/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110614.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 116 Headlines AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From Kasin Suit Settlement Pending BIG LOTS: Awaits Dismissal of FLSA-Violation Suit in New York BIG LOTS: Awaits Case Mgmt. Conference Scheduling in "Sample" Suit BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Seals" Class Action Suit BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Avitia" Wage & Hour-Violation Suit BP: Investors' Lawyers Redact Parts of Amended Class Action Suit CATHAY FOREST: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada CKX Inc: Settles Acquisition-Related Consolidated Suit DOW CHEMICAL: June 27 Hearing Set for Dioxin Class Action EQT PRODUCTION: Questioned Over Natural Gas Royalties FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Assigned to District Judge Murphy FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in Kansas FORD MOTOR: Sued for Misrepresenting Sync Navigation System GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action Over Avandia Diabetes Drug GREG MORTENSON: Sued Over "Three Cups of Tea" Book HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 1,600 TuffTorq Yard Tractors KELLOGG'S: Nov. 16 Class Action Claims Filing Deadline Set KINGSTON, AUSTRALIA: Residents Mull Class Action Over Toxic Odor KRAFT FOODS: Douglas Phebus Joins Plaintiff's Team in Class Suit LA FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Membership Termination Fee NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Dismissed From 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation NAVISTAR INT'L: Units Face Suit in Canada Over Ford Vehicles PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Coordinate 3 Suits PROLOGISTIX: Warehouse Employees File Wage Class Action ULTA SALON: Awaits Final Approval of California Suit Settlement WILLIAM FRY: Thema Investors File Class Action ********* AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From Kasin Suit Settlement Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the final approval of a settlement in the securities class action lawsuit against Agilent Technologies, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain investment bank underwriters for the Company's initial public offering, Agilent and various of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act. On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the Court. Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims. However, class certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several "test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more modest class." On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a stipulation among the parties. Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed amended complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve Agilent). Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties have again reached a global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 2, 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial liability. Agilent, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors have appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal remains pending. BIG LOTS: Awaits Dismissal of FLSA-Violation Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting the dismissal of a lawsuit in New York pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees ("New York matter"). In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the state of New York. The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and order rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant store managers working in the Company's New York stores. On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional class certification under federal law, class certification under state law and class notice. On May 14, 2010, the Company filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's motion. On January 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court deny the plaintiff's motion. On March 17, 2011, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied the plaintiff's motion. On May 31, 2011, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiff to resolve the New York matter. The Company currently awaits the Court's dismissal of the New York matter. The Company says the New York matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. BIG LOTS: Awaits Case Mgmt. Conference Scheduling in "Sample" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting the scheduling of the initial case management conference in the "Sample" lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims ("Sample matter"). The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating, and attorneys' fees and costs. In July 2010, the Company answered the plaintiff's complaint and filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On August 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the United States District Court, Northern District of California remand this lawsuit to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. On November 30, 2010, the United States District Court, Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the Sample matter to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. The Company is awaiting the scheduling of the initial case management conference. The Sample matter is similar in nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company adds that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend itself against remaining claims in the class action suits filed by a California resident, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed against the Company by a California resident (the "Caron matters"). The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is similar in nature to the Seals matter, which enabled the Company to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believed these two matters overlapped and the Company successfully consolidated the two cases before the United States District Court, Central District of California. The Company believes the remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims released through the class action settlement in another lawsuit known as the Espinosa matter, which was settled in 2008. On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification motion. On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the Company's motion to deny class certification. Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company adds that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Seals" Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Big Lots, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Seals matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 29, 2009, the Court denied, with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion. On January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 2, 2010, the California Court of Appeals notified the parties that the case was fully briefed and that a hearing for oral argument will be scheduled. On April 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court's decision denying class certification. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company adds that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Avitia" Wage & Hour-Violation Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit, known as the Avitia matter, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Avitia matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated, filed an amended complaint that removed the class and representative allegations and asserted only individual actions. The Company has answered the amended complaint and are engaged in discovery. The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals matter. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Avitia matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company adds that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the Company currently believes the Avitia matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BP: Investors' Lawyers Redact Parts of Amended Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that retired investors suing BP over the Deepwater Horizon explosion claim to know what caused it, but the keys to their theory remain secret. Their lawyers redacted 13 paragraphs from an amended class action complaint they filed on May 27, in multi district litigation before U.S. Judge Keith Ellison. The redactions interrupted their narrative at pivotal moments. In paragraph 260, they described metal rams in a blowout prevention device that should have cut through pipe inside the device to seal the well. They redacted paragraph 261, five lines long, plus a paragraph of three lines without a paragraph number, indicating the quote came from a separate source. They redacted paragraph 262, ten lines long. The next paragraph started a new section alleging BP skimped on industry standards with "long string" casing rather than a safer liner that BP's peers used. Paragraph 271 argued that BP installed six components to centralize the flow of cement into clean columns when it should have installed 21. Paragraph 272 stated that a report to President Obama found the decision to use six centralizing components illuminated flaws in management and design procedures. They redacted paragraph 273, seven lines long. Paragraph 274 stated, "The centralizers were vital to the proper installation of the long string casing, the proper installation of which itself is vital to properly temporarily abandoning the well." It continued, "Despite this, BP used only six centralizers with the hope that gravity would complete the job." They redacted paragraph 275, eight lines long, and paragraph 276, three lines long, plus nine lines from a separate source. Their narrative resumed with installation of the casing a day before the explosion. Near the end, their complaint provided a table of nine decisions that increased risk while potentially saving time. They redacted the next paragraph, nine lines long. The paragraph after that declared the disaster happened due to a chain of errors resulting from a culture that failed to prioritize safety and risk management. Advancing from secrecy to rumor, they wrote "it was reported" that a broker advised clients to sell BP due to concerns over its deal with Russia's Roseneft. They wrote "it was reported" that U.S. investigators were considering manslaughter charges against BP. "These serious charges could extend to BP's management and further increase the company's existing liabilities," they wrote. They alleged BP withheld material facts from shareholders and provided inaccurate and incomplete information to them. "As a consequence, the participants did not exercise independent control over their investments in the BP Stock Fund," they wrote. They redacted the next paragraph, seven lines long. They redacted three paragraphs, 16 lines in all, about BP's savings plan investment oversight committee. Their complaint asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against BP entities, 17 directors and executives, and the oversight committee. Three investors from Florida, two from Illinois, two from Texas, one from California, and one from Maryland filed the complaint. In 2007, they allege, BP Stock Fund comprised about $3.1 billion of about $9.5 billion in assets held by their combined plans. "By the end of the class period, these amounts had fallen to approximately $1.25 billion of $7 billion in combined plan holdings," their lawyers wrote. They wrote that prudent fiduciaries would have considered themselves bound to liquidate the fund and remove or restrict it from the plans they offered. "This case is not about requiring fiduciaries to make unreasonable predictions based on speculation, but rather it is about requiring fiduciaries to make an objective analysis based on the actual state of company affairs," they wrote. They proposed a class action and wrote that they believe there are tens of thousands of class members. "Since the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it virtually impossible for individual class members to seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged," they wrote. Thomas Ajamie, Esq., and Mark Lanier, Esq., both of Houston, signed the complaint and added names of 17 other lawyers. Mr. Ajamie may be reached at: AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place - South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713.860.1600 E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com Mr. Lanier may be reached at: THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 6810 FM 1960 West Houston, Texas 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Judge Ellison presides over shareholder suits by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation. In addition to the ERISA action, he presides over claims under securities laws. CATHAY FOREST: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada ------------------------------------------------------ Siskinds LLP on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced against Cathay Forest Products Corp. