/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111003.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 195
Headlines
BEDFORD COUNTY, TN: Faces Class Action Over Bail Bonding System
BOND MANUFACTURING: Recalls 16,500 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Settles Investor Class Action for $10.5 Mil.
CUMULUS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
D'AGOSTINO'S PIZZERIA: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
DENDREON: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Today
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Class Action Remanded to State Court
FUEL BARONS: Recalls 14,000 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
GLOBAL CLIENT: Accused of Illegal Debt Settlement Practices
GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Alleges
GOODRICH CORP: Faces More Suit Over Proposed Sale to United Tech.
GOODRICH CORP: Sued Over Proposed Sale to United Technologies
GOV'T. OF MALTA: Class Action Draft Law for Consultation
INDIANA INVESTMENT: Loses Bid to Block Class Action Settlement
LEEDS MORELLI: Faces Class Action Over Nextel Settlement
LITTLE TIKES: Expands Recall of Toy Workshop and Tool Sets
LM IMPORT: Recalls 1,900 Toy Cars Due to Lead Paint Violation
LUMINOSITIES/WINDFLAME: Recalls 26T Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
NAKED JUICE: Sued in Calif. Over Naked Juice "All Natural" Label
NATIONAL MILK: Sued Over Allegations of Raw Milk Price Fixing
NCAA: Ex-Football Players Sue Over Lack of Medical Monitoring
OMNICARE: Faces Securities Class Action in Kentucky
REAL FLAME: Recalls 100,000 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
REEBOK: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes for $25 Million
RENTECH INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
SMART SOLAR: Recalls 1,400 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
WOODLANDS SCHOOL: Class Action Settlement Deadline Extended
* Class Action Certifications Rising in Canada
*********
BEDFORD COUNTY, TN: Faces Class Action Over Bail Bonding System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mosely, writing for Shelbyville Times-Gazette, reports that
a man suing the county over its bail bonding system is asking a
federal judge for class action status, entering a number of
exhibits in his case.
Ricky Robertson has been suing since last December, claiming that
Bedford County operates a system of setting bail for those
arrested and presented to a judicial commissioner "that is not
based on the individualized assessment of that particular person's
likelihood to flee."
He alleges violations of the 4th, 8th and 14th amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, suing the county, Deputy Kevin Roddy and "John
Does," also claiming that he was severely beaten at the jail and
that the rights of thousands of others have been violated by the
local bail bonding system.
The class action suit against Bedford County on the bail issue is
similar to litigation filed in seven other counties across the
state by Mr. Robertson's attorney Jerry Gonzalez, including
Wilson, Rutherford, Henry, Davidson, Shelby, Macon and Trousdale.
Mr. Robertson entered a memo to support his motion for class
action status, along with seven exhibits, including incident
reports, a booking sheet from 2003, records showing bond amounts
for disorderly conduct and public intoxication from 2006 to 2011,
and a 2006 Times-Gazette article about the naming of new judicial
commissioners in Bedford County.
The 2006 article mentions an ongoing lawsuit against Wilson County
filed by Mr. Gonzalez over the bail bonding matter.
According to jail records, Mr. Robertson was arrested on Nov. 28,
2009, for disorderly conduct and public intoxication and was
released on $1,500 bond. He claims that during his arrest,
Deputy Roddy and/or the unknown deputies took him from the patrol
car and forcefully pushed him into jail by lifting his handcuffed
hands high above his shoulders from the back when they arrived.
Mr. Robertson claims the more he protested about the pain, the
higher they lifted his handcuffed hands, and that he was beaten
into unconsciousness after he slammed his wallet down in front of
the booking officer. He also claims that the deputies who did not
participate in the alleged beating watched and did nothing to stop
it, and when he woke up and asked for medical treatment, the
deputies refused and laughed at him.
The suit also claims that Mr. Robertson's bail was set "based on
some rule of thumb or preset bail list" and that the county's
monetary bail requirement is a violation of due process.
He says that the system "serves to enrich bail bondsman who are
practically guaranteed a steady stream of relatively risk-free
revenue through the process of requiring all detainees to post
bonds for monetary bail."
