/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110414.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 74
Headlines
ATRINSIC INC: All Consumer Class Suits Are Dismissed
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Class Suit
CAMTEK LTD: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Due May 16
CANADA LITHIUM: To Vigorously Defend Class Action in Ontario
CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Discrimination Suit Rulings Pending
CINTAS CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Veliz" Suit Settlement
CREEKSTONE FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Court Approves "Goodman" Suit Settlement
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend TCPA-Violation Suit
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces Eight Suits Over Payment Protection Plan
ESP DAS: Accused of Breaches of Duties to Banyan's Shareholders
FACEBOOK INC: Quebec Court Dismisses Privacy Class Action
HOWREY LLP: Sued for Violations of WARN Act and Fed. & State Law
HORIZON LINES: Settles Price Gouging Class Action for $1.76 Mil.
IMMUCOR INC: Sherman Act-Violation Suit Remains Pending
IMMUCOR INC: Private Securities Suit in Georgia Still Pending
LIFE PARTNERS: Sued in Texas Over "Life Settlement" Policies
MENTOR GRAPHICS: Faces Class Action Suit in Oregon
MONSANTO CO: Seeks Dismissal of Missouri Securities Class Action
NATIONAL GYPSUM: Class Action Over Gypsum Wallboard Dismissed
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
NAVITAS: May Face Class Action Over Refugee Resettlement Program
NOVA SCOTIA: Named Defendant in Child Abuse Class Action
OHIO: Judge Approves Taser Class Action Settlement
OSBORN HOMES: Security Deposit Class Action Hearing Moved
SABA SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Class Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in Calif. Over Non-Payment of Overtime
SHAPIRO & BURTON: Sued Over Illegal Robo-Signing Operation
THE9 LTD: Court Dismisses Suit Over Blizzard WoW License Pact
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss IPO Appeals
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
WD-40 CO: Deposes Plaintiff in "Burns" Suit
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Files Class Action
*********
ATRINSIC INC: All Consumer Class Suits Are Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
All consumer class action cases pending against Atrinsic, Inc.,
were dismissed without payment of any amounts because the terms of
the Company's settlement in the class action captioned Allen v.
Atrinsic, Inc., applied nationally, according to the Company's
April 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On March 10, 2010, Atrinsic received final approval of its
settlement of the Class Action in the case known as Allen v.
Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New Motion, Inc., formerly pending in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. This national settlement covers
all of the Company's mobile products, Web sites and advertising
practices through the date the final judgment was entered. All
costs of the settlement and defense were accrued for in 2008;
therefore, this settlement did not impact the Company's results of
operations in 2009 or 2010. In addition to administrative costs
and refunds, during the second quarter of 2010, the Company paid
the $1.0 million settlement for the Class Action.
Because the terms of the settlement applied nationally, all other
consumer class action cases pending against the Company were
dismissed without payment of any amounts.
Atrinsic, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- formerly known as
New Motion, Inc., is a digital advertising and marketing services
company in the United States. Atrinsic is organized as a single
segment with two principal offerings: Transactional services and
Subscription services.
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purported
class action complaint, captioned Robert D. Dance, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Woodbridge
Holdings Corp. (formerly known as Levitt Corp.), Alan B. Levan,
and George P. Scanlon, Case No. 08-60111-Civ-Graham/O'Sullivan,
Southern District of Florida, as a putative purchaser of
securities against BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary,
Woodbridge, and certain of its officers and directors, asserting
claims under the federal securities law and seeking damages. This
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is captioned Dance v. Levitt
Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG. The securities litigation
purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of Woodbridge's
securities beginning on January 31, 2007, and ending on August 14,
2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of false and/or misleading
statements regarding financial results, prospects and condition.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 8, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.
CAMTEK LTD: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Due May 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camtek Ltd.'s deadline to file a motion to dismiss Yuval Lapiner's
third amended complaint is May 16, 2011, according to the
Company's April 7, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On March 7, 2008, a purported Class Action Complaint, Yuval
Lapiner v. Camtek, Ltd. et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 22,
2005, and December 20, 2006. Mr. Lapiner filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on January 2, 2009, naming the
Company and certain of its directors and officers as defendants.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under, and breached fiduciary duties by making false and
misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and press
releases. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
against the defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, as amended, on
February 17, 2009, and the Court granted this motion on June 2,
2009. However, the Court gave plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint, which he did when he filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on July 10, 2009.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
and the court granted this motion on February 2, 2011. The Court,
however, gave plaintiff leave to amend his complaint which he did
when he filed a Third Amended Complaint on April 1, 2011.
Defendants intend to move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
and their motion is due on May 16, 2011.
Camtek says it is unable to estimate a range of loss for this
claim, given the fact that it is still at an early stage.
Accordingly, no provision has been made in the Company's financial
statements in respect of this claim. The court granted Camtek's
initial and second motions to dismiss this claim and the Company
does not believe that these complaints have merit. The Company
expects that the loss, if any, will be covered by the Company's
directors and officers' insurance policy.
Camtek Limited -- http://www.camtek.co.il-- designs, develops,
manufactures and markets automated optical inspection (AOI),
systems and related products. AOI systems are computerized
systems that optically inspect various types of electronic
product components for defects caused during the manufacturing
process. The AOI systems are used for production processes and
yields for manufacturers in three industries: the printed circuit
board (PCB), industry; the high density substrates for
interconnection of integrated circuit devices (IC) substrate,
industry and the semiconductor manufacturing and packaging
industry. The systems provide the customers with defect detection
ability.
CANADA LITHIUM: To Vigorously Defend Class Action in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Canada Lithium Corp. on April 11 disclosed that it will vigorously
defend a proposed class action lawsuit that has been commenced in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company, its
directors and certain officers relating to a mineral resource
estimate for the Quebec Lithium Project that was announced by the
Company on Oct. 28, 2010 and incorporated into various disclosure
documents from Oct. 28, 2010 to Feb. 28, 2011. The Notice of
Action also names Ms. Michelle Stone, the geologist that prepared
the mineral resource estimate that is at issue in the action.
"We believe that this case is without merit and that it will
ultimately be dismissed," said Company President and CEO Peter
Secker. "The Company took immediate action when we learned that
there was a potential issue with the previously announced mineral
resource estimate and we are working to resolve this matter as
quickly as possible and anticipate receiving an independent
resource estimate on or before May 13, 2011."