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The action is brought on behalf of persons who acquired the securities of Cathay Forest Products Corp. between November 9, 2009, and February 1, 2011. At that time, the Ontario and British Columbia Securities Commissions ordered a halt to trading in Cathay Forest Products Corp.'s shares. On February 4, 2011, Cathay Forest Products Corp. issued restated financial statements and MD&A for the third quarter of 2009, the 2009 fiscal year, and the first two quarters of 2010. Trading in Cathay Forest Products Corp.'s shares has not yet resumed. Cathay Forest Products Corp. is a Canadian company whose business involves the development of tree plantations, sub-concession of harvesting rights, and log trading in the People's Republic of China as well as forest harvesting operations in Russia. It has been listed on the TSX Venture exchange since 2004 as the product of a reverse take over. Since then, it has raised capital in Canada by way of private placement on a number of occasions, and by way of a $15.25 million dollar public offering completed in December of 2009. Persons who purchased the shares of Cathay Forest Products Corp.'s securities between November 9, 2009, and February 1, 2011, are encouraged to contact Nicole Young of Siskinds LLP by phone at 1- 800-461-6166 x 2380 or by e-mail at nicole.young@siskinds.com For media enquiries, please contact Michael Robb by phone at 519- 660-7872 or by e-mail at michael.robb@siskinds.com CKX Inc: Settles Acquisition-Related Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------ CKx, Inc., has entered into an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the proposed acquisition of CKx by affiliates of Apollo Management, L.P., according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company announced on June 7, 2011, that it has agreed in principle, subject to documentation, to resolve the lawsuit brought against it and each of its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. The class action is a consolidation of four lawsuits related to the pending acquisition of CKx by Colonel Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of certain equity funds managed by Apollo Management VII, L.P. Upon approval of the settlement by the Court, all claims asserted in the litigation in Delaware and one additional claim asserted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York will be dismissed with prejudice. Under the proposed settlement, among other things, the plaintiffs' claims will be extinguished and Parent will agree voluntarily (i) that the amount due in the event the termination fee is payable to Parent under the merger agreement will be $17.5 million, (ii) that the reference to "80%" in the definition of "Superior Proposal" in the merger agreement will be deemed to be "75%"; and (iii) to extend the expiration of the tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of CKx common stock at an offer price of $5.50 per share launched by an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Offeror") on May 17, 2011, by one day to 12:00 a.m. New York City Time on June 15, 2011. As part of the proposed settlement, CKx has amended its solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 to include additional disclosures sought by the plaintiffs in the litigation. CKx continues to deny that it has engaged in any wrongful acts. The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, final approval of the Court and consummation of the pending acquisition. Upon approval of the proposed settlement by the Court, plaintiff's attorneys are expected to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by CKx. Offeror and certain other persons have filed with the SEC a combined Tender Offer Statement and Rule 13e-3 Transaction Statement filed under cover of Schedule TO that provides the terms of the tender offer. CKx has filed with the SEC a solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 that includes the recommendation of CKx's board of directors that CKx's stockholders accept the tender offer and tender their Common Shares to Offeror. The offer to purchase and related documents in connection with the tender offer contain other important terms and conditions with respect to the tender offer and should be carefully reviewed by stockholders. CKx is engaged in the ownership, development and commercial utilization of globally recognized entertainment content. CKx's current properties include the rights to the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley and Muhammad Ali, the operations of Graceland, and proprietary rights to the IDOLS and So You Think You Can Dance television brands, including the American Idol series in the United States and local adaptations of the IDOLS and So You Think You Can Dance television show formats which, collectively, air in more than 100 countries. For more information about CKx, visit its corporate Web site at http://www.CKx.com DOW CHEMICAL: June 27 Hearing Set for Dioxin Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Knake, writing for The Saginaw News, reports that residents involved in a lawsuit against Dow Chemical Co. have to wait about three weeks to learn whether the suit will retain class action status. Retired Saginaw County Judge Leopold Borrello ordered both parties in Henry V. Dow Chemical to issue a draft order due by June 27. The order requires each party to submit proposed findings, facts and a conclusion to whether the case should have class action status. Judge Borrello said he will adopt one of those orders within the week. Plaintiff Attorney Bruce Trogan said the order will allow the parties to present the judge with all the necessary facts for him to make a well-informed decision. "We'll attempt to lay it all out," he said. Dow Attorney, Kathleen Lang, Esq., said the company continues to believe the lawsuit is not a class action. The properties are too diverse to put together in one lawsuit because of the difference in land uses and dioxin levels, she said. More than 150 Saginaw County homeowners along the Tittabawassee River filed a lawsuit in March 2003. They claim Dow contaminated their properties with dioxin, and the pollution diminished property values downstream from its Midland plant. The Michigan Supreme Court in 2009 ordered Judge Borrello to revisit the lawsuit to further clarify his earlier ruling that granted