/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110420.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 78 Headlines AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE: Sued for Restraint of Trade ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action AUSTRALIA: Military Faces Class Action Threat Over Abuses AUSTRALIA: Bushfire Class Action Needs New Lead Plaintiff BURLINGTON COAT: Court Sets Final Hearing on Settlement to June 27 CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Landfill Gas Leak Class Action Hits Budget CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Use of False Credit-Card Documentation CHINA ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Provides Update on Class Action CISCO SYSTEMS: Senior Execs Sued for Violations of Exchange Act CLARK HOLDINGS: Settles 2009 Multi-Media Suit for $50,000 COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Circuit Revives Stock-Option Backdating Suit GENWORTH FIN'L: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Federal Claims Denied HEALTH NET: Accused of Losing Policyholders' Medical Records IMPERIAL METALS: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement KABA ILCO: Faces Class Action Over Design Defects of Locks KRAFT FOODS: 7th Circuit Revives Class Action Over 401(K) Plan LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Court Denies Appeal of Taylor Suit Dismissal LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Missouri Court Dismisses 'Wiles' Suit MERRY MAIDS: Sued in California Over Labor Law Violations MISTRAS GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Quiroz-Ballard Settlement NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Parking Tickets NEW YORK: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Illegal Toll Collection NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending OPENTABLE INC: Sued for Placing Expiry Dates on Gift Certificates PUDA COAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action XM SATELLITE: Merlin Agrees to Class Action Settlement ********* AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE: Sued for Restraint of Trade -------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Kamakahi, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01781 (N.D. Calif. April 12, 2011), is brought on behalf of all women who sold human egg donor services directly to a member of the Defendant Class during the 4 years prior to the filing date of the Complaint. The Defendant Class consists of all Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology -- SART -- Clinics and all AR Egg (human eggs for assisted fertility and reproductive procedures) agencies (other than those who purchased donor services in Indiana) that were signatories to an agreement to abide by the Maximum Prices Rules, and that paid for donor services during the Class Period. Plaintiff Kamakahi asserts that defendants had engaged in a horizontal price fixing agreement, which constitute a conspiracy in restraint of trade that is a "per se" violation of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff Lindsay Kamakahi sold donor services in this District during the Class Period. Defendant American Society for Reproductive Medicine -- ASRM -- is an organization "devoted to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive medicine." The plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Mark Punzalan, Esq. FINKELSTE1N THOMPSON LLP 100 Bush Street. Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 E-mail: mrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Douglas G. Thompson, Esq. Michael G. McLellan, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 1050 30th Street NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 337-8000 E-mail: mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Bryan Clobes, Esq. Ellen Meriwether, Esq. CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyfaucher.com emeriwether@caffertyfaucher.com ARTIFICIAL LIFE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Artificial Life, Inc. during the period from May 5, 2010 to April 6, 2011 and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of federal securities laws. To join the Artificial Life class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 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. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. On April 13, 2010, the Company engaged KPMG to be its accountant. When conducting the audit for FY 2010, KPMG disagreed with the Company over the Company's accounting treatment of reserves for account receivables and revenue recognition, preventing KPMG from issuing an unqualified opinion. The Company refused to alter the accounting treatment of these entries, and dismissed KPMG on April 6, 2011. On April 7, 2011, the Company's stock price fell over 25%, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 14, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at jhorne@rosenlegal.com/ You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/ The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Contact Information: Jonathan Horne, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 E-mail: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ AUSTRALIA: Military Faces Class Action Threat Over Abuses --------------------------------------------------------- Agence France-Presse reports that Australia's scandal-hit defense force faced the threat of a class action lawsuit after advocates for an ex-recruit who claims he was beaten and raped warned "hundreds" more cases could emerge. Police are investigating the allegations of the man, who was just 15 when he joined HMAS Leeuwin in the 1970s and says he endured beatings and assaults that saw him honorably discharged after less than a year. Fellow sailors forced the victim, now in his 50s, to run a gauntlet of rubber hoses and pillowcases filled with boots and sexually abused him with a mop handle, he