The Notice of Action alleges that the Company, its directors,
certain officers, and Ms. Stone made misrepresentations in
violation of Canadian securities regulatory requirements relating
to the mineral resource estimate that was announced by the Company
on Oct. 28, 2010 and incorporated into various disclosure
documents, including but not limited to, a National Instrument
43-101 compliant technical report filed on Nov. 22, 2010 and a
prospectus issued by the Company on Jan. 24, 2011.
The Notice of Action was filed by Siskinds LLP in London, Ontario
on Friday, April 8, 2011 and came to the attention of the Company
this morning. The representative plaintiff has requested a
variety of orders and declarations in the Notice of Action,
including $50,000,000 in general and special damages, and, in the
alternative, rescission in relation to the shares issued pursuant
to the prospectus mentioned above. The Company has not been
served by Siskinds LLP with the Notice of Action or a Statement of
Claim. McCarthy Tetrault LLP has been retained by the Company in
respect to this proposed class action.
On February 28, 2011, the Company announced that it was appointing
Roscoe, Postle & Associates to undertake a preliminary independent
review of the mineral resource estimate for the Project that was
announced by the Company on Oct. 28, 2010 after an internal review
indicated a material reduction in the measured, indicated and
inferred mineral resource.
On March 16, 2011, the Company announced that RPA had confirmed
that there were significant issues with the geological modelling
that had produced the mineral resource estimate announced on
October 28, 2010. The Company also confirmed that it had
appointed AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. to independently
conduct a resource estimate of the Project and expeditiously
prepare a new NI 43-101 compliant report. The Company anticipates
that AMC will complete the independent resource estimate on or
before May 13, 2011 and then prepare a new National Instrument 43-
101 compliant technical report.
The Company believes that there will be a material reduction in
the measured, indicated and inferred mineral resource announced on
Oct. 28, 2010. It is not possible to accurately quantify the
magnitude of the reduction in the mineral resource at this time
and the Company therefore determined that an independent mineral
resource estimate was required and has appointed AMC to conduct
this estimate.
The Quebec Lithium Mine originally operated from 1955 to 1965 as
an underground mine and processing plant that produced spodumene,
lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide monohydrate. In 1974,
Surveyer, Nenninger et Chenevert Inc. was contracted by Sullivan
Mining Group to write a feasibility report on the rehabilitation
of the former Quebec Lithium Mine. SNC calculated a historical
reserve estimate of 15,736,938 tonnes grading 1.14% Li2O. This
estimate is not compliant with NI 43-101 standards.
The Company believes that the historical estimates are relevant;
however, the estimates should not be relied upon. The historical
estimates have not been verified by a qualified person. The
historical estimates were prepared under CIM standards in 1974;
however, they do not meet the current CIM Definition Standards on
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted in 2005. The
Company is not treating the historical estimates as a current
mineral resource estimate under National Instrument 43-101.
About Canada Lithium Corp.
The Company holds a 100% interest in the Quebec Lithium Project
near Val d'Or, the geographical heart of the Quebec mining
industry. The project, as noted above, is currently the subject
of an independent resource audit. Metallurgical tests have
produced battery-grade lithium carbonate from project samples.
CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Discrimination Suit Rulings Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by plaintiffs from court orders denying claims in
class action lawsuits against Cintas Corporation alleging race and
gender discrimination are pending, according to the Company's
April 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna
E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on
May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions across
all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit. Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action
lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women,
African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service
sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only
throughout the United States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other remedies. The claims in Avalos
originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez,
et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004,
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division. On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez
and Avalos African-American, Hispanic and female failure to hire
into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's
intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The
consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly
Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos).
On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying
class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos
lawsuits. Following denial of class certification, the Court
permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed
separately. In the Avalos case, the court dismissed the remaining
claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case
after the denial of class certification. On May 11, 2010,
Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated
plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Appellate Court has made no
determination regarding the merits of Davis' appeal. In September
2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims
and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to
represent. The EEOC has appealed the District Court's summary
judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals has
not yet ruled on the EEOC's appeal.
The Company says that the litigation, if decided or settled
adversely to it, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in
liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition or
results of operation and could increase costs of operations on an
ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating to these
proceedings is not determinable at this time. Cintas may enter
into discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits,
and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes such
settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.
CINTAS CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Veliz" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is still awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit under which it paid $22.8
million to a Court-appointed settlement administrator, according
to the Company's April 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 28, 2011.
Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Paul
Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Veliz), filed on March 19,
2003, in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, alleging that Cintas violated
certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its
service sales representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt
employees, and asserting additional related ERISA claims. On
April 5, 2004, and February 14, 2006, the Court stayed the claims
of all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements pending
arbitration of those claims. Claims made in the Veliz action,
therefore, are pending before the United States District Court,
Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.),
an Arbitrator selected by the parties. On August 5, 2009, the
parties in the Veliz action reached a settlement in principle.
That settlement has been granted preliminary approval by the
District Court. When the settlement is fully documented and
approved by the Court, the settlement will resolve all claims now
pending or that could have been brought relating to the subject
matter of the case before the Court and the Arbitrator. The
principal terms of the settlement provide for an aggregate cash
payment of approximately $24.0 million. The pre-tax impact, net
of insurance proceeds, was $19.5 million.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, on December 17, 2010, Cintas
paid $22.8 million to a Court-appointed settlement administrator
to be held in escrow pending final approval of the settlement by
the Court. Once final approval has been granted by the Court, the
settlement administrator will distribute the $22.8 million to the
class members under the Court's supervision. According to the
terms of the settlement agreement, Cintas will pay the remaining
settlement funds to satisfy the future income tax liabilities of
the class members as they receive their shares of the settlement
funds. The balance of the settlement funds will be used to pay
the fees and expenses of the settlement administrator.
CREEKSTONE FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
workers at a Kansas slaughterhouse are seeking unpaid wages and
overtime from Creekstone Farms Premium Beef in a federal lawsuit
that seeks class-action status on behalf of the 700 employees at
the firm's Arkansas City plant.
The lawsuit filed on April 7 in U.S. District Court names
employees Paz Sanchez and Elvis Posadas as the representative
plaintiffs and seeks to include anyone who worked at the facility
in the past three years. It claims the company hasn't been paying
employees for all of the time they spend working.
Creekstone Farms' marketing director, Jim Rogers, declined to
comment on the lawsuit.
