/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110601.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 107 Headlines 8X8 INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Meierdiercks" Suit AES CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Brazil AES CORP: Dismissal of Class Suit Declared Final and Unappealable AMERICAN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend "Klugman" Suit in Maryland BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Modify Mortgages BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Selling Product that Doesn't Work BP: Seeks Dismissal of Oil Spill Suits Seeking Economic Damages BRONCO DRILLING: Signs MOU to Resolve Suits vs. Chesapeake Merger CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Suits on Product Reimbursements CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Valeant-Related Suits CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in California CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Violation of Wage Laws CHUBB CORP: Awaits Ruling in New Jersey Class Suit CHURCHILL DOWNS: Litigation in Youbet Class Suits Terminated CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Action Suits COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action DICK'S SPORTING: Hearing in FLSA-Violation Suits Set for June 1 DSW INC: Awaits Court Okay of MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Bank of America Suit Remains Pending ENSCO PLC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Stockholder Suits FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Credit Score Class Action for $60MM FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: New York Antitrust Suit in Pre-Trial Stage FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Ohio Securities Suit in Discovery Stage FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on ERISA Class Suit Appeal FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Court Refuses to Amend Class Definition FLORIDA: Class Action v. Transportation Dept. Can Proceed GT SOLAR: Gets Preliminary Approval of Deal in Consolidated Suit HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Reconsider Dismissal HANOVER INSURANCE: Decision on Anti-Assignment Issue Still Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 162,600 More Notebook Computer Batteries HOLLY CORP: Continues to Defend Frontier Merger Class Suits INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Competition Class Suits LOJACK CORP: Trial for Data Transmission Claim in "Rutti" Suit Set LOJACK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Remand Order LOJACK CORP: Awaits Court Okay on "Morin" Class Suit Settlement LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Vioxx Securities Suit Still Pending MERCK & CO: Summary Judgment Motions in Vioxx ERISA Suit Due June MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend International Suits vs. Old Merck MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses "Stratte-McClure" Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in WaMu Securities Suit to be Completed MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" 401(k) Suit in N.Y. NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Seeks Dismissal of Super Bowl Class Suit NEW LEAF: Continues to Defend Lead-Related Suit in California PHI INC: Continues to Defend Superior Offshore Suit PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Fully Briefed RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Accused of Securities Law Violations RAWLINGS COMPANY: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action RESEARCH IN MOTION: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders RURAL/METRO CORP: Defending Suits Challenging Warburg Merger SATYAM COMPUTER: Posts 4Q Net Loss After Class Action Settlement SCORES HOLDING: Prepares Documents to Settle "Siri Diaz" Suit SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal Briefs Stayed Pending Dismissal Plea STATE STREET: Continues to Defend "Deceptive Practice" Suit STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Shareholder-Related Suits STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit STERLING FINANCIAL: Request for Review Will Be Heard Today STEVE MADDEN: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in "Tahvilian" Suit SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Awaits Rulings on Motions to Dismiss Appeals THE9 LTD: Securities Class Action Dismissed THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over False Stats TORCHMARK CORP: Trial in Arkansas Suit Set for Jan. 17, 2012 TORCHMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Ohio Class Suit TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal From "Harel Pia" Suit Dismissal Still Pending TOYOTA AUTO: Continues to Defend Sudden Acceleration Suits VELTI PLC: Unit Accused of Violating California Consumers Act WALTER ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Moore" Suit in Alabama WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois XL GROUP: Execution of Formal Settlement in MDL Suit Still Pending YUKON-NEVADA GOLD: Settles Class Action for $3.6 Million ZUMIEZ INC: Paid $2.1 Million Settlement Payment in "Berg" Suit ********* 8X8 INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Meierdiercks" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- 8x8, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement with Nikki Meierdiercks et al. in connection with their putative class action lawsuit against the Company, according to the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On January 27, 2010, the Company was named a defendant in a lawsuit, Nikki Meierdiercks et al. v. 8x8, Inc., filed by three former employees in Santa Clara County Superior Court as a putative class action seeking damages and various penalties under the California Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime, meal breaks, rest breaks and alleged late wage payments and unreimbursed business expenses. On November 9, 2010, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit for $625,000. The Company accrued this $625,000 in the third quarter of fiscal 2011. The settlement amount is still subject to approval by the Court, though the Company does not expect to incur any substantial amounts related to the litigation in the future. AES CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Brazil -------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of The AES Corporation are awaiting a judge's determination as to who will serve as expert to produce expert evidence in a public class action arising from presence of contaminants at a subsidiary's factory in Brazil, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. AES Florestal, Ltd., had been operating a pole factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as "Horto Renner," in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Florestal had been under the control of AES Sul since October 1997, when Sul was created pursuant to a privatization by the Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. After it came under the control of Sul, Florestal performed an environmental audit of the entire operational cycle at the pole factory. The audit discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at the pole factory. The audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia ElEtrica, had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative of communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. The Public Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry n. 24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested that the police station of Triunfo institute a police investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole factory. The parties filed defenses in response to the civil inquiry. The Public Attorney's Office then requested an injunction which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008. The Public Attorney's office has a right to appeal the decision. The environmental agency has also started a procedure (Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures that shall be taken to contain and remediate the contamination. Also, in March 2000, Sul filed suit against CEEE in the 2nd Court of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in Sul's name the Property that it acquired through the privatization but that remained registered in CEEE's name. During those proceedings, AES subsequently waived its claim to re-register the Property and asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property. That claim is pending. In November 2005, the 7th Court of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be returned to CEEE. CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner since September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April 2006. In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical Cooperation Protocol" pursuant to which they requested a new deadline from FEPAM in order to present a proposal. In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Public Class Action against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($4 million). The injunction was rejected and the case is in the evidentiary state awaiting the judge's determination as to who will serve as the court- appointed expert with responsibility for producing the expert evidence. The proposal was delivered on April 8, 2008. FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties should undertake the first step of the proposal which would be to retain a contractor. In its response, Sul indicated that such step should be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental events resulted from CEEE's operations. It is estimated that remediation could cost approximately R$14.7 million ($9 million). Discussions between Sul and CEEE are ongoing. The AES Corporation operate two primary lines of business: the Generation business, where the Company owns and/or operate power plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers, and the Utilities business, where the Company owns and/or operate utilities which distribute, transmit and sell electricity to end- user customers in the residential, commercial, industrial and governmental sectors within a defined service area and in certain circumstances, sell electricity on the wholesale market. AES CORP: Dismissal of Class Suit Declared Final and Unappealable ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Brazilian court's decision to dismiss a class action lawsuit involving The AES Corporation's subsidiary became final and unappealable in March, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of Rio Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in the 16th District Court of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, claiming that AES Sul has been illegally passing PIS and COFINS taxes to consumers. According to ANEEL's Order No. 93/05, the federal laws of Brazil, and the Brazilian Constitution, energy companies such as AES Sul are entitled to highlight PIS and COFINS taxes in power bills to final consumers, as the cost of those taxes is included in the energy tariffs that are applicable to final consumers. Before AES Sul had been served with the action, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in October 2009 on the ground that AES Sul had been properly highlighting PIS and COFINS taxes in consumer bills in accordance with Brazilian law. In April 2010, the PDO appealed to the Appellate Court of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. In November 2010, the AC affirmed the dismissal. The PDO did not appeal, and the District Court's decision became final and unappealable in March 2011. The AES Corporation operates two primary lines of business: the Generation business, where the Company owns or operates power plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers, and the Utilities business, where the Company owns or operates utilities which distribute, transmit and sell electricity to end-user customers. AMERICAN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend "Klugman" Suit in Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Capital, Ltd., continues to defend itself in a purported class action captioned Klugmann v. American Capital, Ltd., et al. before a federal court in Maryland, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2011 The Company and certain of its executive officers are defendants in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland styled as Klugmann v. American Capital, Ltd., et al. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 31, 2007 and November 7, 2008, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation that the defendants made incorrect statements related to the Company's dividend guidance for 2008. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses. On June 14, 2010, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the matter, without prejudice. The case is in the discovery stage and the Company intends to continue to contest the matter vigorously. American Capital, Ltd.'s $5.7 billion on-balance sheet investment portfolio consists of investments in senior debt, mezzanine debt and equity in controlled and non-controlled private and public companies and structured product investments, including commercial mortgage backed securities, commercial collateralized loan obligation securities and collateralized debt obligation securities. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Modify Mortgages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America reneged on its agreements to modify mortgages, homebuyers say in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Jones, et ux. v. Bank of America, N.A. and BAC Home Loans Serving, LP, Case No. 11-cv-01161 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/27/BofA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1550 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com - and - Debra L. Hurst, Esq. Kyle Van Dyke, Esq. HURST & HURST 401 W. A Street, Suite 1825 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-0016 E-mail: dhurst@hurst-hurst.com BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Selling Product that Doesn't Work ---------------------------------------------------------------- In Kristina McClure, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Belkin International, Inc., and Target Corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-19048 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 25, 2011), Ms. McClure, an Illinois resident, seeks to represent a class of similarly situated persons who purchased a TuneCast Universal at retail, in the State of Illinois, from brick-and- mortar retailers such as Target retail stores between August 2010 and May 25, 2011. Belkin International makes the TuneCast Universal FM Transmitter, a small device that purportedly enables an "iPod" or other portable MP3 audio player to play music or audio content through a car stereo and speaker system. Ms. McClure says the TuneCast Universal simply fails to play the very music or audio content of the audio player, and broadcasts an unwelcome degree of static, rendering the content of MP3 music played through the device effectively inaudible and unable to be used for its intended purpose. Ms. McClure relates that defendants should not have allowed the products to be sold, or should have apprised consumers of the product's limitations at the time of sale. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Bulgarelli, Esq. Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. Anita Dellaria, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 505 North LaSalle, Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 BP: Seeks Dismissal of Oil Spill Suits Seeking Economic Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a BP attorney told a federal judge on May 26 that thousands of lawsuits for economic damages must be dismissed because they were filed before claimants tried to settle through BP's $20-billion Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) administered by Kenneth Feinberg. Oil spill defendants also claimed immunity from liability for the toxic dispersant Corexit, saying they simply made "decisions that should have been made by the United States government." BP and other oil-spill defendants, including Nalco, which makes Corexit, told U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier that they are immune from liability because they were simply following orders that should have been handed down by the president of the United States under the National Environmental Emergencies Contingency Plan. "The point we are trying to make, your honor, is that the claims the plaintiffs are making -- that the dispersants are too dangerous, etc. -- these were decisions that should have been made by the United States government," Mary Rose Alexander, Esq., attorney for Nalco, told Judge Barbier toward the hearing's end. BP attorney Andrew Langan, Esq., said the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was set up to help claimants settle out of court. He said that one stipulation for filing an economic damages lawsuit against BP is that a claimant must have filed a claim with the GCCF and been denied. But now that the lawsuits have been filed, Judge Barbier, who is presiding over the consolidated litigation, wondered how to address the issue of presentment to the GCCF. "I could rule as a matter of law -- which you have asked me to do -- but I don't want to down the road have to deal with individual rulings on 100,000 claims," Judge Barbier told Mr. Langan. Earlier on May 26, Judge Barbier said the number of lawsuits so far filed in the multi-district litigation "is probably something north of 120,000 - 130,000 cases." Ninety-five thousand claimants have joined the litigation by filing short-form joinders that were created to allow plaintiffs to join the litigation without excessive paperwork. The GCCF meanwhile has been criticized for requiring extensive documentation from claimants. Gulf Coast lawmakers this past winter expressed frustration with the claims center, saying BP and Mr. Feinberg were intentionally stalling responses to claims to lure desperate claimants into accepting onetime quick payments of $25,000 for businesses or $5,000 for individuals. The payments require a signed waiver stating the claimant won't litigate for more damages from BP or any of the other oil spill defendants. "BP's position is that any people who have claims should decide this out of court," Mr. Langan said. Mr. Langan said he knows that filing through the GCCF "is a huge inconvenience for the plaintiffs" and he understands the plaintiff steering committee wants to take the matters to court and "stick their stake in the ground," but he said OPA guidelines still apply. The next issue addressed was whether people who have lost wages because of the federal drilling moratorium can file claims with BP. "It is our position that 'but for causation' under OPA is not enough," Mr. Langan told the judge. Mr. Langan defined "but for causation" as that which arrives through a thought process like: "but for the oil spill I would still have a job." "If 'but for causation' were the standard, there would be no end to OPA litigation," Mr. Langan said. Judge Barbier kept arguments moving, to stay within the 3 hours allotted for the hearing. Next up, Jeffrey Breit from the plaintiff steering committee told the judge the language of the Oil Pollution Act should not be read as open to debate. Much argument surrounds how OPA interacts with state and maritime law. Mr. Breit said that if something is not written in the act, then it isn't there. He said the act was intended as "an expansive statute" to help oil-spill victims, but the "defendant attorneys want to use OPA as a shield" against liability. Plaintiff liaison counsel, Steve Herman, Esq., said the moratorium was a foreseeable consequence of the oil spill, and BP and the other defendants are obligated to pay for lost wages resulting from the moratorium. Mr. Herman said "the moratorium was actually imposed by the environmental damages of the Macondo well" blowout. "When you have an environmental catastrophe, you expect the government to step in," Mr. Herman said. He said it wasn't the moratorium that kept companies from drilling, but the response to the oil spill. "Drilling in Idaho wasn't halted" in response to the spill, Mr. Herman said, only drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Barbier asked what Mr. Herman thought about BP's argument that thousands of claimants have joined the litigation without going first to the GCCF. "If they're right about the law, how do you want to handle it?" Judge Barbier asked. "I'm sure you acknowledge that