/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110411.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 71 Headlines ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $5.1MM Remaining for Settlement AMEXDRUG CORP: Illinois Court Dismisses Suit Against BioRx AMITYVILLE, NY: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Calif. Suit Over Overtime Pay ARM'S REACH: Recalls 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Hubbard" Suit BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "D.W. Hugo" Suit BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Arizmendi" Suit BLUEGREEN CORP: Continues to Defend "Schwarz" Class Suit BNL FINANCIAL: Continues to Perform Settlement Obligations CAL-MAINE FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Antitrust Suits DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Watchdog Wants Victims to Avoid Class Action DVI INC: 3rd Cir. Upholds Deloitte Class Certification Decision EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Plaintiff Dismissed Class Suit ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Madden Games ENERGYCONNECT GROUP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over JCI Merger EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 750 Mowers Due to Crash Hazard FIBRIA CELULOSE: CEO and Board Member Added to "Aracruz" Lawsuit FXCM INC: Unit Faces Class Suit Over RICO Violations FXCM INC: Faces Class Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims INFANTINO LLC: Recall 40,500 Toy Activity Trucks INSWEB CORP: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Settlement Appeal INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit JONES FINANCIAL: Claims v. Edward Jones in "Luther" Suit Dismissed JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Lehman-Related Class Suit JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Covin" Suit in Arizona K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles With Plaintiffs in "Crocker" Suit K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Unit Settles "Robertson" Suit K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits KEY BABY: Recalls 29,000 Pampers(R) Natural Stages Pacifiers KID BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Alleging Custom Law Violations LAWSON SOFTWARE: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "FLSA" Class Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Illegal Seizure of Property MARUTI SUZUKI: Recalls 13,157 Diesel Cars Over Defective Bolt MEDIFAST INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in Maryland NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Conference Call Held to Discuss Mediation NATIONAL SECURITY: Appeal From Class Certification Still Pending OFFICE DEPOT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Fla. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Settles "Nelson" Class Action Suit in Calif. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Gleason" Case in Calif. Court PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Beeney" Suit in Calif. Court POLAND: Rybinski Mulls Class Action Over Pension Reform Bill RICHARD GOLDSTONE: May Face Class Action Over Israel Opinion ROYAL BANK: Unit Faces Lawsuit Over Excessive Overdraft Charges ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Against N.Y. Shareholder Suit ROYAL BANK: Faces Securitization and Securities-Related Lawsuits SCHOLASTIC CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to File 3rd Amended Suit SEMTECH CORP: Hearing on Securities Suit Pact Set for April 11 SIGNATURE HOSPITAL: Responds to Employee Class Action SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Pending ST. LOUIS COMPOSTING: Valley Park Residents Mull Class Action STATE STREET: New York Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action STATION CASINOS: Won't Need to Distribute NPH Warrants STEWART TITLE: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme SUNL GROUP: CPSC Terminates ATV Action Plan TORO COMPANY: Recalls 3,700 Mowers Due to Injury Hazard UNION FINANCIAL: Suit Over Planned Merger With DFSC Dismissed VANCOUVER: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Tuition Fee Class Action VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Sludge WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court May Rule Against Class Action ********* ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $5.1MM Remaining for Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., estimates it has $5.1 million remaining for a claims resolution process and legal fees relating to the settlement of a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2007, along with decking material purchased after December 31, 2007, that was manufactured before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced in the manufacturing process. At December 31, 2010, the Company had a total remaining balance in accrued expenses and accounts payable of $5.1 million associated with the settlement of the class action lawsuit. The estimate included $4.6 million remaining for the claims resolution process and $0.5 million remaining to be paid for plaintiffs' attorney fees. In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due to events that occurred and information that became available after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to the Company of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is completed. Based in Springdale, Arizona, Advanced Environmental Recycling Tech. (NASDAQ:AERT) -- http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets composite building materials that are used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain other industrial or commercial building purposes. AMEXDRUG CORP: Illinois Court Dismisses Suit Against BioRx ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed against BioRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in Illinois was settled and dismissed in December 2010, according to Amexdrug Corporation's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On October 26, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. against the Company's subsidiary, BioRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and John Does 1-10 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division (Case No. 10CH46583). The plaintiff intended to have the court approve the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged that BioRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sent or caused the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the Common Law. The plaintiff sought injunction relief, cost of the lawsuit, and such further relief as the court deemed proper. The lawsuit was settled in December 2010, with the Company paying $3,500. The lawsuit has been dismissed. AMITYVILLE, NY: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Village of Amityville, N.Y., and the Amityville Fire Department will pay $209,280 to settle a class age-discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency said in February. The EEOC's suit alleged that Amityville refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 65 accrue credit toward a "length of service award," the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 65, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act a federal law that protects workers age 40 and older from age discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civ. No. 2:09-03742 ADS/AKT, after first attempting to reach a pre- litigation settlement. The consent decree filed in resolution of this suit permanently eliminates an age restriction on service credit, mandates training for individuals responsible for this program and institutes an anti-discrimination policy. Further, retroactive payments will be made to 23 volunteer firefighters who had been barred from receiving credit for their service because of their age. The settlement also provides for increased monthly pension amounts for 15 of those firefighters still living. "The fire department's system penalized older firefighters because of their age, and that was simply illegal," said Adela Santos, the EEOC trial attorney assigned to the case. EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Judy Keenan said, "We are pleased that the parties worked together to resolve this matter so that these brave firefighters, who risk their lives, will finally receive appropriate compensation for their years of service." The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Calif. Suit Over Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTS Software, Inc., continues to defend itself against an employee lawsuit alleging unfair labor practices in California, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On August 22, 2008, a former ANTS employee filed a class action complaint against the Company on behalf of all current and former software engineers for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal breaks, among other things, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The former employee is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys' fees and penalties. No trial date has yet been set. On March 9, 2011, the Court certified the class and a subclass consisting solely of former engineering employees who signed release agreements, with another former employee as the sub-class representative. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit. ANTs Software, Inc. -- http://www.ants.com/-- is developing the Ants Compatibility Server (ACS) and develops, markets and supports the ANTs Data Server ADS. ACS is middleware that is intended to offer a method to move applications from one database to another and enable enterprises to achieve cost efficiencies by consolidating their applications onto fewer databases. The Company had developed technologies used in the monitoring and management of applications and databases related to ACS. ARM'S REACH: Recalls 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Arm's Reach Concepts Inc., of Oxnard, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. When the fabric liner is not used or is not securely attached, infants can fall from the raised mattress into the loose fabric at the bottom of the bed-side sleeper or can become entrapped between the edge of the mattress and the side of the sleeper, posing risks of suffocation. CPSC and Arm's Reach have received 10 reports of infants falling from the raised mattress into the bottom of the sleeper or becoming entrapped between the edge of the mattress and the side of the bed-side sleeper. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves a product called a "co-sleeper" by Arm's Reach. One side of the bed-side sleepers is lower than the others to allow positioning near a bed and access to the infant for care and feeding. This recall includes all Arm's Reach Original and Universal styles with manufacture dates between September 1997 and December 2001. The manufacture date and model number can be found on a sticker on one of the product's legs. Model numbers included in the recall begin with: Originals - 8108, 8133, 8111, 8112 & 8199 Universal - 8311 The recalled products are sold at Burlington Coat Factory, Babies R Us and other retail stores nationwide from September 1997 through December 2001 for about $160. The products are manufactured in China. A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11187.html Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bed-side sleepers and visit http://www.armsreach.com/instructionsto view and download assembly instructions and to make sure that the product is properly configured. Consumers should also contact the company by phone or via the company Web site to receive hard-copy instructions by mail and an assembly/warning label. Consumers who are missing the fabric liner or other components should immediately contact Arm's Reach for an alternative remedy. For additional information, contact Arm's Reach at (800) 954-9353 between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.armsreach.com/ BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Hubbard" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed by Joseph C. Hubbard, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On October 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and four of its current or former officers. The Defendants in this action are BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarett S. Levan, John E. Abdo, and Alan B. Levan. The Complaint, which was later amended, alleges that during the purported class period of November 9, 2005 through October 25, 2007, the Company and the named officers knowingly and recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and allowance for loan losses. The Complaint sought to assert claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and unspecified damages. On December 12, 2007, the Court consolidated into Hubbard a separately filed action captioned Alarm Specialties, Inc. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07-- cv-61623-WPD. On February 5, 2008, the Court appointed State- Boston Retirement System lead plaintiff and Lubaton Sucharow LLP to serve as lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On November 18, 2010, a jury returned a verdict awarding $2.41 per share to shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period of April 26, 2007 to October 26, 2007 and retained those shares until the end of the period. The jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the six month period from October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007. Prior to the beginning of the trial, plaintiffs abandoned any claim for any prior period. The Company has filed motions to set aside the verdict, which are fully briefed, and the judge has indicated that if those are denied she will certify issues to the United States Court of Appeals to the Eleventh Circuit before any judgment is entered or claims are satisfied. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute post-trial motions and an appeal, and then subsequently assert all meritorious available defenses in any claims process. About BankAtlantic Bancorp BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX) -- http://www.BankAtlanticBancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company and the parent company of BankAtlantic. BankAtlantic -- "Florida's Most Convenient Bank" with a Web presence at http://www.BankAtlantic.com/-- has nearly $6.0 billion in assets and more than 100 stores, and is one of the largest financial institutions headquartered junior in Florida. BankAtlantic has been serving communities throughout Florida since 1952 and currently operates more than 250 conveniently located ATMs. BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "D.W. Hugo" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in the class action lawsuit brought by D.W. Hugo, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On July 2, 2008, D.W. Hugo filed a purported class action which was brought as a derivative action on behalf of the Company pursuant to Florida laws in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain officers and directors. The Complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in certain lending practices with respect to the Company's Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio. The Complaint further alleges that the Company's public filings and statements did not fully disclose the risks associated with the Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio and seeks damages on behalf of the Company. This shareholder derivative action is based on the same factual allegations made in In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation and has been stayed pending final resolution of that case. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. About BankAtlantic Bancorp BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX) -- http://www.BankAtlanticBancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company and the parent company of BankAtlantic. BankAtlantic -- "Florida's Most Convenient Bank" with a Web presence at http://www.BankAtlantic.com/-- has nearly $6.0 billion in assets and more than 100 stores, and is one of the largest financial institutions headquartered junior in Florida. BankAtlantic has been serving communities throughout Florida since 1952 and currently operates more than 250 conveniently located ATMs. BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Arizmendi" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action captioned Jordan Arizmendi, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BankAtlantic, Case No. 09-059341 (19), Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On November 8, 2010, two pending class action cases against BankAtlantic -- Farrington v. BankAtlantic, and Rothman v. BankAtlantic -- were consolidated, and a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. New purported named plaintiffs were added, and the case is now styled as Jordan Arizmendi, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BankAtlantic. The Complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleges that the Bank improperly re-sequenced debit card transactions, improperly assessed overdraft fees on positive balances, and improperly imposed sustained overdraft fees on customers one day sooner than provided for under the applicable account agreement. About BankAtlantic Bancorp BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX) -- http://www.BankAtlanticBancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company and the parent company of BankAtlantic. BankAtlantic -- "Florida's Most Convenient Bank" with a Web presence at http://www.BankAtlantic.com/-- has nearly $6.0 billion in assets and more than 100 stores, and is one of the largest financial institutions headquartered junior in Florida. BankAtlantic has been serving communities throughout Florida since 1952 and currently operates more than 250 conveniently located ATMs. BLUEGREEN CORP: Continues to Defend "Schwarz" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Corporation continues to await a court ruling of the class certification request pending in the lawsuit, Paul A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation. The complaint was filed on September 18, 2008, under Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division. The plaintiffs brought suit alleging fraud and misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia. The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the fraud and misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of racketeering laws, including mail fraud and wire fraud. On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of more than 100 persons claimed to have been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner. Bluegreen has filed a response with the Court in opposition to class certification. No decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether they will certify a class. No updates were reported in Bluegreen's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Bluegreen Corporation -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a provider of places to live and play through its resorts and residential community businesses. The company is organized into two divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen Communities. Bluegreen Resorts acquires, develops and markets vacation ownership interests (VOIs) in resorts located in drive-to vacation destinations and provides various services to third- party resort owners. Bluegreen Communities acquires, develops and subdivides property and markets residential land homesites, which are sold directly to retail customers who seek to build a home in a residential setting, in some cases on properties featuring a golf course and related amenities, and also offers real estate consulting and other services to third parties. It also generates income from its resort management business and through interest income earned from the financing of individual purchasers of VOIs, and homesites sold by Bluegreen Communities. BNL FINANCIAL: Continues to Perform Settlement Obligations ---------------------------------------------------------- BNL Financial Corporation continues to perform its obligations under a settlement agreement in the class action case brought by certain shareholders against it, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In 2001, the Board of Directors of BNL Financial Corporation and BNL Equity Corporation approved a settlement in the class action case brought by certain shareholders. The settlement, which was approved by the Pulaski County Circuit Court and the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner, was subject to various conditions, including the approvals by any other applicable regulatory authorities and conditioned upon compliance with federal and state securities laws. As of December 31, 2002, all requisite approvals were received and redemption of the stock began in 2003. As part of the settlement agreement, the Company issued its Bonds in the principal amount of $1.50 in exchange for each share of common stock of BNL owned by the members of the Class. The balance of Bonds Payable was $1,300,708 and $1,323,388 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The bonds are for a term of twelve years, effective December 15, 2002, with principal payable at maturity and bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable annually from the previous fiscal year's earnings of BNL. The estimated annual impact to earnings per share is approximately $.005 per share. If any interest payment is not made, it will be added to the principal and paid at maturity. The Bonds are fully callable and redeemable at par at any time by BNL. The Company has made cash offers to bond holders for the purchase of bonds. Bond purchases resulted in a reduction of Bonds Payable of $22,680, and $119,894 in 2010 and 2009; respectively. Gains from early extinguishments of the debt were $4,536, $27,176 and $44,370 in 2010, 2009 and 2008; respectively. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous antitrust lawsuits filed against it and other domestic egg producers, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in twenty-four antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In sixteen of these cases, the named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In fourteen of those putative class actions, the named plaintiffs allege that they are retailers or distributors that purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants. In the other two putative class actions, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties. In the remaining eight cases, the plaintiffs sued for their own alleged damages and are not seeking to certify a class. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. Six of the eight non-class suits were filed in the same court that is presiding over the putative class actions. One of these cases was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff. Another of these cases was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, but the defendants have transferred it to the Eastern District, and it has been consolidated for pretrial proceedings with the other cases. The remaining non-class suit was filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas but has been removed to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The defendants have requested that it be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the Multidistrict Litigation proceedings in that court. The plaintiffs in this action are seeking to remand the case back to the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser case filed a consolidated complaint on January 30, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint. The direct purchaser plaintiffs did not respond to those motions. Instead, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with one defendant. The final hearing on approval of that settlement has been held, but the court has not yet ruled. If it is approved, the settlement would not require the settling party to pay any money. Instead, the settling defendant, while denying all liability, would provide cooperation in the form of documents and witness interviews to the plaintiffs' attorneys. After announcing this potential settlement with one defendant, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2009. On February 5, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period and claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector. The court heard oral argument on these motions but has not yet ruled. On February 26, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the direct purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with a second defendant. The final hearing on approval of this settlement has also been held, but the court has not ruled. If this settlement is approved, then the defendant would pay a total of $25 million and would provide other consideration in the form of documents, witness interviews, and declarations. This settling defendant denied all liability in its potential agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and stated publicly that it settled merely to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser case filed a consolidated complaint on February 27, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers' consolidated complaint. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs did not respond to those motions. Instead, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2010. On May 7, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period, claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector, claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer frauds statutes, and common-law claims for unjust enrichment. The court heard oral argument on these motions but has not yet ruled. On June 4, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint. Non-Class Cases The cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class were filed between November 16, 2010 and January 25, 2011. The Company has not yet answered or moved to dismiss any of these cases. Allegations in Each Case In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000, and running "through the present." The direct purchaser putative class action case alleges two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act and the statutes and common-law of various states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In six of the non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In one of the non-class cases, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). In the remaining non-class case, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders in the putative class actions related to case management and scheduling. There is no definite schedule in either putative class action case for discovery, class certification proceedings, or filing motions for summary judgment. No trial date has been set in either putative class action case. The non-class cases were filed so recently that the court has not set any schedule for them. The Company says it intends to continue to defend these cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Watchdog Wants Victims to Avoid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The US Drug Watchdog says, "When it comes to the recalled ASR DePuy hip implant, we are warning all recipients of this artificial hip to avoid national class actions, or what they call a MDL. We fear recalled ASR DePuy victims will be treated like a commodity in a class action, as opposed an individual, who has been horribly damaged." They are saying, "If you are already signed up with a law firm related to the ASR DePuy recalled artificial hip implant tragedy, please call your attorney, and ask if your case is going to be part of a national class action, or if they will prosecute your case individually in state court? If the law firm says class action, call us immediately, and we will find you or your loved one the best possible law firm, that will prosecute your case, in state court. Nothing is more important to us than trying to get recalled ASR DePuy hip implant victims some help, and we are dedicated to the idea of getting victims of the recalled ASR DePuy hip implant the best possible results." The US Drug Watchdog now wants to hear from all recipients of a recalled ASR DePuy hip implant to make certain they get treated in the best possible way. For more information about the DePuy hip implant recall please call the US Drug Watchdog at 866-714-6466, or contact the group via its Web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.Com According to the US Drug Watchdog, "Symptoms of the recalled ASR DePuy hip implant possible failure include, pain in the hip region, problem while walking or the inability to walk, swelling of the hip, discomfort in the hip area, and lack of flexibility in the hip area. The US Drug Watchdog is the premier private pharmaceutical watchdog in the United States. The group says, "tragically the Internet is loaded with misleading ads about ASR DePuy hip implant compensation, lawsuits, or class actions; unfortunately most of the attorneys, or law firms advertising for help with the ASR DePuy hip implant failures are middlemen marketing law firms-not the actual trial law firms that will prosecute these cases." They say, "we want to make certain all ASR DePuy hip implant victims get to the actual trial law firms, or attorneys, that have the best record in achieving superior results for their clients- period-no middleman marketing law firms, or attorneys." For more information please contact the US Drug Watchdog anytime at 866- 714-6466, or contact the group via its web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.Com Federal Case Number MDL No. 2197 DVI INC: 3rd Cir. Upholds Deloitte Class Certification Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- Krislov & Associates, Ltd. on April 6 disclosed that it achieved a significant, wide-ranging securities fraud decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit that is highly favorable to investors, especially institutional investors, upholding a district court's class certification decision against DVI's auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP. In In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig. -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 1125926 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2011), the court's 58-page opinion, addressing many of the major current issues in securities class action litigation, rejected numerous challenges to the district court's certification of a class of equity and debt investors, and the adequacy of institutional investors, lead plaintiffs Cedar Street Funds, to represent them. First, the Third Circuit rejected requiring investors to prove loss causation at the class certification stage and declared that plaintiffs need only show that loss causation is susceptible to class-wide proof, and noted that, in "typical" cases, as was the case here -- where plaintiffs allege that fraudulent misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of the security -- it is presumed that damages and loss causation are susceptible of determination through evidence common to the class. The court also rejected Deloitte's challenge to the fraud-on-the market presumption and its assertion that DVI's common stock and senior notes did not trade in efficient markets. The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the District Court in crediting Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Michael Hartzmark of Navigant Economics, over defendants' experts, in finding market efficiency present for both DVI's common stock and two senior note tranches. Additionally, in another issue important to institutional investors, the Third Circuit rejected Deloitte's challenges to institutional investor trading strategies and personally contacting company personnel to investigate the bona fides of the issuer's releases, finding Plaintiffs' access to DVI insiders a common practice of institutional investors and acceptable, and investor's subjective belief that a security is incorrectly priced not grounds to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption for investors' class-wide reliance on the market price. In another aspect of the case, the court upheld the lower court's denial of class certification to pursue claims against the Clifford Chance law firm; in the court's view investors cannot assert class securities claims against "non-signing" attorneys who allegedly created, crafted and choreographed a "workaround" that caused the company to omit disclosures in their SEC filings. Clint Krislov, lead attorney for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class, stated, "the Third Circuit's ruling against the accountants is a substantial victory for institutional investors, protecting them from baseless attacks on honest investigation by diligent investment funds which base their investment decisions on their independent evaluation of markets and pricing. With respect to the ruling on Clifford Chance, we will consider all our options, including whether to petition the U.S. Supreme Court." Michael Karnuth, another primary attorney for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class, stated, "the Third Circuit's decision is a victory for investors on several fronts. The decision allows investors to bring class cases to redress fraud rather than be dismissed on buyer beware principles based on nebulous and hyper-technical market efficiency challenges, or premature and unduly burdensome loss causation objections." Mike Karnuth further stated, "we're also very pleased that the District Court and the Third Circuit agreed that our client's trading strategies and access to management were proper. This ruling not only vindicates our clients, but also allows institutional investors with similar common trading strategies to pursue appointment as lead plaintiffs without the threat of retribution." Class Counsel involved in argument to the Third Circuit were Clint Krislov and Michael Karnuth, who were assisted on the briefs by Robert DeWitte and Eve-Lynn Rapp, all of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., with further assistance provided by Liaison Counsel Steve Schwartz and Kimberly Donaldson-Smith of Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP. CONTACT: Krislov & Associates, Ltd. Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-606-0500 E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/ EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Plaintiff Dismissed Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff of a putative class action lawsuit commenced against Eksportfinans ASA was dismissed in September 2010, without prejudice, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. A putative class action lawsuit was commenced in July 2010 against Eksportfinans relating to certain securities sold pursuant to the US MTN program seeking unspecified damages and attorney's fees. Eksportfinans received notice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dated September 21, 2010, that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) the Plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Madden Games --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Schreier, writing for Wired.com, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on April 6 claims Electronic Arts has violated antitrust laws with its Madden football game series. A class-action lawsuit alleges that videogame publisher Electronic Arts has violated California antitrust and consumer-protection laws by overcharging for its popular Madden football games. Law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is filing the suit, which claims EA's exclusive licenses with the National Football League and other sports organizations hurts consumers. The license ensures that only Madden can use NFL team names and players. Since football gamers are by and large looking to replicate the NFL experience, this makes it extremely difficult for other football games to challenge EA. The lawsuit also targets EA's deals with the National Football League Players' Association, the National Collegiate Athletics Association and the Arena Football League. Some gamers reported receiving an e-mail about the lawsuit Wednesday morning. Anyone who has "purchased the Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football League brand videogames published by Electronic Arts with a release date of January 1, 2005, to the present" is considered a member of the class and is consequently eligible for any compensation if the lawsuit succeeds. Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter, who holds two law degrees, cast heavy doubt on the legal action's chances for success. "I think that the suit is idiotic, and would bet it's dismissed," he said in an e-mail to Wired.com. Exclusive intellectual-property licenses are commonplace across the games industry, Mr. Pachter noted. "Marvel doesn't license Spider-Man to multiple movie studios or game companies, and they don't have to," he said, adding that consumers are not being overcharged since new Madden games are sold at the same suggested retail price as sports games that are not licensed exclusively. The original list prices for EA's exclusive Madden NFL 11 and Take-Two's nonexclusive NBA 2K11 were both $60. "If Madden pricing went up to $70 or $80, I could see some merit in the argument," Mr. Pachter said. "But Madden launches at the same price point as every other game made by EA, so proving that the class of plaintiffs was harmed by the NFL exclusive will be almost impossible." Electronic Arts negotiated an exclusive deal with the NFL in late 2004. That was the last year that a variety of different NFL- licensed football games appeared on shelves. 2K Sports' ESPN NFL 2K5 was rated as highly as that year's Madden, posing a real threat to EA's decades-long dominance of the football genre. Moreover, 2K sold its game at a mere $20. The exclusivity deal shut that down abruptly. "EA's move to get an exclusive was predatory against Take-Two, but not aimed at hurting consumers," said Mr. Pachter, who called EA's deal with the NFL perfectly legal. "Take-Two cut price to an unsustainable level for a year to capture share, and EA responded." Back when the deal was struck, Mr. Pachter was more pessimistic about its effect on consumers. "It was flat out predatory licensing," he told CNN in 2004. "[EA is] trying to put other people out of business. No matter what, the consumer has fewer choices and no matter what, they're paying more. There is no $20 option. It goes to $50 next year and stays there. I think consumers lose." As of press time, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro had not responded to Wired.com's requests for comment. Electronic Arts refused to comment on the lawsuit, which states that Defendant the company "has denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct." ENERGYCONNECT GROUP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over JCI Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ EnergyConnect Group Inc. is facing a consolidated class action lawsuit, which stemmed from its proposed merger with Johnson Controls Holding Company Inc., according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011. EnergyConnect, its board of directors, JCI Holding and Eureka, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of JCI Holding, are named as defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought by alleged shareholders challenging EnergyConnect's proposed merger with JCI Holding. The shareholder actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of the EnergyConnect board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to EnergyConnect shareholders by authorizing the sale of EnergyConnect to JCI Holding for consideration that does not maximize value to EnergyConnect shareholders. The complaints also allege that EnergyConnect, JCI Holding and Eureka, Inc. aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the EnergyConnect board of directors. The shareholder actions seek equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms. On March 28, 2011, the court entered an order consolidating the three cases into one matter. EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 750 Mowers Due to Crash Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Exmark Manufacturing Company, of Beatrice, Neb., voluntarily recalled about 750 Exmark Pioneer S-Series riding mowers in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Welds on the motion control linkage can fail and cause the driver to lose control of the machine, resulting in a crash hazard. Exmark has had no reports of incidents or injuries. 2011 Exmark Pioneer S-Series zero radius turn riding mowers with red, welded, tubular steel frames and mowing decks in three sizes -- 44, 48 and 52 inches. Operators use two levers to control the mowers. The name Exmark is on the front of the seat mount and the name Pioneer is on the front of the floor pan. Pictures of recalled mower showing the location of model number and serial number data plate are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11730.html Mowers with the following model and serial number ranges are affected by this recall: Model Serial Number Range ----- ------------------- PNS20KA443 928367 to 947833 PNS22KA483 928417 to 949985 PNS24KA523 928492 to 950315 The model name and serial numbers are located on the seat mount near where the driver's right foot rests on the floorpan. The mowers were manufactured in the United States and sold at Exmark dealers nationwide from February 11, 2011 to March 10, 2011 for $6,881 to $7,658. Consumers should contact their Exmark dealer to have the improperly welded parts replaced. For additional information, contact Exmark at 800-667-5296, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.exmark.com/ FIBRIA CELULOSE: CEO and Board Member Added to "Aracruz" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fibria Celulose S.A.'s chief executive officer and former member of the board were added to a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Company is currently a defendant in litigation relating to derivative losses Aracruz incurred in the fourth quarter of 2008. This litigation includes a securities class action lawsuit filed in November 2008 against Aracruz and certain of its officers and directors in a U.S. federal court purportedly on behalf of persons who purchased Aracruz's shares and American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between April 7 and October 2, 2008, which lawsuit the Company is currently defending. During the first quarter of 2011, Mr. Carlos Augusto Lira Aguiar (currently Fibria's CEO) and Mr. Carlos Alberto Vieira (formerly a member of the Company's Board of Directors) were officially served with process in Brazil naming them as additional defendants in the class action. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the Company misrepresented or failed to disclose information in connection with, and losses arising from, certain derivative transactions into which the Company had entered. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and expense reimbursement. On October 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that narrowed the class of plaintiffs to persons who purchased Aracruz's ADRs between April 7 and October 2, 2008. FXCM INC: Unit Faces Class Suit Over RICO Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Forex Capital Markets LLC is facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging false and deceptive trade practices, among other things, according to FXCM Inc.'s March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On February 8, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a single former customer against Forex Capital Markets LLC. The complaint asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C Section 1961 et seq., as well as the New York General Business Law. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, trebled, and alleges false and deceptive trade practices, fraudulent and unfair trade execution and account handling practices. The Company says that it is unable to predict the final outcome of the lawsuit, but it firmly believes that the allegations from the lawsuit are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company adds that any potential liability from these claims cannot currently be reasonably estimated, and no provision has been accrued in its financial statements. FXCM INC: Faces Class Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims ------------------------------------------------------ FXCM Inc. is facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging false or misleading statements in its initial public offering prospectus, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On March 3, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against FXCM Inc., as well as certain of its officers and directors and three underwriters in its initial public offering. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, alleges false or misleading statements in the IPO prospectus regarding the Company's business model and trading platforms, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A common stock in the IPO. The Company says that it is unable to predict the final outcome of the lawsuit, but it firmly believes that the allegations from the lawsuit are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company adds that any potential liability from these claims cannot currently be reasonably estimated, and no provision has been accrued in its financial statements. INFANTINO LLC: Recall 40,500 Toy Activity Trucks ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 40,500 Troy the Activity Truck in the United States and 1,900 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The plastic beads on the activity truck's bead runs can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. Infantino has received 28 reports of the plastic beads detaching from the bead runs on the activity trucks, including two reports of young children gagging on the plastic beads. The recall involves "Troy the Activity Truck," which is blue, red and yellow with plastic star, circle and heart beads attached to the bead runs on the back of the truck and has a face on the front. "Infantino" is printed on the front of the toy truck. Model number 153-210, 206-110 or 506-110C is printed underneath the truck. When its switch is turned on, the truck plays music and the back wheels spin. A picture of the recalled toy activity truck is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11186.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Babies R Us, Toys R Us, Meijer, TJ Maxx, Marshalls and other toy stores nationwide from September 2009 through February 2011 for about $15. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from children and contact Infantino to receive a free replacement toy. For additional information, contact Infantino toll-free at (888) 808-3111 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://service.infantino.com INSWEB CORP: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Settlement Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Insweb Corporation is awaiting a ruling on an appeal made by certain plaintiffs regarding a court-approved settlement in a securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The complaint named as defendants InsWeb, certain current and former officers and directors, and three investment banking firms that served as underwriters for InsWeb's initial public offering in July 1999. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the offering failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated shares of the stock sold in the offering to those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of InsWeb stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes. In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in the InsWeb action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the remaining claims. In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants. Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters. InsWeb and most of the other issuer defendants have accepted the settlement proposal. While the District Court was considering final approval of the settlement, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the class certification of plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters in six cases designated as focus or test cases. On December 14, 2006, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of 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' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court. Because of the significant technical barriers presented by the Court's decision, the parties withdrew the proposed settlement and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Representatives of all of the parties to the IPO litigation agreed to a revised settlement; as with the earlier settlement proposal, the revised settlement proposal does not require InsWeb to contribute any cash. The revised settlement was approved by the District Court on October 5, 2009, but a number of plaintiffs appealed the approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. There is no assurance that the new settlement will be upheld on appeal. If the settlement is not upheld, InsWeb intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The litigation and settlement process is inherently uncertain and management cannot predict the outcome, though, if unfavorable, it could have a material adverse effect on InsWeb's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- International Textile Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in relation to the Company's merger with a company formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc., in 2006, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Three substantially identical lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina related to the merger of the Company and a company formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc., in late 2006. The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the second and third lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same attorney. These three lawsuits were consolidated in 2010. The actions name as defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers and directors of Former ITG or the Company at the time of the Merger. The plaintiffs raise derivative and direct (class action) claims and contend that certain of the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger. The plaintiffs also make certain related claims against certain of the defendants' former advisors. While the Company is a nominal defendant for purposes of the derivative action claims, the Company is not aware of any claims for affirmative relief being made against it. However, the Company has certain obligations to provide indemnification to its officers and directors (and certain former officers and directors) against certain claims and believes the lawsuits are being defended vigorously. Certain fees and costs related to this litigation are to be paid or reimbursed under the Company's insurance programs. Because of the uncertainties associated with the litigation, management cannot estimate the impact of the ultimate resolution of the litigation. It is the opinion of the Company's management that any failure by the Company's insurance providers to provide any required insurance coverage could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. International Textile Group, Inc., is a global, diversified textile manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, with current operations principally in the United States, China, Mexico, and Vietnam. ITG's long-term focus includes the realization of the benefits of its global expansion, including reaching full production at ITG facilities in China and Vietnam, and continuing to seek other strategic growth opportunities. JONES FINANCIAL: Claims v. Edward Jones in "Luther" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Claims against Edward D. Jones Co., L.P, the principal operating subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., in a consolidated securities class action involving Countrywide Corporation were dismissed in November, Jones Financial disclosed in its March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. Three matters (David H. Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al; Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Pension Trust, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.; and Maine State Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al.) were filed in 2007, 2008, and 2010 respectively in California state court. In these matters, plaintiffs allege against numerous issuers and underwriters, including Edward Jones, certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with registration statements and prospectus supplements issued between January 2005 and June 2007 for certain mortgage-backed certificates. Luther and Washington State Plumbing were consolidated in October 2008. In January 2010, the court in Luther granted the defendants' demurrer and dismissed the matter. In March 2010, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed the Maine State Retirement System case in federal court. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 13, 2010. On November 4, 2010, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's claims to the extent they related to any certificates for which Edward Jones acted as dealer. In both matters, the plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and rescission. On November 17, 2010, a fourth matter was filed in California state court, Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., re-asserting the claims dismissed by the Court in the Maine State Retirement case. That case has been stayed by agreement of the parties, pending the outcome of the Luther appeal. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri. The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. -- http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal operating subsidiary. Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28, 1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily serving individual investors. As the ultimate parent company of Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct operations. Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and revenue related to assets held by and account services provided to its customers. Edward Jones conducts business in the United States of America and Canada, with its customers, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic operating segments, the U.S. and Canada. JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Lehman-Related Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s principal operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones Co., L.P, continues to defend itself in the class action complaint related to the issuance of Lehman Brothers bonds. In October 2008, a class action suit was filed in Arkansas state court, Saline County, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 Act, against certain officers and directors of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and a syndicate of underwriters, including Edward Jones, of Lehman bonds sold pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus dated May 30, 2006, and various prospectus supplements dated October 22, 2006, and thereafter. In November 2008, a similar suit was filed in Arkansas state court, Benton County against the same defendants stemming from the sale of 6.5% Lehman Bonds maturing October 25, 2007, pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus and prospectus supplement dated August 2, 2007. Plaintiffs in both actions allege the defendants made material misrepresentations to the purchasers of Lehman Bonds. While each lawsuit relates to a different series of Lehman bonds, the plaintiffs in each suit seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. In February 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these two actions to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with similar actions currently pending in the SDNY. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Securities Act Claims in April 2009, which is currently pending in the SDNY. In April 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Statement of Claim. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in July 2010, which is currently pending. No updates were reported in Jones Financial's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri. The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. -- http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal operating subsidiary. Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28, 1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily serving individual investors. As the ultimate parent company of Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct operations. Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and revenue related to assets held by and account services provided to its customers. Edward Jones conducts business in the United States of America and Canada, with its customers, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic operating segments, the U.S. and Canada. JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Covin" Suit in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------ Edward D. Jones Co., L.P., continues to defend its involvement in a putative class action, In re Covin, et al., in relation to bonds underwritten for the purpose of financing construction of an event center in Prescott Valley, Arizona. Edward Jones is the principal operating subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. In September 2009, three lawsuits were filed in Arizona. The actions relate to bonds underwritten by Edward Jones and other brokerage firms for the purpose of financing construction of an event center in Prescott Valley, Arizona. Edward Jones sold approximately $2.9 million of the bonds. The plaintiffs allege the underwriters, including Edward Jones, made material misrepresentations and omissions in the Preliminary Official Statement and/or in the Official Statement. The Covin, et al matter, was filed as a putative class action in which the plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the issued bonds. Allstate is suing as a purchaser of the bonds and Wells Fargo filed a separate action as Trustee on behalf of all bond holders. The Court entered an order in November 2009, dismissing several of the claims against Edward Jones including, all claims brought on behalf of the class. The remaining claims against Edward Jones stem from allegations that defendants violated certain state securities acts and committed common law torts. Plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages including attorneys' fees, costs, expense, rescission or statutory damages, out-of- pocket damages and prejudgment interest. No updates were reported in Jones Financial's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is organized under the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Missouri. The Partnership is the successor to Whitaker & Co., which was established in 1871 and dissolved on Oct. 1, 1943, the organization date of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. -- http://www.edwardjones.com/-- the Partnership's principal operating subsidiary. Edward Jones was reorganized on Aug. 28, 1987, which was the organization date of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward Jones, is a registered broker-dealer primarily serving individual investors. As the ultimate parent company of Edward Jones, the Partnership is a holding company with no direct operations. Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal transactions and as a distributor of mutual fund shares, and revenue related to assets held by and account services provided to its customers. Edward Jones conducts business in the United States of America and Canada, with its customers, various brokers, dealers, clearing organizations, depositories and banks. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Partnership operates in two geographic operating segments, the U.S. and Canada. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles With Plaintiffs in "Crocker" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs of the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duties to participants in its 401(k) plan, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. On February 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative class-action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Crocker v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ. The Crocker case was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in the Eastern District of Missouri (Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, on February 9, 2009, and Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, on February 24, 2009). The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that only a single action now exists, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009. The Complaint purports to state claims against the Company and certain current and former employees for alleged breach of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan. Defendants, including the Company and certain of its directors and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 25, 2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on October 19, 2009. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Company and all individual defendants on March 24, 2010. A motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010. The Company, on May 17, 2010, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. On October 20, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs requested mediation and the Company agreed to this request. On February 15, 2011, during such mediation, this litigation was settled by an agreement in principle of the parties for an amount equal to $3,000,000 payable in full from the Company's insurance coverage. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Unit Settles "Robertson" Suit ------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company's subsidiary, Ther-Rx Corporation, has reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs of a lawsuit pending in Alabama, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The lawsuit Robertson v. Ther-Rx Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Civil Case No. 2:09-cv-01010- MHT-TFM, was filed on October 30, 2009, by a Ther-Rx sales representative asserting non-exempt status and the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for a class of Ther-Rx sales representatives and under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (with respect to plaintiff's pregnancy) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (also with respect to termination allegedly due to her pregnancy and to her complaints about being terminated allegedly as a result of her pregnancy). An additional seven Ther-Rx sales representatives have joined as plaintiffs. Class certification arguments are pending before the court. On December 22, 2010, a settlement in principle was reached between the parties. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend itself against numerous product liability or other lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the Company in late 2008 and early 2009, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The Company and/or ETHEX Corporation are named defendants in at least 43 pending product liability or other lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the Company in late 2008 and early 2009. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and 2008. The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in various jurisdictions. The 43 pending lawsuits include 9 that have settled but have not yet been dismissed. In the 43 pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 29 plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based on various theories of recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions, one of the lawsuits is on behalf of 29 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual lawsuits or have two plaintiffs. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them, except where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate. In addition to the 43 pending lawsuits, there are at least 31 pending pre-litigation claims (at least 6 of which involve a death) that may or may not eventually become lawsuits. The Company has also resolved a significant number of related product liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In addition to self insurance, the Company possesses third party product liability insurance, which the Company believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits and claims. KEY BABY: Recalls 29,000 Pampers(R) Natural Stages Pacifiers ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Key Baby LLC, of Lutz, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 29,000 Pampers(R) Natural Stages Infant Ortho and Bulb Pacifiers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Pampers(R) licensed their brand name to Key Baby. The recalled products were manufactured by Tahoe Enterprises, of China. The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards and pose a choking hazard to young children. No injuries have been reported. The pacifier comes in yellow, pink or blue colors and is made of silicone. Only "Stage 1" pacifiers are recalled. "Stage 1" and "Ortho" or "Bulb" are printed on the package. The recalled pacifiers have an oval-shaped mouth guard and "Pampers" molded on to the handle side of the mouth guard. The product comes two per package. The pacifiers were sold in retail stores nationwide from April 2010 through February 2011 for about $6. Pictures of the recalled pacifiers are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11188.html Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from infants and contact Key Baby for instructions on returning the product for a full refund or $10 coupon toward the purchase of any Pampers(R) Natural Stages products. For additional information, contact Key Baby toll-free at (800) 447-1224 anytime, or visit the company's Web site at http:/hwww.key-baby.com/ KID BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Alleging Custom Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Kid Brands, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging that it issued materially false and misleading statements regarding compliance with customs laws, financial reports and internal controls, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. A purported class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's common stock between March 26, 2010 and March 15, 2011. The lawsuit names the Company and certain of its current officers and certain of its current and former directors, as defendants. The complaint alleges one claim for relief pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a second claim pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, claiming generally that the Company and/or the other defendants issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding compliance with customs laws, the Company's financial reports and internal controls. The complaint does not state the size of the class or quantify the amount of damages sought. Additional litigation may be initiated against the Company based on the alleged items at issue in the complaint. The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the existing lawsuit or the likelihood that further proceedings will be instituted against it. The cost of defending against the existing lawsuit or any future lawsuits or proceedings may be high, and these legal proceedings may also result in the diversion of the Company's management's time and attention away from its business. In the event that there is an adverse ruling in any legal proceeding, the Company may be required to make payments to third parties that could harm its business or financial results. LAWSON SOFTWARE: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "FLSA" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawson Software, Inc., won a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs asserting that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011. A putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former business, systems, and technical consultants. The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., alleged that the Company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law, and alleged violations of state record-keeping requirements. The suit also alleged certain violations of ERISA and unjust enrichment. Relief sought included back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The Company successfully moved the case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. On November 12, 2010, the court heard oral arguments concerning two motions that had been filed by Lawson a motion to de-certify the FLSA collective action and a motion for summary judgment. On January 27, 2011, the court granted both the motion to decertify the FLSA collective action and the motion for summary judgment in favor of Lawson. On February 28, 2011, the plaintiff's counsel confirmed that there would be no appeal of this decision. As a result, Lawson was found to have no payment obligations to the opt-in class members and the case is now over. LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Illegal Seizure of Property ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that homeless people ask in a federal class action that Los Angeles and its Police and Public Works Departments stop confiscating and destroying their property just because they are homeless. A copy of the Complaint in Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 11-cv-02874 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/06/LACops.