claims. The Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia, which is supporting the ex-recruit, says at least 10 other former servicemen have filed complaints of sexual, physical and psychological abuse from the 1970s and 80s since he came forward. And the recent scandal involving a male cadet filming and broadcasting himself having sex with an unsuspecting female colleague at Australia's elite military college, ADFA, could potentially trigger "hundreds" more complaints. "Somebody has to take responsibility for what happened here. These guys have served their country," said the association's chief Barry Heffernan on April 16, warning that a mass lawsuit could be on the cards. "We will absolutely pursue a class action through the courts if appropriate and if more ex-servicemen come forward," he told The Australian newspaper. "The association is not going to back off." Canberra ordered a sweeping review of military culture at ADFA, the Australian Defence Force Academy, after the female cadet took her story to the media this month, prompting a wave of misconduct and gay-hate complaints. ADFA's head, Bruce Kafer, was stood aside and Defence Minister Stephen Smith appointed a human rights commissioner to review the treatment of women at the college, also flagging greater frontline roles for females. Australia's military has gained an unwanted reputation for having a drinking and sexist culture, underscored in a recent 400-page report about incidents on the supply ship HMAS Success in 2009. The report examined allegations of a "predatory culture" and drunken misconduct, including claims that sailors kept a list known as "The Ledger" which put dollar values on sexual conquests with female colleagues. AUSTRALIA: Bushfire Class Action Needs New Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------- Selma Milovanovic, writing for The Age, reports that a trouble- plagued class action over the 2003 alpine bushfires has hit another hurdle after a Switzerland-based businessman refused to become the lead plaintiff in the case. Robert Arnold, whose companies used to lease the Mount Buffalo Chalet from the state government, was tipped to replace a Melbourne doctor in whose name law firm Oldham Naidoo had issued the class action without his permission. But the Supreme Court heard on April 15 that Mr. Arnold wanted nothing more to do with the case. Justice Jack Forrest, who reserved his decision, said the two options now available to him were to dismiss the class action or advertise for potential alternative plaintiffs in local papers before deciding what to do with the case. The government is being sued for allegedly failing to adequately backburn, allowing the fire to spread to private property. It wants the case thrown out. Peter Riordan, SC, for the government, said "this case should be put out of its misery", as eight years after the fires there was no chance anyone else would be interested in continuing with the class action. "At most you would be dealing with somebody who after the [six- year] limitation period decides they now wish to take action," Mr. Riordan said. "They ought not to be taking advantage of the wrongful conduct of Oldham Naidoo to our detriment." Oldham Naidoo Lawyers also launched Victoria's largest class action, over the Black Saturday fires, in a survivor's name without his permission. The law firm is no longer involved in that case. BURLINGTON COAT: Court Sets Final Hearing on Settlement to June 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will consider for final approval on June 27, 2011, a settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by May Vang, according to Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc.'s April 14, 2011, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011. A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on September 17, 2009, and was amended and refiled on November 16, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- Western Division. The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all current, former, and future employees in the United States and the State of California for the relevant statutory time period. The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage statements, and unfair competition. The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California law claims, appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre- judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees. On March 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Central District of California -- Western Division granted preliminary approval to a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay class members an immaterial amount in settlement of claims on a class basis. The court rescheduled a hearing for final approval on June 27, 2011. CASEY, AUSTRALIA: Landfill Gas Leak Class Action Hits Budget ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Randall, writing for The Cranbourne Leader, reports that defending the Stevensons Rd landfill gas leak class action has left a $1.4 million black hole in Casey Council's budget. Council's mid-year budget review forecasts larger-than-expected legal estimates for the class action involving Brookland Greens residents over the 2008 methane leaks. Settlement proceedings started last month. If approved on April 29, the settlement will cost council $13.5 million. Further legal action against third parties aimed at recouping some of the settlement has also contributed to the increase. Site-management costs in the wake of remediation works at the tip have jumped and the council is facing extra costs for clean up requirements, stipulated by the EPA's pollution abatement notice. With the budget about $1.486 million in the red, the council has kept two projects on the backburner. A $200,000 street tree replacement project was put on hold to fund drainage and turf replacement works at Casey Fields because it could not be funded. A plan to build toilets at Banjo Patterson Park in Lynbrook, worth $100,000, was also put on hold. CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Use of False Credit-Card Documentation ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Capital One Bank and the Goldman & Warshaw law firm use "false information and documentation" in credit-card collections. A copy of the Complaint in Fratz v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., Case No. (E.