class-action status for plaintiffs. If the lawsuit has class action status, Mr. Trogan said, it will involve about 2,500 Saginaw County residents. EQT PRODUCTION: Questioned Over Natural Gas Royalties ------------------------------------------------------ Claire Galofaro, writing for TriCities.com, reports that in just under two hours on June 7, U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent asked the attorney for EQT Production Co. the same question no less than four times: If the company gains nothing from encouraging land owners to split their natural gas royalties with coal companies, how could it be harmed if banned from doing so? The question, presented during a hearing in one of the half dozen class action suits pending against the state's two most powerful energy companies, is among the most contentious debates in the ongoing fight over coalbed methane royalties. For decades, EQT has encouraged landowners to sign contracts dividing their current royalties -- and often all future earnings -- with the coal owner. The plaintiffs argued that, in a last-ditch effort to cut down potential liability in the suits, the company has been scrambling to trick landowners into surrendering up to half of what they're owed. Once landowners sign an agreement -- based on half-truths and omissions, the plaintiffs contend -- the landowner would likely be exempt from joining the suit. But Wade Massie,Esq., attorney for EQT Production, maintained on June 7 that the company has no nefarious motivations for encouraging the agreements. It is simply trying to expedite the process and help people get their money from escrow. A court order banning solicitation of the agreements would interfere unnecessarily with the process, he claimed. "But what harm is caused?" Judge Sargent asked again of why EQT resists stopping the practice until the suits are resolved. Mr. Massie said a court order would infringe on the company's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. "False information has never been protected by the first amendment," Judge Sargent said. In a motion filed in May, the plaintiffs asked the court to restrict the company from goading landowners into split agreements. They attached five affidavits they consider prime examples of how EQT has distorted the law to make split agreements sound favorable to landowners. In one, a Dickenson County landowner described her interactions with the company and its agents. In October 2005, EQT sent her a letter that said ownership of coalbed methane "had not been judiciously determined in the Commonwealth of Virginia," adding that "although several cases are currently in the Circuit Court of Virginia, which should eventually address this question, it is uncertain when this matter will be resolved." The letter did not mention that the year before, the Virginia Supreme Court had, in fact, addressed the very matter and ruled in her favor. The court determined that the landowner retained sole right to the gas so long as they leased only their coal. Mr. Massie argued on June 7 that the omission was likely a mistake -- that it was an outdated form letter someone inadvertently sent to the landowner. "I don't think that's the current practice," he said. None of the five affidavits involved people actually eligible for the class action in question, Mr. Massie argued. Four of the five were written after the 2004 decision but before the pending litigation was filed. The fifth involved a woman exempt from the class action based on her leasing arrangement. Thus, he argued, the plaintiffs were unable to present a single piece of evidence suggesting the company has sent similar correspondence to anyone in the pool of potential class members, which could be hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of litigants. But the plaintiffs used the letter as an example of EQT's deceptive practices -- they tell landowners that the only way they'll ever get their money is to sign part of it away, the plaintiffs argue, and they never mention the litigation pending in federal court. If they sent them to those people, the plaintiffs reasoned, they're just as likely to send them to those who might be a part of the class action. "If this is being done, it is at best misleading," Judge Sargent said. "And at worst fraudulent." "I disagree," Mr. Massie said. Judge Sargent asked him why the company would not "look this court in the eye and say we are not doing this." He said it was a matter of what "this" meant -- the company simply informs people whose gas royalties have been escrowed that they have two options: hire an attorney or sign a split agreement. "That's 100 percent true," he said. Mr. Massie described the motion as "ironic." The pack of attorneys for the plaintiffs allege that their main goal is to release their clients' money from escrow, Mr. Massie said. With split agreements, the gas company is giving them an option to do just that and the plaintiffs are trying to prevent it. He speculated that the lawyers were simply looking out for their fee -- typically one-third of the settlement or damages paid. David Stellings, Esq., a New York-based attorney who argued the case for the plaintiffs, contested his remarks. They do not have an issue with people signing split agreements so long as it's a reasoned decision based on complete information and an accurate representation of Virginia law, he said. "There is one thing I simply do no understand," Judge Sargent said near the end of the hearing. "Why does EQT have to be in the process at all?" She asked Mr. Massie if the company profited from the agreements and if they had business associations with Range Resources, one of the coal companies included in the dispute. Mr. Massie said the two companies had an operational agreement, but no corporate or ownership ties. "I don't know anything about that," he said. "These royalties do not go to us." Judge Sargent said she would take the issue under advisement. FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Assigned to District Judge Murphy ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that class action lawyer Stephen Tillery, Esq., of St. Louis rises to guard the privacy of adolescent Facebook friends whose parents didn't guard it. Aaron Zigler, Esq., of Tillery's firm sued Facebook on behalf of two minors in federal court on June 1, claiming it makes money on advertising that shows names and faces of children. "Defendants used and continues to use plaintiffs' names and photographs for the purpose of marketing, advertising, selling