Workers are seeking an unspecified amount for uncompensated
services and time, as well as their legal costs.
The lawsuit claims Creekstone Farms has a practice of paying
hourly meat processing employees based on a principle of so-called
gang time. It contends workers are typically paid only for the
time that their assigned production lines are running, along with
10 minutes a day to put on their protective clothing. The suit
also contends the company failed to pay for overtime.
"The failure of an employer of food processing employees to pay
the employees for all their compensable time is a common
occurrence," said Mark Kistler, the Overland Park attorney
representing the workers. "It seems the employers have an
attitude of 'catch me if you can.'"
Ms. Sanchez, a 42-year-old single mother of three children, worked
as a meat processor as at the Arkansas City facility from May 2003
until last month. She told The Associated Press during a phone
interview that she typically was not paid for two to two-and-a-
half hours of work each week.
"I felt very badly and would make a claim at the office," she said
in Spanish. "They told me, if I don't want to work like this,
here is the door so you can leave."
She said she quit her job last month because of taunting from
supervisors after the father of one of her daughters, a co-worker
at the plant, was injured on the job and filed a claim against the
company. Ms. Sanchez said she was humiliated in front of her co-
workers. She said the harassment affected her so much it prompted
her to file the wage lawsuit.
"Perhaps if they had left me to work in peace -- even if they
didn't pay me for the hours -- I would have food for my children
and would be able to help pay for my children's school," she said.
"But they behaved this way with me."
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Court Approves "Goodman" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved a
stipulation of settlement between Cullen Agricultural Holding
Corp. and the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed in
relation to the Company's merger with Triplecrown Acquisition
Corp., according to the Company's April 8, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On December 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint,
styled Goodman v. Watson, et al., was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the directors
of Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp., as well as certain of the
former directors of Triplecrown Acquisition Corp., the entity with
which the Company completed its business combination in October
2009. The putative class is made up of holders of Triplecrown's
common stock as of September 30, 2009, the record date for the
stockholders' meeting held to approve the Company's merger with
Triplecrown. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and their duty of disclosure in connection
with the business combination. The plaintiff was seeking, as
alternative remedies, damages in the amount of approximately $9.74
per share, to have Triplecrown's trust account restored and
distributed pro rata to members of the putative class, a quasi-
appraisal remedy for members of the putative class, and an
opportunity for members of the putative class to exercise
conversion rights in connection with the business combination.
On January 18, 2011, the Company and the defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff. Pursuant to the
Stipulation, the class action will be resolved, and all claims
will be dropped, in exchange for an aggregate payment to the class
of up to $1.4 million, of which $550,000 will be paid by the
Company and the balance will be paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.
On April 5, 2011, the Stipulation was approved by the Court of
Chancery. Members of the putative class will be sent additional
information relating to their rights in relation to the settlement
and instructions on how to participate in the settlement.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend TCPA-Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit filed in California by Michele
Bennett, according to the Company's April 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended February 28, 2011.
On November 16, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (Michele Bennett et al. v.
Discover Card, a/k/a DFS Services LLC). The plaintiff alleges
that the Company contacted her, and members of the putative class,
on their cellular telephones without their express consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA
provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500
for willful violations). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for
alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief.
The Company says it will seek to vigorously defend all claims
asserted against it. The Company adds that it is not in a
position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its
exposure, if any, with respect to this matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces Eight Suits Over Payment Protection Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services is defending itself from eight
putative class action lawsuits filed in relation to the Company's
marketing practices for its payment protection fee product,
according to the Company's April 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 28, 2011.
There are eight putative class action cases pending in relation to
the sale of the Company's payment protection fee product. The
cases were filed (all in United States District Courts) on July 8,
2010, in the Northern District of California (Walker, et al. v.
DFS, Inc. and Discover Bank; subsequently transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois); July 16, 2010, in the Central
District of California (Conroy v. Discover Financial Services and
Discover Bank); October 22, 2010, in the District of South
Carolina (Alexander v. Discover Financial Services, Inc.; DFS
Services LLC; Discover Bank; and Morgan Stanley); November 5,
2010, in the Northern District of Illinois (Callahan v. Discover
Financial Services, Inc. and Discover Bank); December 17, 2010, in
the Western District of Tennessee (Sack v. DFS Services LLC;
Discover Financial Services, Inc.; and Discover Bank); January 14,
2011, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Boyce v. DFS
Services LLC; Discover Financial Services Inc.; Discover Bank);
February 15, 2011, in the Southern District of Florida (Triplett
v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC,
Discover Bank and Morgan Stanley); and March 7, 2011, in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Discover Financial Services,
Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC, Discover Bank, Morgan Stanley et
al.). On February 7, 2011, six of the cases (Alexander, Conroy,
Walker, Callahan, Sack and Boyce) were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to a
multi-district litigation order issued by the Joint Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
These class actions challenge the Company's marketing practices
with respect to its payment protection fee product to cardmembers
under various state laws and the Truth in Lending Act. The
plaintiffs seek monetary remedies including unspecified damages
and restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and various forms of
injunctive relief including an order rescinding the payment
protection fee product enrollments of all class members.
The Company says it will seek to vigorously defend all claims
asserted against it. The Company adds that it is not in a
position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its
exposure, if any, with respect to this matter.
ESP DAS: Accused of Breaches of Duties to Banyan's Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
OM Investments and Ravi Akhoury, individually, and derivatively on
behalf of Banyan Real Estate Fund and Banyan Real Estate Company,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. E.S.P. Das, et al.,
Case No. 650936/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 8, 2011), accuse Mr. Das
and the other defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties and
obligations owed to plaintiffs, as investors and shareholders in
Banyan. Banyan Fund and Banyan Company are sued as nominal
defendants.
OMI and Mr. Akhoury says that Mr. Das, as the manager and
director, and through his control of the sole voting shareholders
of the Banyan Fund, failed to operate the Banyan Fund in the
interest of and for the benefit of all shareholders.
OMI and Mr. Akhoury allege that they have not been provided the
information to which they are entitled and that they were
promised. "Indeed, [Mr.] Das or his agents/employees have issued
direct and specific edicts that information should not be shared
with investors and that corporate minutes be edited and amended
inappropriately," the plaintiffs say in the Complaint.
Further, Mr. Das and the other defendants have failed to pay the
salaries and compensation of those working in the Fund's interest
in India, failed to adhere to the advice and recommendations of
those retained by the Fund to protect Fund investment in Indian
real estate, and failed to assure that land purchased in India was
suitably permitted and situated to meet the Fund's "announced,
espoused and promised investment criteria."