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/Collect.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq. Carol B. McCullough, Esq. MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC 530 West Street Road, Suite 201 Warminster, PA 18974 Telephone: (215) 957-6411 CHINA ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Provides Update on Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. provided an update on the class action lawsuit the firm filed on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of China Electric Motor, Inc. in the period from Jan. 29, 2010 to March 30, 2011, to recover damages for violations of federal securities laws. To join the China Electric Motor class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. Since the filing of first-case by the Rosen Law Firm, China Electric Motor announced on April 11, 2011 that it is now the subject of a formal nonpublic SEC investigation into whether the Company had violated the federal securities laws. The announcement revealed that the Company received a letter from the NASDAQ indicating that the Company was not in compliance with NASDAQ rules because the Company had failed to, among other things, timely file its annual report with the SEC. "We believe the latest announcement of a formal SEC investigation corroborates the securities fraud claims alleged in our class action seeking monetary relief for shareholders," said Laurence Rosen. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 31, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com/ The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ CISCO SYSTEMS: Senior Execs Sued for Violations of Exchange Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Ziolkowski and James Ziolkowski, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01782 (N.D. Calif. April 12, 2011), is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cisco between Feb. 3, 2010, and Feb. 9, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant Cisco designs, manufactures, and sells Internet protocol based networking and other products related to the communications and information technology industry and provides services related to their use worldwide. Defendant Cisco maintains its corporate headquarters in San Jose, California. Specifically, the plaintiffs accuse certain of the Company's senior executive officers and directors, including the Company's Chairman of the Board and CEO John T. Chambers, EVP and CFO Frank Calderoni, EVP of Worldwide Operations Robert Lloyd, and CEO of Cisco UK & Ireland Phil Smith, of disseminating materially false information with respect to Cisco's financial condition and performance, and failing to correct any previously issued misleading or untrue statements about the Company. This conduct, the plaintiffs allege, operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Cisco's common stock. As alleged, the scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Cisco's business, operations and management and the intrinsic value of Cisco's common stock; (ii) allowed the individual defendants and certain Company insiders to collectively sell over 7.0 million shares of their personally-held Cisco common stock for proceeds in excess of $175 million; and (iii) caused plaintiffs and members of the Class to purchase Cisco common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 100 Perm Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 E-mail: debbie@bemardmgross.com CLARK HOLDINGS: Settles 2009 Multi-Media Suit for $50,000 --------------------------------------------------------- Clark Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries have settled for $50,000 a class action lawsuit filed by Multi-Media International in New Jersey, according to the Company's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 1, 2011. On July 10, 2009, Multi-Media International filed a complaint against Clark Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, Clark Distribution Systems, Inc., Highway Distribution Systems, Inc., Clark Worldwide Transportation, Inc. and Evergreen Express Lines, seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by alleging, among other things, (i) common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and unjust enrichment, (ii) violation of N.J. Stat. Section 56:8-2 and (iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing, relating to alleged excessive fuel surcharges by the Subsidiaries. The complaint alleges a class period from June 25, 2002 through June 25, 2009. On behalf of the punitive class plaintiff seeks to recover the alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged improper calculation of fuel charges by defendants and impose punitive damages and attorney's fees. The complaint did not specify an amount of damages; however a prior complaint seeking similar relief on behalf of the same class, which was withdrawn, sought compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million and punitive damages in the amount of $30 million. On June 18, 2010 the U.S. Court for the District of New Jersey issued a ruling in the Multi-Media International case that substantially narrowed the case. The Court granted CGI's motion to dismiss the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim. With regard to the class action allegations, CGI's motion to disqualify MMI and its lawyer from representing the class was rendered moot when MMI withdrew its class allegations and filed a motion to convert the case into an individual claim by MMI against CGI. The Court then granted MMI's motion to