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol A. Sobel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 429 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 550 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com MARUTI SUZUKI: Recalls 13,157 Diesel Cars Over Defective Bolt ------------------------------------------------------------- Nikhil Gulati, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. said Wednesday it will recall 13,157 diesel cars manufactured between Nov. 13 and Dec. 4, 2010, to inspect a defective auto part. The recall will include 4,505 units of sedan Swift Dzire, 6,841 units of the Swift hatchback and 1,811 units of the Ritz small car, Maruti said. The recall doesn't include any exported cars. Maruti will inspect a connecting rod bolt in all these cars and its dealers will contact the owners. "If the connecting rod bolt is found defective, the company will replace the component free of cost," the company said. The current recall is the second within 14 months by India's largest car maker by sales. The Indian unit of Suzuki Motor Corp. in February last year recalled more than 100,000 units of its small car A-Star to replace a defective auto part in the fuel tank. Maruti also joins Honda Motor Co.'s local unit in recalling cars more than once since early 2010. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. in February said it will recall 57,853 units of its City sedan, produced between November 2008 and December 2009, to replace a faulty part as part of a global exercise. In January 2010 it also replaced defective power window switches that could cause fire in City sedans. Tata Motors Ltd., India's biggest auto maker by revenue, offered additional safety equipment on the Nano after some incidents of the mini car catching fire. The company maintained the actions didn't constitute a recall. Maruti didn't disclose the cost of the recall. The recall of A- Star is estimated to have cost up to 320 million rupees ($7.23 million), of which Maruti spent 100 million rupees to 120 million rupees while its part suppliers covered the rest. MEDIFAST INC: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in Maryland --------------------------------------------------------- Medifast Inc. is facing two class action complaints filed in Maryland, according to the Company's April 1, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On March 17, 2011, a class action complaint titled Oren Proter, et al v. Medifast, Inc., et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of damages in the United States District Court, District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. On March 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled Fred Greenberg v Medifast, Inc. et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776{BEL}, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)5 promulgated under Section 10(b)5 of the Securities Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of damages in the United States District Court, District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each complaint and intends to vigorously defend each proceeding. Accordingly, the Company believes that either proceeding is not likely to have a material adverse effect upon its business or operations. NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Conference Call Held to Discuss Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that attorneys for the National Football League and its players held a conference call Friday to discuss mediation with U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who is currently deciding whether to lift the lockout. League spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed the call took place and said Judge Nelson wanted details to remain private. Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer for the players, declined to comment. DeMaurice Smith was formally added as an attorney for the players on Friday. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the NFL Players Association, which is now officially a trade association and not a union. Lawyers who practice in a different state must file for approval through the court. NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis confirmed that the move allows Mr. Smith to participate in any mediation sessions that might take place under Nelson's supervision. After a hearing Wednesday on the players' request for an injunction to stop the lockout, Judge Nelson urged both sides to resume talks toward a new labor pact. Negotiations broke down last month. Both sides expressed a willingness to talk again after the hearing, but the NFL wants to resume negotiations before a federal mediator in Washington while the players prefer to remain in Nelson's court. Lawyers from each side sent letters to each other and to Nelson outlining their stances. "The purpose of the mediation would be to negotiate a settlement not only of the issues raised in the complaints, but also the many other issues that must be resolved to permit the upcoming season to be played and for the league to operate effectively," wrote David Boies, an attorney for the NFL. He also said the federal mediator has a 16-day "head start" on the issues. Barbara Berens, a lawyer for the players, spelled out support of Nelson's offer to supervise. "We think this is an excellent suggestion and are prepared to engage in such mediation without delay," Ms. Berens wrote. The players voted to dissolve the union and filed an antitrust lawsuit against the league last month, and owners declared a lockout. The players say the lockout is illegal, and the owners say the decertification of the union was a negotiating ploy. No fresh talks have occurred since the expiration of the previous CBA on March 11. Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service relates NFL players and team owners dispute over how to divvy up billions of dollars in television revenue. The NFL claims its annual receipts come to $9.3 billion a year, but players say that number "just scratches the surface" of the real money involved. Owners' refusal to open their books is one of the players' key complaints. There are now three class actions against the NFL and its teams, with the latest filed on April 5. The first class action, led by Tom Brady, is on behalf of active players. The second, led by Carl Eller, is on behalf of retirees. The third, led by Garrett Andrews, is on behalf of would-be rookies and prospective players. In the Eller case, retired players cited Dan Greeley, CEO of Network Insights, who doubted the NFL's self-reported income and expenditures: "The NFL is like Procter & Gamble. That's the holding company, the core operation, but then each brand has its own team and world of revenue. . . . So the $9.3 billion pie just scratches the surface and doesn't get into how much is spent around stadiums, merchandise, agents and all the way down to mom- and-pop shops." The Eller complaint cites a slew of revenue streams, each of them enormous: "the NFL redistributes upwards of $4 billion in radio, television and digital earnings across its 32 teams -- $125 million apiece, plus an equal share for the league . . . The NFL earns huge amounts annually from its telecasting deals with, inter alia, ESPN ($1.1 billion), DirecTV ($1 billion), NBC ($650 million), Fox ($712.5 million), and CBS ($622.5 million)." And, the players say, companies "pour money" for the right to associate their brands with the NFL. Among them: Nike's $1.1 billion for the NFL's apparel sponsorship, Pepsi's $560 million over 8 years, Gatorade's $45 million a year, Verizon's $720 million over 4 years, and Anheuser-Busch's $1.2 billion over 6 years. Teams cut their own deals for "pouring rights" over beer at stadiums, and stadium-naming rights are also enormous: $10 million a year from Reliant Energy to the Houston Texas, and, "In Los Angeles, Farmers Insurance has promised $700 million over 30 years to name a stadium that doesn't exist yet," according to the Eller complaint. Players say the league has been planning a lockout for some time. The Eller complaint, which joined the Brady complaint 2 weeks ago, claims the NFL has made contract negotiations with advertisers and broadcasters that would financially support the NFL in the event of a lockout. The NFL negotiated a contract extension with DirectTV that would have DirectTV pay a heavy fee if the 2011 NFL season is not canceled, and an extra 9% if the season is canceled -- so the NFL will make more money from the cable broadcaster if there is no season, according to the complaint. The players say that in 2009 the NFL negotiated with broadcasters that in the event of a work stoppage, CBS and Fox would still pay rights fees. If the whole season is canceled, the contracts would be extended for an additional season. In total, the NFL "obtained a $4 billion war chest to use against the NFLPA [NFL Players Association] in the event of a lockout," according to the complaint. The owners claim that the Norris LaGuardia Act prohibits the court from issuing an injunction, because the case "involves or grows out of" a labor dispute, which should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board. They also say that the players union acted in bad faith by entering dissolution hours before the collective bargaining agreement expired to circumvent the 6-month delay normally required to file an antitrust lawsuit. On March 31, the NFLPA demanded unspecified damages in a memorandum pursuant to the court's March 1 order. The NFLPA's lead counsel, Timothy Thornton, with Dewey & LeBoeuf of Manhattan, filed the document, which blacks-out dollar amounts. "As this Court found [on March 1], the NFL Defendants breached the SSA by failing to 'in good faith act and use their best efforts . . . to maximize Total Revenues for each playing season during the term of [the SSA].' SSA, Art. X, Sec. 1(a)," the filing states. "Specifically, Defendants acted with 'a design . . . to seek an unconscionable advantage' over the Players in direct contravention of their SSA 'good faith' obligations. Order at 20. Defendants also breached their 'best efforts' obligations by, among other things, not using their market power to benefit joint NFL-Player interests, but to 'actively renegotiat[e] broadcast contracts to ensure favorable changes for [themselves] and [to] disadvantage the Players. Id. at 21 n.6, 24. "Defendants' SSA breaches were deliberate, contemplated and willful. Defendants committed these breaches 'to ensure revenue for [themselves] in the event of a lockout,' which had been planned since at least October 2008. Id. at 19; Trial Ex. 221, R. 193 ('need to realistically assume we are locking out in 2011'). True to their plan, on March 12, 2011, Defendants 'locked out' the Players." At the conclusion of the memo, the players asked the court to "enter a judgment awarding (1) additional compensatory damages of $XX million, plus interest as permitted by law; (2) punitive damages at least three times the total compensatory damages award (including the $6.9 million already awarded by the Special Master), plus interest as permitted by law; (3) an injunction prohibiting Defendants from exercising their contractual right to access the repayable Lockout Provision funds unless they first reach an agreement with Class Counsel in White on how to share such 'lockout loans' with the Players; (4) an injunction ordering that the $XX million, non-refundable DirecTV payment be placed into an escrow account until after the lockout has ended; (5) if the Players are not awarded damages in connection with the $XX million, non-refundable DirecTV payment, an injunction ordering those funds to remain in the escrow account until after the lockout has ended and until Defendants reach an agreement with Class Counsel in White on sharing such funds between Defendants and Players; and (6) any further and additional relief that this Court deems proper under the circumstances to prevent Defendants' from continuing to benefit from their bad faith conduct." NATIONAL SECURITY: Appeal From Class Certification Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Security Group, Inc.'s appeal from a trial court's decision certifying the class in a putative class action filed in Alabama remains pending, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the State of Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit (GCOP) in the proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of the Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff alleges that the failure to include GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of its contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary damages in the form of contractual damages. A class certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010, with the trial court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement. On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class. The Company filed its Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010. The Company denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. -- http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding company. The company, through its property and casualty subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage, including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of insurance in 11 states. The company, through its life insurance subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident insurance products in six states. OFFICE DEPOT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- On April 5, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Office Depot, Inc. and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock and other publicly-traded securities of Office Depot between July 27, 2010 and March 31, 2011, inclusive. If you purchased Office Depot common stock or other Office Depot securities during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 6. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact: Scott+Scott LLP Telephone: (800) 404-7770 (860) 537-5537 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/ There is no cost or fee to you. The complaint filed in the action charges that, during the Class Period, Office Depot and certain of its officers and directors overstated the Company's profits and the value of the Company's assets in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As alleged in the complaint, Office Depot shocked the market on March 31, 2011 when it disclosed that the IRS had rejected significant carry-back tax "benefits" the Company had claimed in the 2Q, 3Q, 4Q and FY 2010, requiring that the Company restate its previously reported financial results for those reporting periods. Rather than the net earnings of $33 million Office Depot had previously reported for fiscal 2010, the Company would report a net loss of $46 million and increase the net loss attributable to common shareholders from $2 million to $82 million. Additionally, the $63 million current tax receivable associated with the purported tax carry-back benefit would be removed from the Company's balance sheet, which was expected to significantly reduce anticipated 2011 operating cash flow. As alleged in the complaint, Office Depot's Chief Financial Officer admitted that Office Depot had been in discussions with its tax advisors about the viability of carrying back certain net operating tax losses to prior tax years under economic stimulus- based tax legislation enacted in 2009 throughout the Class Period. None of this had been disclosed to investors though. On the news that Office Depot's 2Q, 3Q and 4Q 2010 earnings reports were false and misleading, its assets were overstated, and its 2011 financial results would be adversely impacted, Office Depot's stock price plummeted, closing at $4.21 on April 1, 2011. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Settles "Nelson" Class Action Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., settled the case captioned Ned Nelson, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 436947, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011. On April 30, 2010, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging various violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations. The complaint sought class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. In March 2011, the Company settled this case for a nominal amount. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California lifestyle. The company sells casual apparel with a limited selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs of teens and young adults. As of May 1, 2010, the company operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Gleason" Case in Calif. Court ------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit captioned Phillip Gleason, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Case No. 457654, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011. On March 21, 2011, the plaintiff in the matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has not yet been served in this case, but when it is served, it will file an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California lifestyle. The company sells casual apparel with a limited selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs of teens and young adults. As of May 1, 2010, the company operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends "Beeney" Suit in Calif. Court ------------------------------------------------------ Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit captioned Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has not yet been served in this case, but when it is served, it will file an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California lifestyle. The company sells casual apparel with a limited selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs of teens and young adults. As of May 1, 2010, the company operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico. POLAND: Rybinski Mulls Class Action Over Pension Reform Bill ------------------------------------------------------------ TheNews.pl reports that one of Poland's top liberal economists and fierce critic of the current government's fiscal policy has announced that he is preparing for class action against the proposed pension reform bill. "We are preparing the framework by which a class action concerning the [pension reform] can be launched," economist and former World Bank consultant Krzysztof Rybinski stated, on April 6. According to Mr. Rybinski, a Web site billed to go online in the coming days is to collect signatures from citizens against the governmental legislation, although the class action will only be taken to court if the Constitutional Tribunal deems the legislation is not in line with Poland's constitution. "This is about protecting the interests of citizens who will lose out because of the decision [to implement the reform], and the money lost as a result," Mr. Rybinski underlined. Mr. Rybinski, who was also deputy head of Poland's central bank, added that it may be a number of months before the Constitutional Tribunal passes its verdict on the matter, and "[only] then will we be ready to file the class action of thousands of Poles in order to claim their rights and compensation." Mr. Rybinski believes that the president should hand over the draft legislation to the Constitutional Tribunal, "because if a former chairman of the [. . .] Tribune says it breaks not one, but many paragraphs of the Constitution, then there is a problem." The comments come after an announcement from Presidential Advisor Tomasz Nalecz, who said on April 5 that President Komorowski should sign the reform package by April 7. Poles currently put pension contributions into both the state insurance company ZUS, and a private pension fund of their choice, after reforms to the pension system came into force in the late 1990s. The funds paid into the state system are used for those already on pension. The contributions put into private funds are to be used by workers who retire in the future. Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he hopes to gradually increase the amount put into private funds to 3.5% by 2017. The plan is deigned to cut borrowing needs by PLN12 billion (EUR3 billion) this year and PLN190 billion by 2020, Mr. Tusk said in March, cutting the budget deficit from 7.9% to 6% of GDP this year. RICHARD GOLDSTONE: May Face Class Action Over Israel Opinion ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Anna Stoil and Tovah Lazaroff, writing for The Jerusalem Post, report that MK Danny Danon initiates lawsuit which will be submitted to U.S. District Court in New York: "The distorted picture of the State of Israel that Goldstone generated harmed, harms and will continue to harm Israel." Jewish attorneys plan to file a class action civil suit in the United States against South African jurist Richard Goldstone this week. The move comes in the aftermath of an opinion piece Goldstone published in the Washington Post, in which he stated that he had erroneously accused Israel of internationally targeting innocent civilians in Gaza in a report he submitted on the matter to the United Nations in 2009. The report accuses Israel of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. It suggests that the UN Security Council consider referring the matter to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. MK Danny Danon (Likud), who is visiting the United States, initiated the push for the lawsuit. During his US visit, he met with a group of attorneys who are interested in pursuing the case on a voluntary basis. According to the Danon's office, the suit will be submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan by attorney Steve Goldberg. In the civil suit, filed as a class action complaint, the plaintiff says that he and others were "victims of libel by and through allegations and distortions publicly stated in the report on the State of Israel's military actions during" the IDF's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008-2009. Both Danon and MK Ronit Tirosh (Kadima) are listed as parties to the suit, which asks that the case be heard by a jury, and demands both an official apology as well as symbolic compensation to be paid to the State of Israel. Mr. Danon said he plans to file a similar suit in Israel against Goldstone, which would go into effect should the judge visit Israel. "The Goldstone Report was a 2010 model of the blood libel," said Mr. Danon, who is the chairman of the Knesset's Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee. "The distorted picture of the State of Israel that Goldstone generated harmed, harms and will continue to harm Israel and her citizens for decades. A public apology in any state may help to reduce the damage that was caused," Mr. Danon said. ROYAL BANK: Unit Faces Lawsuit Over Excessive Overdraft Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Citizens Financial Group, Inc., a subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, is facing a class action lawsuit over excessive overdraft fees, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In the U.S., Citizens Financial Group, in common with other US banks, has been named as a defendant in a class action asserting that Citizens charges excessive overdraft fees. The plaintiffs claim that overdraft fees resulting from point of sale and automated teller machine (ATM) transactions violate the duty of good faith implied in Citizens' customer account agreement and constitute an unfair trade practice. RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal and factual defenses to these claims and will defend them vigorously. RBS Group is unable reliably to estimate the liability, if any, that might arise or its effect on RBS Group's consolidated net assets, operating results or cash flows in any particular period. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE:RBS) -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Royal Bank) and National Westminster Bank Plc (NatWest), which are United Kingdom-based clearing banks. The company's activities are organized in six business divisions: Corporate Markets (comprising Global Banking and Markets and United Kingdom Corporate Banking), Retail Markets (comprising Retail and Wealth Management), Ulster Bank, Citizens, RBS Insurance and Manufacturing. On October 17, 2007, RFS Holdings B.V. (RFS Holdings), a company jointly owned by RBS, Fortis N.V., Fortis SA/NV and Banco Santander S.A. (the Consortium Banks) and controlled by RBS, completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding N.V. (ABN AMRO). In July 2008, the company disposed of its entire interest in Global Voice Group Ltd. ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Against N.Y. Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Claims filed against The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc in a shareholder lawsuit filed in New York court remain pending, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. RBS Group and a number of its subsidiaries and certain individual, officers and directors have been named as defendants in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint alleges certain false and misleading statements and omissions in public filings and other communications during the period March 1, 2007, to January 19, 2009, and variously asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the US Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10 and 20 of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 under the Act. The putative class is composed of (1) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBS Group ordinary securities and US American depositary receipts (ADRs) between March 1, 2007, and January 19, 2009; and/or (2) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBS Group Series Q, R, S, T and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares issued pursuant or traceable to the April 8, 2005 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission registration statement and were damaged thereby. Plaintiffs seek unquantified damages on behalf of the putative class. On January 11, 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims except those based on the purchase of RBS Group Series Q, R, S, T, and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares. The Court has not yet considered potential grounds for dismissal of the remaining claims, and directed RBS Group to re-file its motion to dismiss those claims within 45 days of its ruling. On January 28, 2011, a new complaint was filed asserting claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of ADRs. RBS Group has also received notification of similar prospective claims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no court proceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims. RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal and factual defenses to the remaining and prospective claims and will defend them vigorously. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE:RBS) -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Royal Bank) and National Westminster Bank Plc (NatWest), which are United Kingdom-based clearing banks. The company's activities are organized in six business divisions: Corporate Markets (comprising Global Banking and Markets and United Kingdom Corporate Banking), Retail Markets (comprising Retail and Wealth Management), Ulster Bank, Citizens, RBS Insurance and Manufacturing. On October 17, 2007, RFS Holdings B.V. (RFS Holdings), a company jointly owned by RBS, Fortis N.V., Fortis SA/NV and Banco Santander S.A. (the Consortium Banks) and controlled by RBS, completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding N.V. (ABN AMRO). In July 2008, the company disposed of its entire interest in Global Voice Group Ltd. ROYAL BANK: Faces Securitization and Securities-Related Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc is facing lawsuits over securitization and securities underwriting in the United States, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 FORM 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. RBS Group companies have been named as defendants in a number of purported class actions and other lawsuits in the United States that relate to the securitization and securities underwriting businesses. In general, the cases involve the issuance of mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, or public debt or equity where the plaintiffs have brought actions against the issuers and underwriters of the securities (including RBS Group companies) claiming that certain disclosures made in connection with the relevant offerings of the securities were false or misleading with respect to alleged "sub-prime" mortgage exposure. RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal and factual defenses to these claims and will continue to defend them vigorously. RBS Group cannot at this stage reliably estimate the liability, if any, that may arise as a result of or in connection with these lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, or their effect on RBS Group's consolidated net assets, operating results or cash flows in any particular period. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE:RBS) -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Royal Bank) and National Westminster Bank Plc (NatWest), which are United Kingdom-based clearing banks. The company's activities are organized in six business divisions: Corporate Markets (comprising Global Banking and Markets and United Kingdom Corporate Banking), Retail Markets (comprising Retail and Wealth Management), Ulster Bank, Citizens, RBS Insurance and Manufacturing. On October 17, 2007, RFS Holdings B.V. (RFS Holdings), a company jointly owned by RBS, Fortis N.V., Fortis SA/NV and Banco Santander S.A. (the Consortium Banks) and controlled by RBS, completed the acquisition of ABN AMRO Holding N.V. (ABN AMRO). In July 2008, the company disposed of its entire interest in Global Voice Group Ltd. SCHOLASTIC CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to File 3rd Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scholastic Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its objection to a plaintiff's motion to file a third amended class action complaint and to substitute lead plaintiff, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011. The Company is party to certain actions originally filed by each of Alaska Laborer Employers Retirement Fund and Paul Baicu, which were consolidated on November 8, 2007. On September 26, 2008, the plaintiff sought leave of the Court to file a second amended class action complaint, in order to add allegations relating to the Company's restatement announced in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on July 30, 2008. The Court thereafter dismissed the Company's pending motion to dismiss as moot. On October 20, 2008, the plaintiff filed the second amended complaint, and on October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, while also granting leave to the plaintiff to move to file a new proposed amended complaint. On December 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a proposed third amended class action complaint, as well as a motion to replace Alaska Laborer Employers Retirement Fund with City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and, on January 14, 2011, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiff's motions for leave to file a third amended class action complaint and to substitute lead plaintiff, which was argued on March 3, 2011, and is awaiting decision by the court. The proposed third amended class action complaint shortens the original class action period to end on December 16, 2005, rather than on March 23, 2006, but otherwise continues to allege securities fraud relating to statements made by the Company concerning its operations and financial results, now for the period between March 18, 2005, and December 16, 2005, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and is vigorously defending the lawsuit. Scholastic Corporation -- http://www.scholastic.com/-- publishes and distributes children's books and is a leader in educational technology and related services and children's media. Scholastic creates quality books, print and technology-based learning materials and programs, magazines, multi-media and other products that help children learn both at school and at home. The company distributes its products and services worldwide through a variety of channels, including school-based book clubs and book fairs, retail stores, schools, libraries, on-air, and online. SEMTECH CORP: Hearing on Securities Suit Pact Set for April 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- A California court has set April 11, 2011, as the hearing date to consider preliminary approval of an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants in the consolidated class action