/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110505.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 88 Headlines AMCOR AND VISY: Judge Approves AU$95-Mil. Class Action Settlement ASTRAZENECA PLC: May Face Class Action Over Crestor Side Effects BP WEST COAST: Sued Over Price Manipulation, Defective POS System CELL THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Trial Date Set for June 2012 DULUTH, MN: Supreme Court Hears Retirees' Class Action EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Removes "O'Connor" Complaint to N.D. Calif. FORREST COUNTY, MS: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Abuse GULF RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in California HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Class Action Over Huggies(R) Diapers MIZE IMPORT: Sued for Violation of Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act MYLIFE.COM: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over False Claims ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations RITE AID: Class Action Suits Over FLSA Violations Still Pending RITE AID: Faces Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits in Calif. SATYAM COMPUTER: PwC Settles Class Action for $25.5 Million SHENGDATECH INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement TEXAS: Comptroller Sued for Disclosing Private Employee Info TOUHY MOBILE: Accused of Failing to Return Security Deposit TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Acceleration Class Action U.S. POTATO GROWERS: Milberg LLP Files Antitrust Class Action UNITIL CORP: "Bellerman" Case Still Pending in Massachusetts Court WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Fraud Class Action to Remain in State Court ********* AMCOR AND VISY: Judge Approves AU$95-Mil. Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a federal court judge has approved a AU$95 million settlement of a class action against Amcor and Visy Industries after the parties agreed to extend the participation deadline, and the two packaging companies offered to try to contact the thousands of eligible customers who have not registered. Justice Peter Jacobson said on May 2 he accepted that there had been adequate notification by mail, newspaper advertising and media reports. The deadline for claimants to register with the law firm running the class action, Maurice Blackburn, has been extended from May 4 to May 13. The number of participants will not affect the AU$95 million to be paid by Amcor and Visy, but will influence the share each customer will receive. The class action claimed its members were overcharged AU$475 million during an alleged cartel to fix the prices of cardboard boxes. On March 7, the day the trial was due to begin, Amcor and Visy agreed to pay 20% of the claim without admitting to price fixing. On April 29, the court heard that only 936 of the 4,618 identified members of the class action had notified Maurice Blackburn. By 11:00 a.m. on May 2, the figure had risen to 1,010. Tony Bannon, SC, for the claimants, said the 1,010 accounted for about 44% of the value of cardboard-box purchases by members of the class action. Those eligible to join the suit were individuals or companies who bought more than AU$100,000 worth of boxes from Amcor or Visy between May 2000 and May 2005. Justice Jacobson also approved additional payments by Amcor and Visy of AU$16 million to cover Maurice Blackburn's fees and interest and AU$9 million in other expenses. ASTRAZENECA PLC: May Face Class Action Over Crestor Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seedol.com reports that Crestor has received many adverse remarks and critiques in regard to its side effects. There are many problems that can occur during the use of this medication. Thus, victims of crestor side effects can file a court case in order to receive full compensation. So, it is advisable to have a professional Crestor attorney. But how does all this happens? Simple! A Crestor Class Action Lawsuit brings together groups of individuals that believe they have been injured by taking Crestor(R), into one large single lawsuit. As a group, you will have more influence in terms of sheer numbers against a larger, more powerful corporation. This increases the probability of a large recovery and is also a way to cut court costs. A Crestor Class Action Lawsuit may result if enough people that have been injured file a Crestor lawsuit. Nothing is impossible. Since as early as 2005, Public Citizen, a non-profit public interest group, has expressed great concern about Crestor(R)'s serious and potentially fatal side effects. Public Citizen is an advocacy group and not associated with the FDA or the manufacturer. The public interest group believes the Crestor side effects could prove incapacitating or even deadly, warranting a recall. Moreover, it has been observed that Crestor can cause kidney damage. When Crestor was first approved, the FDA did not approve the drug in stronger doses because of serious Crestor kidney failure risks. In an October 29, 2004 press release, Public Citizen reported that the rate of kidney damage in Crestor patients is 75 times higher than in patients taking other cholesterol drugs. There have been 29 reports of acute renal failure or renal insufficiency. Crestor kidney damage can lead to the need for surgery to remove the kidney and possibly for ongoing kidney dialysis treatment. Crestor is the latest of six cholesterol reducing drugs called statins and was approved in August of 2003 by the Food and Drug Administration. According to a May 2005 study done at Tufts University, patients taking Crestor are eight times more likely to develop rhabdomyolysis, nephropathy, renal failure or proteinuria than patients taking Pravachol, and 6.5 times more likely to develop those complications than patients taking Lipitor. The