file the amended complaint and proceed without the class action or the NJ Consumer Fraud allegations. As a result of these actions, CGI's potential liability was substantially reduced. In December 2010, the Company settled this litigation for $50,000. Although the Company's management continued to believe that the remaining allegations in the lawsuit were without merit, the settlement was deemed to be an amount significantly less that management expected the Company would spend to defend itself in continued litigation. COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Julia A. Rieve, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01786 (N.D. Calif. April 12, 2011), alleges failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code; and unfair competition in violation of the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. Coventry Health Care, Inc., is a diversified national managed healthcare company which operates health plans, insurance companies, network rental and workers' compensation services companies. Plaintiff Julia A. Rieve has been employed by defendant in California as a "Registered Nurse (RN) Field Case Manager" since April 2007. RN Field Case Managers, plaintiff avers, perform day- to-day routine clerical work in the management of medical conditions of injured workers or chronically ill patients on the production side of defendant's business. The plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla,CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Web Site: http://www.bam1awca.com/ ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Circuit Revives Stock-Option Backdating Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 14 revived a class action against Ernst & Young, finding that the accounting firm may have ignored years of fraud by client Broadcom and contributed to a $2.2 billion stock-option backdating scheme. Broadcom, a semiconductor company, paid a $12 million civil penalty to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it improperly accounted for $2.2 billion in income from 1998 to 2005, according to the ruling. Several of the company's executives now face civil and criminal charges. A class of plaintiffs composed of the New Mexico State Investment Council and several union pension funds claimed in a Los Angeles District Court that Ernst & Young enabled Broadcom's crimes by ignoring red flags and signing off on obviously fraudulent financial statements that caused Broadcom's stock price to be artificially inflated. Describe in the ruling as "akin to betting on a horse race after the horse has already crossed the finish line," in a typical backdating scheme, a company's directors will monitor the price of the company's stock and award options when the share is at its lowest, thereby allowing stock owners to make the largest possible profit. While not illegal in itself, if the company fails to properly record the backdated options, then its reported net income becomes overstated and could potentially deceive the market and investors. According to the ruling, "with revenues in excess of $2.5 billion in 2006, [Broadcom] fraudulently overstated its net earnings, and understated its compensation expense, by more than $2.2 billion between 2000 and 2006 due to improper accounting of backdated stock options." U.S. District Judge Manuel Real dismissed the case against Ernst & Young in 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the accounting firm knew it had engaged in wrongdoing. A three-judge panel of 9th Circuit in Pasadena reversed that ruling unanimously on April 14, sending the complaint back to the District Court. Their decision was authored by U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary, sitting by designation from Northern District of Ohio. The panel found numerous examples in the plaintiffs' complaint that Ernst & Young (EY), at the very least, "knew Broadcom's internal controls were weak, and ignored other red flags." "EY, as Broadcom's auditor from 1998 until being fired in 2008, repeatedly offered unqualified audit opinions despite an awareness of large, undocumented stock option grants, and despite having suspicions of Broadcom's option grant procedures multiple times over the years, from the questionable $700 million May 2000 grant, to the three separate 2001 grants when one of the two compensation committee members was deceased, to assisting Broadcom in 2003 with corrective actions to 'prevent and detect any future instances of improper accounting for equity awards," Judge Zouhary wrote for the court. "During this entire time, EY failed to change course. While Broadcom's bad acts certainly may have played a role in the overall fraud, this court's purpose at this stage . . . is simply to test whether the complaint provides a sufficient inference of scienter [knowledge of wrongdoing] for the case to proceed against EY. It does." A copy of the Opinion in New Mexico State Investment Council, et al. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, et al., No. 09-55632 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/AJP53y New Mexico State Investment Council, the lead plaintiff-appellant, was represented by: Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Stephen W. Tountas, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com jfonti@labaton.com stountas@labaton.com Ernst & Young, LLP, the defendant-appellee, was represented by: Robert B. Hubbel, Esq. Michael M. Farhang, Esq. Alexander K. Mircheff, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com amircheff@gibsondunn.com GENWORTH FIN'L: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Federal Claims Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- On March 31, 2011, United States District Judge Leonard D. Wexler denied a motion to dismiss federal claims brought against Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. (formerly Genworth Financial Asset Management), Genworth Financial, Inc. (collectively "Genworth") and