plaintiffs' purported class to easement grantors situated in Charleston County, South Carolina. In February 2008 the Circuit Court issued an order to conditionally certify the class, which remained limited to easements in Charleston County. In July 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to add SCI to the lawsuit as an additional defendant was granted. While SCE&G and SCI believe their actions were consistent with governing law and the applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-way, this case, with Circuit Court approval in August 2010, has been tentatively settled as to all easements and rights of ways currently containing fiber optic communications lines in South Carolina. The parties are proceeding to identify class members and resolve other settlement related issues. While this settlement is subject to a fairness hearing before it is finally approved, SCE&G and SCI currently know of no reason why such approval will not be given. This tentative settlement will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. SINGAPORE AIR: May Opt for Settlement in Surcharges Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bruce, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that Singapore Airlines is likely to pursue a settlement in the fuel surcharges class action after agreeing to pay travel agents commission on fuel and insurance surcharges from April 1. The commission will apply to eligible international published fares sold in Australia. Agents will claim the commission via the billing and settlement plan. It follows a landmark Federal Court decision last year, which found Qantas was liable to pay commission on fuel surcharges (Travel Today, May 4, 2010). Australia's flag carrier reacted to that ruling by agreeing to pay commission on fuel surcharges (January 25). The lawyer representing travel agents in the class action, Steven Lewis from Slater & Gordon, said Singapore Airlines made the right decision. "Obviously Singapore Airlines read the judgment against Qantas and it is inevitable SIA is also liable to pay commission," Mr. Lewis said. The case against Qantas -- which will return to the courts later this month to determine how much is owed to travel agents -- was viewed as a test case. Once the Qantas case is finalized, attention will turn to the other airlines named in the original class action -- Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, British Airways and SIA. But Mr. Lewis said initial talks have indicated Singapore Airlines would consider working towards a settlement. Singapore Airlines was unavailable for comment as Travel Today went to press. TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend "Highstein" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunication Systems, Inc., remains a defendant in a shareholder class action captioned Highstein v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., et al., in New York, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the month ended December 31, 2010. In November 2001, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of its current officers and a director, and several investment banks that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering: Highstein v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 01- CV-9500. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit purports to be a class action suit filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period August 8, 2000 through December 6, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the Underwriters agreed to allocate the Company's Class A Common Stock offered for sale in its initial public offering to certain purchasers in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those purchasers to make additional purchases of its Class A Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre- determined prices. The plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and that the underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The claims against the Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have been dismissed with the plaintiffs having the right to re-plead. On October 5, 2009, the Court approved a settlement of this and approximately 300 similar cases. On January 14, 2010, an Order and Final Judgment was entered. Various notices of appeal of the Court's October 5, 2009 order were subsequently filed. On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals. The Company intends to continue to defend the lawsuit until the matter is resolved. The Company has purchased a Directors and Officers insurance policy which it believes should cover any potential liability that may result from these laddering class action claims, but can provide no assurance that any or all of the costs of the litigation will ultimately be covered by the insurance. No reserve has been recorded for this matter. TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Amends Accord on Suits Over Verizon Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- On February 28, 2011, Terremark Worldwide, Inc., disclosed that it entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of eight lawsuits, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 27, 2011, Terremark Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Verizon Communications Inc., a Delaware corporation (Parent), and Verizon Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Purchaser). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon its terms and subject to its conditions, Purchaser commenced a tender offer on February 10, 2011 to acquire all outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the Company at a purchase price of $19.00 per share, net to the seller in cash, less any required withholding taxes. The Merger Agreement further provides that, following completion of the Offer, Purchaser will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Subsequent to the announcement of the Merger Agreement, eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the Merger Agreement. These lawsuits are: (i) Schaefer v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03279-CA-32), filed on January 31, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (ii) Stackewicz v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03106-CA-40), filed on January 28, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (iii) Jiannaras v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03471-CA-40), filed on February 2, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (iv) Hogan v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-20369), filed