/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110606.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 110 Headlines ACXIOM CORP: Accused of Violating Securities Laws in Arkansas ADVANCED BATTERY: Faces 4 Class Action Lawsuits in New York ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $4.6MM Balance From Class Settlement AG EDWARDS: Appeals Court OKs Class Action Settlement Agreement ALUMINA LTD: Units Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Software Engineers AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Securities Suit in Del. Still Pending AXA ROSENBERG: Sued for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA BDO USA: Austinite Pam Reed Files Class Action Over Stanford BEN & JERRY'S: Ice-Cream Buyers Can Pursue Class Action BURGER KING: Accessibility Suit vs. 86 Restaurants Still Pending BURGER KING: Agrees to Settle Consolidated NFA Class Suit for $0 BURGER KING: Final Hearing on Shareholder Suits Deal Set June 15 C.R. ENGLAND: Concealed Material Data About "Driving Opportunity" CABLEWORX CABLING: Refuses to Pay $283,600 Worth of Materials CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare Policies COVENTRY HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Awaits Court Okay of $9.75MM Suit Settlement DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Signs Agreement to Settle Merger-Related Suits FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in "Celexa" Class Suits GEROVA FIN'L: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set GOOGLE INC: Accused of Making Unsolicited Text Messages GOOGLE INC: Judge Approves Buzz Class Action Settlement HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Court OK of Interchange Suit Settlement HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend "Jaffe" Class Suit HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend Debt Cancellation Litigation HSBC USA: Deal to Settle Interchange Fee Suit Pending Court Okay HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Injunction in "Foster" Suit INTERCLICK INC: Continues to Defend "Bose" Class Suit in New York INTERNATIONAL COAL: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Arch Coal Merger INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Class Suit by IBEW Union INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Consolidated Pension Suit JANOME AMERICA: Recalls 600 Sewing Machines Due to Fire Hazard JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Gets Preliminary OK of "Cardenas" Suit Deal KAHN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 35 Baby Hats Due to Asphyxiation Hazard KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement LIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Sued for Failing to Comply with IWAA LOGITECH INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Results MEDCATH CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Knox-Keene Violation Suit NICOR INC: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Proposed AGL Merger NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Can Amend Complaint vs. NMFC NUCOR CORP: Class Action Lawsuits in Illinois Still Pending NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Enforce Deal in Calif. Class Suit Denied NVIDIA CORP: Hearing Set for July 28 on Motion to Dismiss Suit OCLARO INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending PETSMART INC: Suits Over 2007 Pet Food Recalls Concluded POSTROCK ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit in Kansas Remains Pending PRUDENTIAL PLC: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suits QANTAS: Settles Class Action Over Fuel Surcharge for AU$2.1 Mil. SANDISK CORP: Conference in Indirect Purchasers' Suit Set June 23 SANDISK CORP: Court to Hear "Ritz" Class Certification on Nov. 15 SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending ST. JUDE: Still Defends Class Action Lawsuits in Canada ST. JUDE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit ST. JUDE: Court Approval of "AGA Medical" Suits Settlement Pending STATER BROS: "O'Connor" Suit Settlement Amount Recorded STERIS CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Winter Haven Suit Settlement TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Class Suit in Canada Remain Pending TMX FINANCE: Expects Class Settlement Administration to Begin July TMX FINANCE: Faces Suit in Missouri for Not Paying Overtime Fees TWILIO INC: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Text Message Calls UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement VERTRUE LLC: Settles Class Action over Membership Programs WONDER AUTO: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ********* ACXIOM CORP: Accused of Violating Securities Laws in Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------- Acxiom Corporation is facing a purported class action lawsuit in Arkansas commenced by Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, which alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit styled Macomb County Employees' Retirement System v. Acxiom Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain current and former officers and a director of the Company. The action seeks to be certified as a class action covering persons who acquired Acxiom stock between October 27, 2010, and March 30, 2011. The action purports to assert claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by not properly disclosing that the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its International operations and that the Company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets related to its International operations. The Company and the individual defendants dispute such allegations and intend to vigorously contest the case. ADVANCED BATTERY: Faces 4 Class Action Lawsuits in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Battery Technologies Inc. is defending itself against four class action lawsuits in New York alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011. Since April 2011, four class actions have been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's senior executive officers, asserting violations of the United States securities laws. The complaints allege that the Company, in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, made material misrepresentations and omissions. The plaintiffs in the actions seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November 24, 2008 and March 30, 2011. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and its senior management believe that the claims are without merit. They intend to mount a vigorous defense to the actions and to seek their prompt dismissal after a consolidated complaint is filed. ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $4.6MM Balance From Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., disclosed that it had a total remaining balance in accrued expenses of $4.6 million associated with the settlement of a class action lawsuit in Washington, according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2011. The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced in the manufacturing process. At March 31, 2011, the Company had a total remaining balance in accrued expenses of $4.6 million associated with the settlement of the class action lawsuit. The Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due to events that occurred and information that became available after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is completed. Since 1989, Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. has pioneered the use of recycled polyethylene plastic in the manufacture of composite building materials.. AG EDWARDS: Appeals Court OKs Class Action Settlement Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Fenske, writing for Riverfront Times, reports that a $60 million class-action settlement agreement between A.G. Edwards and a group of account holders who accused the company of a conflict of interest and unjust enrichment has been permitted to stand. The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District released an opinion on May 31, upholding the agreement and rejecting the claims of account holders who objected to the settlement and attempted to intervene in the case. That means a staggering $21 million will go to the attorneys who handled the litigation. The agreement was reached in February 2010 after repeated attempts by the St. Louis-based financial services company to have the suit dismissed or moved to federal court. The company -- which is now part of the Wells Fargo behemoth -- literally moved the case to federal court no less than three times, only to find themselves sent packing back to state court by federal judges. It twice attempted to get the Missouri Supreme Court to intervene. It also filed motions attempting to dismiss the case at least six times. Once all those appeals were exhausted, the company agreed to mediation. The result? A settlement requiring the company to pay $26 million in cash to the class-action members, along with $34 million in vouchers. That outlay, however, includes $21 million in fees to the attorneys who pursued the case. It also includes up to $1 million (for A.G. Edwards to administer the settlement) and $600,000 (for legal expenses, on top of those $21 million in fees) -- all to be paid out before any plaintiffs see a dime. In light of that, suffice it to say, there won't be much cash left for the class' 1.6 million members. Other than the two lead plaintiffs, who were each awarded $10,000, our calculations suggest that other 1.5999 million members of the class could be looking at a mere $2 each, plus whatever vouchers they're entitled to. But the appeals court found in its opinion today that the trial court did not err in ruling that settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate." Its opinion concludes, "there is no evidence of any fraud or collusion behind the settlement and neither [of the plaintiffs objecting to the settlement] allege there was fraud or collusion. Second, the litigation leading up to settlement lasted nearly five years, was procedurally and substantively complex, and was expensive with the likelihood of potential additional years, complexity, and expense on appeal. Third, the settlement was reached weeks before trial and after extensive discovery had been completed. Fourth, the bottom range of possible recovery was no recovery, considering the weakness of Plaintiffs' claims. Fifth, the opinions of class counsel and class representatives unanimously favored the settlement without objection." The original lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleged that mutual-fund companies had made payments to A.G. Edwards. The lawsuit alleged that "[t]he undisclosed kickbacks paid to Defendants created unmanageable and continuing conflicts of interest and breaches of fiduciary duties . . .. These secret kickbacks provided undisclosed and improper compensation to the Defendants, while the preferred funds received increased visibility in the Defendants' extensive mutual fund distribution network." A.G. Edwards was acquired by Wachovia in 2007. One year after that, Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia. The company is now headquartered in South Dakota. ALUMINA LTD: Units Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Alumina Limited's subsidiaries, St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. and Alcoa Inc., are awaiting a ruling on their motion to dismiss an appeal in the lawsuit relating to Hurricane Georges, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on the island of St. Croix. The wind and rain associated with the hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into neighbouring residential areas. Various cleanup and remediation efforts were undertaken by or on behalf of SCA. A Notice of Violation was issued by the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government, and has been contested by Alcoa Inc. A civil suit was commenced in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands by certain residents of St. Croix in February 1999 seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal injuries and property damages associated with "bauxite or red dust" from the SCA facility. The suit, which has been removed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the "Court"), names SCA, Alcoa Inc., and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000, was accorded class action treatment. The class is defined to include persons in various defined neighbourhoods who "suffered damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane Georges." All of the defendants have denied liability, and discovery and other pre-trial proceedings have been underway since 1999. Plaintiff's expert reports claim that the material blown during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances. The reports further claim, among other things, that the population of the six subject neighbourhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and punitive relief. These opinions have been contested by the defendants' expert reports, that state, among other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime medical monitoring. Alcoa Inc. and SCA moved to decertify the plaintiff class, and the assigned district judge adopted a recommendation that class certification be maintained for liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after liability issues have been resolved. Alcoa and SCA have turned over this matter to their insurance carriers who are providing a defence. Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss. In June 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to decertify the class of plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for certification of a new class. Under the new certification order, there is no class as to the personal injury, property damage, or punitive damages claims. (The named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for medical monitoring during the course of the briefing of the certification motions.) The Court did certify a new class as to the claim of on-going nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek clean up, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present at the facility. The Court expressly denied certification of a class as to any claims for remediation or cleanup of any area outside the facility (including plaintiffs' property). The new class could seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Named plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. Named plaintiffs, however, could continue to prosecute their claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages. In August 2009, in response to defendants' motions, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect to their property damage claims. In September 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. As of October 29, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the Court's summary judgment order dismissing the claim for injunctive relief and Alcoa and SCA filed a motion to dismiss that appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A decision by the Third Court is pending. The Company says it is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Software Engineers -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTs software inc. continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of software engineers, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On August 22, 2008, a former ANTs employee filed a class action complaint against the Company on behalf of all current and former software engineers for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal breaks, among other things, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The former employee is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys' fees and penalties of well over $1.00 million. No trial date has yet been set. On March 9, 2011, the Court certified the class and a subclass consisting solely of former engineering employees who signed release agreements, with another former employee as the sub-class representative. Based on the litigation still being in the preliminary stages, an estimate of possible losses, if any, cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to continue vigorously defending itself. The cost of associated legal defense fees may be material with any required cash payments to the former employees being more material and detrimental. AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Securities Suit in Del. Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aviat Networks, Inc., continues to vigorously defend itself against a consolidated class action complaint filed in Delaware. Aviat and certain of its former executive officers and directors were named in a federal securities class action complaint filed on September 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the Company's shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation. The action relates to the restatement of the Company's prior financial statements as discussed in its fiscal 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2008. Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court of Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008. Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009. On July 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to dismiss that the Company and the officer and director defendants had filed. On September 9, 2010, the Company and the officer and director defendants filed an answer denying the material allegations of the consolidated class action complaint. No updates were reported in the May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2011. Aviat Networks, Inc., provides wireless transmission solutions. It applies innovation and IP networking expertise toward building a carrier class foundation for future mobile and fixed broadband networks. With more than 750,000 systems installed around the world, Aviat Networks has built a reputation as a leader in offering best-of-breed solutions including LTE-ready microwave backhaul and a complete portfolio of service and support options to public and private telecommunications operators worldwide. Aviat Networks, formerly Harris Stratex Networks Inc., is headquartered in Santa Clara, California and is listed on NASDAQ (AVNW). AXA ROSENBERG: Sued for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trustees of the Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Axa Rosenberg Group LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02594-DMR (N.D. Calif. May 31, 2011), says defendants, in violation of their inherent fiduciary duties and those fiduciary duties set forth under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), recklessly engaged in imprudent and disloyal investment activities by permitting a coding error to occur in AXA Rosenberg's investment model and failing to report the coding error in a timely manner, which exposed plaintiff to additional undisclosed investment risks and resulted in substantial losses to plaintiff's investments. According to the Complaint, defendants' acts and omissions are breaches of the duty of loyalty and duty of prudence under ERISA Section 404(a) and breaches of co-fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 405, which entitle plaintiff, pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(2), to recover appropriate relief under ERISA Section 409 and, pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3), to enjoin acts that violate ERISA. Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001, et seq., in that they exercised discretion over the management of ERISA plan assets. Furthermore, defendant AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC acknowledges it is a fiduciary in writing and is an Investment Manager within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(38). AXA Rosenberg Group, headquartered in Orinda, California, is a quantitative investment firm that provides investment management services to pension funds, profit sharing plans, government entities, insurance companies, foundations, and endowments. AXA Rosenberg also invests for retail clients through mutual funds and other vehicles that it manages or sub-advises. Currently, AXA Rosenberg manages in excess of $30 billion of assets on behalf of its clients. The Plaintiff -- the Trustees of the Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois -- is located at 28 North 1st Street, in Geneva, Illinois. In December 2005, the plaintiff entered into a Subscription Agreement to invest in the AXA Rosenberg International Small Cap Institutional Fund LLC. The plaintiff relates that in January 2007, as part of an upgrade, a "coding error" was inadvertently introduced into AXA Rosenberg's investment model. The work by the computer programmers who corrupted AXA Rosenberg's algorithms was not independently monitored. Moreover, AXA Rosenberg's internal tests and controls proved insufficient, as they did not identify and remedy the coding error. Allegedly, in June 2009 the coding error was discovered by a Rosenberg Research Center LLC employee, but defendants only disclosed the coding error to the Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2010. The plaintiff and the class, however, were not notified by AXA Rosenberg until April 15, 2010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. David J. George, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com dgeorge@rgrdlaw.com - and - Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq. John T. Long, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA LLP 407 East Adams Street Springfield, IL 62701 Telephone: (217) 544-1771 BDO USA: Austinite Pam Reed Files Class Action Over Stanford ------------------------------------------------------------ Austin Business Journal reports that Austinite Pam Reed and a Houston resident are leading a class action lawsuit filed against BDO USA LLP and its parent seeking more than $10 billion in damages related to Stanford Financial Group. The case -- filed May 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas -- claims Chicago-based accounting firm BDO allegedly knew about Houston-based Stanford's fraudulent deposit certificates, ignored them and continued to issue unqualified audit opinions. The other plaintiff in the case is Philip Wilkinson of Houston. "BDO issued unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford clients' annual financial statements even though BDO knew that its clients' operations were substantially dependent - if not entirely dependent -- upon the continuous sale of unregulated, fictitious (Stanford International Bank Ltd.) CDs," the lawsuit states. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges and seized Stanford's operations in February 2009, citing allegations they were involved in a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. Former CEO R. Allen Stanford is awaiting trial for his involvement. The lawsuit alleges that four members of BDO were part of a Stanford Task Force created in the late 1990s to make changes to Antigua's banking laws and regulatory institutions. "A key initiative for the Stanford Task Force -- fully known to BDO -- was to amend Antigua's Money Laundering (Prevention) Act to ensure that 'fraud' and 'false accounting' did not fall under the Act's prescribed list of violations," the lawsuit states. BEN & JERRY'S: Ice-Cream Buyers Can Pursue Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that two classes of ice-cream buyers have standing to sue Ben & Jerry's and Breyers for using "all natural" labels on ice cream made with synthetic chemical processes, a federal judge ruled. The consolidated class action alleges that the ice-cream makers used alkalized cocoa powder to reduce acidity and give their ice cream a rich, chocolate flavor. The named plaintiffs say they bought many pints of ice cream over the past several years but would not have done so if they knew "that this ice cream contained cocoa that was not 'natural,'" according to the ruling from U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton. Though Ben & Jerry's and Breyers may ultimately prove that the plaintiffs do not have any actionable claims, that does not diminish their standing, Judge Hamilton wrote on May 26. "If the plaintiffs did indeed purchase the ice cream based on the representation that it was 'all natural' and if that representation proves to be false, then they arguably have suffered an injury in fact," according to the 22-page ruling. Though the class has alleged enough facts to prove fraud, in that they would not have purchased the ice cream had it been properly labeled, any factual dispute over whether the companies knew they were misleading customers should be an issue for trial, Judge Hamilton added. The judge also refused to find that federal law pre-empts the class' labeling claims. "While the provisions [of the federal law] apply to representations about nutrients such as fiber and fat, and to representations such as 'diet' as applied to soft drinks, there is no indication of any regulation of the use of an adjective such as 'natural' on a food label," Judge Hamilton wrote. "Accordingly, the court finds that the claims are not preempted." A copy of the Order Denying Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Strike in Astiana v. Ben & Jerrys's Homemade, Inc. Case No. 10- 4387, and in Channee Thurston, et al. v. Conopco, Inc. Case No. 10-4937 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/ice%20cream.pdf BURGER KING: Accessibility Suit vs. 86 Restaurants Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action suit styled Vallabhaparuparu v. Burger King Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California), which alleges "accessibility" violations against 86 Burger King restaurants, remains pending. On September 10, 2008, the class action suit entitled Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Corporation, Case No. CV08-4262 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) was filed. The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law. In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In its decision, the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials. In March 2010, the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10 restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to the settlement. In February 2011, the Vallabhaparuparu lawsuit was filed with respect to the other 86 restaurants. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the lawsuit, but the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on July 23, 2002. The Company is the parent of Burger King Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger King(R) brand. BURGER KING: Agrees to Settle Consolidated NFA Class Suit for $0 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Burger King Holdings Inc. has negotiated a deal with the National Franchisees Association, Inc., to resolve a consolidated franchisees class suit which involves no monetary compensation, according to the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. The National Franchisee Association, Inc. (NFA) and several individual franchisees filed two class action lawsuits on November 10, 2009, and June 15, 2010, respectively, claiming to represent Burger King franchisees. The lawsuits were styled National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-23435 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) and Family Dining, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 10-CV-21964 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida). The lawsuits seek a judicial declaration that the franchise agreements between BKC and its franchisees do not obligate the franchisees to comply with maximum price points set by BKC for products on the BK Value Menu sold by the franchisees, specifically the 1/4 lb. Double Cheeseburger and the Buck Double. The Family Dining plaintiffs also seek monetary damages for financial loss incurred by franchisees who were required to sell those products for no more than $1.00. In May 2010, the court entered an order in the National Franchisee Association case granting in part BKC's motion to dismiss. The court held that BKC had the authority under its franchise agreements to set maximum prices but that, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the NFA had asserted a "plausible" claim that BKC's decision may not have been made in good faith. Both cases were consolidated into a single consolidated class action complaint which BKC moved to dismiss on September 22, 2010. On November 19, 2010, the court issued an order granting BKC's motion to dismiss on all claims in the consolidated complaint with prejudice. On December 14, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision, and on December 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 2, 2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On April 18, 2011, BKC and the NFA agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement does not include any financial compensation to either side. Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on July 23, 2002. The Company is the parent of Burger King Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger King(R) brand. BURGER KING: Final Hearing on Shareholder Suits Deal Set June 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Florida court is set to convene a final hearing on June 15, 2011, on the settlement reached in shareholder class action lawsuits against Burger King Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On September 3, 2010, four purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Miami-Dade, Florida, captioned Darcy Newman v. Burger King Holdings, Inc. et. al., Case No. 10-48422CA30, Belle Cohen v. David A. Brandon, et. al., Case No. 10-48395CA32, Melissa Nemeth v. Burger King Holdings, Inc. et. al., Case No. 10-48424CA05 and Vijayalakshmi Venkataraman v. John W. Chidsey, et. al., Case No. 10-48402CA13, by purported shareholders of the Company, in connection with the tender offer and the merger deal of the Company. Each of the four complaints (collectively, the "Florida Actions") names as defendants the Company, each member of the Company's board of directors (the "Individual Defendants") and 3G Capital Partners, Ltd. The suits generally allege that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the proposed sale of the Company and that 3G Capital and the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On September 8, 2010, another putative shareholder class action suit captioned Roberto S. Queiroz v. Burger King Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5808-VCP was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "First Delaware Action") against the Individual Defendants, the Company, 3G Special Situations Fund II, L.P., 3G Capital, Blue Acquisition Holding Corporation and Blue Acquisition Sub, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value by entering into the proposed transaction via an unfair process and at an unfair price, and that the merger agreement contains provisions that unreasonably dissuade potential suitors from making competing offers. On September 27, 2010, another putative shareholder class action suit captioned Robert Debardelaben v. Burger King Holdings, Inc., et al, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 5850-UA was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Individual Defendants. Like the first Delaware Action, the Debardelaben complaint asserts that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the tender offer, and that the Company and 3G Capital aided and abetted that breach. This action also seeks both monetary and injunctive relief. On September 29, 2010, the Delaware court entered an order consolidating the Debardelaben and Queiroz actions ("Delaware Actions"). On December 30, 2010, a proposed settlement was reached with the plaintiffs in the Florida Actions and Delaware Actions. The principal terms of the proposed settlement include additional disclosures about the Merger that were provided to Burger King shareholders in the Company's amended schedule 14D-9, dismissal of the Florida and Delaware actions, mutual releases and the payment of up to $1 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel. On March 16, 2011, the Florida court gave preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The court has scheduled a hearing on June 15, 2011, to determine whether to finally approve the settlement. Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on July 23, 2002. The Company is the parent of Burger King Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger King(R) brand. C.R. ENGLAND: Concealed Material Data About "Driving Opportunity" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Roberts, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. C.R. England, Inc., et al, Case No. 11-cv-02586 (N.D. Calif. May 27, 2011), is brought on behalf of individuals (the "Drivers") that defendants fraudulently induced into purchasing a business opportunity to drive big rig trucks (the "Driving Opportunity"). Mr. Roberts was a Driver from approximately September 2009 to June 2010. Defendants are affiliated transportation industry companies that are headquartered at the same offices in Salt Lake City, Utah and that have offices and operations in 10 California, Indiana and elsewhere. Defendants' customers include Wal-Mart and other businesses that ship goods around the country via tractor- trailers. Defendants transport some customers' goods via company employees and company-owned trucks but the majority of goods are transported by Drivers that have purchased the Driving Opportunity. According to the Complaint, although the Driving Opportunity is a franchise and/or business opportunity under federal, California, Utah, and Indiana law, defendants have never complied with the applicable registration, disclosure, and anti-fraud provisions of those laws. Defendants allegedly made uniform misrepresentations, misleading statements, and concealed material information when offering and selling the Driving Opportunity to the Drivers in derogation of the applicable statutes and common law. Mr. Roberts relates that defendants' conduct is a fraudulent scheme targeting and injuring the Drivers. Defendants defraud the Drivers into paying for all the expenses of transporting goods for defendants' customers by making uniform false and misleading written and oral representations about the Driving Opportunity and by concealing material facts. The Drivers' expenses paid to defendants include truck rental, gas, maintenance, computers, and other expenses associated with the Driving Opportunity. Defendants also retain all the money their customers pay for transporting goods. After paying such expenses, the Drivers had little or no compensation or even owed defendants money despite the long hours they worked as Drivers. Thus, the Drivers were also damaged because defendants defrauded them out of their labor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Boulter, Esq. Peter C. Lagarias, Esq.) LAGARIAS & BOULTER L.L.P. 1629 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, Ca 94901-1828 Telephone: (415) 460-0100 E-mail: rsb@lb-attorneys.com pcl@lb-attorneys.com CABLEWORX CABLING: Refuses to Pay $283,600 Worth of Materials ------------------------------------------------------------- GraybaR Electric Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cableworx Cabling & Maintenance Corp., et al., Case No. 651474/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. May 27, 2011), seeks, in addition to the recovery of the monies owed to Graybar from Cableworx, the recovery of lien law trust funds pursuant to Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New York, in connection with the materials supplied by GraybaR to Cableworx. Allegedly, the defendants: a) wrongfully diverted lien law trust funds paid in respect of several of their construction projects in New York, which funds should have been used to pay lien law trust creditors such as GraybaR, and b) fraudulently deprived GraybaR of the benefits of the New Jersey Construction Lien law statute. The total principal amount due from Cableworx to GraybaR is $283,636.02. In addition to the principal indebtedness owed to plaintiff, GraybaR rendered invoices to Cableworx for service charges accrued on the principal indebtedness through Oct. 28, 2010, in the total amount of $59,644.18. GraybaR Electric Company, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the New York, maintaining a place of business at 401 Franklin Avenue, in Garden City, New York. GraybaR is in the business of, among other things, the sale of data and electrical supplies and materials. Cableworx Cabling and Maintenance Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, maintaining a principal place of business at 104 West 27th Street, in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jill Levi, Esq. TODD & LEVI, LLP 444 Madison Avenue, Suite 1202 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-7400 CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare Policies ------------------------------------------------------ Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the Canadian government "deliberately planned the eradication of the language, religion and culture" of native Indian children and robbed them of their treaty rights through child welfare policies which placed them in non-aboriginal foster families for the past half-century. Skogamhallait, also known as Sharon Russell, claims in B.C. Supreme Court that the Canadian government passed the buck on Indian child welfare services to the British Columbia government, causing "ongoing harm to Indian children in care by not taking steps to prevent them from losing their Aboriginal identity and the opportunity to exercise their Aboriginal and treaty rights." Ms. Russell is a member of the Gitsegukla Indian Band and the Gitksan First Nation. She says the Canadian government delegated child welfare responsibilities to the British Columbia government in 1962. "As a result, Indian children were apprehended and removed from their Aboriginal family and community and were placed in the care of non-Indian and non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive homes where they were systematically denied the opportunity to preserve their Aboriginal identity," the complaint states. Ms. Russell says the policy "continued the pursuit of Canada's goal of complete integration and assimilation of Aboriginal Children into mainstream Canadian society and the obliteration of their traditional language, culture and religion." Ms. Russell says she was taken from her family twice, once when she was 7 and again when she was 9, and placed in two non-Aboriginal families. She returned to her family when she was 15, but says was not accepted into the community when she came back. Ms. Russell said she entered adulthood with a significantly impaired knowledge and experience of what it meant to be Gitksan. In her teens, Ms. Russell says, she struggled with alcohol and drug addictions and made a number of suicide attempts. Ms. Russell seeks class certification and damages for breach of treaty rights and for the "widespread psychological, emotion and cultural abuses of the plaintiff and class members." "Canada deliberately planned the eradication of the language, religion and culture of the plaintiff and class members," the complaint states. "Canada's actions were deliberate and malicious and in the circumstances, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages are appropriate and necessary." A copy of the Notice of Civil Claim in Skogamhallait v. The Attorney General of Canada, Case No. 113566 (B.C. Sup. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/Aboriginal.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Klein, Esq. KLEIN LYONS Suite 1100 1333 West Broadway Vancouver, BC Canada V6H 4C1 Telephone: (604) 874-7171 COVENTRY HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Coventry Health Care, Inc., on May 31, disclosed that final court approval has been received and all other contingencies have been satisfied relating to the previously announced definitive settlement agreement between First Health Group Corp., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Coventry, and counsel representing the provider class with respect to previously disclosed class action litigation in Louisiana. The class action litigation involved claims of alleged violations of notice provisions of Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act in connection with provider services to injured workers with workers' compensation claims, as described in more detail in Coventry's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Coventry had accrued for the initial judgment of $262 million with additional accruals for legal fees and interest related to this matter. In accordance with the settlement, First Health Group Corp., Inc. will pay $150.5 million from an escrow fund which was established during the first quarter of 2011. As a result of developments since the Company filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, including the final court approval, Coventry will record a favorable non-recurring pre-tax adjustment to earnings of $159.3 million, or $0.68 per diluted share after tax, in the second quarter of 2011. Coventry Health Care -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com-- is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network rental and workers' compensation services companies. Coventry provides a full range of risk and fee-based managed care products and services to a broad cross section of individuals, employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and other insurance carriers and administrators. CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Awaits Court Okay of $9.75MM Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- CyberDefender Corporation is awaiting court approval of a $9.75 million settlement to resolve a class suit related to its software services, the Company disclosed in its May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the Company and Edelson McGuire, LLC, a Chicago, Illinois law firm, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which is subject to court approval, to settle a class action that includes claims allegedly arising out of the Company's design, sales and marketing of its software products and services. A class action complaint and the Stipulation were filed in state court in Cook County, Illinois, on May 6, 2011. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and agreed to settle the action solely to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation. The Stipulation provides that any customer who can establish, to the Company's satisfaction in accordance with the provisions in the Stipulation, a purchase of the Company's software or services, and who has not previously received a refund from the Company, is entitled to a $10 refund in cash. The total settlement fund will be $9.75 million and will not exceed that amount in any event. The Company will receive a credit for the lesser of: (i) $7 million; or (ii) 85% of the total of all refunds it makes to customers during the period from September 1, 2010 through a date which is 30 days after the entry of the final judgment in the class action. Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes it will be entitled to the credit of $7 million. The balance of the settlement fund, after deducting the $7 million credit, will be $2.75 million, from which payments will be made for: (i) claims that are approved in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulation; (ii) the plaintiffs' attorneys' fee award; (iii) a plaintiffs' incentive award of $3,000; and (iv) the costs of the claims administration process, which will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulation. The Company's insurance carrier under the applicable insurance policy will contribute up to a maximum of $2 million to the settlement, subject to the payment by the Company of the retention (deductible) of $250,000. Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes that the insurance carrier's contribution will be sufficient to satisfy the payments given the number of claims that the Company expects will be filed, therefore no additional amount has been accrued by the Company. Although there can be no assurances, the Company estimates that, even if all potential claimants filed claims that were approved, the Company's total, maximum exposure under the Stipulation would be approximately $750,000. Finally, in addition to the payments, the Stipulation provides that the Company will maintain certain additional disclosures relating to its products and services in its Terms of Service and, where applicable, its Privacy Policy. CyberDefender Corporation (NASDAQ: CYDE) -- http://www.cyberdefender.com/-- provides Internet security software, utilities and Live PC Support services that work together to provide maximum safety for consumers in a digital world. CyberDefender develops and markets antispyware/antivirus software and remote, live tech support services. In addition, CyberDefender offers identity protection and computer optimization services. With millions of active users on its cloud-based Collaborative Internet Security Network, CyberDefender leverages the power of community to protect its customers from the rapidly growing number of new online threats every year. CyberDefender products are fully compatible with Microsoft's XP, Vista, and 7 Operating systems. DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Signs Agreement to Settle Merger-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- drugstore.com, inc., Walgreen Co. and Dover Subsidiary, Inc., reached an agreement in principle providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of all lawsuits filed in connection with their proposed merger, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. drugstore.com, inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Walgreen Co. and Dover Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreens, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into drugstore.com with drugstore.com surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreens. On April 29, 2011, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement describing the proposed merger with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Seven purported class action lawsuits have been filed against drugstore.com, its directors, Walgreens, and in some cases, Merger Sub, in connection with the merger: Grodko v. drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 6315-36696222, Halberstam v. drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 6328-36765633 and Chopp v. drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 6365-36992506, which were filed on March 25, 2011, March 30, 2011 and April 12, 2011, respectively, in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware; and Hurlin v. drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-11261-6 SEA, Cohen v. drugstore.