an executive officer, on behalf of investors in Genworth BJ Group Services Portfolios (the "Brinker Portfolios") between Dec. 22, 2003 and Dec. 22, 2009. A motion to dismiss state law claims was granted. Plaintiffs' Complaint charges that Genworth and Gurinder S. Ahluwalia knowingly, recklessly and/or with intent to deceive, disseminated to investors materially misleading representations regarding the management of the Brinker Portfolios and Genworth's "exclusive" management agreement with Mr. Brinker. The Complaint alleges that at times during the Class Period nearly 65% of the Brinker Portfolios was invested in funds not recommended by Mr. Brinker but rather in funds that paid Defendants higher administrative and service fees. The parties have nine months to conduct discovery. A Class and Class Period have not yet been certified. If you have information regarding the Brinker Portfolios, and/or invested in Genworth's BJ Group Services Portfolios during the Class Period and want to obtain a copy of the Complaint or more information regarding the Action, please contact: Jeffrey Brown, Esq. LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514. Telephone: (800) 585-4658 (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com - and - James E. Tullman, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (888) 593-4771 (212) 682-3025 E-mail: infony@weisslurie.com HEALTH NET: Accused of Losing Policyholders' Medical Records ------------------------------------------------------------ Callie Green, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01797 (N.D. Calif. April 13, 2011), asserts violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Calif. Civil Code Section 56.101). Plaintiff Green accuses the health insurer of losing her confidential medical information, private financial data, and social security number. According to Ms. Green, confidential medical information, private financial data, and social security numbers of approximately 1.9 million Health Net policyholders are now unaccounted for. Upon information and belief, defendants did not encrypt their policyholders' private and confidential information, which makes it viewable by an unauthorized individual with commonly available computer software. Plaintiff Callie Green is a 29-year-old San Francisco resident. She is married and the mother of two children. Ms. Green has been a Health Net policyholder since 2005. Defendant Health Net is a health insurer whose corporate headquarters and principal place of business is 21650 Oxnard St., in Woodland Hills, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Adam B. Wolf, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com awolf@schneiderwallace.com - and - Matthew Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI 456 Montgomery St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com - and - Kevin J. McInerney, Esq. MCINERNEY & JONES 18124 Wedge Pkwy, Suite 503 Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 849-3811 E-mail: Kevin@mcinerneylaw.net IMPERIAL METALS: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Metals Corporation, American Bullion Minerals Ltd. and Red Chris Development Company Ltd. report they have entered into a settlement agreement in connection with the outstanding class action by two ABML minority shareholders, brought on behalf of all ABML minority shareholders, against RCDC, ABML and a former director of ABML. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Class Action will be settled through the plan of arrangement announced on Feb. 4, 2011, as amended, in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement, subject to approval by the Court. Under the original terms of the Arrangement, each holder of minority shares of ABML (other than holders exercising dissent rights) was to be offered $2.25 cash for every share held. The amended Arrangement, in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement provides that the Offer Price will be increased to $2.45 per share less legal fees, taxes, and disbursements to counsel for the minority shareholders in the Class Action. The Legal Fees will be such amount as the Supreme Court of British Columbia may approve, but not to exceed $0.45 per share. Counsel for the minority shareholders in the Class Action has claimed against ABML and the minority shares for the Legal Fees in an amount equal to thirty seven and one-third percent of the value of ABML's assets, the minority shares, or purchase monies for that asset or shares, and has asserted a solicitor's lien against both ABML's assets and the minority shares securing that amount. ABML has disputed this claim. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the claim for Legal Fees and a solicitor's lien will be released upon completion of the Arrangement and payment of Court approved Legal Fees, but not otherwise. The Settlement Agreement forms part of an interim order of the Court pronounced on April 13, 2011 in the Class Action. The Order sets out certain notice and other provisions affecting Class Action members in the context of the Settlement Agreement and the amended Arrangement. The parties will seek an interim order of the Court in connection with the amended Arrangement on April 26, 2011. The Board of Directors of ABML has scheduled an extraordinary meeting of ABML shareholders' meeting for June 6, 2011 to vote on the amended Arrangement. KABA ILCO: Faces Class Action Over Design Defects of Locks ---------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Journal, reports that a Reserve locksmith has filed a class action against the manufacturers of push button door locks which allegedly can be rendered ineffective with a commercially available magnet. Danny's Locksmith Inc. and Danny Siebenkittel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Kaba Ilco Corp., Kaba Corp., Kaba Finance Corp., Kaba Benzing America, Kaba U.S. Holdings Ltd., Kaba Delaware, Kaba AG and Kaba Holdings AG on April 6 in federal