Mr. Robertson is demanding two permanent injunctions -- one
requiring training on the appropriate use of force against inmates
and on probable cause for public intoxication, and the other
requiring the setting of bail "in a consistent manner that
comports with the requirements of due process."
BOND MANUFACTURING: Recalls 16,500 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bond Manufacturing Co., of Antioch, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 16,500 bottle and jugs of Bond Firebowl
Pourable Gel Fuel. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning. This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see
the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited. Gel
fuel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to
consumers that can be fatal.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves pourable gel fuel packaged in 32-ounce and
64-ounce plastic bottles and one-gallon plastic jugs and sold with
or without citronella oil. The label on the containers says
"Firebowl Gel Fuel" or "Firebowl Gel." The brand name "Bond" is
on some versions of the label. The fuel is poured into a
stainless steel cup in the center of ceramic firepots or other
decorative lighting devices and ignited. This recall also
includes a ceramic fire pot set of two bowls. The box says "2
pack Tabletop Gel Firebowls." These products are included:
Size Model Name Item Number UPC
---- ---------- ----------- ---
32 oz. Firebowl Gel Fuel 66140 034613661402
32 oz. Firebowl Gel Fuel
with Citronella 66201 034613662010
64 oz. Firebowl Gel Fuel 66141 034613661419
64 oz. Firebowl Gel Fuel
with Citronella 66202 034613662027
2 pack Ceramic Firebowl set 66146 034613661464
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11336.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Gordmans, Homeclick, SaveMart Supermarkets, Big R Stores, Hy-Vee
and various hardware, garden and online stores nationwide from
September 2010 until September 2011 for between $5 and $20.
Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel in
firepots and return all bottles or jugs to the company for a full
refund. For additional information, contact Bond Manufacturing
toll-free at (866) 771-2663 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web site
at http://www.bondmfg.com/
This firm is part of a larger set of pourable gel fuel recalls.
For more information, please see:
News Release: Nine Manufacturers, Distributors Announce Consumer
Recall of Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash
Fire Hazards (Sept. 1, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11315.html]
News Release: Napa Home & Garden Recalls NAPAfire and FIREGEL
Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
(June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11255.html]
OnSafety Blog: Stop Using Pourable Gel Fuels (June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/09/stop-using-pourable-gel-fuels/]
Alert: Press Statement on Gel Fuels and Other Illuminating Fuels
(June 14, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/fuels06142011.html]
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Settles Investor Class Action for $10.5 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Colonial BancGroup heads, including Auburn University
trustees Bobby Lowder and Jimmy Rane, VictoryLand owner Milton
McGregor and former Auburn head football coach Pat Dye, agreed
last week to pay investors a $10.5 million settlement, according
to U.S. District court documents obtained by the Opelika-Auburn
News.
The suit was originally filed in February of 2009.
"It makes a lot of sense for us to settle this," said Sam H.
Franklin, one of the Birmingham attorneys who represent Mr. Lowder
and the Colonial executive officers. "We went through the formal
mediation process and we were all pleased."
Mr. Franklin, who said he remains in contact with Mr. Lowder
"frequently," said it would be "incredibly expensive" for this
case to drag out in court, thus settling was the easiest and most
cost-effective alternative.
Investors -- namely four separate retirement systems -- claimed
they were lied to as Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy on
Aug. 25, 2009, and was eventually sold to BB&T.
Lead plaintiffs in the case are the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, State-Boston Retirement System, Norfolk County (Mass.)
Retirement System and the City of Brockton (Mass.) Retirement
System.
Other defendants listed include Colonial Board of Directors Sarah
H. Moore, T. Brent Hicks, Lewis E. Beville, William Britton, Jerry
Chesser, Augustus K. Clements III, Robert S. Craft, Hubert L.
Harris, Clinton O. Holdbrooks, Harold O. King, Deborah Linden,
John Ed Mathison, John Miller, Jr., Joseph D. Mussafer, William E.
Powell, III, Simuel Sippial, Jr., Edward V. Welch, Sheila P. Moody
and Kamal Hosein.
* Lowder, who represents District 2 on Auburn's Board of
Trustees, was CEO, President and Chairman of the Board at
Colonial.
* Rane, who represents District 3 on Auburn's Board of
Trustees, was on Colonial's Board of Directors. He is President
and CEO of Great Southern Wood Preserving.