a large number of claims were filed without presentment." Mr. Herman said it seemed a waste of resources to go through each claim individually to make sure it has been properly filed. Judge Barbier did not indicate when he would rule on the matter. The next issue involved oil-spill response workers who have filed claims for health problems from exposure to oil and dispersant. Mary Rose Alexander, representing Nalco, told the judge that using Corexit on the spill was the president's decision. "Plaintiffs allege that the dispersants were too toxic, too dangerous, but the Clean Water Act gives this to the president to decide," Ms. Alexander said. Corexit is banned in several countries including the United Kingdom for being highly toxic. Different forms of the dispersant were used in large amounts during the Exxon Valdez spill and were later blamed for liver and kidney failure, miscarriage and fetal death, rapid destruction of red blood cells leading to severe anemia, and other health problems. BP continued to spray Corexit in May 2010 even after Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson told it to stop. When BP did not stop, Ms. Jackson told it to try to find a less toxic alternative. Michael Lyle, Esq., an attorney for O'Brien's Response Management, which bought and supplied dispersant said the company was acting through the federal government under the command of Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, and therefore shared in the government's immunity from liability. Mr. Lyle referred to a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on response by workers that came after the World Trade Center bombings. "The facts are remarkably similar" to the World Trade disaster, Mr. Lyle said. "The 2nd Circuit said, 'We need contractors to come, we need them and we can't make them afraid of liability,'" Mr. Lyle said. "Actually, it was more compelling in our case, because it was the federal government controlling the response," not the state, Mr. Lyle said. Robin Greenwald, Esq., of the plaintiff steering committee rebutted Mr. Lyle's argument, saying the difference between the World Trade Center bombings and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is that the bombings were acts of terrorism while the oil spill was caused by a company that subsequently took responsibility and coordinated its own response effort. "The responders -- all of them -- worked for BP. They worked for the polluter. The World Trade disaster contractors had a relationship with the government. But without that relationship, how can the government tell the contractors what to do?" Mr. Greenwald asked. The hearing addressed defendants' motions to dismiss pleading bundles B1, B2 and D1 in the consolidated oil spill litigation. A monthly oil spill status conference took place before the hearing. The next status conference is scheduled for July 8 at 9:30 a.m. BRONCO DRILLING: Signs MOU to Resolve Suits vs. Chesapeake Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding, as amended, to resolve class action lawsuits commenced in connection with its proposed merger with Chesapeake Energy Corporation and Nomac Acquisition, Inc., according to the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 14, 2011, Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended on May 17, 2011, with Chesapeake Energy Corporation and Nomac Acquisition, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Chesapeake (Merger Sub). Ten putative class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated therein were commenced against the Company. Six of these suits were filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and four were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. All but one of the Oklahoma Suits has been voluntarily dismissed. On May 6, 2011, the Delaware Suits were consolidated into a single action. On May 10, 2011, the remaining Oklahoma Suit was stayed in favor of the Delaware Suits. These suits name as defendants the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, and in certain instances, Chesapeake and Merger Sub. While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of the lawsuits is without merit and that they have valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on May 17, 2011, the Company and other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the parties to the Delaware Suits pursuant to which the Company and such parties agreed in principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those lawsuits. Subject to approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery and further definitive documentation, the MOU establishes a framework to resolve the Delaware Suits against the Company and the other defendants in connection with the Merger Agreement and contemplates a release and settlement of all claims against the Company and other defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger Agreement. In exchange for such release and settlement, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties agreed that (i) the Company, Chesapeake, and Merger Sub would modify the Merger Agreement to reflect the Amendment, (ii) the Company would provide additional disclosures in an amendment to its Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, which amendment was filed on May 18, 2011, and (iii) Chesapeake and Merger Sub would extend the expiration of the Offer from 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of Monday, May 23, 2011, to 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of Tuesday, May 31, 2011. The settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, consummation of the Merger. On May 20, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion filed by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Suits to certify a class. The order entered by the Court, among other things, certified a class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of the Company's common stock at any time between April 14, 2011, and the date of consummation of the merger. Excluded from the Class are the Company, Chesapeake, Merger Sub, D. Frank Harrison, Richard B. Hefner, Gary C. Hill, David W. House and William R. Snipes or any of their respective families, parent entities, controlling persons, associates, predecessors, successors, affiliates or subsidiaries, and each and all of their respective past or present officers, directors, stockholders, principals, representatives, employees, attorneys, financial or investment advisors, consultants, accountants, investment bankers, commercial bankers, entities providing fairness opinions, underwriters, brokers, dealers, advisors or agents, heirs, executors, trustees, general or limited partners or partnerships, limited liability companies, members, managers, joint ventures, personal or legal representatives, estates, administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns. In addition, the Court certified plaintiffs to the Delaware Suits as the representatives of the Class and their counsel as co-lead counsel for the Class. In the event the settlement anticipated by the MOU is not approved, the Company will continue to vigorously defend these actions. This summary of the MOU does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the MOU, which is included as Exhibit (a)(5)(O) to the Company's Amendment No. 2 to the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company as of May 18, 2011. On May 18, 2011, Chesapeake and the Company issued a joint press release announcing the entry into the Amendment and the MOU. CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Suits on Product Reimbursements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cephalon, Inc. continues to defend putative class action complaints filed by entities that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of the Company's product for uses outside of the product's label in non-cancer patients, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In late 2007, the Company was served with a series of putative class action complaints filed in the EDPA on behalf of entities that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's approved label in non-cancer patients. The complaints allege violations of various state consumer protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and/or treble damages, with interest, and/or disgorgement of profits. In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that also alleges violations of RICO and conspiracy to violate RICO. The RICO allegations were dismissed with prejudice in May 2009. In February 2009, the Company was served with an additional putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health and welfare trust funds that claim to have reimbursed for prescriptions of GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside the approved labels for each product. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and/or treble damages, with interest. The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters and in any similar actions that may be filed in the future. These efforts will be both expensive and time consuming and, ultimately, due to the nature of litigation, there can be no assurance that these efforts will be successful. Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- sells more than 150 products in nearly 100 countries. CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Valeant-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend itself against class actions alleging breach of duties, which are pending in Delaware, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In early May 2011, Cephalon announced together with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. that their companies' respective Boards of Directors have unanimously approved an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Teva will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Cephalon for $81.50 per share in cash. The transaction, which is not conditioned on financing, is subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act and clearance by the European Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, as well as the approval of Cephalon stockholders. The transaction is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2011. Each of Cephalon and Teva has made representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement. Cephalon has also agreed to various covenants and agreements, including, subject to certain exceptions, (i) not to solicit alternative transactions or enter into discussions concerning, or provide non-public information to third parties in connection with, any alternative transaction and (ii) to call and hold a stockholder meeting and recommend that the Company's stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement. The parties have also agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to cause the transaction to be consummated. The Merger Agreement contains specified termination rights for the parties, including the right of Cephalon in certain circumstances to terminate the Merger Agreement and accept a Superior Proposal (as defined in the Merger Agreement). The Merger Agreement also provides that, in certain circumstances, the Company would be required to pay Teva a termination fee of $275 million. Cephalon's announcement with Teva follows an unsolicited proposal Cephalon received from Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., in March 2011 to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Cephalon's common stock for $73 per share. In early April 2011, Cephalon's Board announced that, after carefully reviewing the proposal and after consultation with Cephalon's financial and legal advisors, it unanimously concluded that the proposal is inadequate and not in the best interests of Cephalon's shareholders. Thereafter, in late April 2011, Valeant initiated a consent solicitation process by nominating 8 candidates to remove and replace its current Board. On May 2, 2011, Valeant announced it was ending its consent solicitation process due to the signing of the Merger Agreement by Cephalon and Teva. Three putative class actions have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company's Board or the Company, alleging breach of duties in connection with Valeant's non-binding acquisition proposal and seeking injunctive relief. The Company expects additional complaints to be filed relating to its proposed acquisition by Teva. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- sells more than 150 products in nearly 100 countries. CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Chico's FAS, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit filed in Orange County, California, by Lorraine V. Garcia, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in February 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, Lorraine V. Garcia v. Chico's FAS, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of California law, requested or required customers to provide personal information as a condition of accepting payment by credit card. The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint. The Company believes that the case is wholly without merit and, thus, does not believe that the case should have any material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Violation of Wage Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, California, by Eileen Schlim alleging violations of California labor laws, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Eileen Schlim v. Chico's FAS, Inc. The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, and vacation pay, among other things. The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint. The Company believes that its policies and procedures for paying its associates comply with all applicable California laws. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. CHUBB CORP: Awaits Ruling in New Jersey Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- The Chubb Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed in a New Jersey court, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Individual actions and purported class actions arising out of the investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents have been filed in a number of federal and state courts. On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission agreements. On September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court dismissed the second amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in its entirety. In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 13, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the N.J. District Court decision and remanded the case back to the N.J. District Court for further proceedings. As a result of the Third Circuit's decision, the plaintiffs' state law claims and certain of the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims were reinstated against the Corporation. The Corporation and the other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the reinstated claims. Since that time, several of the defendants agreed to settlements in principle with the plaintiffs. Those settlements are pending approval by the District Court. The Corporation and the other remaining defendants that have not settled with plaintiffs argued their motions to dismiss before the District Court on March 23, 2011. The parties are awaiting the N.J. District Court's decision. Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar to the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between 2005 and 2007. These actions have been subsequently removed and ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. These actions are currently stayed. The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements and conspired to reduce competition in the insurance markets. The actions seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees. The Corporation believes it has substantial defenses to the aforementioned legal proceedings and intends to defend the action vigorously. The Corporation cannot predict at this time the ultimate outcome of the aforementioned ongoing investigations and legal proceedings, including any potential amounts that the Corporation may be required to pay in connection with them. Nevertheless, management believes that it is likely that the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's results of operations or financial condition. Headquartered in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation is a holding company for a family of property and casualty insurance companies known informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (the P&C Group). Since 1882, the P&C Group has provided property and casualty insurance to businesses and individuals around the world. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Litigation in Youbet Class Suits Terminated ------------------------------------------------------------ Litigation in class action lawsuits filed by Youbet.com, Inc., stockholders against Youbet, Churchhills Downs Incorporated, their officers and directors, and their subsidiaries were terminated after final approval of the settlement of the class action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On November 17, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Wayne Witkowski v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, California against Youbet, several of its directors, the Company and the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tomahawk Merger Corp., and Tomahawk Merger LLC. Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were also filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, two of which name Youbet and its directors as defendants and three of which also name the Company as a defendant. All six lawsuits, which the Company refers to collectively as the Los Angeles litigation, are putative class actions brought on behalf of Youbet's stockholders. The plaintiffs in the Los Angeles litigation have since moved to consolidate the Los Angeles litigation, to file a single consolidated complaint and to appoint lead counsel. That motion was granted on January 22, 2010. The complaints in the Los Angeles litigation all allege that Youbet's directors breached their fiduciary duties, including alleged duties of loyalty, due care and candor, in connection with the merger transaction. In that regard, the various complaints include, among other things, allegations that the transaction is the result of an inadequate sales process which was designed to maximize stockholder value; that the consideration to be received by Youbet shareholders was unfair and inadequate; that the merger agreement included inappropriate "no solicitation," "matching rights," no standstill waiver, and termination fee provisions; that the combined effect of these provisions, together with Youbet's waiver of the Youbet stockholder rights agreement with respect to the Company and the entry of voting agreements by the defendants and certain others pursuant to which they agreed to vote in favor of the merger, was to "lock up" the merger transaction, foreclose potential alternative bidders and illegally restrain Youbet's ability to solicit or engage in negotiations with a third party; that various defendants acted for their own benefit in approving the merger, including for the purpose of obtaining positions or pursuing opportunities at the Company; and that material information was not provided in connection with the transaction and was not provided at the time that Youbet submitted the Youbet stockholder rights agreement to a stockholder vote. Those lawsuits which name the Company or its affiliates as defendants also allege that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Youbet's directors. Youbet is also alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by its directors. Among the relief sought by the complaints is unspecified damages, together with payment of attorneys' fees and costs. On December 23, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Raymond Balch v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Youbet, several of its directors, the Company, Merger Sub and Merger LLC alleging claims similar to the Los Angeles Litigation. On January 8, 2010, Mr. Balch amended his complaint to add counts asserting that Youbet's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Youbet stockholders by allegedly failing to disclose material information regarding the sale of Youbet in a preliminary registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 24, 2009, and that Youbet and the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches. On March 2, 2010, Youbet, Youbet's directors, the Company, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Litigation and the plaintiffs in the Balch litigation reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the cases based on, among other things, the defendants' agreement to include in an amended registration statement certain additional disclosures relating to the sale of Youbet. The memorandum of understanding provides that the settlement is subject to customary conditions including the completion of appropriate settlement documentation and completion of confirmatory discovery. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, an amended registration statement was filed containing the additional agreed disclosures. On or about July 14, 2010, the parties to the Los Angeles Litigation and the Balch litigation entered into a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the memorandum of understanding. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, for a certification of a class for settlement purposes, dismissal with prejudice of the Los Angeles Litigation and the Balch litigation, releases by class members and payment of attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the court, with the settlement agreement being subject to court approval. In both the memorandum of understanding and the settlement agreement, Youbet, Youbet's directors, the Company, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC each denied that they committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in the complaints, and expressly maintained that they diligently and scrupulously complied with any and all of their legal duties. Although Youbet, Youbet's directors, the Company, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC believed the lawsuits were without merit, they entered into the memorandum of understanding and settlement to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. On July 14, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Litigation filed the settlement agreement with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, together with a request for preliminary approval of the settlement and of a proposed class notice and for the scheduling of a hearing date for final approval of the settlement. On August 19, 2010, the court presiding over the Los Angeles litigation granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. On December 20, 2010, the Los Angeles court granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order and final judgment, which, among other things, dismissed the Los Angeles Litigation with prejudice and approved a release to the defendants from or on behalf of all of Youbet's non-affiliated public stockholders who held Youbet common stock at any time from November 10, 2009, through the date of the consummation of the merger. The deadline for an appeal from the order and final judgment in Los Angeles Litigation expired on February 18, 2011, with no appeal having been filed. Under the settlement agreement, the parties submitted an agreed order to dismiss the Balch litigation with prejudice, and on March 4, 2011, the Delaware court entered a dismissal of the Balch litigation with prejudice. As a result, all related litigation has terminated. The Company has not incurred any material loss or expense as a result of this settlement. Churchill Downs Incorporated -- http://www.ChurchillDownsIncorporated.com/-- headquartered in Louisville, Ky., owns and operates four world renowned Thoroughbred racing facilities: Arlington Park in Illinois, Calder Casino and Race Course in Florida, Churchill Downs Race Track in Kentucky and Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots in Louisiana. CDI operates slot and gaming operations in Louisiana and Florida. Churchill Downs tracks are host to North America's most prestigious races, including the Arlington Million, the Kentucky Derby, the Kentucky Oaks, the Louisiana Derby and the Princess Rooney, along with hosting the Breeders' Cup World Championships for a record seventh time on Nov. 5-6, 2010. Churchill Downs also owns off-track betting facilities, TwinSpires.com and other advance-deposit wagering channels, television production, telecommunications and racing service companies such as BRIS and a 50-percent interest in the national cable and satellite network, HorseRacing TV, which supports Churchill Downs' network of simulcasting and racing operations. Churchill Downs' Entertainment Group produces the HullabaLOU Music Festival at Churchill Downs which premieres on July 23-25, 2010. CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Action Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Cisco Systems, Inc., continues to face two purported shareholder class action lawsuits in California alleging the Company and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading statements during quarterly earnings calls, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. On March 31, 2011, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Cisco and certain of its officers and directors. A second lawsuit with substantially similar allegations was filed with the same court on April 12, 2011, against Cisco and certain of its officers and directors. The lawsuits are purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased Cisco's publicly traded securities between May 12, 2010, and February 9, 2011, and between February 3, 2010, and February 9, 2011, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements during quarterly earnings calls, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. While the Company believes there is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Community Health Systems, Inc. common stock between July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, inclusive. What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased or acquires shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must request appointment by the court no later than July 8, 2011. If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff process, or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362 x302 or via email at jeff@dyerberens.com Any member of the putative class may request a lead plaintiff appointment through counsel of its choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants' public statements about Community Health were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose material adverse facts including: (a) the Company's growth statistics, revenues, and profits were inflated as a result of its improper admissions procedures designed to overbill Medicare; (b) because Community Health's financial results were artificially inflated, the potential synergies arising from the Tenet Healthcare acquisition were much less compelling than represented; and (c) as a result, defendants also knew that their forecasted profit and revenue numbers were unattainable and lacked a reasonable basis when made. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges Community Health and certain of the Company's officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. About Dyer & Berens LLP The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP -- http://ww.DyerBerens.com-- prosecutes investor class actions involving financial fraud. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. DICK'S SPORTING: Hearing in FLSA-Violation Suits Set for June 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of New York will convene a hearing on June 1, 2011, to consider final approval of Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.'s settlement agreement resolving various class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company is a defendant in Tamara Barrus, et al. v Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. et al., a case that makes claims concerning alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. The case was filed in May of 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. In their complaint, in addition to the unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiffs seek liquidated damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2006, a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York conditionally certified a class for notice purposes under the FLSA, which the U.S. District Judge upheld. The parties and the court agreed to stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through mediation. Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007 and November 2008 and these attempts to resolve the case through mediation were unsuccessful. In December 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding five individual defendants, claims for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime under the laws of thirty-five states, and claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In August 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims (except those arising under New York law), ERISA claims and RICO claims. In September 2010, following the dismissal of the state law claims in Barrus (except those arising under New York law), state wage and hour class action complaints were filed against the Company in Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, North Carolina, Maine, Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Massachusetts. In these actions, plaintiffs assert claims similar to those in the Barrus case and plaintiffs are seeking remedies that include (to the extent applicable in each state) injunctive relief, unpaid wages (including fringe benefits), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, expenses, expert fees and an award of interest. On January 28, 2011, the Company and attorneys for a group of plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York to settle Barrus and the State Claims. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, covers wage and hour claims under the laws of 36 states. Under the settlement, the total amount to be paid will depend on the number of claims that are submitted by class members with a maximum settlement amount not to exceed $15 million plus interest and taxes. On February 3, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval to the parties' settlement agreement and set a fairness hearing for June 1, 2011. The settlement and related fees resulted in a pre-tax charge during the fiscal fourth quarter of 2010 of approximately $10.8 million ($6.5 million after tax). DSW INC: Awaits Court Okay of MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- DSW Inc. is awaiting court approval of its memorandum of understanding to settle two putative shareholder class action lawsuits commenced in connection with its proposed merger with Retail Ventures Inc., according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, purported shareholders of Retail Ventures Inc. have filed two putative shareholder class action lawsuits in an Ohio state court captioned as: Steamfitters local #449 Retirement Security Fund v. Schottenstein, et al., and Farkas v. Retail Ventures, Inc. The Steamfitters action is brought against Retail Ventures and its directors and chief executive officer and DSW. The Farkas action is brought against Retail Ventures and its directors, and DSW and DSW MS LLC, the entity that Retail Ventures will merge into ("Merger Sub"). The Steamfitters action alleges, among other things, that Retail Ventures and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement, and that Retail Ventures' chief executive officer and DSW aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Farkas action alleges, among other things, that the Retail Ventures' board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement and failing to disclose certain alleged material information, and that Retail Ventures and DSW aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Both complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on the merger, as well as money damages. In order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the parties have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of the lawsuits set forth in an executed memorandum of understanding that has been filed with the court. The memorandum of understanding provides for, among other things, additional public disclosure with respect to the merger. Based upon the memorandum of understanding, the proposed disclosure was included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the shareholders of RVI and DSW. The memorandum of understanding is subject to definitive settlement documents and final court approval. If the parties are unable to obtain final court approval of the settlement, then the litigation may proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Bank of America Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed by Bank of America, et al., against El Paso Natural Gas Company asserting royalty underpayment claims remains pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. The Company is a named defendant, along with Burlington Resources, Inc., now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, in a class action lawsuit styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P., filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma asserting royalty underpayment claims related to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. The Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in the 1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices. The Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount of damages against any defendant. The Company believes that its actions in the 1980s were proper in light of a declining market. The Company also contends that it is entitled to an indemnity from Burlington under its 1992 separation agreement for all claims related to royalty payments, which Burlington denies. The Plaintiffs assert that royalties were further underpaid by Burlington as a result of post-production cost deductions taken starting in the late 1990s. The Company has no liability for the post-production claims as they pertain to periods after the Company's separation from Burlington. This action was transferred to Washita County District Court in 2004. A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 was rejected by the court in June 2007. A class certification hearing occurred in April 2009. The court certified a Texas and Oklahoma class of royalty owners and stayed the claims pertaining to New Mexico wells. The class certification has been appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs have proceeded with discovery of the post- production claims against Burlington. The Company's costs and legal exposure related to this lawsuit are not currently determinable. El Paso Natural Gas Company's primary business consists of the interstate transportation and storage of natural gas. The Company conducts its business activities through its natural gas pipeline systems and a storage facility. The Company is based in Houston. ENSCO PLC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Stockholder Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc has entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to its proposed merger with Pride International, Inc., according to the Company's May 24, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 19, 2011, Ensco plc and the other named defendants signed a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the previously disclosed stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 6, 2011, and amended as of March 1, 2011, among Pride International, Inc., Ensco, ENSCO International Incorporated and ENSCO Ventures LLC. As provided in the memorandum of understanding, after approval by the Ensco board of directors, on May 23, 2011, the parties entered into an Amendment to the Merger Agreement. The Amendment reduces the fee payable by Pride in connection with certain terminations of the Merger Agreement to $195 million from $260 million. The Amendment also shortens the "tail period" for certain transactions that could trigger a termination fee from 12 months to nine months after termination. Under the Amendment, the $195 million fee is payable by Pride if the agreement is terminated under specified circumstances, including (1) the decision by the Pride board of directors to accept a superior proposal, (2) an adverse change in the recommendation of the Pride board of directors or (3) a failure to obtain approval by Pride stockholders after public disclosure of an alternative business combination proposal before the stockholder meeting and either the Pride board of directors determines such proposal to be a superior proposal or, within nine months after termination of the Merger Agreement, Pride enters into a definitive agreement or consummates an alternative business combination proposal. The Amendment also eliminates the "force the vote" provision applicable to Pride such that Pride would not be required to submit the adoption of the Merger Agreement to its stockholders if the Pride board of directors made an adverse recommendation change. The memorandum of understanding also provides, among other matters, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the release of certain claims held by such class. The stipulation of the settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement that receives court approval. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Pride agreed to make certain additional disclosure related to the proposed merger, which were made on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Pride with the SEC on May 20, 2011. These additional disclosures supplement the disclosure contained in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of Ensco and Pride filed with the SEC on April 26, 2011, and should be read in conjunction with the disclosures contained therein. To the extent that information in Pride's Current Report on Form 8-K differs from or updates information contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, the Current Report on Form 8-K is more current. FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Credit Score Class Action for $60MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Farmers Insurance Co. Inc. and its affiliates have agreed to pay up to $60 million to settle an Oklahoma class action claiming they used consumers' credit scores to increase premiums without providing adequate notice, the plaintiffs said on May 20. If the settlement is approved, Farmers and the affiliates will shell out $52 million to the class, and up to $8 million more in attorneys' fees and costs, to end the litigation brought by Harry Corl, David Watts Jr. and Donna Mobbs. The class action, part of a multidistrict litigation, accuses the defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not clearly informing the plaintiffs they were facing higher premiums because of their credit scores. "We are pleased to have reached an agreed resolution with the plaintiffs," Farmers spokesman, Luis Sahagun, said on May 23. In a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs' attorneys said they had reviewed 265,000 pages of documents, taken 23 depositions, and exchanged multiple discovery requests before striking a deal with the defendants. "The case was aggressively litigated for approximately eight years before a final settlement agreement was reached," the motion said. "The plaintiffs and the defendants have fully litigated the issues of class certification and summary judgment -- not once but twice." The do-over resulted from a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2007 that set the bar for willful violation of the FCRA, and imposed a new test for when insurers must provide notice of an adverse action to customers. While the Supreme Court ruling reduced the class size in the Farmers litigation, the settlement still impacts more than 1 million of the defendants' customers across the country who paid higher premiums for automobile or homeowners' insurance because of their credit scores. Class members will receive $35 and a credit report educational brochure, while class representatives will receive up to $5,000 each. The plaintiffs had originally sought at least $100 per class member, according to the consolidated and amended class action complaint filed in January 2005. The Oklahoma court had yet to decide whether the defendants' actions had been willful. The court denied the defendants' motion that they did not willfully violate the FCRA, but also rejected the plaintiffs' cross-motion arguing the contrary. "This issue must be tried to a jury in order to be resolved, and any verdict will most certainly be appealed, adding additional years of delay to an already lengthy and complex case," the motion said. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment on May 23. The plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Norman, Esq. R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN LLP Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 427-8715 E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com mweber@crowleynorman.com - and - Gary Corum, Esq. WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER 200 S. Commerce, Suite 600 P.O. Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: 501-375-6453 E-mail: gary@wecc-law.com - and - David Jones, Esq. BECK REDDEN & SECREST LLP One Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010-2010 Telephone: 713-951-6279 E-mail: djones@brsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey Angelovich, Esq. NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, TX 75638 Telephone: 903-645-7333 - and - Richard Adams, Esq. PATTON ROBERTS PLLC Wells Fargo Plaza - Suite 400 2900 St. Michael Drive Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 334-7000 E-mail: radams@pattonroberts.com - and - Scott Poynter, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 501-907-2555 E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com - and - William Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: 405-235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Joe K. Longley, Esq. 1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477-444 E-mail: joe@joelongley.com - and - David H. Burrow, Esq. MITHOFF LAW FIRM One Allen Center - Penthouse 500 Dallas Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 654-1122 E-mail: dburrow@mithofflaw.com Farmers is represented by: Barnes Ellis, Esq. Timothy Snider, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 900 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 E-mail: bhellis@stoel.com twsnider@stoel.com - and - Richard Ford, Esq. Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. 20 North Broadway, Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405-235-7749 E-mail: richard.ford@crowedunlevy.com The case is In re: Farmers Insurance Co. Inc., FCRA Litigation, case number 5:03-cv-00158, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: New York Antitrust Suit in Pre-Trial Stage --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit filed in a New York court against Fifth Third Bancorp is in the pre-trial stage, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements that attempt to allocate financial responsibility to the parties thereto in the event certain settlements or judgments occur. Accordingly, prior to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the Bancorp had recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account for its potential exposure in this and related litigation. Additionally, the Bancorp had also recorded its proportional share of $199 million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings. Upon the Bancorp's sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the Bancorp's exposure through Visa. Additionally, the Bancorp has remaining reserves related to this litigation of $31 million, $30 million and $26 million as of March 31, 2011, December 31, 2010 and March 31, 2010, respectively. This antitrust litigation is still in the pre-trial phase. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Ohio Securities Suit in Discovery Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in an Ohio court against Fifth Third Bancorp remains in the discovery stages of litigation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its Chief Executive Officer, among other parties. The five cases have been consolidated, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased the Bancorp's securities, or acquired the Bancorp's securities pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation. These cases remain in the discovery stages of litigation. The impact of the final disposition of these lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on ERISA Class Suit Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting a court ruling on an appeal in the class action lawsuit alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases filed during the same period of time. The two cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial court, and are being appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Court Refuses to Amend Class Definition ---------------------------------------------------------- The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied plaintiff's request to amend the class definition in the shareholder class action lawsuit commenced against Flextronics International Ltd. over its merger with Solectron Corp., according to the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. On June 4, 2007, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The lawsuit arises out of the Company's merger with Solectron Corp. in 2007. Other defendants include selected officers of the Company, Solectron and Solectron's former directors and officers. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, rescissory, and other forms of damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs do not seek a jury trial. On August 12, 2010, the Court certified a class of all former Solectron shareholders that were entitled to vote and receive cash or shares of the Company's stock in exchange for their shares of Solectron stock following the merger. On February 25, 2011, the Court denied the plaintiff's request to amend the class definition. The Company believes that the claims are without merit. FLORIDA: Class Action v. Transportation Dept. Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action can proceed against the Florida Department of Transportation over a policy to detain and interrogate motorists who try to pay tolls with big bills, even if the bill is just $5, a federal judge ruled. In its complaint, the class accused toll operators of "detaining motorists and their passengers" paying toll with a $50 bill or higher, but also "denominations as low as $5." The motorists can drive away only after they cough up personal information such as descriptions of their vehicles and drivers' licenses. Details about their race, gender and age are also recorded. The class claimed the transportation department had authorized this practice, and filed a false-imprisonment suit against it, several department employees and Faneuil Inc., a contractor which provides toll personnel. Faneuil and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which they complained was conclusory. Arguing that the suit failed to convey Faneuil's responsibility for its employees' actions, Faneuil also pointed out that the practice of detaining motorists had ended on July 22, 2010, so the need for injunctive relief was moot. U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara disagreed. "None of the documents establish that the decision to stop the practice of detaining motorists was an 'unambiguous' decision to cease the practice forever," Judge Lazzara wrote. "Many of the intra office written communications of July and August 2010 describe the termination as temporary." "There was no substantial deliberation in the rather quick decision to stop the practice," he added. "It is clear that a detained motorist complained to FDOT about the practice, and the practice was immediately stopped to research whether the practice was unlawful. Ceasing to conduct research does militate against a finding that the decision to stop was "well-reasoned," but instead, hasty and in anticipation of legal action." "That FDOT was secretive about its internal decision to halt the practice suggests that it was merely to further consider the continuation of the practice and not to unequivocally terminate the practice once and for all," the judge wrote. Judge Lazzara also found that there is no information as to whether the defendants have been consisting applying the new procedure. "Thus, based on the findings that the cessation was neither 'unambiguous' nor the product of 'substantial deliberation,' and that there is no indication that a new course of conduct is being 'consistently applied,' this action is not moot," Judge Lazzara wrote. As it stands now, the judge said the class has alleged conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, which also encompass the right to be free from arrest without probable cause. Judge Lazzara agreed only to dismiss the false-imprisonment claim against the eight individual defendants. A copy of the Order in Chandler, et al. v. Kopelousos, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00262 (M.D. Fla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/27/Toll%20Class%20Action.pdf GT SOLAR: Gets Preliminary Approval of Deal in Consolidated Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire gave preliminary approval of a settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit against GT Solar International, Inc., according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 2, 2011. Beginning on August 1, 2008, seven putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the Company's July 24, 2008, initial public offering and others, including certain of the Company's investors, together called the "federal class actions." On October 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the federal class actions into a single action captioned Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al. The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the consolidated matter on October 29, 2008. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 22, 2008. The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and Prospectus for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the Company's customers, JYT Corporation, one of the Company's competitors, and certain of the Company's products, including the DSS furnaces. Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on February 5, 2009. On September 22, 2009, the Court denied the defendant's motion. Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order, which the Court approved on November 6, 2009. The case management order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011. In addition, on September 18, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District under the caption Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters of the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, called the "state class action." The state class action plaintiffs assert claims under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The state class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of the Company's business relationship with LDK Solar. Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the State Court should deem just and proper. The Company removed the state class action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on October 22, 2008. The state class action was consolidated with the federal class action on November 25, 2008. On February 2, 2009, the federal Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court. On May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal case. At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the State Court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal class action. With the denial of the motion to dismiss the federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order to the State Court on November 6, 2009. On January 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's Business and Commercial Dispute Docket. In March 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle these two putative securities class-action lawsuits related to the Company's initial public offering. The terms of the proposed settlement, which includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or by any other defendants, provides for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been brought against all defendants in both the federal and state securities actions. The Company will pay $10.5 million into a settlement fund. Of this amount, the Company will contribute $1.0 million and the Company's liability insurers will contribute the remaining $9.5 million. The Company's contribution represents its contractual indemnification obligation to its underwriters. On May 4, 2011, the parties to the federal class action filed a stipulation of settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the federal court. On May 5, 2011, the parties to the state class action filed a stipulation of settlement and motion for dismissal with prejudice in the state action. The stipulations in both the federal and the state courts provide that the putative class in the state class action will participate in the settlement as members of the settlement class in the federal class action. The stipulation filed in the state court provides that the state class action will be dismissed with prejudice upon entry of an order of final approval by the federal court. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Court gave preliminary approval of the settlement, and ordered that notice be provided to the proposed settlement class (as defined in the stipulation). The Federal Court also scheduled a hearing for September 27, 2011, to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval. While the Company believes that the proposed settlement is fair and adequate to all members of the proposed settlement class, there can be no assurance that the federal court will grant final approval of the settlement. HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Reconsider Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ A court's decision on a motion to reconsider dismissal of claims filed by plaintiffs in a putative class action captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On March 12, 2007, the putative class action suit captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30, 2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint includes: (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits were based solely upon the performance of each participant's selection from among various hypothetical investment options rather than crediting the greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all participants from the performance of participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for participants who had account balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which Plaintiffs complain. The District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the additional claims on statute of limitations grounds by a Memorandum Opinion dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims substantially as set forth in the original March 12, 2007 complaint. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the District Court's decision to dismiss the additional claims. At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the outcome of the suit is unfavorable. This matter is still in the early stages of litigation. The extent to which any of the Plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's or the Company's potential liability. It is not clear whether a class will be certified or, if certified, how many former or current Plan participants, if any, will be included. The statute of limitations applicable to the alleged class has not yet been finally determined and the extent of potential liability, if any, will depend on this final determination. In addition, assuming for these purposes that the Plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were understated, then there are numerous possible theories and other variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as requested under Plaintiffs' claims could be based. It is likely that any adverse judgment in this case would be against the Plan. Such a judgment would be expected to create a liability for the Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan could also be impacted by such a liability. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s business operations include insurance products and services provided through three operating segments: Commercial Lines, Personal Lines and Other Property and Casualty. HANOVER INSURANCE: Decision on Anti-Assignment Issue Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ A Louisiana supreme court has yet to decide on whether the assignment of claims from individual claimants to the state is barred by anti-assignment provisions in the insurance policies of The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and other insurance defendants in the "Hurricane Katrina Litigation," according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In August 2007, the State of Louisiana filed a putative class action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C. Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana, individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07- 8970. The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and domestic insurance carriers, including the Company, and asserts a right to benefit payments from insurers on behalf of current and former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program. The case was thereafter removed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. The court dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood exclusions or asserted under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, but rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti- assignment provisions in the insurers' policies. On April 30, 2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit certified the anti- assignment issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard by the Louisiana Supreme Court on March 14, 2011, and a decision is pending. At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability. The Company is unable to determine how many policyholders have assigned claims under the Road Home program and, in any case, has no basis to estimate the amount of any differences between what the Company paid with respect to any such claim and the amount that the State of Louisiana may claim should properly have been paid under the policy. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s business operations include insurance products and services provided through three operating segments: Commercial Lines, Personal Lines and Other Property and Casualty. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 162,600 More Notebook Computer Batteries ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Hewlett-Packard Company, of Palo Alto, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 162,600 additional lithium-ion batteries used in HP and Compaq notebook computers -- 54,000 and 70,000 batteries were previously recalled in May 2010 and May 2009, respectively. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The recalled lithium-ion batteries can overheat and rupture, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. Since the May 2010 recall expansion, HP has received 40 additional reports of batteries that overheated and ruptured, resulting in seven burn injuries, one smoke inhalation injury, and 36 instances of property damage. The recalled lithium-ion rechargeable batteries are used with various model series of HP and Compaq notebook computers and include batteries that consumers were informed were not included in previous recalls. The chart includes all notebook model numbers associated with batteries recalled to date. The computer model number is located at the top of the service label on the bottom of the notebook computer. Not all batteries matching the bar codes are being recalled. Battery Bar Codes (^ in the code can be any letter Notebook Model Number or number) ---------------------------------------- ------------- HP Pavilion dv2000, dv2500, dv2700, 62940^^AXV^^^^, dv6000, dv6500, dv6700, 65035^^B7U^^^^, dx6000, dx6500, dx6700 65035^^B7V^^^^, 65035^^BGU^^^^, 65035^^BGV^^^^ dv9000, dv9500, 65033^^B7U^^^^, dv9700 65033^^B7V^^^^, 65033^^BGU^^^^, 65033^^BGV^^^^ Compaq Presario A900 C700 F500, F700 62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^, 65035^^B7V^^^^, 65035^^BGU^^^^, 65035^^BGV^^^^ V3000, V3500, V3700, V6000, V6500, V6700 HP G6000, G7000 62940^^AXV^^^^, 65035^^B7U^^^^, 65035^^B7V^^^^, 65035^^BGU^^^^, 65035^^BGV^^^^ HP Compaq 6510b, 6515b, 6710b, 65000^^B5V^^^^ 6710s, 6715b, 6715s 6520s 67150^^AXU^^^^, 67150^^AXV^^^^ 6720s 67059^^V8U^^^^, 67059^^V8V^^^^ Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11234.