on February 2, 2011 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division; (v) Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. Guillermo Amore, et al. (Case No. 6175-VCN), filed on February 7, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; (vi) Trejo v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-04668-CA-3), filed on February 11, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (vii) Adams v. Guillermo Amore, et al. (Case No. 11-04838-CA-13), filed on February 14, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida and (viii) Abril v. Manuel Medina, et al. (Case No. 1:11- CV-20555); filed on February 18, 2011 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. All of the complaints except for the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association complaint name the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Parent and Purchaser as defendants. The Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association suit names the members of the Board of Directors, Parent and Purchaser, but not the Company, as defendants. The Adams suit names the Company, the members of the Board of Directors, Parent, Purchaser, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, the Company's financial advisor, as defendants. All eight lawsuits are brought by purported stockholders, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, alleging that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Offer and the Merger by purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, and that the Company (as applicable), Parent, and Purchaser aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The Adams and Abril complaints allege that the Company's Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 failed to disclose certain material information to the Company's stockholders. All eight lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin consummation of the Offer and the Merger and an award of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The Schaefer, Stackewicz, Jiannaras, Hogan and Adams complaints also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement and/or the proposed transaction. The Hogan, Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association and Abril complaints additionally seek compensatory and/or recissory damages. On February 28, 2011, the Company announced that the Company, Parent and Purchaser entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of all eight lawsuits. The MOU provides, among other things, that, in consideration for the settlement of all eight lawsuits, the Company, Parent and Purchaser will amend the Merger Agreement to (i) extend the initial expiration date of the Offer from March 10, 2011 to March 21, 2011, (ii) eliminate the Company's so-called "force-the- vote" covenant contained in Section 5.4(c) of the Merger Agreement, (iii) reduce the Termination Fee payable to Parent from $52,500,000 to $40,000,000 and (iv) eliminate Purchaser's right to exercise the Top-Up Option contained in Section 1.4 of the Merger Agreement. The Company will also make certain additional disclosures regarding the background of the events leading to the signing of the Merger Agreement on January 27, 2011 and with respect to certain of the analyses undertaken by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the financial advisor's assessment of the fairness to the Company's stockholders, from a financial point of view, of the $19.00 net per Share Offer Price and Merger Consideration. Terremark Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ:TMRK) is a global provider of IT infrastructure services. TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Rhode Island ---------------------------------------------------------------- Textron Financial Corporation continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit in Rhode Island, according to the Company's March 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 9, 2010, an amended complaint to a purported shareholder class action lawsuit by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System was filed in the United States District Court in Rhode Island against TFC and three of its present and former officers. The original complaint, filed on August 13, 2009, contained claims only against Textron, its Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer. The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations or omissions related to Cessna and Textron Financial. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund has been appointed lead plaintiff in the case. On April 6, 2010, the court entered a stipulation agreed to by the parties in which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, certain causes of action in the amended complaint. On April 9, 2010, all defendants moved to dismiss the remaining counts of the amended complaint, and that motion is still pending. Textron Financial believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Highlander Hybrid Inverter ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Toyota sold its 2006 Highlander Hybrid knowing it had a defective inverter assembly that causes it to lose power on the highway. A copy of the Complaint in Gaal, et ux. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02119 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/14/Toyota.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Frank W. Ferguson, Esq. Denis M. Delja, Esq. ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 670-1600 E-mail: marias@aogllp.com UNISOURCE ENERGY: Appeals in Suit vs. TEP Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Appeals in the class action lawsuit filed against a principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Tucson Electric Power Company was a defendant in a class action filed in February 2009, in the United States District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico by members of the Navajo Nation. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the rights of way for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was inadequate. The plaintiffs were requesting, among other things, that the transmission lines on these lands be removed. In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds. In March 2010, the Court granted several of the defendants' motions to dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the case in April 2010. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in May 2010, appealing the BIA's decision to grant the rights of way that were the subject of the now-dismissed complaint. In June 2010, the BIA found that the Notice of Appeal failed to meet the minimum filing requirements. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed new Notices of Appeal concerning the same rights of way. TEP cannot predict the outcome of these appeals. UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a holding company that conducts its operations through its subsidiaries. UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium Energy Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy Development Company (UED). The company conducts its business through three segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric. TEP is an electric utility that provides electric service to the community of Tucson, Arizona. UES, through its two operating subsidiaries, UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), provides gas and electric service to 30 communities in Northern and Southern Arizona. UED developed and owns the Black Mountain Generating Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine in Northern Arizona that, through a power sales agreement provides energy to UNS Electric. UNITED STATES: Guatemalans File Class Action Over Syphilis Tests ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that Guatemalans who were deliberately infected with syphilis or gonorrhoea in medical tests in the 1940s are suing the US government for compensation. Hundreds of Guatemalan prisoners, psychiatric patients and orphans were infected without their consent in a program to study penicillin. A class action lawsuit was filed by lawyers for the Guatemalans and their relatives. The US apologized last year for the "reprehensible" experiments. But lawyers said the Obama administration had not responded to a request for an out-of-court compensation settlement. The tests were kept secret for decades, until a medical historian uncovered hidden records and made them public last year. The study carried out by US scientists took place in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. Evidence of the program was unearthed by Prof Susan Reverby at Wellesley College in the US. The Guatemalan government of the day gave permission for the tests, she said. But the people infected were unaware they were being experimented on. In the experiments, researchers bribed care workers to let them inject their charges, while prisoners were encouraged to sleep with infected prostitutes. Current Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom called the tests a "crime against humanity" when they came to light. USA TRUCK: Expects Approval of Suit Settlement Later This Year -------------------------------------------------------------- USA Truck, Inc., is expecting approval of a settlement of the class action lawsuit filed by Hermes Cerdenia later this year, according to the Company's March 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On July 2, 2010, a former driver employee filed a lawsuit against the Company titled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code and seeking certification of the suit as a class action to include "all individuals currently and formerly employed in California as drivers, or other similarly titled positions." The Company has successfully removed the case to the United States District Court, Central District of California and has filed an answer denying the plaintiff's allegations. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for the alleged violations. In February 2011, settlement of the lawsuit was negotiated through mediation subject to the District Court's review and approval. Such approval is expected later in 2011. VALASSIS COMMS: No Appeal Filed on Final Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Upon completion of Valassis Communications, Inc.'s acquisition of ADVO Inc. in March 2007, the Company assumed responsibility for ADVO's pending securities class action lawsuits. In September 2006, three securities class action lawsuits (Robert Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Richard L. Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al) were filed against ADVO and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by certain ADVO shareholders seeking to certify a class of all persons who purchased ADVO stock between July 6, 2006 and August 30, 2006. The cases were consolidated under a single action titled Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al. , Civil Case No. 3:06CV01422(AVC) and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 8, 2007. The complaint generally alleges ADVO violated federal securities law by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning ADVO's business and financial results in connection with the proposed merger and, as a result, the price of ADVO's stock was allegedly inflated. On August 24, 2007, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, which was denied. On August 29, 2008, plaintiff moved for certification of the case as a class action. This motion was granted on March 27, 2009. On October 28, 2009, the parties entered into an agreement providing for the settlement of the action and filed papers seeking preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Following preliminary approval of the settlement and notice, on March 3, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued its order of final approval of the settlement. No appeal was filed from the final order and the settlement amount of $12.5 million was paid from the proceeds of ADVO's directors and officers' insurance policy, with no adverse impact to Valassis' financial statements. No updates were provided in the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. VERENIUM CORP: Appeals in Shareholder Suit Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Appeals in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed against Verenium Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December 2002 in a U.S. federal district court, or the Court. This lawsuit is part of a series of related lawsuits in which similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies that conducted an Initial Public Offering, or IPO of their common stock in 2000 and the late 1990s. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the modified settlement. On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower Court's earlier decision certifying as class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases." The Company is not one of the six focus cases. Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO Cases pending the outcome of the plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court. Accordingly, the settlement as originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and will not be finally approved. On or about August 14, 2007, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases, and thereafter moved for certification of the classes and appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in those cases. The six focus case issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in December 2007. The Court denied the motions to dismiss on March 16, 2008. On October 2, 2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion. On February 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the district court that a settlement of the IPO Cases had been agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and preliminary and final approval by the court. On April 2, 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the court and moved for preliminary approval thereof. On June 11, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement to be published and mailed. The District Court held a final fairness hearing on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final approval to the settlement. On or about October 23, 2009, three shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class Certification Order, objecting to the District Court's final approval order and, in particular, asserting that the District Court's certification of the settlement classes violates the Second Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO Cases. Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement. If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims against the Company and its officers and directors with prejudice, and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance. The Company is covered by a claims-made liability insurance policy which it believes will satisfy any potential liability of the Company under this settlement. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the objecting shareholders are seeking to challenge the settlement on appeal, the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted. Cambridge, Mass.-based Verenium Corporation (NASDAQ: VRNM) -- http://www.verenium.com/-- is a pioneer in the development and commercialization of high-performance enzymes for use in industrial processes. Verenium currently sells enzymes developed using its R&D capabilities to industrial customers globally for use in markets including biofuels, animal health and oil seed processing VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Calif. Suit to be Heard on April 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- Verigy Ltd. and its co-defendants' motion to stay a putative class action in California in favor of litigation before a Massachusetts court is scheduled for hearing on April 22, 2011, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011. On December 1, 2010, the Company, along with LTX-Credence Corporation, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation and Lobster-2 Merger Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Khan v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., 1-10-cv188773 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, alleges that LTX-Credence's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, failing to (i) maximize shareholder value, (ii) obtain the best financial and other terms, (iii) sell the company in a fair process, and (iv) act in the best interests of public shareholders. The complaint further alleges that the director defendants breached fiduciary duties in seeking to benefit themselves improperly, and that the non-LTX-Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, other equitable relief, including to enjoin LTX-Credence and Verigy from consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs. On February 2, 2011, this action was consolidated with two other similar actions that were filed in the California Superior Court (Verigy was not named as a defendant in either of these two complaints). On February 4, 2011, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to stay the California proceedings in favor of the litigation pending in the Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The hearing on this motion is set for April 22, 2011. VERIGY LTD: Motion to Stay Brookshire Suit to be Heard on March 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Verigy Ltd. and its co-defendants' motion to stay a putative class action in California captioned Brookshire v. LTX Credence Corp., et al., in favor of litigation before a Massachusetts court will be heard on March 30, 2011, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011. On December 17, 2010, the Company, along with LTX-Credence Corporation, its directors, Verigy Ltd., Lobster-1 Merger Corporation and Lobster-2 Merger Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Brookshire v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., CV 10 5773 filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, also alleges that LTX-Credence's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger with Verigy, and also seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining LTX-Credence and the Company from consummating the merger. On January 19, 2011, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to stay this action in favor of the litigation pending in Massachusetts Superior Court. The hearing on this motion to stay is set for March 30, 2011. VIVUS INC: Court Stays Discovery in Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery has been stayed in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Vivus, Inc., according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. A federal securities class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al. is pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, which asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal securities laws, purportedly relating to statements allegedly made by the Company in connection with its New Drug Application, or NDA, for QNEXA as a treatment for obesity. The essential factual allegation is that the Company and its officers misled the investing public regarding the prospects for QNEXA's NDA approval, and the drug's efficacy and safety. On February 2, 2011, the court granted a stipulation and order appointing a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel for the class. On February 3, 2011, the court granted a stipulation and order requiring the lead plaintiff to file any amendment to the operative complaint no later than 60 