As a result of this conduct by defendants, plaintiffs have been
"harmed, damaged, and oppressed and been the victim of the waste
and conversion of Banyan assets that they as shareholders owned."
Plaintiffs seek an accounting, damages, disgorgement, restitution
and return of their investments and corporate assets, and
dissolution of Banyan or other relief as oppressed shareholders
are entitled to under applicable law and concepts of equity.
Plaintiff OMI is a British Virgin Islands limited liability
company, with its principal place of business in the British
Virgin Islands. OMI is the owner of shares of nominal
defendants Banyan Fund and Banyan Company.
Plaintiff Akhoury is an individual with his principal place of
residence in New Jersey. Mr. Akhoury is the owner of Class A
shares of Banyan Fund.
Defendant E.S.P. Das is an individual with, upon information and
belief, his principal place of residence in New York County.
Nominal defendant Banyan Real Estate Company ("Banyan Company") is
Mauritius private company limited by shares, also with a principal
place of business in New York County.
Nominal defendant Banyan Real Estate Fund ("Banyan Fund") is a
Mauritius limited life public limited by shares, with its
principal place of business in New York County. Banyan Fund was
established for the purposes of investing in real estate in India.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Adrian Zuckerman, Esq.
Ralph Berman, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
250 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10177-1211
Telephone: (212) 351-4500
E-mail: azuckerman@ebglaw.com
rberman@ebglaw.com
- and -
James P. Flynn, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
E-mail: jflynn@ebglaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Quebec Court Dismisses Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Donna Parker, writing for All Facebook, reports that a 200
plaintiff class-action privacy lawsuit filed in Canada against
Facebook will not be tried in Quebec Superior Court.
Michel Deziel, J.S.C. refused to authorize certification of a
class action lawsuit and dismissed the case outright. Judge
Deziel wrote that he agreed with Facebook that the "Quebec courts
do not have jurisdiction on the litigation because all the users
of Facebook accepted, while joining itself to the site, to submit
all the eventual recourses to the Californian courts of the
district of Santa Clara." Facebook users are not "customers to
the direction of the civil Code of Quebec since their adhesion to
the site is free."
The lawsuit, St-Arnaud c. Facebook, Inc., was filed in July 2010
by the Merchant Law Group in Toronto. Like the firm's Tony
Merchant was quoted as saying by TechEye, "Facebook shamelessly
breached the privacy of people who trusted it. Everything from
naked teenage pictures sent to boyfriends to confidential business
and family secrets sent six or ten years ago and likely forgotten
now goes into the public domain."
The lawsuit further claims that the altered privacy rules put into
place by Facebook, effectively misappropriated the users' personal
information. Merchant indicated these actions enabled targeted
advertising toward the users, according to the Toronto Sun.
The changed privacy policy made public such information as photos,
friends' lists and users' names, according to the suit. Merchant
believes the users solely own their personal information submitted
to Facebook.
This is not the first time Facebook has faced criticism in Canada,
where well over 17 million people have accounts on the social
network. Last year, after receiving backlash from Canada's
privacy commissioner, Facebook changed its policies to conform to
Canada's Personal Information and Protection and Electronic
Documents Act.
HOWREY LLP: Sued for Violations of WARN Act and Fed. & State Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Thomas, et al v. Howrey LLP, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01729
(N.D. Calif. April 8, 2011), arises out of the collapse of Howrey,
LLP, a now defunct law firm that had its main office in
Washington, D.C., four substantial offices in California, and
smaller offices in Utah, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, and New York.
Plaintiffs, who are employees of Howrey, says defendant failed and
refused to pay their wages following the abrupt termination of
their employment.
Defendant Howrey, according to the Complaint, violated plaintiffs'
rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act. Defendants also violated federal, state and District of
Columbia law by failing to give plaintiffs 60 days' notice as
required by such laws.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven A. Blum, Esq.
Craig M. Collins, Esq.
Douglas L. Thorpe, Esq.
Gary Ho, Esq.
BLUM COLLINS LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 572-0400
E-mail: blum@blumcollins.com
collins@blumcollins.com
dthorpe@thorpelink.com
ho@blumcollins.com
HORIZON LINES: Settles Price Gouging Class Action for $1.76 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Murphy, writing for Citybizlist, reports that Horizon Lines
Inc. and two other shipping companies will pay a total of $5.28
million to settle lawsuits that charged the three with price
gouging.
Horizon, of Charlotte, N.C.; Sea Star Line LLC, of Fort
Lauderdale, Fla.; and Crowley Liner Services Inc., of
Jacksonville, Fla., will pay $1.76 million each to the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other named plaintiffs,
individually and representing a class of indirect purchasers,
under a settlement agreement that requires court approval,
according to an SEC filing.
Two of the lawsuits were putative class-action lawsuits. One is
pending in the Court of First Instance for the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the other is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico. The third case was filed by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the Court of First Instance.
In February, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. released similar antitrust
claims against Horizon, as citybizlist reported. The Bentonville,
Ark.-based retailer and several other companies including Home
Depot, Kraft and Procter & Gamble opted out of a $52 million
class-action settlement in Puerto Rico, preferring to pursue their
own lawsuits or seek other settlements with several carriers.
Last year, a U.S. District Court twice dismissed another class-
action lawsuit accusing Horizon of fixing prices on key routes
between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii and Guam. The court first
dismissed the claim in 2009 but allowed plaintiffs to file an
amended suit.
Horizon is led by Chairman and CEO Charles Raymond, a 40-year
transportation industry veteran.
IMMUCOR INC: Sherman Act-Violation Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging that the defendants conspired to fix
prices at which blood reagents are sold, according to the
Company's April 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
Beginning in May 2009, a series of class action lawsuits was filed
against the Company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson
& Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold,
asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees. All of these complaints make substantially the
same allegations. The cases have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The defendants' motions to dismiss were denied and discovery began
in December 2010. No determination has been made whether any of
the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed
as a class action. The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend against these cases. At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably assess the timing or outcome of this litigation or its
effect, if any, on its business.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- manufactures and sells
a complete line of reagents and systems used by hospitals,
reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and identify
certain properties of the cell and serum components of blood prior
to transfusion. Immucor markets a complete family of automated
instrumentation for all of its market segments.