study, published in Circulation, reported that the adverse event risk was 2.2 fold higher for Crestor versus Zocor. Those who have been injured by this medication may have the legal right to seek damages for their injuries through a Crestor Class Action Lawsuit. A lawsuit can compensate victims for their medical expenses, loss of income, disability and psychological suffering. BP WEST COAST: Sued Over Price Manipulation, Defective POS System ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that 15 ARCO, BP, and AmPm franchise owners claim that BP West Coast Products LLC manipulates gas supplies and prices, so as to deliver less gas when oil future prices are trending up and to deliver more gas at a higher price when oil future prices are trending down. The federal class action also claims that BP required franchisees to install a defective, centralized point-of-sale (POS) system that hurt their businesses and brought customer complaints. Lead plaintiff Green Desert Oil Group claims that BP sold plaintiffs ARCO-brand gas stations "on the notion that ARCO has been and would continue to be known for its low-priced gasoline strategy as compared with other national brands, mainly due to an early 1980s decision to emphasize cost cuts for cash-only policy at its fuel pumps." The class, led by 15 plaintiffs nationwide, says it has found that BP does not deliver fuel on an "automatic" basis, despite having the ability to. The class claims BP manipulates "gas pricing by deliberating delivering gas before or after price increases or decreases that serve to increase the sales price charged to franchisees." Franchisees say BP tells them by 1:00 p.m. of price changes, which become effective at 3:00 p.m. that very day. They say that "if the price change increases, BP defendants will manipulate delivery schedules so most of the deliveries occur past 3:00 p.m.," but if the price decreases, defendants rush deliveries before 3:00 p.m. Franchisees say that in 2009, they were forced to install a point- of-sale system made by co-defendant Retalix Ltd., an Israeli company. They claim the defendants knew during beta testing of the system that there were "several material defects in the design and architecture of the software which would cause substantial harm and damage to plaintiffs," but that BP required nationwide installation of the system anyway. BP West Coast Product President William Fry recognized in March this year that the Retalix system was only "75% effective," but BP still refused "to implement the older system which was satisfactorily working and refused to consider other POS solutions used by other national service station brands," the class claims. The Retalix system fails to charge some customers who use debit cards to pay for gas, but will charge other customers twice: for their gas and for the gas bought by the customers who were not charged, the franchisees say. The franchisees claim that BP has deducted 5.5% of their gross sales as an "advertising and promotion" fee, but actually dumped some of that money into its general fund. They also claim that they are required to buy certain supplies from BP or specific third-party vendors, with "the prices paid for most of these items and supplies . . . far higher than what plaintiffs could pay in the open and fair market." The class claims that BP intentionally diverts "placement fees" by labeling them "placement allowances," since the defendants are supposed to pay the franchisees placement fees. The allowances, however, "are assigned to BP defendants from franchisees for the stated purpose of advertising and promotion," the complaint states. The franchisees seek class certification, damages, injunctive relief to remove the Retalix system, and punitive damages for breach of contract and negligence. A copy of the Complaint in Green Desert Oil Group Inc., et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02087 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/BP.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1910 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 477-2244 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Christopher Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP One William Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - James M. Lee, Esq. K. Luan Tran, Esq. LEE TRAN & LING APLC 601 South Figueroa St., Suite 4025 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-3737 E-mail: jml@ltlcounsel.com klt@ltlcounsel.com CELL THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Trial Date Set for June 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington set for June 25, 2012, the trial date in a securities class action lawsuit filed against Cell Therapeutics, Inc., according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On March 12, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, styled Cyril Sabbagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-sv-00414), or the Sabbagh action. On March 19, 2010, a substantially similar class action complaint was filed in the same court, styled Michael Laquidari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-cv-00480), or the Laquidari action. On March 31, 2010, a third substantially similar class action complaint was filed in the same court, styled William Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Phillip M. Nudelman, Louis A. Bianco, John H. Bauer, Richard L. Love, Mary O. Mundinger, Jack W. Singer, Frederick W. Telling and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC (Case No. 2:10-cv-00559), or the Snyder action. The securities actions are pending before Judge Marsha Pechman in the Western District of Washington. The securities complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain alleged false and misleading statements. The plaintiffs in the Sabbagh and Laquidari actions seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 5, 2009, through February 8, 2010. The plaintiffs in the Snyder action seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 5, 2009, through March 19, 2010, including purchasers of securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the Company's July 22, 2009 public offering. On August 2, 2010, the court consolidated the securities actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' counsel. On September 27, 2010, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint with a purported class period of March 25, 2008, through March 22, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 3, 2010, and defendants filed their reply on December 22, 2010. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on January 28, 2011. On February 4, 2011, the court issued an order denying in large part the defendants' motion. The court has set a trial date of June 25, 2012, for the securities class action. DULUTH, MN: Supreme Court Hears Retirees' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Duluth News Tribune reports that the question of whether the city of Duluth can change retirees' health insurance benefits to match those of current employees is in the hands of the Minnesota Supreme Court. On the line is perhaps as much as $146 million in savings for the city over the next 30 years. Supreme Court Justices heard arguments on May 2 from the attorneys representing the city and the retirees who sued the city over the issue three years ago. The justices have no deadline for issuing a ruling. "They said they will issue a decision in due course," said Duluth City Attorney Gunnar Johnson, Esq., who attended the hour-long hearing in St. Paul. "I would anticipate a decision will come within four to eight months." Mr. Johnson said the hearing went well. "Every one of them (the seven justices) asked a question, some asked multiple questions, about the case," he said. "They were very well thought out and probing questions, very relevant to the case." Minneapolis attorney, John "Mac" Lefevre, Jr., Esq., argued the city's case; Duluth attorney, Shelly M. Marquardt, Esq., argued the retirees' case. Mr. Lefevre deferred to Messrs. Johnson and Marquardt couldn't immediately be reached for comment. The issue has been in the courts since May 2008, when two city retirees and a retiree's spouse filed what became a class-action lawsuit against Duluth, claiming the city did not have authority to change the health benefits it provided to them at the date of their retirements. Duluth took the position that it is required by contract only to provide retirees with the same type of insurance coverage that current employees receive. District Court Judge Kenneth Sandvik ruled in October 2009 that the city may modify the retirees' benefits whenever and however benefits for active employees are modified. The retirees appealed Judge Sandvik's ruling, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals largely upheld his decision in September 2010. EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Removes "O'Connor" Complaint to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., Case No. CGC-11-508848 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 4, 2011. The plaintiff accuses Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate & Barrel, of requesting and recording customer zip codes from customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in defendant's retail establishments, a practice that is prohibited under The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08. Defendant operates retail stores under the name Crate & Barrel throughout the United States, including California. Mr. O'Connor is a resident of California, and entered into a retail transaction with defendant at one of defendant's California stores. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Euromarket Designs, on April 29, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-02140 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. David R. Garcia, Esq. Brian R. Blackman, Esq. Elizabeth S. Berman, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com dgarcia@sheppardmullin.com bblackman@sheppardmullin.com eberman@sheppardmullin.com FORREST COUNTY, MS: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Abuse ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Forrest County, Mississippi, unconstitutionally abuses youngsters at its Juvenile Detention Center, shackling them at school, denying them medical care and physically and mentally abusing them, according to a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in M.T., et al. v. Forrest County, Mississippi, Case No. 11-cv-00091 (S.D. Miss.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/GovtAbuse.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jody E. Owens, II, Esq. Poonam Juneja, Esq. Corrie Cockrell, Esq. Sheila A. Bedi, Esq. MISSISSIPPI YOUTH JUSTICE PROJECT 921 N. President St., Suite B Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 948-8882 E-mail: jody.owens@splcenter.org poonam.juneja@splcenter.org corrie.cockrell@splcenter.org sheila.bedi@splcenter.org GULF RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP on May 2 disclosed that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Gulf Resources, Inc. common stock between the period of March 16, 2009, to April 26, 2011. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against Gulf Resources and certain individual defendants. According to the complaint, the company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions, and Chinese regulatory filings showed that the Company was materially smaller than it claimed to be. The complaint states that a report pointed to certain evidence indicating that Gulf Resources does not hold title to its Chinese operating subsidiaries, shareholders' sole asset. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Gulf Resources during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Gulf Resources shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than June 29, 2011. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Gulf Resources shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last eight years. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Contact: Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Class Action Over Huggies(R) Diapers ---------------------------------------------------------- Hadera Paper Ltd. disclosed that a petition was filed against Hogla-Kimberly LTD (H-K), an associated company (49.9%), for the approval of a class action. According to the petition, the plaintiff claimed that Huggies(R) diapers, marketed by H-K, which she purchased, did not absorb as was expected due to a fault in the diapers production line. The plaintiff estimates the scope of the class action to be approximately NIS1.1 billion. At this early stage, H-K is not able to assess the chances of the class action and its influences. Contact: Yael Nevo, Adv. Corporate Secretary and Legal Counsel Hadera Paper Ltd. Group Tel:+972-4-6349408 E-mail: YaelN@hadera-paper.co.il MIZE IMPORT: Sued for Violation of Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Rowe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Mize Import Group, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-15895 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 29, 2011), brings claims against the defendant for breach of contract, its violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and its violation of the Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act. As alleged in the Complaint, the defendant, which does business as O'Hare Honda/Hyundai, is accused of mailing to the Class a prize offer that represented that that they had won a prize, and then failing to award plaintiff the prize or the retail value of the prize, and by failing to disclose the retail value of all prizes appearing on the prize offer. Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County in the State of Illinois. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, having its principal place of business in Cook County. The plaintiff is represented by: Hall Adams III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS, LLC 33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 445-4900 E-mail: hall@adamslegal.net MYLIFE.COM: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over False Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that MyLife.com dupes people to pay for its services by falsely claiming that someone is searching for them, according to a Los Angeles Superior Court class action. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Orkin Exterminating Co. stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, according to a class action in Orange County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Salazar v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2011-00470880 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/Employ.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex Sofonio, Esq. SOFONIO & ASSOCIATES, APLC 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-9191 E-mail: rex@sofoniolaw.com RITE AID: Class Action Suits Over FLSA Violations Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation continues to face putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state wage and hour statutes, according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 26, 2011. The Company is currently a defendant in several putative collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and former assistant store managers, or (ii) current and former store managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in the Company's stores at various locations. The lawsuits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state wage and hour statutes. The lawsuits seek various combinations of unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as well as attorneys' fees and costs. In one of the cases, Craig et al v. Rite Aid Corporation et al, pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, brought on behalf of current and former assistant store managers, the Court, on December 9, 2009, conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as assistant store managers since December 9, 2006. Notice of the Craig action has been sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 6,700 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,100 have joined the Craig action. In another of the cases, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of current and former store managers and assistant store managers, the Court, on April 2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 have joined the Indergit action. At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuits. The Company's management believes, however, that the lawsuits are without merit and not appropriate for collective or class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims. RITE AID: Faces Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Rite Aid Corporation is a defendant in class action lawsuits alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 26, 2011. The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws pertaining primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods. These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The Company did not identify parties to the suit nor the details of the cases. At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuits. The Company's management believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims. SATYAM COMPUTER: PwC Settles Class Action for $25.