concerning Semtech Corporation's stock option accounting practices captioned In Re: Semtech Corporation Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:07-CV-07114-CAS, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2011. Two separate purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers in August and October 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Company securities from dates in 2002 to July 2006. The cases alleged violations of Federal securities laws in connection with the Company's past stock option practices. In February 2008, the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System (MPERS) filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel. The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008, and a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in May 2008, initiating the consolidated action with MPERS as the lead plaintiff. In December 2008, per motions filed by the defendants, the Court granted motions to dismiss in favor of defendants Jason Carlson (former Chief Executive Officer of the Company) and Mohan Maheswaran (current Chief Executive Officer of the Company) regarding claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court denied all other motions of all defendants, including other motions to dismiss brought in relation to alternate allegations raised against Messrs. Carlson and Maheswaran, who remain pending as defendants in the matter. In January 2010, the Company made a firm settlement offer to the plaintiffs in the amount of $10 million, offered as full payment to settle any and all claims arising from or relating to the matters at issue in the litigation. The offer was not accepted, but remained open and available to the plaintiffs without withdrawal or revocation by the Company from the initial date of the offer. In August 2010, the Court issued its class certification order, certifying the plaintiff class as persons who acquired common stock of the Company between August 27, 2002, and July 19, 2006 (inclusive). At mediation held on December 5, 2010, an agreement in principle to settle the class action litigation was reached. The Company has agreed to pay $20 million to settle all claims in the litigation. The agreement in principle contemplates the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement. As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an additional charge of $10.0 million in fiscal year 2011 to increase its total accrued liability for this matter to $20.0 million. The proposed settlement would fully resolve all claims against the Company, all current officers and directors of the Company named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the Company named in the lawsuit. No parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement. The settlement is subject to preliminary approval by the Court, notice to the putative class and subsequent final approval by the Court. The preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for April 11, 2011. The Company expects preliminary approval to be given by the Court, as well as final approval at a later date to be determined. Semtech Corporation (Nasdaq: SMTC) -- http://www.semtech.com/-- is a supplier of analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for high- end consumer, computing, communications and industrial equipment. SIGNATURE HOSPITAL: Responds to Employee Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Jody Murphy, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reports that a spokeswoman for Signature Hospital Corp. responded to a class-action lawsuit filed by two attorneys on behalf of its former employees. Lauren Fulton with Jarrard Phillips Cate & Hancock Inc., a health care public affairs firm, emailed a statement to the News and Sentinel on April 4 on behalf of Signature Hospital Corp. "Normally, it has been the policy of St. Joseph's Hospital and its former owner Signature Hospital Corp. to not comment on pending litigation, but this is an issue likely to be of interest to the general public so St. Joseph's will attempt to provide information if it is deemed appropriate by our legal counsel," Ms. Fulton said in a statement. The statement did not address the claims laid out by the class- action lawsuit filed by attorneys Ginny Conley and George Cosenza. Last month, Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza filed suit contending Signature Hospital Corp., doing business as St. Joseph's Hospital, failed to compensate employees for their accrued sick leave following the hospital's purchase by West Virginia United Health Care System and merger with Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital. Nine former hospital employees were listed in the suit; however, Ms. Conley told Wood County Circuit Court Judge Robert Waters she and Mr. Cosenza have since been contacted by 130 former St. Joseph's employees. Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza told Waters they believe 613 former employees were short-changed by Signature. "Many times major choices or decisions such as the sale of the hospital operations and transfer of employees is a difficult process and is a challenge. This particular sale and transfer was both difficult and challenging because of its size and all of the moving parts," Ms. Fulton stated. Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza sent certified notices to Signature officials, former CEO Charles Miller and CFO Steve Peterson. Certified mail was also sent via the West Virginia Secretary of State's office. The notices were all received and signed for by the same person, according to the attorneys. However, Ms. Conley said they have not been contacted by any legal representative on behalf of Signature. Ms. Fulton said the lawsuit was fairly new and company officials have started reviewing and investigating the issues raised. Ms. Fulton said throughout the sale process Signature did everything it could to ensure all eligible employees were offered employment in their same positions upon the closing of the transaction with a benefits package "substantially comparable" to what had been provided at St. Joseph's. According to Ms. Fulton, Signature made sure all of the eligible St. Joseph's employees received credit for years of service at St. Joseph's toward their eligibility for retirement, health and welfare benefits and that they were eligible for additional benefits which they did not have as employees of St. Joseph's. Ms. Fulton also stated employees' accumulated paid time off was transferred over and was protected as part of the transition. "St. Joseph's is proud of its record and service to the people of Parkersburg over the years and always sought to provide the best health care with the most competent health care employees to be found anywhere. "We appreciate the work and care provided by all employees at St. Joseph's Hospital and know they will continue to provide the best quality health care to the community in the future as they continue to work with their new employer," she added. SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., related to the Company's 1999 initial public offering remains pending in a New York court, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On November 28, 2001, a complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was amended on April 19, 2002. The amended complaint alleges that the named plaintiff, Mitchell Wolf, purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant to the October 27, 1999 prospectus and registration statement relating to the Company's initial public offering, which closed on November 2, 1999. The complaint was brought on behalf of Mr. Wolf and an alleged class of similarly situated purchasers against the Company, eight underwriters and their successors-in-interest who led or otherwise participated in the Company's IPO, two members of its senior management team, one of whom is the Chairman of its Board of Directors, and an additional director. The complaint was never served upon the Individual Defendants. This case is one of more than 300 similar cases brought by similar counsel against more than 300 issuers, 40 underwriters and 1,000 individual defendants alleging, in general, violations of federal securities laws in connection with initial public offerings, in particular, failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted shares issued in connection with each offering. All of these cases, including the one involving the Company, have been assigned for consolidated pretrial purposes to one judge of the Southern District of New York. The issuer defendants in the consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the consolidated cases. These motions to dismiss covered issues common among all Issuer Defendants and issues common among all underwriter defendants in the consolidated cases. As a result of these motions, the Individual Defendants were dismissed from one of the claims against them, specifically the Section 10b-5 claim. On September 21, 2007, Kaye Scholer LLP, on behalf of the Individual Defendants, executed a tolling agreement with plaintiffs providing for the dismissal without prejudice of all claims against the Individual Defendants upon the provision to plaintiffs of documentation showing that SBS has entity coverage for the period in question. Documentation of such coverage was subsequently provided to plaintiffs on December 19, 2007. On October 13, 2004, the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in six "focus cases" out of the more than 300 consolidated class actions. The Company was not named in any of the six "focus cases." On August 31, 2005, the Southern District of New York issued an order of preliminary approval of a settlement proposal among the investors in the plaintiff class, the Issuer Defendants (including us) and the Issuer Defendants' insurance carriers. The principal components of the Issuers Settlement were: (1) a release of all claims against the Issuer Defendants and their directors, officers and certain other related parties arising out of the alleged wrongful conduct in the amended complaint; (2) the assignment to the plaintiffs of certain of the Issuer Defendants' potential claims against the Underwriters; and (3) a guarantee by the insurers to the plaintiffs of the difference between $1.0 billion and any lesser amount recovered by the plaintiffs from the Underwriter Defendants. The payments were to be charged to each Issuer Defendant's insurance policy on a pro rata basis. The plaintiffs appealed the Issuers Settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit reversed the order, holding that plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement for a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class action. On June 25, 2007, in light of the Second Circuit's reversal of the class certification order and its subsequent denial of plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing or rehearing en banc, the Southern District of New York entered a stipulation between plaintiffs and the Issuer Defendants, terminating the proposed Issuers Settlement which the Southern District of New York had preliminarily approved on August 31, 2005. On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" and amended master allegations in the consolidated actions. On November 13, 2007, the Underwriter Defendants and Issuer Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints in the six "focus cases." On March 26, 2008, the Southern District of New York granted in part the motion as to a subset of plaintiffs' Section 11 claims (alleging civil liabilities on account of false registration statements), but denied the motion as to plaintiffs' other claims. On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification with respect to the six focus cases, based on newly proposed class definitions. On October 10, 2008, at plaintiffs' request, the Southern District of New York ordered the withdrawal without prejudice of plaintiffs' renewed motion, which had been fully briefed and was sub judice. On January 7, 2008, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion (in which the Issuer Defendants joined) to strike class allegations in 26 of the consolidated cases, including the case against the Company, on the ground that plaintiffs lacked a putative class representative in those cases at the time of their May 30, 2007 oral motion. On May 13, 2008, the Southern District of New York issued an order granting the motion in part and striking certain of the class allegations relating to the Section 10b-5 claims in 8 of the 26 actions, including the Section 10b-5 claim against SBS. The order also requires plaintiffs to make certain disclosures with respect to the putative class representatives in the remaining 18 actions. Once the disclosures are filed, the Underwriter Defendants and the Issuer Defendants may seek clarification of the Southern District of New York's May 13, 2008 order with respect to the status of the remaining 10b-5-related class allegations in the other 8 actions, including the SBS action, as well as the status of the Section 11-related class allegations. On June 11, 2009, pursuant to a motion filed on April 2, 2009, the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary order of approval of a settlement of all of the consolidated cases, including the case against SBS. On September 19, 2009, the Southern District of New York conducted a hearing regarding the final approval of the settlement of all consolidated cases and, on October 5, 2009, issued an opinion finally approving the settlement. The settlement, which is subject to appeal, will result in a release of all claims against the Underwriter Defendants and the Issuer Defendants, and their officers and directors, in exchange for an aggregate sum of approximately $600 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class plaintiffs. The Company's and the Individual Defendants' share of the Settlement Amount would be fully funded by insurance. On October 23, 2009, several objecting members of the class filed a petition for leave in the Second Circuit to appeal the Southern District of New York's class definition for purposes of the October 5, 2009 settlement. Several Objectors have also filed notices of appeal in the Second Circuit from the Southern District of New York's order approving the settlement. On October 29, 2009 plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to the Objectors' petition. On November 2, 2009, the Underwriter Defendants filed a response to the Objectors' petition, taking no position on the petition, but noting that the classes were approved for settlement purposes only and reserving the right to oppose class certification in the event the settlement is not finally approved. The Issuer Defendants have not taken a position on the appeals. On October 7, 2010, all but two of the Objectors entered into a stipulation with plaintiffs withdrawing their appeals with prejudice. The two remaining Objectors have since submitted briefs to the Second Circuit in support of their appeals. On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice one of the remaining Objectors' appeals based on alleged violations of the Second Circuit's rules. The motion is fully briefed and is sub judice. The deadline for filing answering briefs regarding the remaining Objectors' appeals is stayed pending determination of the motion to dismiss. About Spanish Broadcasting Headquartered in Coconut Grove, Florida, Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. -- http://www.spanishbroadcasting.com/-- owns and operates 21 radio stations targeting the Hispanic audience. The Company also owns and operates Mega TV, a television operation with over-the-air, cable and satellite distribution and affiliates throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Its revenue for the twelve months ended Sept. 30, 2010, was approximately $140 million. ST. LOUIS COMPOSTING: Valley Park Residents Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that residents of the Highland Village subdivision in Valley Park are urging the Board of Alderman to take action against St. Louis Composting, 39 Old Elam Avenue. The composting site is across the Meramec River from their homes. Harold Tubbs brought a petition to the aldermen on April 4 signed by more than 50 of his neighbors asking that Valley Park limit the compost manufacturer's hours of operation and to enforce noise ordinances already on the books. "I guess we're heading down the road to a class action suit. I am simply not going to take this much longer," said Mr. Tubbs. He said the company runs noisy equipment seven days a week, often until sundown. Peter Frollo also spoke against St. Louis Composting, citing concern for his family's health. The aldermen agreed to take the request into legislative committee, where they could craft a stricter noise ordinance. STATE STREET: New York Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Kentouris, writing for On Wall Street, reports that a New York judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against State Street as the sponsor of a mutual fund, saying that even though the mutual fund misrepresented its risks, investors were