* Dye, who coached at Auburn from 1981 through 1992, was also
on Colonial's Board of Directors.
* McGregor is a central figure in the infamous
Legislature/bingo vote-buying scandal. He was also on Colonial's
Board of Directors.
According to a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations
filed June 22, 2009, by the plaintiffs, "violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the securities laws (were made) arising from
alleged misstatements and omissions made in connection with
Colonial's publicly-filed financials and other alleged
misstatements made by Colonial's senior officers."
In other words . . . they were misled.
The settlement must be paid within 15 business days based on
stipulations that include the court entering the Preliminary
Approval Order and Bankruptcy Court entering the Bankruptcy Court
Approval Order.
CUMULUS: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------
AllAccess.com reports that former Classic Rock KSAN (107.7 The
Bone)/San Francisco account executive Brian Mas' class action suit
against Cumulus for violations of California employment law has
been settled, pending a hearing on October 28. A settlement was
reached after mediation by Sanford Jay Rosen on February 14 and
April 11 and agreed to by the parties on April 29, and finalized
this month.
In the settlement, Cumulus will settle all claims under the suit
for a total of $923,133.33, including $835,000 as a common fund
for paying class members and attorney's fees (21.5% of the total),
plus payments to the plaintiff and class members Patty Stanton and
Mindy Phillips, plaintiff's attorney's litigation expenses, the
mediator's fees and expenses, and other costs.
$100,000 of the $835,000 settlement fund will be allocated for
payments for failure to pay overtime, and the rest will be paid to
the class members for all other claims, including failure to pay
business expenses. Class members will be paid based on formulas
applied to their number of weeks worked during the class period.
Cumulus will also pay up to $40,000 for administration costs, and
additional incentive awards will be granted to Mr. Mas ($20,000),
Ms. Stanton ($15,000), and Ms. Phillips ($10,000) and additional
litigation expenses of $25,000 and mediator's fees of $18,133.33.
D'AGOSTINO'S PIZZERIA: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Town Pizza of Lombard, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
D'Agostino's Pizzeria II, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-
CH-33651 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 26, 2011) challenges
the Defendants' practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements.
The Plaintiff argues that the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act prohibits a person or entity from faxing or having
an agent fax advertisements without the recipient's prior express
invitation or permission. The Plaintiff contends that a junk fax
recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner.
Old Town Pizza is an Illinois corporation.
D'Agostino's Pizzeria is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Cook County, Chicago. The
Plaintiff says that the Doe Defendants will be identified in
discovery but are not presently known.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
BOCK & HATCH, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
DENDREON: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Today
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP informs investors that today is
the deadline to move the court for lead plaintiff in a class-
action lawsuit filed against Dendreon.
Investors who purchased Dendreon securities between April 29,
2010, and August 3, 2011, must move the court by today, October 3,
2011, if they wish to be considered for lead plaintiff. Investors
with losses greater than $200,000 are encouraged to contact
Peter Borkon of Hagens Berman at (510) 725-3000 or via e-mail at
dndn@hbsslaw.com
Any member of the putative class may move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of his or her choice, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Dendreon's August 3, 2011, announcement that its financial results
would be below analysts' expectations and its withdrawal of
financial projections for the full year shocked investors and
analysts alike. On the news, the company's stock dropped from a
closing price of $33.65 on August 3, 2011, to an opening price of
$12.73 on August 4, 2011. Dendreon is trading below $10 as of
this release.
Hagens Berman filed lawsuits on August 4, 2011, and August 5,
2011, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. The suits seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Dendreon securities during the Class Period. The
cases, Frias v. Dendreon, et al. and Ems v. Dendreon, et al., were
assigned numbers 2:11-cv-1291 and 2:11-cv-01294. The notice to
investors dated August 5, 2011 announced the Frias suit and the
October 3, 2011 deadline to move the court.
Dendreon has publicly stated that the reasons for withdrawing
earnings include a more gradual adoption of Provenge by doctors,
who still fear they may not or will not be reimbursed in a timely
manner.