IMMUCOR INC: Private Securities Suit in Georgia Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend itself from a securities
lawsuit asserting federal securities fraud claims in Georgia,
according to the Company's April 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 28, 2011.
A private securities lawsuit is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers asserting federal securities fraud claims on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's Common Stock between
October 19, 2005, and June 25, 2009. The case alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose that
Immucor had violated the antitrust laws, and challenges the
sufficiency of the Company's disclosures about the results of FDA
inspections and the Company's quality control efforts. There has
been no discovery, and no determination has been made whether any
of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to
proceed as a class action. The Company says it will defend the
case vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably
assess the timing or outcome of this litigation or its effect, if
any, on its business.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- manufactures and sells
a complete line of reagents and systems used by hospitals,
reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and identify
certain properties of the cell and serum components of blood prior
to transfusion. Immucor markets a complete family of automated
instrumentation for all of its market segments.
LIFE PARTNERS: Sued in Texas Over "Life Settlement" Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Dallas' Heygood, Orr & Pearson have filed a class-
action lawsuit in Ellis County on behalf of Texas investors who
say Waco-based Life Partners Inc. charged excessive premiums on
the company's so-called "life settlement" policies.
This is the second lawsuit Heygood, Orr & Pearson has filed
against Life Partners in the past month. The first was a
nationwide class action filed in Dallas County, which includes
allegations that Life Partners wrongfully withheld thousands of
dollars investors paid in escrowed premiums.
Life Partners, a subsidiary of the publicly traded Life Partners
Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: LPHI), purchases life insurance policies
from policyholders for the purpose of selling interests in those
policies to groups of investors. Policyholders receive an
immediate, but reduced, payment, while Life Partners' investors
receive the full face value upon the policyholder's death. The
purchase of such policies for investment purposes is commonly
referred to as a "life settlement."
The most recent lawsuit involves "universal life insurance"
policies, in which the original insured policyholder can pay a
higher premium and thereby add to the cash value of the policy.
But that does not hold true for investors who purchase the rights
to the policies in the form of a life settlement. Investors only
receive the face-value amount of the policy upon the death of the
insured, whether they pay only the minimum required to prevent
lapse of the policy or a greater amount.
According to the lawsuit, Life Partners authorized the payment of
the higher premiums for its investors even though there was no
corresponding benefit, and doing so hastened the depletion of the
escrow funds that investors set aside to pay policy premiums.
Once the escrow funds ran out, Life Partners demanded additional
payments from investors, including lead plaintiff John Willingham.
"We intend to prove that Life Partners failed to act in the best
interest of their investors, breaching the contract as well as
their fiduciary duty," says James Craig Orr Jr., lead attorney for
Mr. Willingham and a name partner in Heygood, Orr & Pearson. "We
believe these payments, entirely at the investors' expense,
provided absolutely no benefit to the investors and were thus
improper, irrational, unjustifiable and unnecessary."
The attorneys are asking the court to certify other Life Partners
investors as a class because of the many people who, like Mr.
Willingham, suffered through the mismanagement of their escrow
accounts. The lawsuit, John Willingham v. Life Partners Inc.,
Cause No. 82640, was filed on April 8 in Ellis County's 40th
District Court.
Heygood, Orr & Pearson -- http://www.hop-law.com/-- is a business
litigation and personal injury law firm based in Dallas. The firm
prides itself on having the highest of credentials, experience and
ability and has tried more than 200 cases to a jury verdict on
behalf of both corporations and individuals.
MENTOR GRAPHICS: Faces Class Action Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------
Mentor Graphics Corporation is facing a putative class action
lawsuit commenced by Thomas Charles Longman IRA Rollover in the
Circuit Court of Oregon, according to the Company's April 7, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On April 4, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Thomas
Charles Longman IRA Rollover v. Walden C. Rhines, et al., was
filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County
of Multnomah. The complaint names as defendants the members of
the Board of Directors of Mentor Graphics Corporation, as well as
the Company. The plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors
(i) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders
in connection with the adoption in June 2010 of an Incentive Stock
Purchase Rights Plan (due to expire in December 2011) and the
issuance in April 2010 of convertible subordinated debentures due
2031, and (ii) engaged in self-dealing and obtained a personal
benefit by implementing these arrangements. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, including redemption of the Rights Plan,
enjoinment of the Debenture Offering (which has already closed)
and direction to the Company to negotiate in good faith with Carl
Icahn and his affiliated entities, or any other bona fide
potential bidder, in connection with any offer to purchase the
Company. The complaint also seeks the award of attorneys' and
other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.
The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are
completely without merit and will contest them vigorously.
MONSANTO CO: Seeks Dismissal of Missouri Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company and other defendants ask the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss the amended
complaint in the purported class action lawsuit filed against them
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
according to the Company's April 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 28, 2011.
On July 29, 2010, a purported class action suit, styled Rochester
Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed against
the Company and three of its past and present executive officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The suit alleged that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements between Jan. 7,
2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's earnings guidance
for fiscal 2009, and 2010, and the anticipated future performance
of the Company's ROUNDUP business. On Nov. 1, 2010, the Court
appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff
in the action. On Jan. 31, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and four of its past and present
executive officers in the same action. The amended complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements during the same time
period, regarding the Company's earnings guidance for fiscal 2009,
and 2010, as well as the anticipated future performance of the
Company's ROUNDUP business and the Company's Seeds and Genomics
business. Lead plaintiff claims that these statements
artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock and that
purchasers of its stock during the relevant period were damaged
when the stock price later declined. Lead plaintiff seeks the
award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged
class, counsel fees and costs. The Company believes it has
meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent its
interests vigorously in this matter.
On April 1, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a global
provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products
that improve farm productivity and food quality.
NATIONAL GYPSUM: Class Action Over Gypsum Wallboard Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Gypsum Company, one of the nation' largest manufacturers
of gypsum wallboard, on April 11 disclosed that the plaintiff in
Yee v. National Gypsum, et al. (pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona) voluntarily dismissed his putative
nationwide class action lawsuit filed against the company in
October 2009.
"While we are pleased with the outcome of this case, we are hardly
surprised. Throughout this litigation, we have never doubted the
quality and safety of our gypsum wallboard and were confident we
would be fully exonerated."