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-11661-1 SEA, Crandall v. drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-12508-4 SEA and Powers v. drugstore.com, inc. et al., Case No. 11-2-12447-9 SEA, which were filed on March 25, 2011, March 29, 2011, April 4, 2011 and April 4, 2011, respectively, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King. On May 2, 2011, the Washington court entered an order consolidating the Washington Lawsuits. That same day, plaintiff Nicholas Hurlin filed an Amended Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty in his Washington Lawsuit. The Amended Complaint, similar to the prior Washington complaints, generally alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, fair dealing, and full disclosure. The Amended Complaint also contains new factual allegations concerning purportedly deficient disclosures and material omissions in drugstore.com's preliminary proxy filed on April 14, 2011. The Amended Complaint, similar to the prior complaints, also generally alleges that drugstore.com and Walgreens aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Also on May 2, 2011, plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint, similar to the prior Delaware complaints, generally alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, fair dealing, and full disclosure. The Consolidated Amended Complaint also contains new factual allegations concerning purportedly deficient disclosures and material omissions in drugstore.com's definitive proxy filed on April 29, 2011. The Consolidated Amended Complaint also alleges that all defendants aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On May 27, 2011, the Company, Walgreens, Merger Sub, and the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits and the Washington Lawsuits reached an agreement in principle providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of all lawsuits filed in connection with the merger. Pursuant to that agreement, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed merger and filed a supplement to its definitive proxy statement on May 27, 2011. FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Forest Laboratories, Inc., remains a defendant in the lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. The Company remains a defendant in actions filed in various federal district courts alleging certain violations of the federal anti-trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products. In each case, the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products. The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both individually and, with respect to certain claims, as a class action) and seek injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered these actions coordinated (and, with respect to those actions brought as class actions, consolidated) in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption "In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation." On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated federal class action (which proceeded to trial beginning in September 1998), including Forest, were granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded their case. In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial judge held that no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence as to individual defendants paltry or non-existent." The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the granting of the directed verdict in the federal class case in the Company's favor. Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed verdict in the Company's favor, the Company has secured the voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases were included in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the dismissal of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in various state courts. The Company remains a defendant, together with other manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases included in the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. While no discovery or other significant proceedings with respect to the Company have been taken to date in respect of such claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be required to actively defend such claims or to pay substantial amounts to dispose of such claims. However, by way of a decision dated January 25, 2007, the judge handling the Robinson-Patman Act cases for certain of a smaller group of designated defendants whose claims are being litigated on a test basis, granted summary judgment to those designated defendants against a group of designated plaintiffs due to those plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate any antitrust injury. Subsequently, the Court also granted the designated defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the designated plaintiffs' effort to obtain injunctive relief. The litigation is continuing with discovery regarding the claims of other plaintiffs. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in "Celexa" Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit against Forest Laboratories, Inc., relating to Celexa or Lexapro, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are defendants in three federal actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation." These actions, two of which are purported nationwide class actions, and one of which is a purported California-wide class action, allege that FLI and FPI marketed Celexa and/or Lexapro for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro. The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under a number of state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Discovery currently is ongoing. FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against these cases. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. FLI and/or FPI are also named as defendants in two similar actions pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, arising from nearly identical allegations as those contained in the federal actions. The first action, filed on July 22, 2009, under the caption "Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use. Only FPI, which is headquartered in Missouri, is named as a defendant. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. Discovery is currently ongoing. The second action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against both of these actions. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. GEROVA FIN'L: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders of Gerova Financial Group Ltd. are reminded of the securities class action lawsuit filed against Gerova and certain of its officers. The class action (11-cv-3081), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class of purchasers of Gerova securities between January 8, 2010, and February 23, 2011. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Gerova securities during the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the class, you have until July 5, 2011, to seek appointment from the Court. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq. at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, toll free. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including but not limited to the fact that a substantial portion of the assets it acquired pursuant to several transactions in January 2010 were impaired, illiquid, and worth far less than their recorded value; and that some of these acquisitions were with companies controlled by or affiliated with Gerova's top officers. On January 10, 2011, Dalrymple Finance LLC published a report labeling Gerova as "a game of smoke and mirrors," and specifically questioning the valuation of the assets acquired in January, 2010. On this news, Gerova shares dropped $1.06 or nearly 4%, to close at $26.98. On February 10, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced the resignation of the Company's Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Directors. On this news, Gerova shares declined by $9.31 or 59% for four consecutive trading sessions, to close at $6.39 on February 16, 2011. On February 23, 2011, the NYSE halted the stock at $5.28 citing the need for "additional information relative to operations, management restructuring, and business plans." Gerova's shares were subsequently delisted. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237) E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com GOOGLE INC: Accused of Making Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------- Brett L. Lusskin, Jr., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02585 (N.D. Calif. May 27, 2011), charges Google and its wholly owned subsidiary Slide, Inc., of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular phones. The plaintiff brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones. Mr. Lusskin is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, in Mountain View, California. Slide, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 301 Brannan St, 6th Floor, in San Francisco, California. On April 8, 2011, plaintiffs received text messages through defendants' Disco service. At no time did plaintiff consent to the receipt of text messages from defendants. In April 2011, defendants released a service called Disco, available on the Internet at Disco.com. Disco is marketed by defendants as a "group texting" tool, allowing customers to simultaneously send SMS text messages to large groups of people en masse, using one common cellular telephone number provided by defendants. Allegedly, the software is designed so that "thousands of consumers" receive text messages through defendants' Disco service that they neither consented to nor wanted. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Christopher L. Dore, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com cdore@edeIson.com - and - Scott D. Owns, Esq. 2000 E. Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 106 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33306 Telephone: (954) 306-8104 GOOGLE INC: Judge Approves Buzz Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge approved a class action settlement over Google's Buzz social network, and awarded $500,000 to an Internet privacy group that had previously been left out of the proposed deal. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission last year, saying Buzz threatened the privacy of Gmail users. Google settled with the FTC this past March and agreed to independent privacy audits. Google also agreed last year to resolve a separate proposed class action lawsuit brought by a Gmail user. Part of that deal provided for more than $6 million to be distributed to groups advocating for Internet privacy issues. However, that list of groups did not include EPIC, which objected to the proposed settlement. EPIC and a handful of other groups said the majority of funds would be allocated to groups that "receive support from Google for lobbying, consulting, or similar services," according to a court filing. The plaintiffs called that argument meritless. But on May 31, U.S. District Judge James Ware wrote that there was no good cause to exclude EPIC from the settlement. "EPIC has demonstrated that it is a well-established and respected organization within the field of Internet privacy," Judge Ware wrote. "We appreciate the court's recognition of EPIC's important work," said EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg. Representatives for Google and the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment. EPIC had originally requested $1.75 million. The settlement also includes money for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the YMCA of Greater Long Beach, among other groups. The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is In Re Google Buzz User Privacy Litigation, 10-672. HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Court OK of Interchange Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ HSBC Finance Corporation is still awaiting court approval of a settlement entered into with plaintiffs in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and the Company, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.; National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.; Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.; and American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. The parties are engaged in discovery, motion practice and mediation. On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including the Company, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including the Company and its affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720. The Company continues to defend the claims in this action vigorously and its entry into the Agreements in no way serves as an admission as to the validity of the allegations in the complaints. Similarly, the Agreements have had no impact on the Company's ability to quantify the potential impact from this action, if any, and the Company is unable to do so at this time. HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend "Jaffe" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc acquired Household International, Inc., the predecessor to HSBC Finance Corporation, in March 2003. HSBC Finance Corporation is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., which is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc. As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al., No. 02 C 5893. The complaint asserted claims under Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002. The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. A jury trial concluded on April 30, 2009 and the jury rendered a verdict on May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to Household International and three former officers. A second phase of the case was to proceed to determine the actual damages, if any, due to the plaintiff class and issues of reliance. On November 22, 2010 the Court issued a ruling on the second phase of the case. On the issue of reliance, the Court ruled that claim forms will be mailed to class members. Class members who file claims will be asked to check a "YES" or "NO" box to a question that asks whether they would have purchased Household stock had they known false and misleading statements inflated the stock price. As for damages, the Court set out a method for calculating damages for class members who file claims. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration from the Court's November 22 ruling. On January 14, 2011, the Court partially granted that motion: slightly modifying the claim form; allowing defendants to take certain discovery on the issue of reliance; and reserving on the issue whether the defendants would ultimately be entitled to a jury trial on the issues of reliance and damages. On January 31, 2011, the Court issued another ruling further modifying the decision on the scope of discovery. Plaintiffs have mailed the claim forms with the modified language and class members had until May 24 to file claims. Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages, including, but not limited to the number of class members that may file valid claims, the number of claims that can be substantiated by class members by providing adequate documentation, the reduction of trading losses by any trading gains made over the relevant period, the determination of reliance by class members on the financial statements, and whether any given class member was the beneficial owner of the shares, the Company is unable at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any damages award, or range of possible awards, that could arise as a result of the ruling and the ultimate resolution of this matter. In filings with the Court, plaintiffs' lawyers have estimated that damages could range "somewhere between $2.4-$3.2 billion to class members," before pre-judgment interest. Although it is not reasonably possible to estimate the financial impact of the ultimate resolution of this matter, the financial impact could be material. The date on which the court may enter a final judgment is not known at this time. When a final judgment is entered by the District Court, the parties have 30 days in which to appeal the verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on its discussions with outside counsel, the Company continues to believe that neither Household nor its former officers committed or engaged in any wrongdoing and the Company has meritorious grounds for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case. No further updates were reported in HSBC Finance Corporation's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Defend Debt Cancellation Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Finance Corporation's subsidiaries are now facing eight class action lawsuits challenging the marketing or administrative practices of their debt cancellation or suspension products, according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar putative class actions were filed against the Company's subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. ("HSBC Bank Nevada") and HSBC Card Services Inc.: Rivera et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al. (D.N.J. 10-CV-03375); Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. 10-CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (W.D. Wash. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (D. Md. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (N.D. III. 11-CV-00548); McKinney v. HSBC Card Services et al. (S.D. III. 10-CV-00786); Chastain v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 13th Circuit) (filed as a counterclaim to a pending collections action); Colton et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (C.D. Ca. 11-CV-03742). These actions principally allege that cardholders were enrolled in debt cancellation or suspension products and challenge various marketing or administrative practices relating to those products. The plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection and deceptive acts and practices statutes. The Mitchell action was dismissed by the plaintiff in March 2011. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might arise as a result of these actions and will continue to defend the claims vigorously. HSBC USA: Deal to Settle Interchange Fee Suit Pending Court Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- An agreement to settle a consolidated amended complaint over interchange fees charged for credit card transactions is pending, according to HSBC USA Inc.'s May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011. Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. The parties are engaged in discovery, motion practice and mediation. On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and its affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720. The Company continues to defend the claims in this action vigorously and its entry into the agreements in no way serves as an admission as to the validity of the allegations in the complaints. Similarly, the Agreements have had no impact on the Company's ability to quantify the potential impact from this action, if any, and it is unable to do so at this time. HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss a lawsuit captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11), according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011. In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit accounts in high-to-low order. Levin asserts claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute. The plaintiffs dismissed the Federal court action after the case was transferred to the multi- district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the case in New York state court on March 1, 2011. The action, captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and violations on behalf of a New York class, including breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 2, 2011. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might arise as a result of this action and will defend the claims vigorously. INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Injunction in "Foster" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied the request for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit over the merger of Inspire Pharmaceuticals Inc. with Merck & Co., Inc., and Monarch Transaction Corp., according to Inspire's May 11, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Following Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s announcement that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April 5, 2011, with Merck & Co., Inc., and Monarch Transaction Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, against the Company, its Board of Directors, Merck and Monarch under the caption Norris Foster, et al. v. George Abercrombie, et al., No. 5:11-CV-00180. On May 10, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction in connection with the purported class action suit that would have delayed or prevented the proposed sale of the Company and the tender offer in connection with the Merger Agreement. As a result of the Court's denial, the Company says there is no pending litigation that would reasonably be expected to prevent the consummation of the merger of Monarch with and into the Company, subject to the satisfaction of the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. INTERCLICK INC: Continues to Defend "Bose" Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- interclick, inc., continues to defend itself against a purported class action over alleged computer use law violations, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On or about December 8, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sonal Bose v. Interclick, Inc., Case No. 10 Civ. 9183-DAB (S.D.N.Y.)) alleging that interclick engaged in certain activities that plaintiff claims violate electronic privacy and computer use laws. The plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims, and seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, and reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees. The plaintiff also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and class action certification. interclick, inc., is a technology company providing solutions for data-driven advertising. Combining scalable media execution capabilities with analytical expertise, interclick delivers exceptional results for marketers. The Company's proprietary Open Segment Manager platform organizes and valuates billions of data points daily to construct the most responsive digital audiences for major digital marketers. The Company generates revenue by serving as a principal in transacting online display advertising between agency clients and third party Web site publishers. Substantially all of the Company's revenues are generated in the United States. INTERNATIONAL COAL: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Arch Coal Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------ International Coal Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle class action lawsuits filed in Delaware in connection with its proposed merger with Arch Coal, Inc., and Atlas Acquisition Corp., according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 2, 2011, International Coal Group, Inc., Arch Coal, Inc., and Atlas Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch ("Merger Sub"), entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement and upon the terms and conditions thereof, on May 16, 2011, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01 per share, for $14.60 per share in cash, without interest. On May 9 and May 11, 2011, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of the Company, respectively docketed as Kirby v. International Coal Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6464 and Kramer v. Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., et al., Case No. 6470. On May 19, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of Delaware purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of the Company, docketed as Isakov v. International Coal Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6505. Each of the complaints names as defendants the Company, members of the Company's Board of Directors, Arch and Merger Sub. Each of the complaints alleges, inter alia, that the members of the Company Board breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its stockholders or engage in an appropriate sales process in connection with the proposed transaction and that Arch and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breach. The Isakov complaint further alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information in the Company's Schedule 14D-9 filed on May 16, 2011. Plaintiffs seek relief that includes, inter alia, an injunction prohibiting the proposed transaction, an accounting, and costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The defendants named in the Delaware Actions believe that the Delaware Actions are entirely without merit, and that they have valid defenses to all claims raised by the plaintiffs named in the Delaware Actions. Nevertheless, and despite their belief that they ultimately would have prevailed in the defense of the Delaware Plaintiffs' claims, to avoid the time and expense that would be incurred by further litigation and the uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on May 26, 2011, the parties to the Delaware Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein. In connection with the MOU, Arch and Merger Sub agreed to reduce the amount of the proposed transaction's termination fee by $10 million, from $115 million to $105 million, and the Company agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in its Schedule 14D-9. The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, the execution of a formal stipulation of settlement and court approval, as well as the consummation of the proposed transaction. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Class Suit by IBEW Union ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Game Technology continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit in Nevada filed by a local union, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects. In April 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Court found that the allegations concerning statements about the seasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects with Harrah's and City Center were sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statements about earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statements about play levels and server-based technology. No pre-trial schedule has been set. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Consolidated Pension Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Game Technology continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by participants in the Company's employee pension plans, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan Committee, and several current and former officers and directors. The actions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions were consolidated. The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132. The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to those in the U.S. Securities and derivative lawsuits, and further alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to disclose material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the Participants, failing to properly manage Plan assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company stock. In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part. No pre-trial schedule has been set. JANOME AMERICA: Recalls 600 Sewing Machines Due to Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Janome America Inc., of Mahwah, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 600 sewing machines. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The wires inside the sewing machine can short circuit, posing a risk of fire. Janome America knows of one report of a sewing machine catching fire. No injuries or property damage have been reported. This recall involves the Elna eXcellence 740 sewing machine. The machine is white and navy with a digital touch panel. "Elna" and "eXcellence 740" are printed on the front of the machine. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11237.html The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and Taiwan, and sold at sewing machine stores nationwide from September 2010 through April 2011 for about $3,000. Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the machine and return it to the store where it was purchased for a free repair. For additional information, contact Janome America at (800) 631- 0183 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.elnausa.com/ JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Gets Preliminary OK of "Cardenas" Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit captioned Cardenas et. al. v. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 23, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of the class action previously disclosed in the periodic filings of John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., entitled Cardenas et. al. v. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. Final approval of the proposed settlement is scheduled to occur in the District Court on September 8, 2011. Information regarding the proposed settlement is set forth in a Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Notice of Collective Action and Proposed Settlement. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in a collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and alleges violations of Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia and California State Law in a class action. The Lawsuit seeks back payment for non-payment of wages (including overtime), interest, liquidated damages, penalties and attorney's fees. As used in the Notice, the term "class members" refers to current and former JBSS non-union, non-office, hourly employees of JBSS who worked for JBSS from February 26, 2007 - February 25, 2011. Specifically, the Class Representatives, Teresa Cardenas, Thomas Young, Isaias Martinez, Jose Luis Vasquez, and Samuel Trinidad, on behalf of all class members under the FLSA and State laws, allege that John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. rounded employees' punch-in and punch-out time incorrectly, which resulted in less time being paid to affected employees and did not pay employees for all time worked. The lawsuit also claims that certain Illinois employees should have been compensated for time spent donning and doffing uniforms and related equipment and for related time by virtue of the physical layout of the Elgin facility and local pay practices and policies. JBSS has denied and continues to deny the allegations in the Lawsuit and contends that its policies and practices regarding compensation were proper and in compliance with the laws at all times. JBSS wishes to settle this litigation, however, to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation but does not admit to any wrongdoing or liability. KAHN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 35 Baby Hats Due to Asphyxiation Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- About 35 Beeni Baby Hats were voluntarily recalled by Kahn Enterprises LLC, of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A baby can spit up during use, posing an asphyxiation hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled baby hats are made of cotton and spandex. They have two straps sewn to the sides and a removable plastic pacifier holder. The hat is available in sizes small, medium and large, and in pink, blue, green, flower print, blue stripe and blue print. Model number 125867 is on a tag sewn into the back inner rim of the cap. A picture of the recalled products is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11741.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at Beeni Baby's Web site http://www.beeni.net/ from January 2009 through May 2011 for about $25. Consumers should immediately stop using the hats and contact Kahn Enterprises to receive a full refund. Kahn Enterprises will provide consumers with a postage paid label to return the product. The firm is directly contacting consumers who purchased the recalled baby hats. For additional information, e-mail Kahn Enterprises at info@beeni-kids.com, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.beeni.net/or call the firm collect at (612) 310-4053. KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Services Inc. is awaiting final court approval of an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the Company, according to its May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2011. The Company is the subject of two pending class action lawsuits. The two lawsuits, Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc. and Kelly Home Care Services, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, and Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California, both involve claims for monetary damages by current and former temporary employees working in the State of California. The Fuller matter involves claims relating to alleged misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not entitled to overtime compensation under state law and to alleged technical violations of a state law governing the content of employee pay stubs. On April 30, 2007, the Court in the Fuller case certified both plaintiff classes involved in the suit. In the third quarter of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date for its motions related to summary judgment on both certified claims. On March 13, 2009, the Court granted Kelly's motion for decertification of the classes. Plaintiffs filed a petition for review on April 3, 2009 requesting the decertification ruling be overturned. Plaintiffs' request was granted on May 17, 2010 and the suit was recertified as a class action. The Sullivan matter relates to claims by temporary workers for compensation while interviewing for assignments. On April 27, 2010, the Court in the Sullivan matter certified the lawsuit as a class action. The parties have submitted a proposed settlement to the Court for final approval. LIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Sued for Failing to Comply with IWAA ---------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Morris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lighthouse Financial Group of Illinois Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-19536 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 31, 2011), seeks redress for the conduct of defendant in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Wage Assignment Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that the arbitration clause that Lighthouse includes in its loan agreements is unenforceable. The arbitration clause purports to require plaintiff to arbitrate any dispute he has with defendant. Mr. Morris is a resident of Cook County in Illinois. Defendant Lighthouse Financial Group of Illinois, Inc., a Florida corporation, is engaged in the consumer loan business, and operates 3 loan offices in Illinois "from which it makes loans at high rates of interest (over 100%)." On Aug. 10, 2010, plaintiff borrowed $475 from defendant for personal, family, or household purposes. In connection with the transaction, plaintiff executed a "Wage Assignment". Allegedly, to enforce the wage assignment, Lighthouse served a document on plaintiff's employer, Pitney Bowes Management Services. According to the Complaint, the document falsely appears to emanate from the Circuit Court and is contrived to convey the false impression that the Circuit Court has become involved in collecting debt. Although Lighthouse has not filed a lawsuit against plaintiff, the employer believed that it had been served with a wage garnishment document and notified plaintiff that his wages were being garnished. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Catherine A. Ceko, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com LOGITECH INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Results -------------------------------------------------- Logitech International S.A. is facing a class action lawsuit relating to its disclosure that its results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against Logitech and certain of its officers. This action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares between October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011. The complaint relates to Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011 that its results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants. The Company believes the lawsuit and claims are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against them. However, there can be no assurances that its defenses will be successful, or that any judgment or settlement in any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. The Company's accruals for lawsuits and claims as of March 31, 2011, were not material. MEDCATH CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Knox-Keene Violation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- During October 2009, a purported class action law lawsuit was filed by an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital, a consolidated subsidiary of MedCath Corporation. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that under California law, and specifically under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975 and under the Health and Safety Code of California, California prohibits the practice of "balance billing" for patients who are provided emergency services. On November 24, 2010, the court granted the Bakersfield Heart Hospital's motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. NICOR INC: Signs MOU to Settle Suits vs. Proposed AGL Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicor Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolve class action lawsuits commenced in connection with its proposed merger with AGL Resources Inc., according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, Nicor Inc. and the other named defendants signed a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the previously disclosed consolidated shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division and the previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, both of which are related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of December 6, 2010, by and among AGL Resources Inc., Apollo Acquisition Corp., Ottawa Acquisition LLC and Nicor. The memorandum of understanding provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the release of all asserted claims. The asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. Additionally, as part of the memorandum of understanding, Nicor and AGL Resources have agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger. Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek, and the defendants have agreed to pay, an award of attorneys fees and expenses of $675,000, subject to court approval. This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger or the timing of the special meeting of Nicor shareholders scheduled for June 14, 2011, in Chicago, Illinois or AGL Resources shareholders, scheduled for June 14, 2011 in Atlanta, Georgia. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Can Amend Complaint vs. NMFC ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs of the purported class action lawsuit against NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation in New York have been granted leave to amend their complaint, according to NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company, and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the Court granted, with leave to amend, on March 31, 2011. The Company says it cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the case and expects to defend the case vigorously. NUCOR CORP: Class Action Lawsuits in Illinois Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Nucor Corporation continues to defend itself from class action lawsuits filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in Illinois, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2011. Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The cases are filed as class actions. The plaintiffs allege that from January 2005 to the present, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Although the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against them, it cannot at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's potential exposure. NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Enforce Deal in Calif. Class Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion filed by a group of purported class members that seek enforcement of a settlement in a consolidated lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation alleging product defects, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2011. In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the Company's previous generation products used in notebook configurations. Most of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court in the Northern District of California, but three were filed in state court in California, in Federal Court in New York, and in Federal Court in Texas. Those three actions have since been removed or transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, where all of the actions now are currently pending. The various lawsuits are titled Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp., Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard, Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard, Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp., National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., and West v. NVIDIA Corp. The First Amended Complaint was filed on October 27, 2008, which no longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc. The various complaints assert claims for, among other things, breach of warranty, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Sections 17200 and 17500 of the Business & Professions Code and other consumer protection statutes under the laws of various jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict liability. The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the cases related under the relevant local rules. On December 11, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the aforementioned consumer class action cases. On February 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the cases, as well as two other cases pending against Hewlett Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2, 2009. On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, Section 1792 of the Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On August 19, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on that motion on October 19, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27 other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to dismiss as to the other causes of action. The Court gave plaintiffs until December 14, 2009 to file an amended complaint. On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On January 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In addition, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all people who purchased computers containing certain of the Company's media and communications processor, or MCP, and graphics processing unit, or GPU, products. On May 3, 2010, the Company filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010. On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. The settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals, including final approval by the court. As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges the Company recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the implementation of these settlements. On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the potential class members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections. In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 28, 2011, a group of purported class members filed a motion with the District Court purporting to seek enforcement of the settlement. The Motion claimed that NVIDIA was not properly complying with its obligations under the settlement in connection with the remedies provided to purchasers of Hewlett-Packard computers included in the settlement. On March 4, 2011, NVIDIA and Class Counsel at Milberg LLP filed oppositions to the Motion. The Court held a hearing on March 28, 2011, and denied the Motion on May 2, 2011. NVIDIA CORP: Hearing Set for July 28 on Motion to Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is currently scheduled for July 28, 2011, to consider NVIDIA Corporation's motion to dismiss a second consolidated amended complaint in the consolidated securities litigation against the Company, according to its May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2011. In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of the Company's announcements on July 2, 2008, that the Company would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the Company's previous generation media and communications processor, or MCP, and graphics processing unit, or GPU, products and that the Company was revising financial guidance for the Company's second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel. On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010, and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss on February 14, 2011, and a hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for July 28, 2011. OCLARO INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the order granting the global settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit against Oclaro, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. On June 26, 2001, the first of a number of securities class actions was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against New Focus, Inc., now known as Oclaro Photonics, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters for New Focus' initial and secondary public offerings. A consolidated amended class action complaint, captioned In re New Focus, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 5822, was filed on April 20, 2002. The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in New Focus' initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages for claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from May 17, 2000 to December 6, 2000. The lawsuit against New Focus is coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging underwriter practices in over 300 cases, as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions against Bookham Technology plc, now known as Oclaro Technology Ltd. and Avanex Corporation, now known as Oclaro (North America), Inc., and certain of each entity's respective officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of their public offerings. In October 2002, the claims against the directors and officers of New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex were dismissed, without prejudice, subject to the directors' and officers' execution of tolling agreements. The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, and New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex will bear no financial liability. New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, will receive complete dismissals from the case. Certain objectors have appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If for any reason the settlement does not become effective, the Company believes that Bookham Technology, New Focus and Avanex have meritorious defenses to the claims and therefore believe that such claims will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. PETSMART INC: Suits Over 2007 Pet Food Recalls Concluded -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey reconfirmed on remand the settlement in a multidistrict proceeding captioned In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation; thus, concluding the lawsuits with no material impact on PetSmart Inc.'s financial statements, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2011. Beginning in March 2007, the Company was named as a party in lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers. The plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products. The lawsuits are: * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 3/23/07); * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07); * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07); * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA (filed 4/10/07); * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07); * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07); * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07); * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07); * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07); * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British Columbia (filed 3/23/07); * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba (filed 3/30/07); and * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 3/28/07). By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl, Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867). The Canadian cases were not consolidated. On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for court approval. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final approval on November 3, 2008. No appeals were filed in Canada and although an appeal of the U.S. settlement was filed in 2009, on April 5, 2011, the District Court reconfirmed on remand the settlement in its entirety, thus, concluding these cases with no material impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements. POSTROCK ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit in Kansas Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Postrock Energy Corporation continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed by royalty owners in Kansas. The Company has been named defendant in a putative class action, brought on behalf of all royalty owners in the Kansas portion of the Cherokee Basin. Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to properly make royalty payments by, among other things, paying royalties based on sale volumes rather than wellhead volumes, by allocating expenses in excess of actual costs, by improperly allocating production costs and marketing costs to royalty owners, and by failing to pay interest on royalty payments made late. The Company has filed an answer, denying plaintiffs' claims. No class certification hearing has yet been scheduled. The parties have participated in multiple mediation sessions with the most recent in January 2011 and continue to engage in settlement discussions. The parties have agreed to a period of limited discovery with another mediation to occur thereafter. If the matter cannot be resolved at that time, the case will proceed with general discovery, a class certification hearing, and a trial on the merits. No updates were reported in the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. PostRock Energy Corporation is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, production and gathering of crude oil and natural gas. It manages its business in two segments, production and pipeline. Its production segment is focused in the Cherokee Basin, a 15-county region in southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma. It also has minor oil producing properties in Oklahoma and gas producing properties in the Appalachia Basin. The pipeline segment consists of a 1,120 mile interstate natural gas pipeline, which transports natural gas from northern Oklahoma and western Kansas to Wichita and Kansas City. PostRock was formed in 2009 to combine its predecessor entities, Quest Resource Corporation, Quest Energy Partners, L.P. and Quest Midstream Partners, L.P. into a single company. In March 2010, it completed the recombination of these entities. PRUDENTIAL PLC: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Prudential Public Limited Company's business unit, Jackson National Life Insurance Company, continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Jackson is involved as a defendant in class action and other litigation substantially similar to class action and other litigation pending against many life insurance companies that allege misconduct in the sale and administration of insurance products. Jackson generally accrues a liability for legal contingencies with respect to pending litigation once management determines that the contingency is probable and estimable. Accordingly, at April 15, 2011, Jackson had recorded an accrual of $29 million for class action litigation. Management, based on developments to date, believes that the ultimate disposition of the litigation is not likely to have a material impact on Jackson's financial condition or results of operations. QANTAS: Settles Class Action Over Fuel Surcharge for AU$2.1 Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Jones, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that Qantas will pay approximately AU$2.1 million to more than 200 travel agents as the four-and-a-half-year fuel surcharge class action against Qantas concluded on May 30. The money is expected to be paid to retailers in the next month. Steven Lewis, from law firm Slater and Gordon which has represented agents since filing the action in December 2006, heralded the end of the Qantas action, describing it as a "breakthrough win' for travel agents. Not only has it resulted in agents being awarded back paid commission on the fuel levy, but it prompted many airlines, including Qantas, to begin paying commission on surcharges, he said. "It's a good outcome that has past and future benefits," Mr. Lewis told Travel Today. "It's a good outcome for those agents who stuck through the whole process, but all travel agents, including the multiples who opted out of the class action, have got the benefit of the judgment because they are all getting commission on fuel surcharges going forward." He added that the AU$2.1 million, an amount reached after painstaking sales analysis, should be distributed before the end of the financial year, at the end of June. Mr. Lewis estimated that around 220 agents who remained part of the class action actually made a claim against Qantas and will receive a share of the money. While the case against the flying kangaroo is at an end -- although the amount Qantas must pay in costs has yet to be finalized -- it is not the end of the saga. Attention will now switch to four other carriers named in the original action; Air New Zealand, Cathay Pacific, British Airways and Singapore Airlines. Those who didn't make a claim against Qantas are still able to make claims against the four other airlines. No date has yet been fixed for a hearing into the remaining cases. SANDISK CORP: Conference in Indirect Purchasers' Suit Set June 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case management conference is scheduled for June 23, 2011, in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against SanDisk Corporation by indirect purchaser plaintiffs, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2011. Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was sued in the Northern District of California, in eight purported class action complaints. On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the Northern District of California in a purported class action captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086. Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of profits. The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. On March 31, 2010, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion, and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to substitute certain class representatives. On April 5, 2011, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the class certification decision and on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) petition to the Ninth Circuit to request permission to appeal that decision. A settlement conference with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs was scheduled for May 13, 2011 and a case management conference is scheduled for June 23, 2011. SANDISK CORP: Court to Hear "Ritz" Class Certification on Nov. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California will convene a hearing on November 15, 2011, to consider the motion for class certification in the class action lawsuit filed against SanDisk Corporation by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2011. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, Case No. 5:10-cv- 02787-HRL, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. The Company filed a motion requesting that the Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of its Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. A hearing on that motion was scheduled for May 6, 2011. The Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz's allegations of wrongdoing. Discovery is just beginning and under the current schedule a class certification hearing is scheduled for November 15, 2011, and trial is scheduled for August 20, 2012. SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the order approving the settlement in the consolidated lawsuit against SciQuest, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. In 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in several securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York originating from its December 1999 initial public offering. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the prospectus used in the Company's initial public offering contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the underwriters' allocation practices and compensation and that the underwriters manipulated the aftermarket for the Company's stock. These complaints were consolidated along with similar complaints filed against over 300 other issuers in connection with their initial public offerings. After several years of litigation and appeals related to the sufficiency of the pleadings and class certification, the parties agreed to a settlement of the entire litigation, which was approved by the Court on October 5, 2009. Notices of appeal to the Court's order have been filed by various appellants. The Company has not incurred significant costs to date in connection with its defense of these claims since this litigation is covered by its insurance policy. The Company believes it has sufficient coverage under its insurance policy to cover its obligations under the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Company believes the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have an impact on its financial position and, therefore, it has not accrued a contingent liability as of March 31, 2011 or December 31, 2010 related to this litigation. ST. JUDE: Still Defends Class Action Lawsuits in Canada ------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., is still defending itself against class action lawsuits filed in Ontario and British Columbia, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. The Company has two outstanding class action cases in Ontario and one individual case in British Columbia by the Provincial health insurer. In Ontario, a class action case involving Silzone patients has been certified, and the trial on common class issues began in February 2010. The testimony and evidence submissions for this trial were completed in March 2011, and closing briefing and argument is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 2011. Depending on the Court's ruling in this common issues trial, there may be further proceedings, including appeal, in the future. A second case seeking class action status in Ontario has been stayed pending resolution of the ongoing Ontario class action. The complaints in the Ontario cases request damages up to 2.0 billion Canadian Dollars (the equivalent of $2.1 billion at April 2, 2011). Based on the Company's historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed. The British Columbia Provincial health insurer has a lawsuit seeking to recover the cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished to class members in the British Columbia class action resolved in 2010, and that lawsuit remains pending in the British Columbia court. ST. JUDE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ St. Jude Medical, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its request to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. In March 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated orders for CRM devices. Class members allege that the Company's failure to disclose the information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. In October 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was heard by the district court in April 2011. ST. JUDE: Court Approval of "AGA Medical" Suits Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ St. Jude Medical, Inc., is awaiting execution and court approval of a stipulation of settlement pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs of two putative class action lawsuits related to its acquisition of AGA Medical, Inc., according to the Company's May 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011. In connection with the acquisition of AGA Medical Inc., the Company, in addition to AGA Medical and other defendants, has been named as a defendant in two putative stockholder class action complaints, one filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Minnesota and the other filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, both in October 2010. The plaintiffs in the complaints allege, among other claims, that AGA Medical's directors breached their fiduciary duties to AGA Medical's stockholders by accepting an inadequate price, failing to make full disclosure and utilizing unreasonable deal protection devices and further alleges that AGA Medical and the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief, including to enjoin the transaction, in addition to unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, other fees and costs and other relief. The acquisition of AGA Medical was completed on November 18, 2010 and the parties to this action entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in November 2010 to settle the litigation, the amount of which was not material. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to several conditions, including the negotiation and execution of a stipulation of settlement and the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery. STATER BROS: "O'Connor" Suit Settlement Amount Recorded ------------------------------------------------------- In December 2008, an action by Dennis M. O'Connor, et al. was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary Santee Dairies, Inc., dba Heartland Farms (now SBM Dairies, Inc.) seeking individual and potential class action monetary damages for time spent by non-exempt hourly paid employees for changing into and out of sanitary uniforms. On September 23, 2010, following mediation the case was settled. Under the settlement agreement, the settlement amount will be paid pursuant to procedures for filing and approval of claims for members of the certified class with a portion of any unclaimed amounts returned to SBM Dairies, Inc. The full settlement amount has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010. No updates were reported in the Company's May 11, 2011, filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2011. Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries are the largest privately owned supermarket chain in Southern California. STERIS CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Winter Haven Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- STERIS Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement of a lawsuit filed by Winter Haven LLC, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer that claims to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS, Physicians of Winter Haven LLC d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio). The complaint alleges statutory violations, breaches of various warranties, negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, and other legal and equitable relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and an order requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately repair the product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action. On February 7, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in which it agreed, among other things, to provide various categories of economic relief for members of the settlement class and not object to plaintiff's counsel's application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to a specified amount. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court. Both certification of a settlement class and final approval of the settlement require approval of the court and satisfaction of certain other conditions. The Company says there is no assurance that the court will take such actions, that such conditions will be satisfied, or that this matter will be resolved, or be resolved consistent with the terms and conditions of such settlement agreement. During the third quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recorded in operating expenses a pre-tax charge of approximately $19,796 related to the proposed settlement of these proceedings. The assumptions regarding the amount of this charge include, among others, the portion of class members participating in the settlement and their choice of the categories of economic relief available for such members. These assumptions may be incorrect and the costs of the settlement may be higher or lower than the charge recorded. The actual settlement could be as low as $7,000 and as high as $22,000 depending on the options selected by the class members. This putative class action or other civil, criminal, regulatory or other proceedings involving the Company's SYSTEM 1, SYSTEM 1E, EPS System, or other products or services could possibly result in judgments, settlements or administrative or judicial decrees requiring the Company, among other actions, to pay damages or fines or effect recalls, or be subject to other governmental, Customer or other third party claims or remedies, which could materially affect the Company's business, performance, prospects, value, financial condition, and results of operations. TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Class Suit in Canada Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class suit brought by two franchisees against Tim Hortons Inc. remains pending before a Canadian court, according to the Company's May 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2011. On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower franchisee profitability. The claim, which seeks class action certification on behalf of Canadian restaurant owners, asserts damages of approximately $1.95 billion. Those damages are claimed based on breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment and price maintenance. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the putative class in May of 2009, and the Company filed its responding materials as well as a motion for summary judgment in November of 2009. The two motions are scheduled to be heard together in August 2011. The Company continues to believe the claim is without merit and will not be successful, and the Company intends to oppose the certification motion and defend the claim vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the outcome of the claim will be favourable to the Company or that it will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or liquidity in the event that the ultimate determinations by the Court and/or appellate court are not in accordance with the Company's evaluation of this claim. Tim Hortons Inc. -- http://www.timhortons.com/-- is a Canadian coffee shop known for its coffee and doughnuts. It was founded in 1964 in Hamilton, Ontario by Canadian hockey player Tim Horton and Jim Charade, after an initial venture in hamburger restaurants. TMX FINANCE: Expects Class Settlement Administration to Begin July ------------------------------------------------------------------ TMX Finance LLC expects class settlement administration to begin in the next 60 days in connection with the class action lawsuit commenced by Reginald Dwight, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On August 6, 2004, Reginald Dwight filed a class action lawsuit titled Reginald Dwight, et al v. TitleMax of Tennessee, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, against the Company's subsidiary, TitleMax of Tennessee, Inc., or "TMT." The complaint alleges, among other things, that TMT entered into loan agreements which contained interest rates in excess of the maximum rate allowed under Tennessee law. The plaintiffs sought damages allowed under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act as well as punitive damages. TMT denied all of the material allegations in the action. The parties have agreed to settle this action for $93,000, and on April 12, 2010, the parties notified the bankruptcy court of their agreement to settle this action. The action has been remanded to state court, and the parties expect class settlement administration to begin in the next 60 days. TMX FINANCE: Faces Suit in Missouri for Not Paying Overtime Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- TMX Finance LLC's subsidiary, TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., is facing a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri, alleging failure to pay certain employees overtime compensation, according to the Company's May 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On February 10, 2011, Mignon Norfolk filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri, against the Company's subsidiary, TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., or "TMM," and a TMM District Manager. The complaint alleges, among other things, that TMM failed to pay certain employees overtime compensation as required by Missouri law. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, a judgment for an amount equal to plaintiff's unpaid compensation, as well as liquidated damages. The Company says the litigation is currently in its very early stages, and it is too early to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this action. TWILIO INC: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Text Message Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Glauser, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Twilio, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-cv-02584 (N.D. Calif. May 27, 2011), is a class action complaint against defendants Twilio, Inc., and GroupMe, Inc., seeking to stop defendants' practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Plaintiff brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited voice and text calls to cell phones. Mr. Glauser is a natural person and citizen of the state of Virginia. Twilio, Inc., is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 548 Market St., in San Francisco, Calif. GroupMe, Inc., is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 26 W 17th St., in New York City. Plaintiff relates that at no time did he consent to the receipt of the text messages or any other such wireless spam text messages transmitted by and through defendants. On April 23, 2011, plaintiff received a text call from defendants. The text message was not initiated or consented to by plaintiff. Almost immediately after receiving this text message, plaintiff received a second message, advertising GroupMe's mobile application. A copy of the Complaint in Glauser v. Twilio, Inc., Case No. 11- cv-02584 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/CCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Christopher L. Dore, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com cdore@edeIson.com UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Universal Hospital Services, Inc., is awaiting court approval of the settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuit In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, according to the Company's May 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On February 6, 2011, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc. or Sunrise Merger Sub, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Emergent Group Inc., pursuant to which the Company and Sunrise Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of Emergent Group's common stock at a purchase price of $8.46 per share in cash, followed by a merger of Sunrise Merger Sub with and into Emergent Group with Emergent Group surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The Merger was completed on April 1, 2011. Three putative shareholder class action complaints challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement were filed on behalf of three separate plaintiffs in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles against Emergent Group, UHS, Sunrise Merger Sub and the individual members of the Emergent Group Board. One was filed on February 22, 2011 by Brian McManus, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, a second was filed on February 28, 2011 by Bryan Lamb, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and the third was filed on March 2, 2011 by Leena Dave, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Emergent Group Board breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of Emergent Group by attempting to sell Emergent Group by means of an unfair process with preclusive deal protection devices at an unfair price of $8.46 in cash per Share and by entering into the Merger Agreement, approving the Offer and the proposed Merger, engaging in self dealing and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Emergent Group to its public shareholders. The complaints further allege that Emergent Group, UHS and Sunrise Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition, the complaints allege that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restricted Emergent Group's ability to negotiate with rival bidders. The complaints sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger and other forms of equitable relief. On March 22, 2011, the Court ordered the consolidation of the lawsuits for all purposes, and renamed the consolidated lawsuits In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation. On March 24, 2011, a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the consolidated lawsuits was agreed to by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. While the Defendants deny the allegations made in the complaints, they agreed to enter into the MOU to avoid the costs and disruptions of any further litigation and to permit the timely consummation of the Offer and the Merger. The MOU, among other things, provides that Emergent Group will amend its Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental disclosures and that the final settlement agreement concerning the action will require the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to seek an order enjoining all proceedings in connection with the consolidated lawsuits and any additional actions alleging claims that are released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the MOU provides that the Settlement Agreement will include a release by the Plaintiffs and the settlement class in favor of the Defendants and their related parties from any claims that arose pursuant to or are related to the Offer or the Merger. The Defendants have agreed that Emergent Group or its successor or their respective insurers will pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses as are awarded by the court not to exceed $225,000, subject to court approval of the Settlement Agreement and the consummation of the Offer and the Merger. The Defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits, and specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, the Defendants considered it desirable that the consolidated lawsuits be settled primarily to avoid the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the consolidated lawsuits being settled. In addition, Emergent Group desired to provide additional information to its stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Offer or the Merger. Universal Hospital Services, Inc., is a nationwide provider of medical equipment management and service solutions to the United States health care industry. VERTRUE LLC: Settles Class Action over Membership Programs ---------------------------------------------------------- The Garden City Group, Inc., on May 31, disclosed that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that Vertrue LLC and Adaptive Marketing LLC violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, when telemarketers enrolled consumers in Adaptive membership programs, and Adaptive charged the consumers' debit cards without first obtaining and providing the consumers with copies of their signed written authorization. Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and the Court has not decided who is right or wrong. Some of Adaptive's membership programs include: 24 Protect Plus, At Home Rewards, Connections, Galleria USA, Home Works, Passport to Fun, PremierHealth Plus, Privacy Plus, Shopping Essentials, Today's Escapes, and Value Max. For a complete list, visit: http://www.debitcardsettlement.com You are included in the settlement class if you were enrolled in one or more of Adaptive's membership programs before January 1, 2007, during a telemarketing call, and membership fees were charged to your debit card for the first time on or after March 14, 2005. If you are included in this settlement class, your legal rights are affected. You have a choice to either complete a Claim Form to receive the settlement benefit, or, if you do not want to be bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself. If you take no action, you will not receive a cash settlement benefit and you will give up your right to sue Defendants for any alleged violation of the EFTA. If you complete the Claim Form and your claim is deemed valid, you are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $150 for each membership program charged to your debit card during the relevant timeframe without your prior signed written authorization. If the total value of valid claims submitted exceeds the Maximum Aggregate Settlement Amount of approximately $300,000, each class member's actual settlement payment will be reduced proportionately. To submit a Claim Form, visit www.debitcardsettlement.com or call the toll-free number to get one. Claim Forms must be postmarked by December 31, 2011, and must be deemed valid by the Claims Administrator in order to qualify for cash payment. If you are a class member and do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by August 8, 2011. By excluding yourself you will maintain your right to sue Defendants for the EFTA claims covered by the settlement, but you will not be eligible for a cash payment. The full Notice on the Web site describes how to exclude yourself. The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Wike v. Vertrue, Inc. et al., No. 3:06-0204, to consider whether to approve the settlement, including the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to the lawyers who filed this class action, and a service payment to the class representative. The hearing will be held in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on September 16, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., Central time. If you stay in the settlement, you may also write to the Court to comment in favor of, or in opposition to, the settlement by August 8, 2011. You may appear at the hearing, but do not have to. Please consult the full Notice for more information. You can obtain a copy of the full Notice, which explains your rights and how to obtain settlement benefits in more detail at http://www.debitcardsettlement.comor, for additional information, contact the Claims Administrator at: Membership Program Debit Card Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9723, Dublin, OH 43017- 5623 or Toll Free: 1-877-790-8171. WONDER AUTO: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, on June 1, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Wonder Auto Technology, Inc. On February 23, 2011, Wonder Auto Technology, Inc., disclosed that its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2008, and 2009, as well as the financial statements included in its Quarterly Reports for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and September 30 during each of the years 2008 and 2009 should no longer be relied upon due to a cutoff error regarding timing of revenue in such periods. As a result, on March 17, 2011, Wonder Auto notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that it would be unable to timely file its 2010 Annual Report. On May 6, 2011, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted trading in Wonder Auto's common stock. On May 12, 2011, Wonder Auto issued a press release stating that the Audit Committee was investigating certain investment and acquisition transactions. Trading in Wonder Auto's stock continues to be halted pending Wonder Auto providing a satisfactory plan of compliance with the NASDAQ listing rules. A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging claims on behalf of persons who purchased Wonder Auto securities from May 14, 2008, through May 6, 2011, for violations of the federal securities laws. IF YOU PURCHASED WONDER AUTO COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 14, 2008 THROUGH MAY 6, 2011 AND YOU WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF IN THIS ACTION, YOU MUST MOVE THE COURT NO LATER THAN AUGUST 1, 2011. ANY MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS MAY MOVE THE COURT TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF THROUGH COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE, OR MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AND REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS. If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact: Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. Ximena Skovron, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Toll Free: (800) 440-8986 E-mail: info@aftlaw.com xskovron@aftlaw.com Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in securities class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services. In addition, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience litigating federal securities law claims involving Chinese companies and employs attorneys fluent in Mandarin Chinese. ********* 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 * * *