not harmed. That's because the fund correctly calculated its net asset value. The decision, made on March 31 by Judge Richard Howell of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, didn't sit well with some attorneys specializing in investment managers by surprise. "The reasoning in this case is somewhat tortured," says Todd Cipperman, principal of Cipperman & Co, a Wayne, Penn., law firm in a communique with clients on April 5. "The fund manager can say anything in the prospectus as long as the NAV is accurate." The plaintiffs -- Ning Yiu and others -- alleged that the offering statements of State Street's Yield Plus Fund "misrepresented the nature of the securities or investments held by the Yield Plus Fund, misrepresented the description and/or objectives of the fund and misrepresented the fund's exposure to risky mortgage-related assets and the risk of investing in the fund." The plaintiffs also alleged that the fund overstated the value of its holdings by reporting "inflated values" for the fund's mortgage-related securities and that the fund miscalculated the percentage of mortgage-backed securities it held. Judge Howell ruled that the plaintiffs could only win damages if the drop in the net asset value of the fund actually were the result of a "materialization of a risk contained within a material statement, not to those that are somehow connected with the misstatement or even those that are simply within the zone of risk of the misstatement." That meant that the Securities Act of 1933 requires a direct cause and effect for an investor in a mutual fund to successfully sue for misrepresentations in a registration statement and prospectus. Judge Howell blamed Congress rather than his apparent narrow interpretation of the Securities Act of 1933 for his decision which he admitted conflicts with decisions made by other courts in similar situations. "Where the NAV does not react to any misstatements in the fund's prospectus, no connection between the alleged material misstatement and a diminution in the security's value has been or could be alleged," wrote Judge Howell. "It seems likely that Congress never considered it might be creating a loophole for fraudulent misrepresentations by mutual fund managers when enacting these provisions. Closing the loophole requires legislative action." STATION CASINOS: Won't Need to Distribute NPH Warrants ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada granted Station Casinos LLC's motion to modify its plan of reorganization so it would not need to distribute an NPH Warrant worth approximately 13 cents to each of the employees, who were involved in a class action lawsuit filed against the Company in Nevada, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141. The plaintiffs are all former employees of the Company or its subsidiaries. The complaint alleged that the Company and its subsidiaries (i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay overtime, (iii) failed to timely pay wages and (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel. On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. During a hearing on that motion, the United States District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on May 16, 2009, the United States District Court dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the Company's favor. Subsequently, on July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614- C. The complaint in the State Court Action alleged substantially the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal Court Action. On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the Company, filed an answer responding to the complaint. Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the Company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action pending the resolution of the Company's Chapter 11 case. That motion was granted on September 30, 2009. On or about April 30, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the State Court Action. Under the terms of the settlement: a. Persons who were employed by the Company or its subsidiaries at any time between February 4, 2005, and January 28, 2009, will have an aggregate allowed $5 million general unsecured claim in the Company's bankruptcy. b. The Company would set aside approximately $1.3 million in an interest-bearing bank account. After the deduction of fees, costs and other expenses associated with the settlement, the remaining proceeds would be distributed equally to all persons who were employed by the Company or its subsidiaries at any time between January 29, 2009 and the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court. On June 17, 2010, the State Court Action was removed to the Bankruptcy Court by agreement of the parties. On July 16, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and directed the parties to provide notice to the current and former employees covered by the State Court Action of their right to object to the settlement and/or be excluded therefrom. No objections to the settlement were filed. On October 26, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted final approval of the settlement. The proceeds of the $1.3 million fund that was set aside were distributed in full on December 10, 2010. The Company says the expense related to this legal settlement was accrued during the year ended December 31, 2010, and the related liability is classified in liabilities subject to compromise in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Pursuant to the Joint Plan of Reorganization, among other things, general unsecured creditors, including the employees subject to the State Court Action, were to receive warrants referred to in the Plan as the NPH Warrants. On December 13, 2010, the Company filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking that the Plan be modified so that the Company would not need to distribute an NPH Warrant worth approximately 13 cents to each of the employees. On January 21, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the relief sought in the Plan Modification Motion. STEWART TITLE: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses Stewart Title Guaranty Co. of "systematically cheating New Jersey homeowners in mortgage refinancing transactions" by overcharging for title insurance. A copy of the Complaint in Hawthorne v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 1382 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on April 5, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/06/Stewart.pdf# The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Posternock, Esq. BARRON & POSTERNOCK LLP 400 North Church Street, Suite 250 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 642-6445 E-mail: danp@barpostlaw.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Elizabeth Fox, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6305 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net efox@bm.net - and - Ann Miller, Esq. ANN MILLER, LLC The Benjamin Franklin 834 Chestnut Street, Suite 206 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-0468 E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com - and - Daniel Harris, Esq. Anthony Valach, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 960-1802 E-mail: lawofficedh@yahoo.com SUNL GROUP: CPSC Terminates ATV Action Plan ------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the termination of the All-Terrain Vehicle Action Plan for SunL Group, Inc., of Irving, Texas. Effective immediately, it is unlawful for any importer or distributor to import or distribute into commerce any ATV subject to the SunL Group ATV Action Plan. An ATV Action Plan is an agreement between CPSC and an ATV manufacturer, importer or distributor that describes actions that a company must carry out to promote ATV safety, including rider training and dissemination of safety information. An Action Plan also includes age recommendations and policies governing marketing, the sale of ATVs, and the monitoring of such sales. It is unlawful for an ATV manufacturer or distributor to import into or distribute in commerce any new assembled or unassembled ATV, unless the ATV is subject to a Commission-approved ATV Action Plan. SunL Group was an importer and distributor of motorsports products, including gas and electric scooters, dirt bikes, ATVs and go-karts. SunL Group obtained approval for its ATV Action Plan on August 7, 2009. Recently, CPSC staff obtained information that SunL Group was no longer in operation and could not fulfill the terms of its ATV Action Plan. The Commission terminated the Action Plan on March 29, 2011. Now that SunL Group is out of business, the Firm can no longer provide a remedy as part of its 2008 recall of SunL Group SLA90 Youth ATVs. CPSC advises consumers to immediately stop using the SunL Group SL A90 Youth ATV. This youth ATV lacks front brakes, a manual fuel shut-off, padding to cover the sharp edges on the handlebar assembly, and is sold without a tire pressure gauge or adequate flag pole bracket. The risk with these ATVs is severe because these vehicles are intended for children. In many cases, youth riders are just learning how to operate an ATV and may not have the experience necessary to help them avoid hazards associated with this product's defects. The defects could lead to young drivers losing control of the ATVs, which poses the risk of serious injuries or death. Consumers who own other models of SunL ATVs should determine if the safety components identified above are present on their models before using the ATVs. TORO COMPANY: Recalls 3,700 Mowers Due to Injury Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- The Toro Company, Bloomington, Minn., voluntarily recalled about 3,700 Toro Z Master ZRT Mowers in the U.S. and 109 in Canada in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Mowers with the optional deluxe seat have an operator presence switch built into the seat that can activate the mower when the operator vacates the seat, posing an injury hazard from the blade to the operator and anyone in the vicinity of the mower. Toro has received one report of a foot laceration. The mowers are large commercial duty ZRT (zero radius turn) mowers with 52" to 72" cutting decks. They have light gray seats with an adjustment knob in the front of the bottom of the seat. Model Numbers Serial Numbers ------------- -------------- 74264 260000001-260999999 74265 260000001-260999999 74266 270000001-280999999 74267 270000001-280999999 74274 270000001-280999999 74253 270000001-280999999 74254 270000001-280999999 The mowers were manufactured in the United States and sold at Toro dealers in the U.S. and Canada from September 2005 through January 2011 for prices ranging from $13,000 to 17,000. A picture of the recalled Toro Z Master ZRT Mower is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11731.html If your machine has the optional deluxe seat installed, which is light gray with adjustment knob on the front, contact Toro to have modification instructions sent to you. Consumers can make that modification themselves, or contact any Toro Dealer to have it completed for them at no charge. For additional information, contact Toro at (866) 946-3109, in the U.S. and Canada, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.Toro.com/ UNION FINANCIAL: Suit Over Planned Merger With DFSC Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action stemming from Union National Financial Corporation's planned merger with Donegal Financial Services Corporation has been dismissed, according to the Company's March 31, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Union National entered into a proposed merger with Donegal Financial Services Corporation(DFSC), the parent company of Province Bank FSB (Province), and certain affiliated entities of DFSC, pursuant to which Union National will merge with and into DFSC. On June 16, 2010, Union National and DFSC, an affiliate of Donegal Group Inc. and Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, became aware of a filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania against Union National, each of the Directors of Union National, DFSC and certain affiliated entities of DFSC. The complaint purported to be a class action filed on behalf of the holders of Union National common stock arising from certain alleged actions by Union National and its Board of Directors in connection with the proposed merger of Union National with and into DFSC. On October 1, 2010, Union National learned that the claim was withdrawn and the case was dismissed. Union National Financial Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Union National Community Bank, provides a full range of financial services for both retail and business customers, and offers insurance, retirement plan services and wealth management services through Union National Advisors. Union National Community Bank has ten full-service offices in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. VANCOUVER: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Tuition Fee Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Steffenhagen, writing for the Vancouver Sun, reports that a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Vancouver families who paid tuition fees so their children could attend summer school between 2004 and 2006 has been certified by B.C. Supreme Court. North Vancouver lawyer Jim Poyner, who began the action in 2009 on behalf of Sarah and Ali Agha Riazi, said he now intends to file similar applications for class-action certifications in 26 other B.C. school districts. Mr. Poyner began the action after former education minister Shirley Bond declared in 2007 that fees for summer school were illegal and ordered boards of education to return all such fees charged that year. In court, Mr. Poyner argued that if the fees were illegal in 2007, they were also illegal between 2004 and 2006. "There are literally thousands of people who have paid fees that they shouldn't have had to pay," Mr. Poyner said in an interview today, adding that he expects the cost for Vancouver will be between $8 and $11 million. A spokesman for the Vancouver school district was not immediately available for comment. The Riazis had a child in Grade 9 at Lord Byng secondary school in Vancouver in 2003-04. They were told that their child, identified only as KR, needed to repeat science and English at summer school in order to pass. Those courses cost $274 in total -- money the family wants returned. VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Sludge -------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for abc15.com, reports that a class action lawsuit involving Volkswagen and Audi vehicles could mean money for you. The lawsuit claims the engines were prone to have oil deposits and sludge which weakened performance and could cause damage. This suit affects owners of the 1997-2004 Audi A4 and the 1998- 2004 Volkswagen Passat. Claims have to be submitted by June 27. It could mean reimbursement if you made the repair already, and could also provide cash back for oil changes and discounts going forward. WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court May Rule Against Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Becky Yeh, writing for OneNewsNow California, reports that an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute is doubtful the Supreme Court will rule against Walmart in a class-action suit. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier heard arguments on whether Walmart employees may bring a class-action against the company. Justices on the nine-panel court, comprised of a conservative majority, seemed likely to derail the lawsuit accusing the world's largest company of sex-discrimination. The decade-old lawsuit accuses Walmart of favoring male employees over female employees in salary and in promotions, including 0.5 to 1.6 million women who could be represented in the suit. Kevin Snider, chief counsel with the Pacific Justice Institute, says apart from the merits of the case, he believes that the high court will halt the lawsuit. "If they go by prior precedence, they will probably rule in Walmart's favor," says Mr. Snider. "But as to the issue of a class-action, you have to have the class be similarly situated; and in this instance, the fact that they're women is not enough of a similarity. When you have an employment situation, you are going to have numerous variables -- and courts simply don't like that." Mr. Snider explains that the high court's decision on the case could make it more difficult for future class-action claims against large companies. "The concern is that if you loosen the rules on class action, you could open the floodgates and courts turn into public policy forums; and that's not the appropriate role of the courts," the chief counsel says. Although some believe the nation's highest court is considering whether Walmart is guilty of sex-discrimination, the case under consideration is simply about whether the class action against the retailer should proceed. ********* 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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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 * * *