"While we are pleased with the outcome of this case, we are hardly
surprised. Throughout this litigation, we have never doubted the
quality and safety of our gypsum wallboard and were confident we
would be fully exonerated," said Craig Weisbruch, Sr. vice
president of Sales & Marketing. "Our wallboard has passed the
industry's most rigorous testing and certification processes for
indoor air quality and has been used by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Green Building Council in
their buildings."
The putative class action, Yee v. National Gypsum, et al., alleged
that the company manufactured defective drywall which emitted high
levels of sulfur, damaged property inside homes and caused health
symptoms. These problems have typically been associated with
defective Chinese drywall, not domestic drywall. National Gypsum
vigorously defended itself against the claims and denied all
allegations. The plaintiff did not produce any credible
scientific evidence that could substantiate his allegations.
"We have not seen any reliable evidence that our gypsum wallboard
poses any of the issues associated with defective Chinese
drywall," said Mr. Weisbruch.
All of the wallboard that National Gypsum manufactures is made in
the United States and has attained the highest level of GREENGUARD
certification for helping achieve healthy air in homes, schools,
hospitals and other public buildings. National Gypsum's wallboard
has earned numerous awards for safety and product quality and has
been recognized for its environmental benefits by the EPA and
contributes credits to numerous projects certified by the U.S.
Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System.
About National Gypsum
Based in Charlotte, NC, National Gypsum --
http://www.NationalGypsum.com/-- is a supplier of gypsum board,
interior finishing products and cement board to the construction
industry. It has a network of over 40 facilities in North
America.
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say National
Semiconductor is selling itself too cheaply to Texas Instruments,
for $25 per share or $6.5 billion.
A copy of the Complaint in Cherniack v. National Semiconductor
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-11-CV-198411 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/11/SCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
ricka@rgrdlaw.com
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DEBRA S. GOODMAN P.C.
1301 Skippack Pike, Suite 7A#133
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Telephone: (610) 277-6057
NAVITAS: May Face Class Action Over Refugee Resettlement Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kelly, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that human
rights lawyer George Newhouse is considering a possible class
action against Navitas and the federal government on behalf of
refugee families living in Newcastle.
Local refugee advocates engaged the high-profile legal identity to
help them pursue claims that refugees were living in squalor with
few support services under the government's resettlement program.
Navitas subsidiary, the Australian College of Languages, recently
had its contract to run the program in Newcastle renewed.
Mr. Newhouse said he was disturbed by the reports coming from
Newcastle.
"From the evidence I've seen there is clearly evidence of an
ongoing problem in Newcastle," Mr. Newhouse, who previously
represented the family of two-year-old Burundian Richard Niyonsaba
who died within hours of arriving in Sydney in 2005, said.
"I am going to assist refugees and refugee advocates in obtaining
action they can take against either or both Navitas or the
department [of Immigration and Citizenship].
"I would not rule out a class action on their behalf."
Refugee advocates rallied outside refugee properties in Sandgate
and Shortland on April 11 in support of improved living conditions
and lower rent for refugees settled in the government program.
"This is not something against landlords, consumerism or private
enterprise," Penola House volunteer Sister Diana Santleben said.
Mr. Newhouse's involvement follows the appointment of Ernst and
Young to carry out an independent investigation into allegations
raised by federal member for Newcastle Sharon Grierson.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship inspectors also began an
on-the-ground investigation on April 11.
Navitas general manager of government programs Michael Cox said
the organization was fully co-operating with all investigations.
"We are committed to the wellbeing of refugees settling in
Newcastle and their full participation in Australian society and
we take these allegations very seriously,' he said.
"Senior Navitas staff will join local staff in Newcastle this week
to meet with our clients and community members to discuss these
claims and to seek solutions."
NOVA SCOTIA: Named Defendant in Child Abuse Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Davene Jeffrey, writing for TheChronicleHerald.ca, reports that
the province has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit which
claims systemic sexual, physical and mental abuse was inflicted on
the child residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children.
The proposed class-action was originally filed against the
Westphal residential facility in February.
In an April 10 release, Wagners Law Firm, which is representing
alleged victims, announced the province was also being named.
"If certified as a class proceeding, common issues will address
the systemic liability of the NSHCC and the province for allowing
the atmosphere of abuse to continue for so long," lawyer Raymond
Wagner said.
OHIO: Judge Approves Taser Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports that a federal judge has approved a
settlement agreement reached in a Taser class action lawsuit
between Ohio prison inmates and the jailers they claim abused them
with the stun guns.
The class action settlement lays down new rules for the use of
Taser stun guns by jail deputies in Franklin County, Ohio. It was
approved last month by U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus.
A complaint filed on behalf of four inmates by The Ohio Legal
Rights Services accused jail guards of abusing prisoners with the
electrical stun weapons. While the settlement dictates how Tasers
will be used in Franklin County jail in the future and has
provisions for additional Taser training for deputies, the
prisoners' claims of damages from the use of excessive force have
not yet been resolved.
Taser guns are designed to incapacitate neuromuscular function by
delivering a shock that uses Electro-Muscular Disruption
technology. Many law enforcement agencies have deployed the
weapons to allow police to incapacitate someone who poses a
threat, but there have also been a number of reports of overuse
and abuse of the weapons, which could have fatal consequences.
In 2008, Amnesty International released a report on Taser police
use, calling for departments throughout the United States to stop
using Taser guns or to strictly limit their use to life-
threatening situations.
The human rights group linked 334 deaths to the use of Taser guns
between 2001 and August 2008. Amnesty International noted that
90% of the Taser deaths examined involved people who were unarmed
and did not appear to present a serious threat to the officers. A
large number of the fatalities involved misuse of the weapons,
including multiple Taser shocks or exposing suspects to prolonged
shocks.
According to a report by The Columbus Dispatch, Franklin County
officials did not admit to any wrongdoing on the part of deputies
or law enforcement officials in the settlement. The County
Prosecutor indicated that the jail deputies were already doing
what the settlement requires them to do, and would not speculate
on whether the there would be a reduction of Taser use in the jail
under the agreement.
OSBORN HOMES: Security Deposit Class Action Hearing Moved
---------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that an April 8 hearing was pushed off in a 2010 class action
brought by tenants against owners of two apartment complexes in
Maryville and Glen Carbon over security deposit interest.
Lead plaintiffs Charese Shadwick and Mike McBride propose to lead
a multi-tiered class of past and present tenants against Osborn
Homes Inc., Cottonwood Properties, Stonebridge Village LLC, and
Kim and Joseph Osborn.