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at computer and electronics stores nationwide, hp.com and hpshopping.com from July 2007 through July 2008 for between $500 and $3,000. The battery packs were also sold separately for between $100 and $160. Consumers should immediately remove the batteries from their notebook computer and contact HP to determine if their battery is included in this recall. Consumers who had previously checked their batteries and were informed they were not included in previous announcements are urged to check again. Consumers with recalled batteries will receive a free replacement battery. After removing the recalled battery from their notebook computer, consumers may use the AC adapter to power the computer until a replacement battery arrives. For additional information, visit the HP Battery Replacement Program Web site at http://www.hp.com/support/BatteryReplacement/or call (888) 202- 4320 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday. HOLLY CORP: Continues to Defend Frontier Merger Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Holly Corporation continues to defend itself in shareholder class action lawsuits relating to the Company's proposed merger with Frontier Oil Corporation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Twelve substantially similar shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been filed by alleged Frontier shareholders challenging the Company's proposed "merger of equals" with Frontier and naming as defendants Frontier, its board of directors and, in certain instances, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, North Acquisition, Inc., as aiders and abettors. To date, those shareholder actions have been filed in Harris County, Texas, Laramie County, Wyoming, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuits filed in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas are entitled Adam Walker, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed February 22, 2011), Andrew Goldberg, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Shareholders of Frontier Oil Corporation v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed February 24, 2011), L.A. Murphy, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paul B. Loyd, Jr., et al. (filed February 24, 2011), Zhixin Huang v. Frontier Oil Corp., et al. (filed February 24, 2011), Robert Pettigrew, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed February 25, 2011), Walter E. Ryan, Jr., On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed February 25, 2011), Christopher Borrelli, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed March 2, 2011), and Randy Whitman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed on March 8, 2011). The lawsuit filed in the District Court of Laramie County, Wyoming is entitled Thomas Greulich, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed March 1, 2011). The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas is entitled Angelo Chiarelli, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Holly Corporation, et al. (filed on March 2, 2011). The lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas are entitled Tim Wilcox, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed on March 7, 2011), and Jackie A. Rhymes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Michael Jennings, et al. (filed on March 17, 2011). These lawsuits generally allege that (1) the consideration to be received by Frontier's shareholders in the merger is inadequate, (2) the Frontier directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the merger at an inadequate price under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of interest, (3) the merger agreement includes preclusive deal protection provisions, and (4) Frontier, and in some cases the Company and North Acquisition, Inc., aided and abetted Frontier's board of directors in breaching its fiduciary duties to Frontier's shareholders. The shareholder actions seek various remedies, including enjoining the transaction from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, compensatory damages, and costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuits. In the cases pending in Texas state court, on March 21, 2011, plaintiff in the Walker lawsuit filed an amended petition alleging that Frontier's current directors also breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information or making materially inadequate disclosures concerning the proposed merger in the registration statement on Form S-4. On March 25, 2011, the lawsuits pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, were consolidated under the style In re: Frontier Oil Corp., Cause No. 2011-11451, and interim class counsel was appointed on April 12, 2011. With respect to the federal lawsuits, on March 24, 2011, plaintiffs in the lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas filed a motion to consolidate the Wilcox and Rhymes cases pending in that district and to appoint interim lead counsel. On April 7, 2011, plaintiffs in the Wilcox and Rhymes cases filed substantially similar amended complaints. These lawsuits also allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making untrue statements of material fact and omitting to state material facts necessary to make the statements that were made not misleading in the registration statement on Form S-4. The defendants intend to vigorously defend these and any future lawsuits, as they believe that they have valid defenses to all claims and that the lawsuits are entirely without merit. Headquartered in Dallas, Holly Corporation is an independent petroleum refiner operating three refineries consisting of refinery facilities in Artesia and Lovington, N.M.; Woods Cross, Utah and two refinery facilities in Tulsa, Okla. As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's refineries had a combined crude capacity of 256,000 BPSD. INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Competition Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation continues to defend itself in class action lawsuits repeating the same allegations made in the now-settled lawsuit filed by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Like the AMD lawsuit, these class-action suits allege that Intel engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things, providing discounts and rebates to the Company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors, interfering with certain AMD product launches, and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing the Company's microprocessors. All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee state court class actions have been consolidated by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware, and the court has appointed a Special Master to address issues in the litigation as assigned by the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's failure to preserve evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the coordinated actions also moved for certification of a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by Intel. In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation denying the motion to certify a class. The plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Class Report, and a hearing on these objections was held in March 2011. All California class actions have been consolidated to the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing. At the Company's request, the court in the California actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware District Court rules on the similar motion in the coordinated actions. The Company disputes the class-action claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because the outcome or range of outcomes in this matter cannot be reasonably estimated, no estimate is provided. Based in Santa Clara, Calif., Intel Corp. makes semiconductor chips, and develops advanced integrated digital technology platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the computing and communications industries. LOJACK CORP: Trial for Data Transmission Claim in "Rutti" Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ A trial for the data transmission claim in a class action lawsuit filed against Lojack Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California is set for November 2011, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In April 2006, a suit entitled Mike Rutti vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by an employee alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action status. In September 2007, the Company's motion for summary judgment was granted and the district court dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal law claims. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in August 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to the claim for compensation for the required postliminary data transmission, or the data transmission claim, for which the dismissal was vacated. The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit and on March 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to (a) the claim for compensation for commuting under state law and (b) the data transmission claim, which are the two remaining claims. The plaintiff seeks to pursue the claim for compensation for commuting time in the State Court Case. The plaintiff moved for conditional class certification for the data transmission claim and on January 14, 2011, the District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Trial for this claim in federal court is currently scheduled for November 2011. LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global provider of technology products and services for the tracking and recovery of stolen mobile assets. LoJack's integration with law enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles, motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang. Under the domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles, construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous materials. Through the international segment, its licensed stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries and territories worldwide. Revenue from the Boomerang segment is derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and BoomerangXpress Units. In April 2008, it acquired the assets of LSC Locator Systems Corp. LOJACK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Remand Order ------------------------------------------------------ Lojack Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its appeal from an order remanding a class action lawsuit filed by Mike Rutti, et al., asserting state law claims to a state court, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in the federal court case in September 2007, in November 2007, the plaintiff also filed Mike Rutti, Gerson Anaya vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. comprising its state law claims in California State Court. In June 2009, the California State Court granted class certification with respect to nine claims and denied class certification with respect to five claims. The Company appealed this decision and on March 26, 2010, the California State Appellate Court granted the Company's appeal in part, denying certification with respect to certain claims and affirming certification with respect to other claims, including claims related to meal and rest breaks, postliminary data transmission, and time traveling to UPS stores. There are currently six claims class certified in this State Court Case. In both the Federal and State Court Cases, the plaintiff, on behalf of the class, seeks unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to remove this State Court Case to Federal Court, thereby requesting to consolidate both the Federal and State Court Cases to be heard in Federal Court and the plaintiff filed for a motion to remand the Federal Court Case to State Court. On April 15, 2011, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the State Court Case to the California State Court. On April 29, 2011, the Company filed a petition for leave to appeal the decision to remand. The parties are currently awaiting the Ninth Circuit's determination as to whether it will hear the appeal. The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual defenses to these claims and intends to defend its interests vigorously. LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global provider of technology products and services for the tracking and recovery of stolen mobile assets. LoJack's integration with law enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles, motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang. Under the domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles, construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous materials. Through the international segment, its licensed stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries and territories worldwide. Revenue from the Boomerang segment is derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and BoomerangXpress Units. In April 2008, it acquired the assets of LSC Locator Systems Corp. LOJACK CORP: Awaits Court Okay on "Morin" Class Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Lojack Corporation is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Louis Morin, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On June 15, 2010, a suit entitled Louis Morin v. LoJack Corp., Inc., et al was filed by a consumer in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California (Central District) alleging, amongst other claims, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and Section 17500 (false advertising), and breach of implied warranty with respect to LoJack Early Warning for motorcycles, and seeking class action status. On July 29, 2010, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District Court of California. On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, which was granted by the Court on September 27, 2010, without prejudice. The dismissal without prejudice provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to amend its complaint, and on October 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, for alleged fraud, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and Section 17500 (false advertising), and breach of implied warranty and again sought class certification. On November 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims and a motion to strike certain claims. On December 28, 2010, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, on behalf of the class, sought injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. On March 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and the Company filed its opposition to class certification on March 28, 2011. The parties participated in a mediation hearing on March 29, 2011 and reached a settlement to resolve all claims on a class-wide basis. The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval by the United States District Court for the Central District of California and notice to the class. A hearing for preliminary approval was scheduled for May 16, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company would revise its disclosures in motorcycle related marketing materials and provide class members with a twelve-month extension of the terms of the Company's Limited Recovery Warranty. The Company would also pay an enhancement award of $20,000 to the named plaintiff and would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs up to $415,000. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company would receive a release by all potential class members who do not affirmatively opt out of the settlement. Nothing in the settlement agreement constitutes an admission of any wrongdoing, liability or violation of law by the Company. Rather, the Company has signed the settlement agreement to resolve the litigation, thereby eliminating the uncertainties and expense of further protracted litigation. LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global provider of technology products and services for the tracking and recovery of stolen mobile assets. LoJack's integration with law enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles, motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang. Under the domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles, construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous materials. Through the international segment, its licensed stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries and territories worldwide. Revenue from the Boomerang segment is derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and BoomerangXpress Units. In April 2008, it acquired the assets of LSC Locator Systems Corp. LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit against Longtop Financial Technologies Limited alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Longtop securities traded on an American stock exchange, including Longtop's American Depository Shares, between October 25, 2007, and May 16, 2011, inclusive. The Lead Plaintiff deadline is July 22, 2011. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Longtop and its senior executives reported increasing revenues and profits, and that the Company's financial statements were reported in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; but, unknown to investors, the Company made materially false and misleading statements to investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose that: 1) Defendants falsified certain financial records in relation to cash at bank, loan balances, and sales revenue; 2) the Company's management interfered with the audit process and improperly detained audit files of the Company's auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.; 3) Defendants improperly understated the Company's expenses, and thereby artificially inflated margins; 4) Longtop's financial statements were not presented in accordance with GAAP; and 5) Defendants had no reasonable basis for their positive statements about Longtop's business and financial results. The Complaint further alleges that starting on April 26, 2011, through a series of partial disclosures, the truth about Longtop's true financial condition was revealed and, as a result, Longtop's ADSs declined from a closing price of $25.54 per share on April 25, 2011, to close at $18.93 per share, the day before trading in the ADSs was halted by the New York Stock Exchange, a decline of $6.61 per share or approximately 26%. If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than July 22, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -- http://www.kaplanfox.com-- prosecutes investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud. The firm has offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey. If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your rights, or your interests, please contact: Jeffrey P. Campisi KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 290-1952 (212) 329-8571 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself in several remaining class action lawsuits relating to the purchase or use of Vioxx, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Individual and putative class actions have been filed against Old Merck in state and federal courts alleging personal injury and economic loss with respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx. All those actions filed in federal court are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana before District Judge Eldon E. Fallon. A number of those actions filed in state court are coordinated in separate coordinated proceedings in state courts in California and Texas, and the counties of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada. Of the plaintiff groups in the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the vast majority were dismissed as a result of the Vioxx Settlement Program. As of March 31, 2011, approximately 30 plaintiff groups who were otherwise eligible for the Settlement Program did not participate and their claims remain pending against Old Merck. In addition, the claims of approximately 120 plaintiff groups who were not eligible for the Settlement Program remain pending against Old Merck. A number of these 120 plaintiff groups are subject to various motions to dismiss for failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines. There is one U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuit currently scheduled for trial in 2011. Of the cases that went to trial, there are two unresolved post-trial appeals: Ernst v. Merck and Garza v. Merck. Merck has previously disclosed the details associated with these cases and the grounds for Merck's appeals. There are still pending in various U.S. courts putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss. In the MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain. On June 30, 2010, Old Merck moved to strike the class claims or for judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, which includes the cases, and briefing on that motion was completed on September 23, 2010. The MDL court heard oral argument on Old Merck's motion on October 7, 2010, and took it under advisement. On June 12, 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. Trial is scheduled to begin in May 2012. In addition, in Indiana, plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana. On April 1, 2010, a Kentucky state court denied Old Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The Kentucky Court of Appeals denied Old Merck's petition for a writ of mandamus, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed that ruling. The trial court entered an amended class certification order on January 27, 2011, and Merck has appealed that ruling to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human and animal health. MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Vioxx Securities Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against Old Merck relating to Vioxx remains pending, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal and state securities laws have been filed against Old Merck and various current and former officers and directors. The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in a nationwide MDL, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In June 2010, Old Merck moved to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition in August 2010, and Old Merck filed its reply in September 2010. The motion is currently pending before the district court. Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. By stipulation, defendants are not required to respond to these complaints until the resolution of any motions to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human and animal health. MERCK & CO: Summary Judgment Motions in Vioxx ERISA Suit Due June ----------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Old Merck are due by June 30, 2011, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Various putative class actions have been filed in federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Old Merck and certain current and former officers and directors. Those cases were consolidated in the Shareholder MDL before Judge Chesler. Fact discovery in the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits closed on September 30, 2010. The Court has entered a schedule for expert discovery, dispositive motions, and a pre-trial conference. Motions for summary judgment must be filed by June 30, 2011. Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human and animal health. MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend International Suits vs. Old Merck ----------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend in class action lawsuits filed against Old Merck in international jurisdictions, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Old Merck has been named as a defendant in litigation relating to Vioxx in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe and Israel. In Canada, in 2006, the Superior Court in Quebec authorized a class action on behalf of Vioxx users in Quebec who alleged negligence and, in 2008, the Superior Court of Ontario certified a class of Vioxx users in Canada, except those in Quebec and Saskatchewan, who alleged negligence and an entitlement to elect to waive the tort. These procedural decisions in the Canadian litigation do not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and litigation in Canada remains in an early stage. Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human and animal health. MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses "Stratte-McClure" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming Morgan Stanley and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court presiding over the action styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in WaMu Securities Suit to be Completed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Beginning in 2007, Morgan Stanley was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co- defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership. In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court. Morgan Stanley disclosed that it reached on March 29, 2011, an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs in the action styled In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, to settle this litigation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. The settlement agreement has not yet been completed and will be subject to court approval. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Coulter" 401(k) Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to defend a purported class action filed on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan in New York, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Action of 1974. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Seeks Dismissal of Super Bowl Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Robbins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the NFL and the Dallas Cowboys have asked a federal court judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Super Bowl ticket holders who wound up with no seats for the game held Feb. 6. About 1,250 temporary seats at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington were deemed unsafe just hours before the Feb. 6 game between the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers. That forced about 850 ticket holders to move to new seats and 400 others to watch the game from standing-room locations. A 26-page motion filed by the league and the team on May 26 says the ticket holders aren't entitled to compensation beyond what they've already been offered. It also says the ticket holders weren't defrauded as a result of the fiasco. The motion states that the NFL could revoke ticket-holding privileges as long as it provided a refund. In this instance, the league said it went "beyond its contractual obligations" when it offered displaced fans the actual prices they paid for their tickets as well as all documented travel, lodging and meal expenses According to the motion, the NFL and the Cowboys didn't know until just before the game that the temporary seats would be inadequate and worked into the afternoon that day to deal with the issue. "Defendants had nothing to gain by tricking ticket holders," the filing says. "With the eyes of the world focusing on the Super Bowl, it is implausible to suggest that defendants intended what would obviously be a public relations nightmare." Michael Avenatti, Esq., a Los Angeles attorney who is representing the ticket holders, said the motion represents flawed thinking by the league and the team. "The defendants have a fundamental misunderstanding of what their obligations are under the law," he said. Mr. Avenatti said more than 3,000 people are covered by the class action, which includes ticket holders who discovered at the game that their seats did not allow them to see the stadium's giant video board. NEW LEAF: Continues to Defend Lead-Related Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- On January 29, 2009, New Leaf Brands, Inc., was notified that it was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products. The Company has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney General of California. To date, no trial date has been set. The Company is currently investigating the merits of the allegation and is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of possible loss. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. PHI INC: Continues to Defend Superior Offshore Suit --------------------------------------------------- PHI, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed by Superior Offshore International Inc., according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Superior Offshore International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438 on the docket of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This purported class action was filed on June 12, 2009, on behalf of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the defendants at any time from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. The suit alleged that the defendants acted jointly to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services during the time frame in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff sought unspecified treble damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss filed on September 4, 2009, and dismissed the complaint. On November 30, 2010, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, limited discovery to the new allegations, and established a schedule for briefing dispositive motions in February 2011. The permitted discovery is now complete, and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 11, 2011. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the case because a dispositive motion is pending, and discovery relating to potential damages has not commenced. PHI Inc. -- http://www.phihelico.com/-- provides helicopter transportation services in the Gulf of Mexico. It also provides helicopter services to the oil and gas industry internationally, and to non-oil and gas customers, such as health care providers and United States governmental agencies, such as the National Science Foundation. It also provides air medical transportation for hospitals and emergency service agencies, where it operates as an independent provider of medical services. PHI also provides helicopter maintenance and repair services to certain customers. At Dec. 31, 2009, the company owned or operated approximately 255 aircraft domestically and internationally. PHI operates in three segments: Oil and Gas, Air Medical and Technical Services. PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Fully Briefed -------------------------------------------------------------- PrivateBancorp, Inc.'s request to dismiss a purported class action filed before a federal court in Illinois has been fully briefed. On October 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the Company on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009. Certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and directors and firms that participated in the underwriting of the Company's June 2008 and May 2009 public offerings of common stock are also named as defendants in the litigation. On January 25, 2011, the City of New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and State-Boston Retirement System were together named as the lead plaintiff, and an amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2011. The amended complaint alleges various claims of securities law violations against certain of the named defendants relating to disclosures the Company made during the class period in filings under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and rescission. The Company filed a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of all counts in the amended complaint on March 25, 2011. The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 29, 2011. The motion to dismiss is expected to be fully briefed by May 19, 2011 and the court will undertake consideration of this motion thereafter. At this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to assess the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate potential financial impact of the lawsuit on the Company, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. PrivateBancorp, Inc.'s sole bank subsidiary The PrivateBank and Trust Company provides customized business and personal financial services to middle-market companies and business owners, executives, entrepreneurs and families in all the markets and communities it serves. RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Accused of Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., accused Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation of violating federal securities laws with respect to the Company's clinical studies of Onko-Sure(R) test kit, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On March 11, 2011, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., filed a class action suit, alleging the Company violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the relationship between the Company and third parties involved in its clinical studies of Onko-Sure(R) test kit. The Company believes there is no basis to the suit filed by The Rosen Law Firm and it is defending the lawsuit vigorously. RAWLINGS COMPANY: Gets Favorable Ruling in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Susman Godfrey LLP disclosed that a jury in Oldham County, Kentucky returned a verdict on May 27 in favor of The Rawlings Company, in a class action brought against Rawlings and its founder George Rawlings on behalf of current and former medical claims auditors. The class action alleged that the company misclassified hundreds of employees as exempt from overtime laws, and improperly failed to pay them for overtime. The class action sought millions of dollars of overtime pay and penalties, for a period of more than 7 years. After a three-week trial, the jury rejected the claims made by the class, and found that the Rawlings employees were properly classified as exempt. The Rawlings Company, based in LaGrange, Kentucky, is the recognized leader in providing audit and subrogation services to the healthcare industry. Rawlings founder George R. Rawlings was a key witness at the trial. Rawlings was represented in the trial by Susman Godfrey LLP, a 90 lawyer firm that specializes in business litigation on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. The case was tried by Susman Godfrey partners Neal Manne, Esq. (Houston), Shawn Rabin, Esq. (New York) and Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. (Los Angeles). After the verdict, Mr. Manne said on the Oldham County Courthouse steps, "We are delighted that the jury found in favor of Rawlings. Most class actions settle, including ones like this that challenge whether employees should be hourly or salaried. It took guts for Mr. Rawlings to stand his ground, and let us try this case to the jury. We are proud that he chose Susman Godfrey lawyers to defend him and his company in this landmark case." RESEARCH IN MOTION: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action filed in California, shareholders claim Research in Motion inflated its share price from Dec. 16, 2010, through April 28 with false and misleading statements. RURAL/METRO CORP: Defending Suits Challenging Warburg Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Purported class action lawsuits challenging Rural/Metro Corporation's merger with an affiliate of Warburg Pincus LLC are pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. The Company, each member of the Board of Directors, Warburg Pincus, WP Rocket Holdings LLC -- the Parent, and Merger Sub, Inc. are named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged stockholders of the Company challenging the Company's proposed merger with Parent. The stockholder actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Llorens v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., filed April 6, 2011) and in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa (Joanna Jervis v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., filed April 6, 2011). Robert E. Wilson, a former member of the Board of Directors, is also named as a defendant in the Llorens stockholder action. The stockholder actions allege, among other things, that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's public stockholders and were aided and abetted by certain of the defendants, and seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms. Rural/Metro Corporation provides ambulance services, which consist primarily of emergency and non-emergency medical services, to approximately 400 communities in 20 states within the United States. SATYAM COMPUTER: Posts 4Q Net Loss After Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ketaki Gokhale, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Satyam Computer Services Ltd. fell the most in more than three months in Mumbai trading after reporting a fourth-quarter loss on May 23, missing analyst estimates for a profit after settling a class- action lawsuit. The software exporter dropped 6% to INR72.30 in Mumbai trading, the biggest intraday decline since Feb. 9. Net loss was INR3.27 billion (US$72 million) in the three months ending March 31, according to a statement to the Bombay Stock Exchange on May 23. The average of 7 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg was for a profit of INR927 million. Satyam, embroiled in India's biggest corporate fraud probe, in February agreed to pay $125 million to settle a U.S. shareholder lawsuit over alleged securities violations in federal court in New York. The company also reported its third annual loss since former chairman, Ramalinga Raju, disclosed in January 2009 that he overstated assets by more than $1 billion. The company fell 4% to INR73.85 as of 1:39 p.m. on May 23 in Mumbai trading. Mr. Raju was charged with faking invoices, falsifying accounts, inflating the company's tax liability and understating debt in the fraud. India's top court canceled his bail in October. Net loss was INR1.473 billion in the year ended March 31. Sales dropped 6% to INR51.45 billion. SCORES HOLDING: Prepares Documents to Settle "Siri Diaz" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement documents are currently being prepared in connection with Scores Holding Company, Inc.'s agreement to settle for $450,000 the class action lawsuit filed by Siri Diaz, according to the Company's May 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On October 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a purported class action and collective action on behalf of all tipped employees against the Company and other defendants alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws (Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side, Case No. 07 Civ. 8718 (Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman)). On November 6, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended purported class action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations of federal and state wage/hour laws. On February 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting the action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs. The amended complaint alleged that the Company and the other defendants were "an integrated enterprise" and that the Company jointly employed the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability for the alleged wage/hour violations. On behalf of the Company and the other defendants, the Company filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the Complaint that asserted State law class action allegations; the Company also moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs for failure to appear for depositions. At the same time, plaintiffs moved for conditional certification under the federal law for a class of the servers, bartenders and dancers; the Company opposed that motion. On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision, denying the motion to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a class of servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers who have worked at Scores East since October 2004. On May 29, 2008, the Company filed an answer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint. On September 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third amended complaint adding in two individual defendants who are alleged to be employers under the state and federal wage claims. The Company disputes that it is a proper defendant in this action and it disputes that it violated the federal and state labor laws, and further disputes that the dancers are "employees" subject to the federal and state wage and hour laws. Two of the defendants have been dismissed without prejudice and the Company has agreed upon a settlement amount of $450,000 that will be contributed among and between all of the remaining defendants. The settlement documents are currently in the process of being prepared. SPANISH BROADCASTING: Appeal Briefs Stayed Pending Dismissal Plea ----------------------------------------------------------------- The deadline for filing answering briefs regarding appeals on class definition is stayed pending determination of a motion to dismiss those appeals in class actions filed in New York, according to Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.'s May 9, 2011, Amended Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 13, 2004, the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in six "focus cases" out of the more than 300 consolidated class actions. The Company was not named in any of the six "focus cases." On August 31, 2005, the Southern District of New York issued an order of preliminary approval of a settlement proposal among the investors in the plaintiff class, the Issuer Defendants, including the Company, and the Issuer Defendants' insurance carriers. The principal components of the Issuers Settlement were: (1) a release of all claims against the Issuer Defendants and their directors, officers and certain other related parties arising out of the alleged wrongful conduct in the amended complaint; (2) the assignment to the plaintiffs of certain of the Issuer Defendants' potential claims against the Underwriters; and (3) a guarantee by the insurers to the plaintiffs of the difference between $1.0 billion and any lesser amount recovered by the plaintiffs from the Underwriter Defendants. The payments were to be charged to each Issuer Defendant's insurance policy on a pro rata basis. The plaintiffs appealed the Issuers Settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit reversed the order, holding that plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement for a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class action. On June 25, 2007, in light of the Second Circuit's reversal of the class certification order and its subsequent denial of plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing or rehearing en banc, the Southern District of New York entered a stipulation between plaintiffs and the Issuer Defendants, terminating the proposed Issuers Settlement which the Southern District of New York had preliminarily approved on August 31, 2005. On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" and amended master allegations in the consolidated actions. On November 13, 2007, the Underwriter Defendants and Issuer Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints in the six "focus cases." On March 26, 2008, the Southern District of New York granted in part the motion as to a subset of plaintiffs' Section 11 claims (alleging civil liabilities on account of false registration statements), but denied the motion as to plaintiffs' other claims. On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification with respect to the six focus cases, based on newly proposed class definitions. On October 10, 2008, at plaintiffs' request, the Southern District of New York ordered the withdrawal without prejudice of plaintiffs' renewed motion, which had been fully briefed and was sub judice. On January 7, 2008, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion (in which the Issuer Defendants joined) to strike class allegations in 26 of the consolidated cases, including the case against the Company, on the ground that plaintiffs lacked a putative class representative in those cases at the time of their May 30, 2007 oral motion. On May 13, 2008, the Southern District of New York issued an order granting the motion in part and striking certain of the class allegations relating to the Section 10b-5 claims in 8 of the 26 actions, including the Section 10b-5 claim against SBS. The order also requires plaintiffs to make certain disclosures with respect to the putative class representatives in the remaining 18 actions. Once the disclosures are filed, the Underwriter Defendants and the Issuer Defendants may seek clarification of the Southern District of New York's May 13, 2008 order with respect to the status of the remaining 10b-5-related class allegations in the other 8 actions, including the SBS action, as well as the status of the Section 11-related class allegations. On June 11, 2009, pursuant to a motion filed on April 2, 2009, the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary order of approval of a settlement of all of the consolidated cases, including the case against SBS. On September 19, 2009, the Southern District of New York conducted a hearing regarding the final approval of the settlement of all consolidated cases and, on October 5, 2009, issued an opinion finally approving the settlement. The settlement, which is subject to appeal, will result in a release of all claims against the Underwriter Defendants and the Issuer Defendants, and their officers and directors, in exchange for an aggregate sum of approximately $600 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class plaintiffs. The Company's and the Individual Defendants' share of the Settlement Amount would be fully funded by insurance. On October 23, 2009, several objecting members of the class filed a petition for leave in the Second Circuit to appeal the Southern District of New York's class definition for purposes of the October 5, 2009 settlement. Several Objectors have also filed notices of appeal in the Second Circuit from the Southern District of New York's order approving the settlement. On October 29, 2009 plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to the Objectors' petition. On November 2, 2009, the Underwriter Defendants filed a response to the Objectors petition, taking no position on the petition, but noting that the classes were approved for settlement purposes only and reserving the right to oppose class certification in the event the settlement is not finally approved. The Issuer Defendants have not taken a position on the appeals. On October 7, 2010, all but two of the Objectors entered into a stipulation with plaintiffs withdrawing their appeals with prejudice. The two remaining Objectors have since submitted briefs to the Second Circuit in support of their appeals. On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice one of the remaining Objectors' appeals based on alleged violations of the Second Circuit's rules. The motion is fully briefed and is sub judice. The deadline for filing answering briefs regarding the remaining Objectors' appeals is stayed pending determination of the motion to dismiss. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., is the largest publicly traded Hispanic-controlled media and entertainment company in the United States. STATE STREET: Continues to Defend "Deceptive Practice" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- State Street Corporation continues to defend itself in a putative class action alleging that the rates at which its subsidiary bank executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive act, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Two clients have commenced litigation against the Company, including a putative class action filed in February 2011 in federal court in Boston that seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed foreign exchange transactions through State Street. The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice and a breach of the duty of loyalty. State Street Corporation is the parent company of State Street Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank. STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Shareholder-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- State Street Corporation continues to defend itself in three shareholder-related class action lawsuits before a federal court in Massachusetts, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Three shareholder-related class action complaints are currently pending in federal court in Boston. One complaint purports to be brought on behalf of State Street shareholders. The two other complaints purport to be brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who invested in the program's State Street common stock investment option. The complaints variously allege violations of the federal securities laws and ERISA in connection with the Company's foreign exchange trading business, its investment securities portfolio and its asset-backed commercial paper conduit program. State Street Corporation is the parent company of State Street Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank. STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Financial Corporation is awaiting a federal court's ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative securities class action in Washington, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010. On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to October 15, 2009. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose the extent of the Company's delinquent commercial real estate, construction and land development loans, properly record losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan losses, thereby causing the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Sterling believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. On August 30, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the Complaint. On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. The court has not yet issued an order on the motion. Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered probable or estimable in amount. Sterling Financial Corporation, with headquarters in Spokane, Washington, is the bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank, which commenced operations in 1983. STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court in Washington has not yet entered an order on Sterling Financial Corporation and its subsidiary's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and Sterling Savings Bank, as well as certain of Sterling's current and former officers and directors. The two complaints were merged in a Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 16, 2010 in the same court. The Complaint does not name all of individuals named in the prior complaints, but it is expected that additional defendants will be added. The Complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under sections 404 and 405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, with respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee Savings and Investment Plan and the FirstBank Northwest Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants breached their duties by investing assets of the Plans in Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by investing such assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew or should have known that the price of those securities was inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's business practices. The business practices at issue include alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans; alleged inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and 90+-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for rising loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate markets. The putative class periods are October 22, 2007 to the present for the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007 to November 14, 2008 for the ESOP class. The Complaint seeks damages of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs. Sterling believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. A hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred on March 22, 2011, with the court indicating that it would take the motion under submission. The court has not yet issued an order on the motion. Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the Complaint could have a material adverse effect on Sterling's business, results of operations, and financial condition. Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered probable or estimable in amount. Sterling Financial Corporation, with headquarters in Spokane, Washington, is the bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank, which commenced operations in 1983. STERLING FINANCIAL: Request for Review Will Be Heard Today ---------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Financial Corporation's request for discretionary review of an order denying its motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative class action will be heard today, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On February 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington, purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Sterling, against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On August 2, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint alleges that the individual defendants failed to prevent Sterling from issuing improper financial statements, maintain a sufficient allowance for loan and lease losses, and establish effective credit risk management and oversight mechanisms regarding Sterling's commercial real estate, construction and land development loans, losses and reserves recorded for impaired loans, and accounting for goodwill and deferred tax assets. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, equitable and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses. Because the Complaint is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from Sterling. However, Sterling may be required throughout the pendency of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the defendant officers and directors. On September 13, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint. The hearing on Sterling's motion to dismiss was held on January 14, 2011. On February 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying Sterling's motion to dismiss in its entirety. On April 12, 2011, Sterling filed a request for discretionary review with the Washington Court of Appeals. The appellate court commissioner will hold a hearing on the request on June 1, 2011. If the request is granted, Sterling will be permitted to appeal the court's order denying the motion to dismiss. Sterling Financial Corporation, with headquarters in Spokane, Washington, is the bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank, which commenced operations in 1983. STEVE MADDEN: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in "Tahvilian" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Madden, Ltd., is awaiting final court approval of a settlement in a class action captioned Shahrzad Tahvilian, et al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., which hearing was scheduled May 10, 2011, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No. BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws. The parties submitted the dispute to private mediation and, on August 31, 2010, reached a settlement on all claims. The court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. All claims submitted by class members have been filed and the hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for May 10, 2011. Based on the proposed settlement, the Company increased its reserve for this claim from $1,000,000 to $2,750,000 in the third quarter of 2010. Steven Madden, Ltd., and its subsidiaries design, source, market and sell fashion-forward footwear for women, men and children. SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Awaits Rulings on Motions to Dismiss Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------- Sycamore Networks, Inc., is awaiting rulings from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on motions to dismiss two appeals from the order approving a settlement agreement resolving class action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and several of its officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering on October 21, 1999. Some of the complaints also include the underwriters for the Company's follow- on offering on March 14, 2000. An amended complaint, which is the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of the Individual Defendants and the underwriters for violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, primarily based on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and several of the Individual Defendants made material false and misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to disclose (a) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the Company's public offerings and (b) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered into agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed to allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. It also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual Defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact during the period in question. The amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action against the Company is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. Due to the large number of nearly identical actions, the court has ordered the parties to select up to twenty "test" cases. The Company's case has been selected as one such test case. As a result, among other things, the Company will be subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in the litigation than non-test case issuer defendants. On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11 claims alleging that the defendants made material false and misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectuses. The certification was denied because no class representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those shares. The court certified a class in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact during the period in question. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit panel denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the district court to certify a more narrow class than the one that was rejected. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action complaint against the Company. The Company and the underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 14, 2007. On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims but dismissed certain Section 11 claims against the Company. On June 5, 2008, the Court dismissed the remaining Section 11 claims against the Company in response to a motion for partial reconsideration. The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the Company's case, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the Company. On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Two appeals by objectors to the settlement are proceeding before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 8, 2010, and February 3, 2011, the plaintiffs filed motions to dismiss the appeals. The Second Circuit has not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. If the settlement does not survive appeal, the litigation continues, and the Company is found liable, the Company is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than the Company's insurance coverage, and whether such damages would have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or financial condition in any future period. THE9 LTD: Securities Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------- The9 Limited, an online game operator and developer in China, disclosed that on May 20, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing with prejudice the Consolidated Complaint in Glaser v. The9 Ltd. et al. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-08904-RJH, a securities class action alleging that the company and certain individual defendants engaged in securities fraud. On March 28, 2011, the case was dismissed with leave to amend. On May 12, 2011 the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal. About The9 Limited The9 Limited is an online game operator and developer in China. The9 directly, or through affiliates, operates licensed MMORPGs including Soul of The Ultimate Nation(TM), Atlantica and Kingdom Heroes 2 Online in mainland China. The9 has also obtained exclusive licenses to operate other online games in mainland China, including Seoyugi, Planetside 2 and Free Realms. In addition, The9 operates its proprietary MMORPG World of Fighter, and web and SNS game Winning Goal, in mainland China and overseas. The9 is also developing various proprietary games, including ShenXianZhuan, Firefall and other MMORPG, web and SNS games. In 2010, The9 established its Mobile Business Unit to focus on mobile internet business. THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over False Stats ------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the debate over the accuracy of law school graduate employment statistics -- or lack thereof -- has moved into court. A 2008 graduate of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law filed a class action in California state court on May 26, alleging that the school committed fraud by misrepresenting the employment statistics for its recent graduates. "For more than 15 years, TJSL has churned out graduates, many of whom have little or no hope of working as attorneys at any point in their careers," the complaint reads. According to the complaint, plaintiff Anna Alaburda graduated with honors from the San Diego law school in 2008 and passed the California bar examination, but has been unable to secure full- time employment as an attorney. She sent more than 150 resumes to law firms and received only one job offer that was "less favorable than non-law related jobs that were available to her." Ms. Alaburda has been working as a document reviewer on a project- by-project basis. She accrued more than $150,000 in student loans during her law school years, the complaint says. Ms. Alaburda was lured to the school by statistics reported by U.S. News & World Report in 2003 indicating that 80% of its graduates were employed after nine months. She "reasonably interpreted these figures to mean that the vast majority of TJLS graduates would find employment as full time attorneys." "The foregoing statistics were false, misleading, and intentionally designed to deceive all who read them," the complaint reads. In fact, the figures included all recent graduates who were in part-time jobs or non-legal jobs, which is how law schools calculate their "employed after nine months" figures for the American Bar Association and U.S. News, the complaint says. Law School Transparency, a nonprofit organization formed in 2010 to advocate for more accuracy and detail in law school employment data, examined the job employment information posted on Thomas Jefferson's Web site and concluded that it is far less detailed than it could be. The Web site says that 85% of the class of 2009 was employed after nine months of graduation -- and that the 58% who went to law firms earned an average salary of $62,433. However, the school collected information from only 86% of its 2009 graduates, meaning that slightly fewer than 73% of the class of 2009 were known to be employed, the organization concluded. Additionally, Law School Transparency calculated that few graduates working full time in the private sector reported their salaries. Ms. Alaburda's suit is notable in part because it challenges the legality of a practice that is nearly universal for law schools: that of combining all graduates with jobs into one job statistic, regardless of the nature of their employment. Ms. Alaburda's attorney, Brian Procel of Los Angeles firm Miller Barondess, declined to comment on May 27. Beth Kransberger, associate dean for student affairs at Thomas Jefferson, said that the school does not misrepresent its employment statistics. "The school has always followed the guidelines established by the ABA. We've always been accurate in what we report, and we've always followed the system given to us by the ABA," Ms. Kransberger said. "This lawsuit is very much about a larger debate. This is part of the debate about whether it's practical to pursue a graduate degree in these difficult economic times." The lawsuit cites correspondence from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer to ABA President Stephen Zack pushing for more complete disclosure by law schools; allegations in news reports that law schools cook their employment numbers to improve their U.S. News rankings; and the recent decline in employment opportunities and salaries for lawyers. The complaint estimates that there are upwards of 2,300 potential members of the class, based on the number of students who attended the school during the statutory period. It alleges fraud and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Act and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The suit claims that compensatory damages to the class exceed $50 million. TORCHMARK CORP: Trial in Arkansas Suit Set for Jan. 17, 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------ Trial in the class action lawsuit filed against Torchmark Corporation's subsidiary in an Arkansas court is set for January 17, 2012, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. United American was named as a defendant in purported class action litigation originally filed on September 16, 2004, in the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers of association group health insurance policies or certificates issued by United American through Heartland Alliance of America Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc. (Smith and Ivie v. Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742-2). The plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, common law liability for non-disclosure, breach of fiduciary duties, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violation of Arkansas law and the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Insurance Department. Declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as actual and punitive damages were sought by the plaintiffs. On September 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a nation-wide class, defined as all United American insureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual Hospital and Surgical Expense health insurance policy (Form HSXC) and an individual supplemental term life insurance policy (Form RT85) from Farm & Ranch through Heartland. Defendants removed this litigation to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (No. 4:05-cv-1382) but that Court remanded the litigation back to the state court on plaintiffs' motion. On July 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, asserting a class defined as "all persons who, between January 1998 and the present, were residents of Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana or Texas, and purchased through Farm & Ranch: (1) a health insurance policy issued by United American known as Flexguard Plan, CS-1 Common Sense Plan, GSP Good Sense Plan, SHXC Surgical & Hospital Expense Policy, HSXC 7500 Hospital/Surgical Plan, MMXC Hospital/Surgical Plan, SMXC Surgical/Medical Expense Plan and/or SSXC Surgical Safeguard Expense Plan, and (ii) a membership in Heartland." Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and applicable consumer protection laws in other states, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. Plaintiffs seek actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory relief. On September 8, 2009, the Saline County Circuit Court granted the plaintiff's motion certifying the class. On October 7, 2009, United American filed its notice of appeal of the class certification and subsequently filed its appellate brief on April 8, 2010. On December 2, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to certify the class. Discovery is completed and trial has been scheduled for January 17, 2012. Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. The company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines. TORCHMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Ohio Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Torchmark Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed an Ohio court, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, purported class action litigation was filed against American Income and Torchmark in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Fitzhugh v. American Income Life Insurance Company and Torchmark Corporation, Case No. 1:11-cv- 00533). The plaintiff, a formerly independently contracted American Income agent, alleges that American Income intentionally misclassified its agents as independent contractors rather than as employees in order to escape minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as to avoid payroll taxes, workers compensation premiums and other benefits required to be provided by employers. Monetary damages in the amount of unpaid compensation plus liquidated damages and prejudgment interest as well as injunctive and declaratory relief is sought by the plaintiff on behalf of the purported class. Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. The company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines. TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal From "Harel Pia" Suit Dismissal Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Harel Pia Mutual Fund alleging violations of California securities laws by Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates remains pending, according to Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust's May 25, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period April 1 to 30, 2011. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in a putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on July 20, 2010. On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint alleged violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other state law claims. On September 15, 2010, the defendants removed the state court action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class Action Fairness Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 15, 2010. After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court granted the defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 11, 2011. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2011. TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. At this time, TMCC believes that these cases will not be material to holders of any notes of Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust. TOYOTA AUTO: Continues to Defend Sudden Acceleration Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust continues to defend itself against lawsuits over sudden unintended acceleration in certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period April 1 to 30, 2011. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates were named as defendants in the consolidated multidistrict litigation, In Re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (United States District Court, Central District of California) seeking damages and injunctive relief as a result of alleged sudden unintended acceleration in certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles. On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the multidistrict litigation that does not name TMCC as a defendant. On November 17, 2010, the court ordered that all omitted claims and theories are deemed dismissed without prejudice. In addition, the court has permitted alleged classes of foreign plaintiffs to file complaints naming TMCC and related entities as defendants. On April 4, 2011, the court issued a tentative ruling dismissing TMCC from the foreign plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. A parallel action was filed against TMCC and certain affiliates on March 12, 2010, by the Orange County District Attorney. On February 18, 2011, the Orange County District Attorney filed an amended complaint in which TMCC was not named. The parties entered into a stipulation and tolling agreement under which the plaintiff may name TMCC within the next year if new facts are discovered. TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. At this time, TMCC believes that these cases will not be material to holders of any notes of Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust. VELTI PLC: Unit Accused of Violating California Consumers Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Velti plc's subsidiary, Mobclix Inc., is accused of violating the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act through consumers' downloading of a software application for Android-based smart phones, according to the Company's May 25, 2011, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In re iPhone Application Litigation is a purported nationwide class action filed in the Northern District of California against Apple Inc. and certain other parties, including the Company's subsidiary, Mobclix Inc. The action alleges that the defendants, through the promotion of software applications, or "apps", developed, marketed, and provided or sold for use with Apple's devices, improperly and unlawfully access, capture, alter and/or use personal information they obtained from "app" users. Numerous other class actions filed in state and federal courts throughout the United States allege similar claims related to "apps" sold for use with devices using the Apple iOS or Google Android operating systems. Mobclix has been named in at least one of the actions regarding Android devices and "apps" compatible with Google's Android operating system (King v. Google Inc., et al., currently pending in the Northern District of California). On May 21, 2011, the Company received a letter alleging violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act through downloading by consumers of an "app" for Android-based smart phones. Because the filed actions are in the very early stages, and due to the inherent uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the likelihood of any particular outcome of these litigations (or potential litigations) at this time. WALTER ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Moore" Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, Inc., and its subsidiary remain defendants in a putative class action titled Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc., and Walter Coke, Inc., in Alabama, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. The Company and Walter Coke have been named in a suit filed by Louise Moore on April 26, 2011, in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the companies and/or their predecessors. This action is still in the earliest stages of litigation. Based on initial evaluation, management of the Company and Walter Coke believe that both procedural and substantive defenses are available and applicable, and accordingly, the companies expect to vigorously defend this matter. As such, management believes that presently there is no reasonable basis for management to form a view with respect to the probability of liability in this matter. Walter Energy is a publicly traded "pure play" metallurgical coal producer for the global steel industry. The Company also produces steam coal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas. WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky on May 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of WMS Industries Inc. who purchased between November 1, 2010, and April 11, 2011. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose material information related to the Company's business and operations, forecasted financial results. In particular, the Complaint alleges that: (a) the Company's "execution" on business operations was faltering and could not support revenue and profitability guidance; (b) the defendants failed to disclose that the industry-wide weak replacement cycle had negatively impacted WMS' sales and margin growth and could not be offset by the Company's flawed execution and demand for WMS gaming machines; and (c) as a result, defendants failed to disclose that the Company did not have reasonable basis for its revenue and margin forecasts for the 2011 fiscal year. If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in WMS stock, you have until July 25, 2011, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information about your rights, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com/wms-industries-wms.html Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder litigation. XL GROUP: Execution of Formal Settlement in MDL Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The execution of a formal settlement to resolve a proposed class action captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation involving XL Group plc's subsidiaries remains pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action that was consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04- 5184, filed a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL-Cayman. In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance. The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. By Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice and, by Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in large part the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of certain Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against several defendants including the XL Defendants but remanded those claims to the District Court for further consideration of their adequacy. In light of its reversal and remand of certain of the federal claims, the Third Circuit also reversed the District Court's dismissal (based on the District Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction) of the state-law claims against all defendants. On October 1, 2010 the remaining defendants including the XL Defendants filed motions to dismiss the remanded federal claims and the state-law claims. The motions have been fully briefed and await the District Court's decision. In March 2011, a majority of the remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants, reached an agreement in principle (subject to the execution of a formal Settlement Agreement and District Court approval) to settle the Class Action. If the parties execute a formal Settlement Agreement and apply for and obtain District Court approval of the proposed settlement, the XL Defendants' portion of the defendants' aggregate settlement payment will be $6.75 million and, upon entry by the District Court of a final order approving the settlement, the XL Defendants will be dismissed from the Class Action with prejudice. XL Group plc is organized into three operating segments: Insurance, Reinsurance and Life operations. YUKON-NEVADA GOLD: Settles Class Action for $3.6 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Amruta Sabnis, writing for Reuters, reports that Canadian gold miner Yukon-Nevada Gold said it agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought against it by former employees for $3.6 million. The company said the settlement includes setting aside money for the remaining 50% of the severance payments under the WARN Act, medical costs and certain 401-K contributions for approximately 394 employees laid off from Jerritt Canyon mine in Nevada in 2008. "The funds, previously placed on deposit by the company, are to be distributed by a third party claims administrator pursuant to the settlement procedures and the court processes," the company said in a statement. Yukon-Nevada, which owns gold, silver, zinc and copper assets in Canada's Yukon territory and British Columbia and in Nevada in the U.S., said the settlement is yet to be approved by the court and it expects the distribution process to take several months to complete. Shares of the company closed at 56 Canadian cents on May 25 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. ZUMIEZ INC: Paid $2.1 Million Settlement Payment in "Berg" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Zumiez Inc. paid out $2.1 million in connection with its settlement of a putative class action lawsuit commenced by Chandra Berg, et al., alleging Labor Code violations, according to the Company's May 24, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. A putative class action, Chandra Berg et al. v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court under case number BC408410 on February 25, 2009. The Complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages to present and former store managers in California, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers, failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the Company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees for business expenses, failure to provide store managers with accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due at the time of termination, unfair business practices and declaratory relief. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 2, 2010, which added an additional plaintiff/class representative and a new cause of action for penalties for alleged Labor Code violations under the Private Attorneys General Act. The Company filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint and conducted discovery. On February 8, 2010, the Company attended a mediation wherein no settlement was reached. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the Company filed its opposition to class certification. Plaintiffs' reply papers were filed on August 2, 2010. On September 1, 2010, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement to settle. The settlement agreement is $2.1 million, which includes settlement awards to class members, incentive payments to the two plaintiffs, attorneys' fees and costs and claims administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 3, 2010, and granted final approval of the settlement on February 23, 2011. The claims administrator has distributed the settlement funds pursuant to the Court's order and the settlement agreement. The accrued charge of $2.1 million was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended July 31, 2010, and was paid out on March 10, 2011. ********* 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 * * *