More information about the case is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/dendreon
About Hagens Berman
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an investor-rights class-action law
firm with offices in ten cities. Founded in 1993, the firm's
mission is to represent plaintiffs in class actions and multi-
party, large-scale litigation that has the potential to protect
the rights of investors, consumers, workers and the environment.
The National Law Journal has rated Hagens Berman as one of the top
ten plaintiffs' firms in the country four out of the last five
years.
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Class Action Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that online
auto insurance company Esurance must defend itself in federal
court against a class action that claims one of its packages
offers worthless coverage, after the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled its removal from state court
was appropriate.
Lukus Keeling, representing a proposed class of over 50,000
automobile policy-holders, claimed that Esurance committed fraud
by charging for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
Policy restrictions render the package worthless, Keeling
maintained.
The case was removed to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act. But U.S. District Judge David Herndon remanded the
case to state court, determining that the amount in controversy
did not exceed the $5 million statutory minimum for federal
jurisdiction.
In the five years before the suit began, Esurance collected a net
premium of $613,894 on the coverages and paid no claims. Judge
Herndon treated this as the amount in controversy and determined
that prospective relief -- which he defined as changing a few
words and reprinting the forms -- would cost Esurance nothing. He
then determined that it would be "legally impossible" for the
class to receive $4.4 million in punitive damages and dismissed
the suit.
But the 7th Circuit questioned this analysis, finding that
requiring Esurance to change its policy would have substantial
financial consequences for the company.
"The district court wrote that the cost to Esurance would be
trivial: just reprint the forms. But this suit is about money,
not ink. If the class is right and Esurance must either stop
charging a premium or change the terms so that policyholders
receive indemnity more frequently, it will suffer a financial
loss," Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote.
The expense of restitution and prospective relief would total
approximately $2 million, the court determined. The remaining $3
million in punitive damages necessary for jurisdiction would
amount to a multiplier of five times the amount in controversy --
not an impossible award.
"We . . . do not think it 'legally impossible' for the class to
recover more than $3 million in punitive damages. Improbable,
perhaps, but not impossible," Judge Easterbrook mused.
The case was remanded to the Chicago-based federal district court
for a trial on the merits.
A copy of the decision in Keeling v. Esurance Insurance Company,
No. 11-8018 (7th Cir.), is available at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/BO19WA5K.pdf
FUEL BARONS: Recalls 14,000 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fuel Barons Inc., of Stateline, Nevada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 bottles and jugs of OZOfire(TM) Pourable
Gel Fuel (Formula 4) and SUREFIRE(TM) Pourable Gel Fuel (Formula
4). Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.
The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning. This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see
the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited. Gel
fuel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to
consumers that can be fatal.
Fuel Barons has received one report of an incident where a man
sustained second-degree burns to his hand and wrist.
The recall involves pourable gel fuels packaged in one-quart and
one-gallon plastic bottles and plastic jugs and sold with or
without citronella. The label on the container says "OZOfire(TM)"
or "SUREFIRE(TM)," "Formula 4" and "Pure Bio-Ethanol Fuel Pourable
Gel." The fuel is poured into a stainless steel cup in the center
of ceramic firepots or other decorative lighting devices and
ignited. These products are affected by this recall:
Size Model
---- --------------------------------
1 QT OZOfire(TM) F4 Pourable Gel Fuel
1 QT SUREFIRE(TM) S4 Pourable Gel Fuel
1 GAL OZOfire(TM) F4 Pourable Gel Fuel
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11337.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold online at Windflame.com as well as other online
retailers from January 2010 until August 2011 for between $8.50
and $22.
Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel in
firepots and call the toll free hotline for instructions on how to
receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Fuel
Barons toll-free at (877) 469-6347 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web site
at http://www.fuelbarons.com/
This firm is part of a larger set of pourable gel fuel recalls.
For more information, please see:
News Release: Nine Manufacturers, Distributors Announce Consumer
Recall of Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash
Fire Hazards (Sept. 1, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11315.html]
News Release: Napa Home & Garden Recalls NAPAfire and FIREGEL
Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
(June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11255.html]
OnSafety Blog: Stop Using Pourable Gel Fuels (June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/09/stop-using-pourable-gel-fuels/]
Alert: Press Statement on Gel Fuels and Other Illuminating Fuels
(June 14, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/fuels06142011.html]
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on Sept. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Gentiva
Health Services, Inc. common stock between July 31, 2008 and July
20, 2010.