and soliciting the purchase of goods and services knowing that plaintiffs, as minors, lack the capacity to consent to such use," Mr. Zigler wrote. He proposed to certify Illinois residents Melissa Dawes and Jennifer DeYong, "next friends" of the minors, to lead a national class action. He wrote that hundreds of thousands of minors belong to the class. In the alternative, he proposed a class action in Illinois, California, Ohio, Indiana and Nevada. Mr. Zigler estimated that more than 14 million U.S. residents under age 18 use Facebook. "One way in which Facebook works to increase its user base and response rate and thus its advertising revenues is by using the names and likenesses of its users to advertise its services and other products and services which it is paid to promote," he wrote. Mr. Zigler wrote that plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm and damages that include "lessening the value of plaintiffs' personal information, identity and likeness." He discounted the value of those items, however, arguing for class action due to "the relatively small size of the claims of many individual members of the class." Steven Katz, Esq., of Mr. Tillery's firm worked with Mr. Zigler on the complaint. By random draw, the district court clerk assigned the case to District Judge Patrick Murphy. His wife, Patricia Murphy of Energy, teams with Mr. Tillery in a federal suit alleging weed killer atrazine contaminates water supplies. Mr. Tillery and Patricia Murphy jointly appeared for plaintiffs in the most recent hearing before District Judge Phil Gilbert in that case, on May 12. As of June 9, the docket on the Facebook case showed nothing but the complaint. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit pending in Kansas, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint alleges that Ferrellgas violates consumer protection laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for its customers. Based on Ferrellgas' business practices, Ferrellgas believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously. FORD MOTOR: Sued for Misrepresenting Sync Navigation System ----------------------------------------------------------- Ford exaggerated and misrepresented the features in its factory- installed Sync navigation system, which can't be upgraded to get the advertised features, a class action claims in Cook County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Rouse v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 11CH20581 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/09/FordCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Rouse, Esq. Jonathan Nachsin, Esq. JONATHAN NACHSIN, P.C. 105 West Adams Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 327-1777 - and - Lance A. Raphael, Esq. Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. Allison M. Kurmhorn, Esq. CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C. 180 West Washington Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-5808 GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action Over Avandia Diabetes Drug -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that a St. Clair County man, along with dozens of others, is suing the makers of a diabetes drug alleging it causes heart problems. Melvin Reagan filed a class-action claim May 4 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against GlaxoSmithKline, SmithKline Beecham Corporation, McKesson Corporation and five unnamed defendants. According to the complaint filed on behalf of 43 patients, GSK began marketing the Type-2 diabetes medication Avandia in 1999 after receiving approval from the federal Food and Drug Administration. The drug has reportedly been prescribed to nearly six million people in the United States since then. Mr. Reagan and the other patients claim GSK knew the consumption of Avandia increased the risk of heart problems, including heart attacks and congestive heart failure, but did not warn its patients. They allege the company's own tests, performed in 2005, showed this to be true yet GSK did not put a warning label on Avandia until 2007. The class accuses GSK and McKesson of negligence, fraud, breach of warranty and misrepresentation. It asks for a judgment of more than $650,000 in damages for medical expenses, loss of income and court costs. Mr. Reagan and the class are represented by attorneys Robert G. Jones of Belleville and David R. Jones of Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-228. GREG MORTENSON: Sued Over "Three Cups of Tea" Book -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News reports that a federal class action claims Greg Mortenson and Penguin Group defrauded customers by selling them Mr. Mortenson's purportedly nonfiction book, "Three Cups of Tea," and its sequel, key parts of which allegedly were fabricated. A copy of the Complaint in Netter v. Mortenson et al., Case No. 11-cv-03915 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/09/Tea.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1010 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com - and - Robert A. Langendorf, Esq. ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, P.C. 134 N La Salle St., Ste. 1515 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-5933 E-mail: rlangendorf@comcast.net HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 1,600 TuffTorq Yard Tractors ------------------------------------------------------------ About 1,600 Husqvarna yard tractors with TuffTorq K46LD Transaxle were voluntarily recalled by Husqvarna Professional Products Inc., of Charlotte, North Carolina, 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. The yard tractor's transaxle can experience intermittent drive failure, posing a risk of reduced or lost braking ability. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall involves orange, Husqvarna yard tractors with TuffTorq K46LD transaxle. Yard tractors included in the recall have model numbers YTH23V42LS and YTH24V48LS and serial numbers ranging from 050110A001000 to 123110D999999. The first six digits of the serial number is a date code. Tractors included in the recall have a serial date range of May 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. Model and serial information is located on an identification plate attached to the underside of the seat. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11742.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at Husqvarna authorized dealers nationwide from May 2010 through December 2010 for between $2,300 and $2,800. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled yard tractors and contact Husqvarna to schedule a free repair at an authorized Husqvarna dealer. For more information, contact Husqvarna toll- free at (877) 257-6921 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.husqvarna.us/ KELLOGG'S: Nov. 16 Class Action Claims Filing Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Milstein Adelman, LLP; Jenner & Block, LLP disclosed that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about Kellogg's advertising for its Rice Krispies cereal and Cocoa Krispies cereal. The lawsuit claims the advertising was not true. Kellogg stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong. The Court did not decide who was right. If you are a Class Member, you may send in a claim form by mail or on line to receive up to $15. Please see http://www.CerealAdvertisingSettlement.com for more details. Who are the Class Members? Class Members are those who purchased, not for resale purposes, Kellogg's Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies in the United States between June 1, 2009, and March 1, 2010. What does the settlement provide? A cash fund of $2.5 million will be created to pay Class Counsel's fees and expenses, to pay a $5,000 class representative incentive award to each of three named Plaintiffs, and to reimburse Class Members for boxes of Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies they purchased, up to three boxes. Details about how much you may receive are available at http://www.CerealAdvertisingSettlement.com Kellogg also has agreed to distribute to charities that provide food to the indigent certain Kellogg branded food items that have a retail value of $2.5 million. What are Class Members' Options? To ask for cash and remain in the Class, Class Members must mail or submit a claim form online by November 16, 2011. If a Class Member does not wish to participate in the settlement, the Class Member may request exclusion from the Class by July 30, 2011. Class Members may stay in the Class and object to the settlement by July 25, 2011. Visit the Web site for important information about these options. On or before July 18, 2011, Class Counsel will submit their motion for final approval and request for attorney fees which will be available at http://www.CerealAdvertisingSettlement.comor by calling 1-888-404-8013. The Court will hold a hearing on August 29, 2011, to consider the settlement and Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses. KINGSTON, AUSTRALIA: Residents Mull Class Action Over Toxic Odor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Benett, writing for Moorabbin Leader, reports that a class action against offending tip and landfill sites in Kingston would be legally complex, but should not deter residents from fighting the odours, according to a top law firm. Residents have long been calling for action against the stinky tips. A local real estate agent and the Toxic Odour Action Group are now seeking community support for a class action. Slater & Gordon senior associate, Manisha Blencowe, Esq., said the basic criteria for a class action were that a claim had to be made on behalf of at least seven people against the same operator; that their claims arose from the same or similar circumstances; and that all those claims gave rise to a substantial common question of law or fact. "From a class-action perspective, a legal difficulty with the problems suffered by residents in the Kingston area is that the odor and dust problems appear to be caused by a number of different sites and operators," Ms. Blencowe said. "(This makes) it difficult to prove that responsibility lies with one particular operator, or to prove the portion of odor or property value impact caused by any of the various operators." Ms. Blencowe said residents should continue reporting odor concerns to the EPA. "In practical terms, the closure of poorly managed waste processing sites is likely to provide the best remedy for residents," she said. Clayton real estate agent, Damian Coad, and the newly formed Toxic Odour Action Group previously held a meeting at Westall Secondary College, where the goal was set to have 1500 people register their support with the group. KRAFT FOODS: Douglas Phebus Joins Plaintiff's Team in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that a second attorney named Phebus has joined the plaintiff's table in a proposed class action brought against Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Wisconsin attorney, Douglas Phebus, Esq., was granted pro hac vice status in the 2011 case brought by lead plaintiff Joan Jones June 3 in an order signed by Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis. Douglas Phebus, Esq., joins Joseph Phebus, Esq., of Urbana for the plaintiff. It is unclear from the case's record what familial relationship, if any, exists between the pair. It is the third case involving Kraft that Douglas Phebus has appeared pro hac vice in since February 2010. Pro hac vice standing is granted to an attorney on a case by case basis when that attorney is not licensed to practice law in a particular state or area. The attorneys represent Jones who proposes to lead a class of up to 500 workers at Kraft's Granite City plant over allegedly unpaid wages and violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act. Kraft denies the plaintiff's claims and has asked that the case be dismissed. The class has not been certified to date. Douglas Phebus also appeared pro hac vice in a case against Kraft filed in Champaign County. That case, Porter vs. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., was filed in 2010. He also appeared in a Cook County chancery case involving Kraft the same year. Ms. Jones recently won a motion to strike seven of Kraft's affirmative defenses from Judge Callis. Douglas Phebus, Esq., may be reached at: ARELLANO & PHEBUS, S.C. 1468 N. High Point Road, Suite 202 Middleton, WI 53562 Telephone: 608-827-7680 E-mail: dphebus@aplawoffice.com Joseph Phebus, Esq., may be reached at: PHEBUS & KOESTER LLP 136 West Main Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 Telephone: (217) 337-1400 E-mail: jwphebus@phebuslaw.com Kraft is represented by: Jonathan W. (Jon) Garlough, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60654-5313 Telephone: 312-832-5702 E-mail: jgarlough@foley.com The case is Madison case number 11-L-082. LA FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Membership Termination Fee ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Consumerist reports that gyms are notorious for not letting people get out of their membership contract and making it difficult to cancel. Now a settlement has been proposed in the class action lawsuit against LA Fitness for making customers pay a fee to end their contracts before the contract term was up. To get the cash payout and not just a free 45-day pass, you will have to fill out and return the claim form. For more information on the settlement visit: http://fitnessservicesettlement.com/ NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Dismissed From 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation's subsidiary, Navistar, Inc., has been dismissed as a defendant from the 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In November 2010, Brandon Burns filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. and Ford Motor Company in federal court for the Southern District of California. The Burns Action sought to certify a class of California owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford. Burns alleges that the engines in question have design and manufacturing defects. Burns asserted claims against Navistar, Inc. for negligent performance of contractual duty (related to Navistar's former contract with Ford), unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. For relief, the Burns Action sought dollar damages sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs' counsel. The Burns Action also asked the Court to award punitive damages and restitution/disgorgement. After the Burns Action was filed, nineteen additional putative class action lawsuits making materially identical allegations against Navistar, Inc. were filed in federal courts across the country (the "Additional Actions" and, collectively with the Burns Action, the "6.0 L Diesel Engine Litigation"). The Additional Actions sought to certify in several different states classes similar to the proposed California class in the Burns Action. The theories of liability and relief sought in the Additional Actions were substantially similar to the Burns Action. In December 2010, Navistar, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the Burns Action. Burns filed a response on February 14, 2011, and Navistar, Inc., filed a reply on February 22, 2011. Navistar, Inc. has filed answers and affirmative defenses in six of the Additional Actions. In April 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred fifteen of the matters to the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated pre-trial proceedings, and "tag-along" notices were filed for the remaining Additional Actions so that they would likewise be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. On May 18, 2011, all plaintiffs filed a voluntary Notice of Dismissal dismissing Navistar, Inc. without prejudice, leaving Ford as the only defendant in the 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation. NAVISTAR INT'L: Units Face Suit in Canada Over Ford Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------ Navistar International Corporation's subsidiaries, Navistar, Inc. and Navistar Canada, Inc., are facing a class action lawsuit in Canada over defects in certain Ford vehicles, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. filed a motion to authorize the bringing of a class action against Navistar, Inc. and Navistar Canada, Inc., as well as Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, in the Superior Court in Quebec, Canada. The Quebec Action seeks authorization to bring a claim on behalf of a class of Canadian owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford. Quebec alleged that the engines in question have design and manufacturing defects, and that Navistar Defendants and Ford Defendants are solidarily liable for those defects. For relief, the Quebec Action sought dollar damages sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs' counsel. The Quebec Action also asked the Court to order Navistar Defendants and Ford Defendants to recall, repair, or replace the Ford vehicles at issue free of charge. The motion to authorize the bringing of the class action is noticed for presentment on August 2, 2011. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Coordinate 3 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to coordinate three lawsuits in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. The three lawsuits are: (1) Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, filed on January 13, 2011; (2) Phillip Gleason, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 457654, filed on March 21, 2011; and (3) Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, filed on March 18, 2011. The Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaints, except for the Pfeiffer Action, seek class certification and the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative. All of the complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company filed answers denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs' claims and asserting various defenses. As the ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain, the Company says no amounts have been accrued as of June 7, 2011. Depending on the actual outcome of these cases, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have an adverse effect on the Company's operating results and cash flows. Since the allegations in all of the three cases are substantially similar, the Company filed a motion to coordinate the cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court on April 20, 2011. PROLOGISTIX: Warehouse Employees File Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Wojdyla, writing for Sun-Times Media, reports that employees of the Kraft/Cadbury warehouse in Joliet filed a class-action lawsuit on June 6 in U.S. District Court that claims they were cheated out of wages by Prologistix, the company that employs them. The employees were assisted by Warehouse Workers for Justice, the Chicago-based organization that has been working to improve conditions for Will County warehouse workers for almost two years. This is the fourth class-action lawsuit and eighth legal action taken by the organization. In the latest lawsuit, workers allege that they are owed vacation pay and they were never given written notices of their wage rates. "We worked hard to make sure that Kraft got their products to store shelves on time," said Chris Craig, who worked in the warehouse for eight months. "All we ask in return is that these companies follow the law (and) pay us the wages and benefits they owe us." A spokesman for Columbia, S.C.