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that investors in Satyam Computer Services Ltd. settled a lawsuit against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for $25.5 million related to PwC's audit of the Indian firm that included a $1 billion overstatement of assets. Satyam, the software exporter embroiled in India's biggest corporate fraud probe, reached a $125 million settlement in February in the class action in New York. Satyam agreed last month to pay $10 million to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit. PricewaterhouseCoopers and four related entities audited or played a role in the audits of Satyam's financial statements, according to the shareholders' complaint. The settlement, which requires a judge's approval, was disclosed in filings dated April 29 in federal court in Manhattan. "Plaintiffs and lead counsel believe that the proposed PwC settlement represents an excellent result and is in the best interests of the class," lawyers for the investors wrote in court papers. In September, Satyam, based in Hyderabad, India, reported its first annual earnings in two years. Former Chairman Ramalinga Raju disclosed in January 2009, that he overstated Satyam's assets by $1 billion, triggering a stock plunge and investor lawsuits in the U.S. Tech Mahindra Ltd., based in Pune, India, acquired control of the software-services provider in May 2009. Satyam's American depositary receipts traded on the New York Stock Exchange. PricewaterhouseCoopers India said in a statement it has reached an agreement to settle the class action arising out of its Satyam audits. "The settlement agreement, if approved, would release all of the named PwC defendants," according to the statement. In addition to London-based PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd., related India-based companies covered by the settlement are Price Waterhouse (Bangalore), PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Ltd. and Lovelock & Lewes. The case is In re Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Securities Litigation, 09-md-2027, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). SHENGDATECH INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Lucas Gilmore, writing for inAudit, reports that following allegations of accounting and operational issues raised by KPMG, chemical company ShengdaTech, Inc., has received a letter from the Listing Qualifications Department of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC delisting the Chinese firm. Nasdaq found that ShengdaTech's securities were no longer warranted based on several public disclosures. Meanwhile, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the chemical company on behalf of investors that purchased common stock of ShengdaTech between March 15, 2010, and March 15, 2011. The complaint alleged that ShengdaTech made materially false and misleading statements with regards to its business, prospects, and operations. Holzer Holzer & Fistel particularly charged ShengdaTech of violating the federal securities laws by failing to inform the public that its internal controls contained material deficiencies. In 2010, the chemical company's financial statements did not comply with the US GAAP, the plaintiff added. Citing the basis for delisting the chemical company, Nasdaq pointed out that ShengdaTech had issues with its accounting and operational practices as revealed by its independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG. Following KPMG's investigation into the alleged discrepancies connected to ShengdaTech's financial reports, including that of its subsidiaries, the chemical company formed a special committee consisting of the members of its board and three independent directors who were then authorized to probe the issues in question. Nasdaq added that ShengdaTech has been obstructing investigations into these matters by at least refusing to present all the necessary information. ShengdaTech allegedly violated the rules set forth for the functioning of the Audit Committee. The chemical company also failed to timely file with the Securities and Exchange Commission its annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 10, 2010, which is required by the listing rule of Nasdaq. Its inability to file the annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC came after the pendency of the investigation which was to be carried out by O'Melveny and Meyers of the special committee that in turn brought in PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to conduct a forensic audit. Based on reports prepared by the special committee, ShengdaTech's board of directors passed a resolution on March 26, 2011, to implement a cash control and validation plan. The resolution required the transfer of control of all cash assets of the company to another account solely accessible to the chairman of the audit committee. The resolution would cover the assessment of ShengdaTech's relationships with its vendors, customers, banks, and other related parties. However, the cash control and validation plan were not enforced despite the letters sent by the special committee to the management on April 7 (request to comply) and April 22, 2011 (demand to comply), respectively. Subsequently, KPMG sent a letter to the company's board of directors on April 19, suggesting that ShengdaTech failed to take prompt remedial actions regarding the discrepancies it identified with the company's financial records. The company's failure to take immediate actions was expected by KPMG to warrant for its resignation as ShengdaTech's auditor. The SEC received a notification from the company on April 20 confirming that it had received KPMG's letter. The chemical company manufactures and sells nano-precipitated calcium carbonate products. The delisting action of Nasdaq may take effect only after a hearing slated on May 26, 2011, following ShengdaTech's request for a reconsideration of the matter with the Hearings Department of Nasdaq. ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that a federal judge on April 29 approved a class-action settlement involving St. Vincent Hospital and the method it used to collect overdue payments. The court awarded plaintiff Michael Sargent $2,000 as part of the lawsuit he brought against the hospital in October 2008. The class consisted of 21 parties that responded to the suit. Mr. Sargent sued St. Vincent, claiming the hospital violated state debt-collection law by using St. Louis-based Outsource Group Inc., which was not licensed as a collection agency in Indiana. Mr. Sargent's suit was preceded by a court claim brought by Outsource in August 2008, in Marion Superior Court in an attempt to collect Mr. Sargent's overdue payment. Outsource filed the suit even though it did not own the account upon which Mr. Sargent was indebted and was not a licensed collection agency in Indiana, according to court documents. The class of plaintiffs represented anyone sued by Outsource for a debt owed to St. Vincent, or any one of its entities, before October 27, 2008, in which a judgment had not been rendered. Including Mr. Sargent's award, the class received a total of $31,500, of which $25,500 paid attorney's fees. Lawyers filing the suit were: Robert E. Stochel, Esq. HOFFMAN & STOCHEL One Professional Center, Suite 306 Crown Point, IN 46307 E-mail: res@reslaw.org - and - Glenn S. Vician, Esq. BOWMAN HEINTZ BOSCIA & VICIAN, P.A. 8605 Broadway Merrillville, IN 46410 E-mail: glennsvician2@bhbvonline.com TEXAS: Comptroller Sued for Disclosing Private Employee Info ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts disclosed private information about 3.5 million employees and ex-employees, exposing them to identity theft, according to a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in McClung v. Combs, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01651 (S.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/oOPS.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall O. Sorrels, Esq. Muhammad S. Aziz, Esq. Karl P. Long, Esq. ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND 800 Commerce Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-7211 TOUHY MOBILE: Accused of Failing to Return Security Deposit ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Phillip Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Touhy Mobile Homes Park, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-15853 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 29, 2011), accuses the mobile home park operator of mismanagement and misappropriation of tenants' security deposit property and failure to return tenants' security deposit and pay interest, in violation of the Mobile Home Landlord and Tenant Rights Act, 765 ILCS 745/18. The mobile home park owned, operated and managed by defendant is located at 400-462 West Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, in Illinois. Plaintiff Robert Phillip Ward is an owner of a new mobile home located at Lot 35, 406 W. Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, in Illinois. On September 20, 2000, plaintiff registered as a resident and was approved as a tenant of the Touhy Mobile Homes Park. The plaintiff is represented by: Myrna Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MYRNA SMITH 111 S. Virginia St. (Rt. 14), Suite L-O Crystal Lake, IL 60014 Telephone: (815) 388-8098 TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Acceleration Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ AboutLawsuits.com reports that a federal judge has again rejected attempts by Toyota to dismiss lawsuits brought by car owners, who claim that their vehicles lost value due to the potential risk of sudden unintended acceleration, which led to the recall of several million vehicles in recent years. On April 29, Judge James Selna filed a tentative ruling allowing a Toyota class action lawsuit over the acceleration problems to move forward. Judge Selna acknowledged that the lawsuits, which have not yet been awarded class status, have enough merit to proceed. Judge Selna said that there was enough evidence that plaintiffs could argue that the vehicles were defective. Judge Selna previously rejected attempts by Toyota to get the lawsuits dismissed in December after the Japanese automaker argued that the claims had no merit because they did not identify a specific defect. About 8.5 million Toyota vehicles have been recalled since September 2009 due to complaints that they accelerate out of control. The recalls were issued in waves, starting with 4.2 million recalled for floormat problems. Some later recalls claimed SUA was caused by mechanical problems or problems with the gas pedals. Many of the claims filed by owners have focused on the vehicles' electronic throttle systems, which some say may allow Toyota and Lexus vehicles to accelerate out of control, potentially resulting in an auto accident. Toyota has denied that there is a problem with the throttle system and denied that the vehicles are actually defective in any way. Toyota officials have said that most of the problems were caused by overly thick all-weather floor mats. In addition to class action lawsuits over the recalls, Toyota also faces a number of lawsuits over accidents caused by uncontrolled acceleration of Toyota vehicles, including personal injury lawsuits and wrongful death lawsuits filed by family members of people allegedly killed when their vehicles accelerated out of control. In some of those cases, Toyota has reportedly paid millions to settle the lawsuits. In April 2010, all federal Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuits were consolidated and centralized before Judge Selna as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial proceedings. U.S. POTATO GROWERS: Milberg LLP Files Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that