For more information, click here: http://zlk.9nl.com/gentiva/
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that the
Company was improperly increasing the number of in-home therapy
visits to patients in order to trigger higher Medicare
reimbursement rates. The complaint further alleges that positive
statements regarding the Company's business condition and
prospects were based on the alleged fraud, and thus were
materially false and misleading. As a result of these misleading
statements Gentiva shares traded at an artificially high price.
On July 13, 2010, Gentiva revealed that the Company was under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Since
this investigation was announced, Gentiva stock has continued to
decline, falling from a high of $30.50 per share in April of 2010
to a recent closing price of $5.60 per share on September 26,
2011.
To obtain additional information about your rights, contact Joseph
Levi, Esq. either via e-mail at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at
(877) 363-5972, or visit:
http://www.zlk.com/gentiva-health-services-gtiv.html
Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities
litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud and represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder
litigation.
GLOBAL CLIENT: Accused of Illegal Debt Settlement Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen L. Manczak, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, an Oklahoma limited
liability company; Global Holdings, LLC, an Oklahoma limited
liability company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2011-CH-33932 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 28, 2011)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Debt
Settlement Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that over the ten month-period that she was
in the debt settlement program, GCS collected and paid fees
between 30% to 32% of each monthly settlement payment or $1,582 in
fees out of $4,017 in settlement fund payment that she paid. She
contends that pursuant to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, a debt
settlement provider "shall not charge or receive from a consumer
any enrollment fee, set up fee, up front fee of any kind, or any
maintenance fee, except for a one-time enrollment fee of no more
than $50."
Ms. Manczak is a resident of Illinois.
GCS is a for-profit limited liability company, incorporated under
the laws of the state of Oklahoma. GCS conducts its debt
settlement services in the state of Illinois and many other
states. Global Holdings is a for-profit parent company of GCS.
The Doe Defendants are other entities, individuals,
representatives, agents, and officers of Defendants GCS and Global
Holdings.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
KMD LAW OFFICE
35 E. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 854-7006
GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Carpenters Annuity Fund, Individually and On Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carolyn Corvi, Diane
C. Creel, Harris E. DeLoach, Jr., James W. Griffith, William R.
Holland, John P. Jumper, Marshall O. Larsen, Lloyd W. Newton,
Alfred M. Rankin, Jr., Goodrich Corporation, United Technologies
Corp., Charlotte Lucas Corporation, Case No. 652637/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., September 26, 2011) seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a
sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair and self-
serving process to UTC.
Given the Company's recent strong performance, as well as its
future growth prospects, the consideration the Goodrich
shareholders are to receive under the Proposed Transaction is
inadequate and undervalues the Company, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff adds that the Proposed Transaction provides for no
meaningful premium to Goodrich's public shareholders, as the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction will result in the
complete loss of control over the Company and its prospects.
The Plaintiff owns shares of Goodrich Class A common stock.
Goodrich, a New York corporation, is a leading global supplier of
systems and services to aircraft and engine manufacturers,
airlines and defense forces around the world. The Individual
Defendants are Goodrich officers and directors.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Herman Cahn, Esq.
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
Anita Kartalopoulos, Esq.
Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: hcahn@milberg.com
bkaufman@milberg.com
akartalopoulos@milberg.com
kbronson@milberg.com
gmelwani@milberg.com
- and -
Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
KROLL HEINEMAN CARTON, LLC
Metro Corporate Campus I
99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
Iselin, NJ 08830
Telephone: (732) 491-2100
Facsimile: (732) 491-2120
GOODRICH CORP: Faces More Suit Over Proposed Sale to United Tech.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Pill, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Goodrich Corporation, Marshall O. Larsen, Carolyn
Corvi, Harris E. DeLoach, Jr., William R. Holland, Alfred M.
Rankin, Jr., Diane Creel, James W. Griffith, John P. Jumper, Lloyd
W. Newton, United Technologies Corporation, and Charlotte Lucas
Corporation, Case No. 652655/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 28,
2011) alleges that the consideration offered in the proposed sale
of the Company to United Technologies is unfair and grossly
inadequate because the intrinsic value of Goodrich's common stock
is materially in excess of the amount offered.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and aided and abetted the breaches in
negotiating, agreeing to and approving the Proposed Transaction.