The suit asks for relief under the Illinois Security Deposit
Return Act, Security Deposit Interest Act, consumer fraud
statutes, and other laws related to contracts and insurance.
The plaintiffs' third amended complaint includes 28 counts.
The plaintiffs are also seeking to add another lead plaintiff,
Matthew Shearer, to the suit in a filing dated March 14.
Defendants Cottonwood and Stonebridge as well as the Osborns moved
to dismiss the case on March 7.
Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge was set to hear motions
on April 8.
However, the case's docket indicates that the hearing was pushed
off.
According to the suit's third amended complaint, the lead
plaintiffs and other potential class members were not paid
interest on their security deposits despite requests for payment.
The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants did not properly
inspect their units after they began and ended their tenancy in
them.
The proposed class would be made up of seven sub-sets.
The first set -- Class "A" -- would be all people living in
Illinois from 2000 to its final judgment who were tenants at the
complexes in question who were not in default on their leases and
did not receive the interest from the security deposits.
Class "B" would be all people living in Illinois from 2005 until
the final judgment in the case who lived in the complexes who did
not receive the interest as required by the Security Deposit
Interest Act.
Class "C" would consist of all people in Illinois who from 2005 to
the final judgment were tenants in a complex with five or more
units who did not receive their security deposit back or the part
they were entitled to within 30 days the end of their tenancy and
did not receive paid receipts from the lessor within the time
prescribed by law.
Class "D" could be any Illinois resident who from 2005 to the
final judgment was entitled a security deposit return within 30
days and did not receive the paid receipts attached to an itemized
billing statement.
Class "E" would be made up of all persons from Jan. 1, 2005 until
the final judgment that had a month to month lease which did not
include disclosures required by the Automatic Contract Renewal
Act.
Class "F" would include Illinois residents who lived at a complex
of four or more units who did not receive an insurance disclosure
statement on their current or former tenancy of the defendants.
Glass "G" would be made up of all Illinois residents who from 2000
to the final judgment were a tenant of the defendants who
forfeited their security deposits by not staying for the duration
of the lease.
The class action has not been certified to date.
The suit seeks damages in excess of $1.4 million, attorney's fees
and other relief.
The Osborns, in their motion to dismiss, call a number of the
plaintiffs' claims "tag-along claims."
They argue that all of the complaints lodged in the third amended
complaint should be dismissed because they did not own or lease
the properties named in the action or receive any of the
plaintiffs' security deposits.
They also contend that the plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
relief.
The defendants argue other claims contained in the suit are moot
and that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated how certain laws
were broken.
It is unclear from the case's docket sheet when the next hearing
date in the matter will be.
Mudge took over the case from Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara
Crowder.
Peter Maag represents the plaintiffs.
David Antognoli represents all of the defendants except Osborn
Homes.
No attorney is listed for that defendant.
The case is Madison case number 10-L-1083.
SABA SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saba Software Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit relating to its initial public offering,
according to the Company's April 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 28, 2011.
In November 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 6,
2000 and December 6, 2000. The complaint alleges violations by
the Company and its officers and directors of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and other related
provisions in connection with certain alleged compensation
arrangements entered into by the underwriters in connection with
the initial public offering. An amended complaint was filed in
April 2002. Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds
of other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998. The complaints allege that the prospectus and the
registration statement for the initial public offering failed to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and received
"excessive" commissions from investors and that some investors in
the initial public offering agreed with the underwriters to buy
additional shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price
of the Company's stock. The complaints were later consolidated
into a single action. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.
On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the actions, including the action
involving the Company. On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with
other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, moved
to dismiss the litigation. On February 19, 2003, the District
Court ruled on the motions. The District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims against the Company under
Rule 10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the allegations against
the Company. The District Court also granted the motion of the
individual defendants, Bobby Yazdani and Terry Carlitz, the
Company's chief executive officer and chairman of the board and
former chief financial officer and a member of the Company's Board
of Directors, to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 10b-5
and Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The motions to dismiss the
claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as to
virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases,
including the Company.
In June 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and
directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance
companies. In June 2004, an agreement of partial settlement was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval. The
District Court granted the preliminary approval motion on
February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. On
August 31, 2005 the District Court issued a preliminary order
further approving the modifications to the settlement and
certifying the settlement classes. The District Court also
appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered
that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement
class members by January 15, 2006. The settlement fairness
hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court reserved
decision at that time.
While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The
District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated. The Company's case is not one of these
focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified
the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants
appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class
certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In light of the Second
Circuit opinion, counsel for the issuer defendants informed the
District Court that this settlement could not be approved because
the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not
be certified. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an
order terminating the settlement agreement. On August 14, 2007,
the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class
action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27,
2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007,
certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the
second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26,
2008, the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as
to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
Briefing on the class certification motion was completed in
May 2008. That motion was withdrawn without prejudice on
October 10, 2008.
On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009.
The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final
approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the
Court close these actions. Appeals of the opinion granting final
approval have been filed.
The Company says it intends to dispute these claims and defend the
lawsuit vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal,
the ultimate outcome of the litigation is uncertain. An
unfavorable outcome in litigation could materially and adversely
affect the Company's business, financial condition and results of
operations.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in Calif. Over Non-Payment of Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sears Roebuck cheats its
technicians for overtime and expenses, a class action claims in
Superior Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Lovig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al.,
Case No. 1106069 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/11/Sears.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Hayley Schwartzkopf, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
E-mail: setarehlaw@sbcglobal.net
SHAPIRO & BURTON: Sued Over Illegal Robo-Signing Operation
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that "Thousands of Maryland
homeowners lost their homes in defendants' illegal robo-signing
operation," and paid excessive fees to boot, according to a
federal class action against the Shapiro & Burson law office and
six of its attorneys.
A copy of the Complaint in Smalley, et al. v. Shapiro & Burson,
LLP, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00906 (D. Md.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/11/Robos.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian Stumpf, Esq.