days from February 2, 2011, with the defendants' answer or motion to dismiss to be filed no later than 60 days after plaintiffs file the amended complaint. In the event the defendants file a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition to the motion must be filed no later than 60 days after the filing of the motion, with defendants' reply to the opposition being filed no later than 45 days after the filing of plaintiffs' opposition. Discovery is stayed in the Kovtun matter pending resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss. WILMINGTON TRUST: Consolidated Suit Over Sale to M&T Bank Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Wilmington Trust Corporation and its directors over the Company's sale of company stock to, and proposed merger with, M&T Bank Corporation, remains pending, according to the Company's March 1, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On October 31, 2010, Wilmington Trust entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which M&T will acquire all of Wilmington Trust's outstanding shares of common stock for approximately $351 million, after which Wilmington Trust will merge into an M&T controlled entity. The proposed transaction has been approved by Wilmington Trust's Board of Directors. On November 5, 2010, two purported stockholders of Wilmington Trust Corporation filed lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Medich v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5958 (Del. Ch.) and Yi v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5959 (Del. Ch.). On November 9, 2010, a third purported stockholder of Wilmington Trust Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Burie v. Foley, et al., C.A. No. 5970 (Del. Ch.). On December 8, 2010, these complaints were consolidated under the caption In re Wilmington Trust Corporation Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 5958-VCL (Del. Ch.). On December 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint. On December 20, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors, M&T, and MTB One, Inc (Merger Sub). It is brought on behalf of a putative class of the Company's common stockholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the merger, and also alleges that M&T and Merger Sub aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. It further alleges that the Director Defendants improperly favored M&T and discouraged alternative bids by agreeing to the merger agreement's no-solicitation provision, termination fee provision, and notification clause. In addition, the Consolidated Complaint claims that the consideration to be received by the Company's common stockholders is inadequate and unfair. Finally, the Consolidated Complaint claims that the Form S-4 filed by the defendants in connection with the merger omits material information. It alleges deficiencies in the descriptions of negotiations with interested parties, failure to disclose the identity of one financial advisor and the fees payable to all financial advisors, and failure to adequately explain the financial advisors' valuation analyses. The Consolidated Complaint claims that, without this information, the Company's stockholders cannot meaningfully determine whether or not to approve the merger. The Consolidated Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, a constructive trust over any benefits improperly received by the defendants, and costs, including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company and M&T believe that the claims asserted are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against this lawsuit. WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals in Securities Suit Deal Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the order approving the settlement of the issues raised in the securities class action lawsuit filed against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to its initial public offering in 1999. According to the claims, the underwriters, who were also named as defendants, allegedly engaged in manipulative practices by, among other things, pre-selling allotments of shares of the Company's stock in return for undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers and entering into after-market tie-in arrangements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. The complaint further alleges that the Company knew or should have known of such unlawful practices. In or around March 2009, the parties agreed to a global settlement of the litigation in its entirety. On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement, which was granted by the court by order dated June 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, and various objectors have filed notices to appeal this decision. The Company is a party to the settlement and is not one of the parties appealing the settlement's approval. The Company is unable to predict whether these appeals will be successful, but assuming they are unsuccessful and the settlement is completed, no financial obligation has been or will be incurred by the Company. WWE, a publicly traded company (NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media organization and recognized leader in global entertainment. The Company consists of a portfolio of businesses that create and deliver original content 52 weeks a year to a global audience. WWE is committed to family-friendly, PG content across all of its platforms including television programming, pay-per-view, digital media and publishing. WWE programming is broadcast in more than 145 countries and 30 languages and reaches more than 500 million homes worldwide. The Company is headquartered in Stamford, Conn., with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo and Mexico City. Additional information on WWE (NYSE: WWE) can be found at http://wwe.com/and http://corporate.wwe.com/ For information on WWE's global activities, go to http://www.wwe.com/worldwide/ ZORAN CORP: Faces Two Class Suits Relating to CSR Merger -------------------------------------------------------- Two purported class action lawsuits were filed in February against Zoran Corporation relating to the Company's entry into a merger agreement with CSR plc, according to the Company's March 7, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On February 23, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by Judy Kauffman Goldstein, an alleged stockholder of Zoran Corporation who seeks to represent a class comprised of Zoran stockholders. The complaint in this action names as defendants Zoran, each member of Zoran's