court in New Orleans. According to the complaint, the push button door locks contain design defects that make them susceptible to opening by using various magnets. This renders the locks ineffective and unfit to perform the safety function, for which they were designed, the lawsuit states. "As a result of a flaw in their design, the Locks can be opened by affixing a magnet to the outside of the Locks, which manipulates the internal mechanism and allows the Locks to be opened with ease and without inputting the necessary combination," state court documents. The proposed class action will include all persons and entities, in the locksmith trade, who purchased any of the defective locks. Causes of action filed against the defendants include negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn, breach of warranty, violation of state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, deceit, fraud or misrepresentation and redhibition. The lawsuit is asking the court for an award of compensatory damages, restitution or disgorgement, refund or reduction of the purchase price, interest, attorneys' fees and court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Camilo K. Salas III of Salas & Co. in New Orleans. A jury trial is requested. U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt is assigned to the case. Case No. 2:11-cv-00731 KRAFT FOODS: 7th Circuit Revives Class Action Over 401(K) Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that in a 2-1 split, the United States Court of Appeals or the Seventh Circuit voted to revive a class action by Kraft employees alleging that mismanagement of the company's 401(k) plan caused them to miss out on $83.7 million in investment gains between 2000 and 2007. At its peak, Kraft's 401(k) plan included 55,000 participants and $5.4 billion in assets. Participants were able to direct their contributions into one or more of the nine mutual-fund options offered. Two of these, company-stock funds, became the subject of the suit. The complaint, filed in 2006, claimed that plan managers had incurred "excessive expense and generate insufficient returns." The plan's unitized structure invested most assets in stocks, but included a 5 percent cash buffer that was designed to allow quick cash transactions. Ultimately, however, it created "investment drag," preventing the fund from reaching its full potential when stocks went up. In addition, the plan's policy of deducting stock transaction costs from the overall value of the fund, rather than allocating them to the individual who initiated the transactions, decreased margins by encouraging participants to trade with little discretion. This "transactional drag" allegedly cost an average of $145 per participant per year. An Illinois federal judge certified the class but granted summary judgment for the defendants. The 7th Circuit reversed, finding that managers failed to act on plaintiffs' proposed changes to the plan. Since there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the prudence of the decision, the court's majority felt summary judgment was a misstep. "Given the state of the record, we think the best course is to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment . . . and remand for further consideration," U.S. District Judge Lynn Judge Adelman wrote for the majority. Judge Adelman sat on the panel by designation from the Milwaukee-based Eastern District of Wisconsin. To succeed in their suit, plaintiffs must still demonstrate that indecisiveness caused loss. "This might be difficult to do, in that it is impossible to know what would have happened had the fiduciaries made a decision," Judge Adelman wrote. Judge Richard Cudahy dissented. "What the trustees did here is well within their discretion, both from an administrative and an investment standpoint, and should not become the subject of a federal lawsuit," he wrote. Cash buffers, which Cudahy said are included in 90 percent of 401(k) plans, are a legitimate means of preserving investment. He also called the sharing of trading costs among all participants "perfectly appropriat[e]." "This is an implausible class action based on nitpicking with respect to perfectly legitimate practices of the fiduciaries. I would therefore affirm the excellent district court opinion throughout, including summary judgment matters the majority chooses to reverse," Judge Cudahy wrote. A copy of the decision in George, et al. v. Kraft Foods Global, Incorporated, et al., No. 10-1469 (7th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/741FFOAK.pdf LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Court Denies Appeal of Taylor Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed in Texas has been denied, according to LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. A class action suit, Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company, et al., was brought in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, C.A. No. 2:07-CV-00018. The matter is styled as a suit brought by the plaintiff class against a group of defendant companies, including the Company, under the Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721 et seq. The defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the Court. The plaintiff class filed an appeal of the dismissal of the case, which was denied. LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Missouri Court Dismisses 'Wiles' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit alleging violation of the Driver Privacy Protection Act has been dismissed, according to LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. A class action suit filed by Sam Wiles, Carol Watkins, Jackson Wills and Sarah Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is pending in the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri, C.A. No. 09-4164-CV-C-NKL. The matter is styled as a class action suit brought by the plaintiff class against the Company, alleging a violation of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721, et. seq., and is one of several similar actions brought by the class against a number of companies in the same industry as the Company. The defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the Court. The plaintiff class has not yet filed an appeal of the dismissal. MERRY MAIDS: Sued in California Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Merry Maids of Fresno and Servicemaster cheated workers of overtime, paid less than minimum wage, and violated other labor laws, workers say in a Superior Court class action. A copy of the Complaint in Cruz, et al. v. Merry Maids of Fresno, et al., Case No. 11-01156 (Calif. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/Employ.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Brett Sutton, Esq. Susan K. Hatmaker, Esq. Jared Hague, Esq. SUTTON HATMAKER LAW CORPORATION 6715 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 214 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 449-1888 E-mail: brett@suttonhatmaker.com susan@suttonhatmaker.com jared@suttonhatmaker.com MISTRAS GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Quiroz-Ballard Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mistras Group, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its settlement of two class action suits alleging violations of California labor and employment law, according to the Company's April 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011. The Company is a defendant in two related purported class action lawsuits in California, based upon alleged violations of California labor and employment law: Quiroz v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Case No. CV09-7146 PSG), filed in September 2009, and Ballard v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Case No. 2:10-cv-03186 (PSG)), filed in March 2010. Both of these cases are purported class action lawsuits brought on behalf of existing and former California employees of the Company and its subsidiaries for violation of various labor and employment laws, primarily for failure to pay wages timely and for having defective wage statements, as well as other claims, and is seeking penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The Ballard case was filed shortly after the plaintiff's request to certify the Quiroz case as a class action suit was denied by the same attorney representing the plaintiff in the Quiroz case. The Company and counsel for the plaintiffs in both the Quiroz and Ballard cases have agreed upon a settlement, which has received preliminary court approval. The Company has reserved approximately $0.3 million in connection with this settlement, the charges for which were taken in prior quarters of fiscal 2011. This reserve represents the Company's estimate of its total potential liability related to the settlement of these cases, net of insurance reimbursements. NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Parking Tickets --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that New York City "amassed millions of dollars in illegal revenue" by ticketing legally double-parked commercial vehicles, and citing them for more expensive "traffic lane violations," the New York Trucking & Delivery Association says in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint NYTDA, Inc. v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01836 (E.D.N.Y.) (Garaufis, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/NYPark.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian H. Lowenfeld, Esq. 350 Central Park West Suite 13-C New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (917) 375-9996 E-mail: jlowenfeld@gmail.com - and - Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Esq. JACOBSEN LAW OFFICES LLC 12 Orchard Lane Wallingford, PA 19086 Telephone: (610) 566-7930 E-mail: jacobsenjaw@aol.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joanne Zack, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0201 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com - and - Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq. O'KEEFE & SHER, P.C. 15019 Kutztown Road Kutztown, PA 19530 Telephone: (610) 683-0771 E-mail: jokade@aol.com - and - Julia Lowenfeld, Esq. 1706 Sheepshead Bay Road Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 648-4888 E-mail: julia@lowenfeldlaw.com NEW YORK: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Illegal Toll Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that just in time for Tax Day, a federal class action claims the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority illegally collects taxes, in the form of tolls on the Dulles Toll Road, which are more than needed for upkeep of the road. A copy of the Complaint in Corr, et al. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Case No. 11-cv-00389 (E.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/15/Taxes.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Cynkar, Esq. CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 106-A South Columbus Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (202) 587-5063 E-mail: rcynkar@cuneolaw.com - and - Christopher I. Kachouroff, Esq. DOMINION LAW CENTER, P.C. 13649 Office Place, Suite 101 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Telephone: (703) 365-9900 E-mail ck1@trialjustice.net - and - Patrick M. Sweeney, Esq. 3358 John Tree Hill Road Powhatan, VA 23139 Telephone: (804) 794-5740 E-mail: pmmcsweeney@yahoo.com NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder is pending, according to the Company's April 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. A purported class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged shareholder of Novelos, on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock in the period between December 14, 2009, and February 24, 2010, against Novelos and its president and chief executive officer, Harry S. Palmin. On October 1, 2010, the court appointed lead plaintiffs (Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald) and appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel. On October 22, 2010, an amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint claims that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged disclosures related to the Phase 3 clinical trial for NOV-002 in non-small cell lung cancer. On December 6, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss and on March 3, 2011, the Company filed its response to their opposition. The Company's motion to dismiss remains pending. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against the allegations. OPENTABLE INC: Sued for Placing Expiry Dates on Gift Certificates ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Farrell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. OpenTable, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01785 (N.D. Calif. April 12, 2011), says OpenTable, in attempting to make sales of its gift certificates to the companies that redeem the certificates -- merchants -- knowingly and intentionally places expiration dates on its gift certificates in violation of California Civil Code Section 1749.5 -- California Gift Certificate Law -- the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act -- CARD Act -- and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act -- EFTA. Plaintiff William Farrell, a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, purchased a gift certificate from OpenTable, an Internet seller of gift certificates. The plaintiff is represented by: Sean Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. William C. Gray, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC 350 N. LaSalle Ave., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 PUDA COAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 14 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Puda Coal, Inc. during the period from November 13, 2009 to April 8, 2011, inclusive, seeking to recover damages for violations of federal securities laws. To join the Puda Coal class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/ or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 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. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The Complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act against Puda Coal and its officers and directors for misrepresenting the Company's ownership interest of the Company's operating subsidiary Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co. Ltd, and related unauthorized transactions involving Shanxi Coal and Puda Coal's Chairman Ming Zhao. According to the Complaint, on April 8, 2001 a stock market analyst, issued a report claiming that Ming Zhao had secretly engaged in related party transactions in order to "steal" half of Puda Coal's ownership interest in Shanxi Coal and pledged the other half of the Company's ownership of Shanxi Coal to Chinese private equity investors. In reaction to the adverse information in the Report, the price of Puda Coal stock fell 34% on April 8, 2010. On April 11, 2011 (the following trading day), trading in Puda Coal's stock was halted before market open. Later that day, Puda Coal issued an announcement admitting that "evidence supports the allegations that there were transfers by Mr. Zhao in subsidiary ownership that were inconsistent with the disclosure made by the Company in its public securities filings." As a result of this adverse information the Complaint alleges that investors have been damaged. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 13, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. XM SATELLITE: Merlin Agrees to Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Music Industry News Network reports that the global independent music agency Merlin has agreed to a settlement of a long-running dispute with XM Satellite Radio over the Pioneer Inno recordable radio receiver and other similar recording devices. Merlin has fought on for the independent community's due share of monies owed by XM Satellite Radio to rights holders, after claims were settled with the four major record labels between 2007 and 2008. The out-of-court agreement closes a longstanding class action lawsuit. While achieving a settlement of its own members' claims, Merlin's decision to participate in the class action was pivotal to the achievement of the $3.6 million settlement for the entire independent record sector. As a result of the class action settlement, Merlin members and all other independent record labels that had their sound recordings transmitted by XM Satellite Radio between March 30, 2006 and Dec. 6, 2010 have the opportunity to participate in the settlement. Said Charles Caldas, Merlin CEO: "This is an important settlement, not just for Merlin's members, but also, I am pleased to say, for the independent community at large. This announcement underlines the value that Merlin has brought to its members by creating a body that ensures that they, and not just the major labels, have the opportunity to benefit from settlements such as this one." With its members' market share in the US alone reported at around 10%, Merlin provides an invaluable solution for digital music services looking to include independent labels. This settlement is testament to both Merlin's diligence in protecting its members' rights and the value of its member label's repertoire. Labels such as Epitaph, Rough Trade, Merge, Warp Records, Yep Roc/Red Eye, NaV0ve, Naxos, Tommy Boy, One Little Indian, Kontor New Media, Beggars Group, [PIAS] Entertainment Group,!K7, Domino and Koch/E1 are all members of Merlin. Their artists include Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire, Dizzee Rascal, Neko Case, Spoon, Grizzly Bear, Bright Eyes, Carla Bruni, The National, Tom Waits, DJ Khaled, Dorrough, TiV'sto, Scooter and many many more. ********* 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 * * *