consumers were overcharged on their purchases of potatoes dating back to 2004 through the present. The complaint alleges that the defendants, an alleged cartel consisting of among the largest potato growers, cooperatives, processors and licensors, violated federal and state antitrust laws by having entered into an illegal scheme to restrict output and raise prices for potatoes. The suit covers consumers in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In December 2010, the Court hearing the case appointed Milberg LLP as interim co-lead counsel. According to the complaint, defendants, who have been publicly called the "potato cartel" and control 80% of the United States potato supply, conspired to increase prices for fresh and processed potatoes in the United States starting in 2004 by reducing the potatoes grown or available for consumer markets. Defendants' actions effectively reduced competition in the markets for fresh and process potatoes throughout North America. The defendants in the action include: United Potato Growers of America, Inc., United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United II Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United Potato Growers of Canada, Wada Farms, Inc., Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc., Wada-Van Orden Potatoes, Inc., Albert Wada, Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., Blaine Larsen, Potandon Produce LLC, Cornelison Farms, Inc., Keith Cornelison, Michael Cranney d/b/a Cranney Farms, Snake River Plains Potatoes, Inc., Driscoll Potatoes, Inc., Lance Funk d/b/a Lance Funk Farms, Rigby Produce, Inc., Pleasant Valley Potato, Inc., Raybould Brothers Farms LLC, RD Offutt Co., Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., Dole Food Company, Inc., and Idahoan Foods LLC. The action is part of a multi-district litigation captioned In Re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and is numbered 4:10-md-02186-BLW. A copy of the 105-page complaint is available from the Court and can be viewed on Milberg LLP's Web site at http://www.milberg.com If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding the lawsuit, please contact the following: Peter Safirstein, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone number: 800-320-5081 E-mail: contactus@milberg.com Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff UNITIL CORP: "Bellerman" Case Still Pending in Massachusetts Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company remains pending in Massachusetts, according to Unitil Corporation's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Unitil is the parent company of Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company. A putative class action complaint was filed against Fitchburg on January 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester, Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company. On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 Ice Storm. On September 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. The Company anticipates that the court will decide whether the lawsuit is appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of 2011. The Company continues to believe the suit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously. WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Fraud Class Action to Remain in State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action alleging fraud and deceptive business practices against for-profit Westwood College will remain in California state court, the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit ruled on May 2, affirming a longstanding legal principle that counterclaim defendants cannot remove an action to federal court. Westwood College subsidiary Westwood Apex sued California resident Jesus Contreras in San Bernardino Superior Court for breach of contract in 2010, seeking to recover some $20,000 in unpaid student loans. Mr. Contreras subsequently filed a class-action counterclaim against Westwood College and others, claiming the for-profit educational institution committed fraud, engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and violated a number of California's consumer-protection laws. The counterclaim defendants (made up of all Westwood College entities except Westwood Apex) petitioned to remove the case to federal court in the Central District of California. But the District Court sent it back to state court, finding that removal by a counterclaim defendant was not authorized under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). On appeal, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Pasadena agreed, ruling that it would violate both established law and apparent Congressional intent if it allowed Westwood to remove the class action to the District Court. "While CAFA eliminated several important roadblocks to removal of class actions commenced in state court, we hold that [the section of the Act relating to removal] did not change the longstanding rule that a party who is joined to such an action as a defendant to a counterclaim or as a third-party defendant may not remove the case to federal court," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the panel. In a concurring opinion, Judge Jay Bybee wrote that while "it seems strange that Congress would have wanted to funnel class actions filed by means of an original complaint into federal court but keep those filed by means of a counterclaim in state courts, . . . the CAFA achieves this particular result, and if Congress does not like it, Congress should rethink the rule." A copy of the Opinion in Westwood Apex v. Contreras, No. 11-55362 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/Qjjkpl ********* 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, Julie Anne Lopez, 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 * * *