board of directors, CSR plc, and Zeiss Merger Sub, Inc. The Goldstein complaint alleges that the director defendants breached fiduciary duties assertedly owed to Zoran and its stockholders by entering into the merger agreement with CSR that was announced on February 22, 2011; that CSR and Zeiss aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; and that if the merger is allowed to proceed, the stockholders will suffer damages because their shares will be acquired for less than their actual value. The plaintiff seeks an order of the Court certifying the action as a class action; rescinding the merger and preliminarily enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger; enjoining the defendants from taking any further action to interfere with a consent solicitation previously commenced by Ramius Value and Opportunity Master Fund Ltd.; and awarding damages, attorney's fees and costs. On February 25, 2011, a second purported class action was filed in the same court by Lawrence Zucker, an alleged stockholder of Zoran, who seeks to represent the same purported class. The complaint in this action names as defendants the members of Zoran's board of directors and Zoran. The allegations contained in the Zucker complaint are largely similar to the allegations contained in the Goldstein complaint, except that the Zucker complaint also alleges that Zoran aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the director defendants; does not name CSR or Zeiss as defendants; and does not allege that CSR or Zeiss aided or abetted any alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks similar relief to that sought in the Goldstein complaint, except that the Zucker complaint does not seek any relief with respect to the Ramius consent solicitation. Based in Sunnyvale, Calif., Zoran Corp. develops and market integrated circuits and related products used in digital versatile disc players, movie and home theater systems, digital cameras and video editing systems. * Individuals Can't Settle Class Action After Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that individual litigants lose their right to settle once a class action has been certified, according to a recent decision in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Justice Paul Perell found that only class representatives acting on the advice of class counsel have the right to accept settlement offers and that they can reject them without notifying class members about their contents. "Class members do not have the right to individually accept settlement offers. Giving them the right to do so destroys the representative nature of the proceedings," Justice Perell wrote in his March 3 decision in Berry v. Pulley, a class action involving pilots from Air Canada and the former Air Ontario airline." It follows from this conclusion that if class members do not have the right to individually accept settlement offers during the communal stages of the action, they need not be given notice and be tantalized by a settlement offer that they cannot accept and which is opposed by their representative." The right to settle will revive once the common issues trial is complete and matters dealing with individual issues begin for specific class members, according to the decision. Kirk Baert, a class actions lawyer at Koskie Minsky LLP, says the decision makes sense because of the huge numbers involved in many class actions. "Those who aren't keen on being part of a group have complete freedom of action at the opt-out stage and they can object to a settlement, but you couldn't have a situation where you need the approval of 1,000 or 10,000 people to make offers to settle or to accept them," he says. The Class Proceedings Act enshrines the special status of class representatives. At the same time, the representative's duty to act in the best interests of the class as a whole tempers the lack of democracy, says Mr. Baert. "It's not like a regular lawsuit. If you want to have a regular lawsuit, you're free to have one at your own expense with your own risk. Then you'll have 100% control over whether it's settled or litigated. If you consent to being part of a larger entity, you lose power, especially if the representative plaintiff is on the hook if the case goes south. In Berry, the plaintiff class includes 171 Air Ontario pilots. The case also involves a defendant class certified by the court: 1,682 Air Canada pilots who quit their union in a dispute over the integration of their Air Ontario counterparts following the airline's purchase by the national carrier in 1991. The Air Canada pilots were divided into subclasses based on their involvement in the dispute when the action was certified in 2001. The plaintiffs allege conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation in the claim that hasn't been proven in court. Experts for the plaintiffs have estimated the damages suffered at around $150 million or $80,000 to $100,000 per defendant class member. Justice Perell made the ruling after counsel for the plaintiff class made an offer to settle with individual members of two subclasses as the common issues trial approached. It's still set to begin on March 14 and run for 10 weeks. In December, plaintiff counsel Russell Raikes submitted an offer to settle the claim against the vast majority of rank-and-file members of the Air Canada union who publicly opposed the Air Ontario integration for $5,000. He also asked that the offer be circulated to members of the class. The representative defendants rejected the offer. Steve Waller, who's acting for the defendants, says the ability to settle claims with individual class members could be particularly damaging in the more typical case where a plaintiff class takes on a corporate defendant. "If a corporate defendant could make offers and pick members off one by one until the class is half the size it was before, it would virtually destroy the benefit of having a class action," he says. The defendants in the case are seeking indemnification from the Air Line Pilots Association in a third-party action. Brian Shell, who represents the association, says he was happy with the judgment. Without limiting individual settlement offers, he believes few counsel would be willing to take on class actions. "It's the unity of the class that's critical to making the whole system work. If you don't have that, you might as well have 5,000 individual actions," he says. * U.S. For-Profit Colleges Face Class Actions From Students ----------------------------------------------------------- Tim