-based Prologistix denied the allegations. "We believe the allegations are inaccurate, as the company has treated its workers consistent with its obligations under applicable federal and state laws," said Gerald Maatman, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, who is serving as defense attorney for Prologistix. A WWJ report released last year showed that 63% of workers in Will County warehouses are temporary workers, earning poverty wages with few benefits. "It's the perma-temp issue," said WWJ coordinator Abraham Mwaura. "That's really what it comes down to. When you have that many temps, it just opens it up for abuse." Workers at the same warehouse filed complaints April 28 with the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaints alleged that DB Schenker, a German-owned company that runs the warehouse, has not addressed discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment conditions that include Nazi graffiti in the warehouse. A DB Schenker spokeswoman said at the time that the company was not aware of the complaints and that officials would conduct a "thorough and complete' investigation of the allegations. Other WWJ lawsuits all name temp agencies that have hired workers for the Walmart warehouse in Elwood: Simos Insourcing Solutions, Reliable Staffing Group and Select Remedy. All of the companies involved in the complaints have denied wrongdoing and say they abide by labor laws. ULTA SALON: Awaits Final Approval of California Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of their settlement of a putative employment class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011. In May 2010, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., and certain unnamed defendants in state court in California. The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or have been) non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. On June 21, 2010, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit. On January 12, 2011, the Company and plaintiffs engaged in a voluntary mediation. Although the Company continues to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting certain of the claims behind it, the Company agreed in principle to settle all claims of the putative class consisting of non-exempt hourly hair designers in the salon department within the California retail stores. The settlement, which is not an admission of liability, is subject to final documentation and Court approval. Counsel for the plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss without prejudice the claims of all other putative class members. The Company says the proposed settlement amount is not material. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Sec filing. WILLIAM FRY: Thema Investors File Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Dearbhail McDonald, writing for Irish Independent, reports that one of Ireland's "magic circle" law firms is fighting a US$700 million (EUR480 million) class action lawsuit by investors who lost money with Ponzi scheme fraudster Bernie Madoff. William Fry, one of the country's top five law firms, is being sued in New York in its capacity as legal adviser to Thema International, a Dublin-based hedge fund. Thema was one of the leading "feeder funds" for Mr. Madoff who is serving a 150-year jail sentence over the spectacular US$50 billion (EUR34 billion) fraud. William Fry, which is separately representing Thema in an Irish High Court action against banking giant HSBC, says the New York claim is "without foundation" and will seek to have the US case against it dismissed within weeks. Earlier last week HSBC, which acted as custodian for Thema and other funds that fed money to Mr. Madoff, made a US$62 million (EUR42 million) settlement with Thema investors. William Fry has been named, along with 'big four' auditor PwC Ireland, in the massive class action lawsuit which is set to come before a jury later this year. Solicitor Daniel Morrissey, the head of William Fry's asset management and investment funds practice, is also being sued in his capacity as a director of Thema, according to the class action complaint. Mr. Morrissey is a former chairman of the Irish Funds Industry Association. The investors claim that Thema was one of the four largest feeder funds for Mr. Madoff and collected over US$100 million (EUR68 million) in fees. Frank Bottini, a San Diego, California-based attorney who is representing investors, said he would oppose any bid by William Fry for the claim against the firm to be dismissed. Advisers "They [William Fry] have liability as lawyers for the fund," Mr. Bottini told the Irish Independent. "Thema had no real employees so the entire operation was handled by the professional advisers. Mr. Morrissey was one of the directors of Thema and he was responsible for the overall management of the fund. "We believe that Mr. Morrissey, a partner in William Fry, is conflicted because the law firm not only advised Thema but continues to act for the fund." Mr. Bottini said William Fry and PwC were being sued on a joint and several liability basis, meaning they can be pursued for all or part of the compensation sought if the case succeeds. "This is a US$600 million (EUR410 million) to US$700 million (EUR478 million) claim," he added. The investors claim that Madoff's Ponzi scheme could not have occurred without the knowledge and substantial assistance of feeder funds like Thema which engaged William Fry and PwC Ireland as its lawyers and auditors, respectively. "Unbeknownst to plaintiff and the class, Thema became a portal through which money was secretly sent to Mr. Madoff even though Thema Management and Medici (Medici Bank) were represented to the investment managers," say the investor's lawyers in a 190-page class action complaint. "But for the billions of dollars that Thema gave to Mr. Madoff, the scheme would have unravelled substantially earlier and not damaged thousands of US citizens." On June 9, William Fry issued a statement confirming it was one of about 20 defendants, including Thema and a number of global financial institutions, seeking compensation for losses stemming from the Madoff fraud. "The inclusion of William Fry in the amendment to the suit is without foundation and a motion to dismiss this US suit is scheduled to be filed later this month," said the firm. PwC refused to comment on the action. ********* 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 * * *