JR HOWELL & ASSOCIATES
1325 G Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 552-7386
E-mail: istumpf@jrhlegalstrategies.com
THE9 LTD: Court Dismisses Suit Over Blizzard WoW License Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted The9 Limited's motion to dismiss a consolidated
lawsuit relating to its non-renewal of a WoW license agreement
with Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., according to the Company's
April 7, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On October 21, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit, entitled
Glaser v. The9 Ltd. et al., Case No. 09-Civ-8904 was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company in connection with the non-renewal of the WoW
license agreement with Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. The
plaintiffs in this case allege that the defendants misrepresented
or failed to make material disclosures regarding the likelihood
that the Company would be renewing the WoW license agreement with
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. The plaintiffs allege federal
securities law violations and seek unspecified damages. On
November 4, 2009, an additional securities class action lawsuit,
entitled O'Dea v. The9 Ltd. et al., Case No. 09-Civ-9166 was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the same defendants with substantially the same
allegations. The court consolidated these complaints into a
single action on February 2, 2010, and the consolidated complaint
was filed on March 19, 2010. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010. The
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
July 12, 2010. The Company filed a reply to their opposition on
August 11, 2010.
On March 28, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and ordered the case closed. The plaintiffs have 30 days
from the date of the dismissal to refile their compliant.
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss IPO Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software Inc. is awaiting a ruling on a motion to dismiss
remaining appeals from the final approval of a global settlement
of a securities litigation in New York, according to the Company's
April 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 27, 2011.
Tibco Software Inc., certain of its directors and officers, and
certain investment bank underwriters have been named in a putative
class action for violation of the federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation." This is one of a number of cases
challenging underwriting practices in the initial public offerings
of more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation." Plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters
engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting activities,
namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in exchange
for allocations of IPO shares. Plaintiffs also allege that
various investment bank securities analysts issued false and
misleading analyst reports. The complaint against the Company
claims that the purported improper underwriting activities were
not disclosed in the registration statements for the Company's IPO
and secondary public offering and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities or sold put options during the time period from
July 13, 1999, to December 6, 2000.
A lawsuit with similar allegations of undisclosed improper
underwriting practices, and part of the same coordinated
proceedings, is pending against Talarian, which the Company
acquired in 2002. That action is captioned "In re Talarian Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." The complaint
against Talarian, certain of its underwriters and certain of its
former directors and officers claims that the purported improper
underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statement for Talarian's IPO and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Talarian
securities during the time period from July 20, 2000, to
December 6, 2000.
The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation,
including the actions against the Company and Talarian. Under the
settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to the Company (the Company's financial liability
will be limited to paying the remaining balance of the applicable
retention under Talarian's directors and officers liability
insurance policy). In addition, the Company and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. On
October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. Certain objectors have filed appeals. Plaintiffs
have moved to dismiss the remaining appeals; no hearing date has
been set.
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software Inc. is still awaiting approval of its settlement
of a putative shareholder class action lawsuit pending in New
York, according to the Company's April 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended February 27, 2011.
On June 28, 2010, a putative shareholder class action suit was
filed by individual stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, against Proginet (which the Company
acquired on September 15, 2010), certain of its officers and
directors, the Company and its subsidiary created for the purpose
of effectuating the acquisition of Proginet. The complaint
generally alleged that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, and that Proginet
and the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification, certain forms of injunctive relief, including
enjoining the proposed merger, and unspecified damages.
The Company, Proginet and the other defendants in this action
entered into an agreement providing for the settlement and
dismissal with prejudice of this action. The agreement is subject
to approval of the court. Although the Company and Proginet
believe that the action is without merit, they entered into the
settlement to avoid the risk of delaying the merger and to
minimize the expense of defending the action. The settlement and
dismissal with prejudice, if approved by the court, will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
action, including all claims relating to the merger (other than
claims for appraisal under Section 262 of Delaware law). In
connection with the settlement and dismissal with prejudice,
Proginet has agreed, subject to court approval, that it will pay
plaintiffs' counsel the amount of up to $200,000 for its fees and
expenses in the action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
WD-40 CO: Deposes Plaintiff in "Burns" Suit
-------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company deposed the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against
it in the Superior Court of California to determine the facts upon
which the plaintiff bases its individual claims and suitability as
a proposed class representative, according to the Company's
April 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
On June 18, 2010, a legal action, entitled Andrea Burns v. WD-40
Company, was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Orange. The complaint seeks class
action status and alleges that the Company misrepresented that its
2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic
toilet bowl cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully
omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging
effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic
and rubber. The plaintiff seeks damages and/or restitution, an
injunction and other relief, including punitive damages, attorneys
fees and costs.
The Burns action is substantively similar to three previous legal
proceedings filed against the Company since 2002. Each of the
prior actions was dismissed, including the most recent proceeding,
Drimmer v. WD-40 Company, a case filed by the same plaintiff law
firm in April 2006 in the United States District Court, Southern
District of California. In August 2008, the Company defeated the
Drimmer plaintiff's motion for class certification, a decision
that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September
2009. The Drimmer action was subsequently dismissed with
prejudice in March 2010.
In the Burns action, the parties have conducted limited discovery,
including the Company's deposition of the plaintiff in March 2011,
to determine the facts upon which the plaintiff bases its
individual claims and suitability as a proposed class
representative. Based on information known to the Company at this
time, the Company has concluded that its exposure to material loss
in Burns is remote.
WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40company.com/-- is a global
consumer product company dedicated to delivering unique, high-
value and easy-to-use solutions for a wide variety of maintenance
needs of "doer" and "on-the-job" users by leveraging and building
the brand fortress of the company. The company markets three
multi-purpose maintenance product brands -- WD-40(R), 3-IN-ONE(R)
and BLUE WORKS(TM) -- and eight homecare and cleaning product
brands: X-14(R) mildew stain remover and automatic toilet bowl
cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R) automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet
Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R)
aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001(R) carpet and
household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers, and Lava(R) and
Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners. WD-40 Company markets its
products in more than 160 countries worldwide and recorded sales
of $292 million in fiscal year 2009.
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Wilshire
Bancorp, Inc. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of WIBC between March 15, 2010 and
March 16, 2011, inclusive.
WIBC is the holding company of Wilshire State Bank, a California
state-chartered bank that operates 24 branch offices in
California, Texas, New Jersey and New York, and six loan
production offices in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, Annandale,
Virginia, and Fort Lee, New Jersey, and is an SBA preferred lender
nationwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning WIBC's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company had deficiencies in its
underwriting, origination, and renewal processes and procedures;
(2) that the Company was not adhering to its underwriting
policies; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the above, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class
is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one. If you purchased WIBC securities between March 15, 2010 and
March 16, 2011, you have certain rights and have 60 days from
March 29, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member
of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you
may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215)638-4847
Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
*********
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 * * *