Barker, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that attacking the quality and motives of the for-profit college sector has become a popular exercise these days. Regulators have called for tighter controls. Investigations have pointed to grade inflation, misleading success stories and questionable recruiting tactics. And across the country, lawsuits like one crawling through the Madison County court could add flames to the fire. The suit -- filed in 2008 against Sanford Brown College, a powerhouse in the industry -- claims the school's Collinsville campus misrepresented the ease with which students could transfer to other schools or find jobs upon graduation. The litigation got a significant boost late last year when a judge granted it class action certification. That opens the suit not only to the medical assistant students who first sued the school, but also to more than 1,500 former students. It's the sort of thing that, if successful, could spark even more lawsuits and have significant ramifications for the industry. "If it really starts to snowball, we could be talking about a serious expense," said Trace Urdan, an analyst for investment banking firm Signal Hill who tracks the industry. Industry experts say there's already been an increase in such suits, with the sector under intense scrutiny from Congress, the president and various state regulators. They're all looking for ways to more tightly regulate an industry that enrolls 1 of every 10 college students, claiming more than a quarter of federal financial aid while accounting for more than 40% of loan defaults. In the middle are students claiming they were lured onto these campuses by lies. There is, from a legal perspective, blood in the water. "You don't have to be an ambulance chaser to know this is a vulnerable industry," Mr. Urdan said. Experts say it's a trend being pushed by increased media attention and by lawyers who see the lawsuits as low-risk, high-reward opportunities. They cost little to file, particularly when compared with environmental or medical claims that require costly experts and expensive tests. It doesn't help that the industry's own successes have made it a prime target, said Harris Miller, president of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, an industry trade group. Back when it represented less than 4% of higher education, the industry didn't attract much attention. "But when you are at 12 percent of higher education, you suddenly start seeing that there are some pretty deep pockets out there," Mr. Miller said. And while many of the lawsuits get tossed out by judges, there has been just enough success to keep them coming. Consider last year's decision by Career Education Corp., the Hoffman Estates firm whose holdings include Sanford Brown, to pay $40 million to settle a lawsuit in San Francisco. Students of its California Culinary Academy had claimed the school misrepresented its reputation and employment prospects students would face upon graduation. These claims are fairly typical of those made in lawsuits that have been filed in the St. Louis area and across the nation, focusing on the information given to students during their recruitment. Such is the case with the Madison County lawsuit, filed on behalf of students who enrolled in the 18-month medical assistants program at Sanford Brown's Collinsville campus. Among the allegations are claims that prospective students were given misleading placement data -- suggesting they would have an easier time finding jobs -- and promises that their credits would transfer to other schools. Among those students was Jenna Lilley, of Staunton, who enrolled in the program thinking it would further her goal of becoming a registered nurse. She said she made it nearly two semesters before learning her credits wouldn't transfer. So she dropped out and started over at Lewis and Clark Community College. That two-semester detour, she said, cost $9,000 in financial aid and loans, making it difficult to get aid at Lewis and Clark. "I not only wasted my time and money, but I've missed out on opportunities I could have had," Ms. Lilley said. "I could already have been a nurse. Instead, I'm waiting tables and trying to work my way through college." The case, so far, has not gone well for Sanford Brown and Career Education. The company, however, is appealing the class action certification and says the legal claims made in the lawsuit are without merit. "While the trial judge has certified a class, he has made no findings that the school engaged in improper conduct or violated any law," said Mark Spencer, spokesman for Career Education. It's likely to be many months before the appeal is decided. But already, attorneys representing the students are giving thought to the possibility of additional lawsuits against other for-profits in the region. "It's something we are considering," said John Carey, of Carey, Danis & Lowe, which has partnered with a Kansas City firm that has targeted for-profits on multiple occasions. "I don't think these schools, for the most part, are really helping their students." The notion of lawyers actively seeking new cases isn't exactly what the industry wants to think about -- particularly in light of the resources being expended in Washington to fend off new regulations and requirements that, some say, could force the closing of some for-profit degree programs. Among the bigger fears of the industry is the potential for one of the lawsuits to prove there was some sort of fraudulent activity traceable to the highest levels of these companies. But most say that's unlikely to happen. "They've got a lot of people working for them making sure they are following the rules. These are big companies," said Kevin Kinser, an education professor at the State University of New York at Albany who studies the for-profit sector. The industry tends to be more vulnerable on the local level because of its heavy reliance on recruitment to fill classrooms. It's not uncommon for some of that recruiting to be handled by outside firms, and recruiters have typically been paid, at least partially, based on the number of students they recruit. There's also a lack of clear-cut rules on what, exactly, those recruiters are allowed to say to prospective students, some industry observers say. And yet even if the industry isn't suffering financial losses in the courtroom, lawsuits do take their toll. "It's more than a monetary issue. It's a reputation thing," Mr. Kinser said. "There is a drumbeat of negative attention." ********* 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 * * *