Mr. Pill is a shareholder of Goodrich common stock.
Goodrich is a New York corporation and is one of the largest
worldwide suppliers of aerospace components, systems and services
to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets. United
Technologies is a diversified company providing high technology
products and services to the global aerospace and building
industries. Defendant Merger Sub is a New York corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies formed to
effectuate the Proposed Transaction. The Individual Defendants
are officers and directors of Goodrich.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com
GOODRICH CORP: Sued Over Proposed Sale to United Technologies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Goodrich Corporation, Carolyn Corvi, Diane Creel, Harris E.
DeLoach, Jr., James W. Griffith, William R. Holland, John P.
Jumper, Marshall O. Larsen, Lloyd W. Newton, Alfred M. Rankin,
Jr., Charlotte Lucas Corporation and United Technologies
Corporation, Case No. 652649/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 27,
2011) arises out of the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed all cash sale of the
Company to United Technologies for $127.5 per share, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Goodrich Board has turned a blind eye as its Chairman has
maneuvered to sell the Company to favored suitor United
Technologies following a temporary depression in the price of
Goodrich stock, the Plaintiff alleges. Although shareholders get
cashed out just as the Company is poised for tremendous growth,
Goodrich's Chairman stands to gain more than $15 million in
accelerated payments and vesting and will continue to run the
Company as a division of United Technologies while fellow Board
members and executives share approximately $14 million more in
accelerated payments, the Plaintiff further alleges.
The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Goodrich.
Goodrich, a New York corporation, is a global supplier of systems
and services to aircraft and engine manufacturers, airlines and
defense forces around the world. The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of Goodrich. Defendant Merger Sub is a New
York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of United
Technologies. United Technologies is a diversified company, whose
products include Carrier heating and air conditioning, Hamilton
Sundstrand aerospace systems and industrial products, Otis
elevators and escalators, Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines,
Sikorsky helicopters, UTC Fire & Security systems, and UTC Power
fuel cells.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc I. Gross, Esq.
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
jscowart@pomlaw.com
gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
GOV'T. OF MALTA: Class Action Draft Law for Consultation
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ameen, writing for timesofmalta.com, reports that groups of
citizens, businesses and consumer associations with grievances
against companies will be able to collectively file a class action
lawsuit, according to a draft law that was set to be published for
consultation on Sept. 28.
The draft law, called Collective Proceedings Act, defines
collective proceedings as "proceedings which are brought by a
class representative on behalf of people whose claims raise common
issues and which may be instituted as a group action or a
representative action".
The draft legislation was set to be launched on Sept. 28 by
Consumers and Fair Competition Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said
and would undergo a six week consultation period.
One of the government's electoral promises, the class action may
be filed for damages in an alleged infringement of the Competition
Act or the Consumers Affairs Act.
Collective action may be filed as a standalone, where the group
asks the court to determine a breach of the law and award damages,
or a follow-up action, where a lawsuit for damages is filed after
a decision has been handed down, in separate proceedings, by the
Office for Competition, Office for Consumer Affairs, European
Commission or Courts.
This law would have come in handy, for example, in the court case
initiated last year by the Labour Party on behalf of almost 18,000
people against VAT paid on car registration tax. A secretariat
spokesman explained there were three main aims behind the proposed
law which would increase the individual's access to the justice.
Due to the specific nature of the damage, together with high
litigation costs and the complexity of competition cases,
consumers and small businesses often opt not to take legal action
on an individual basis, the spokesman explained.
At present, neither is it possible for registered consumer
associations to file for compensation in court on behalf of
consumers. Also, associations would not take up legal action if
the litigation costs were too high, the spokesman added.
The draft law would give consumers and businesses the chance to
seek compensation for claims that they would not have made
individually.
It would also act as a deterrent; businesses would be readier to
comply with the law because there was a greater possibility that
victims would turn to legal action, the spokesman said.
"The possibility of collective proceedings addresses this vacuum,
as businesses and companies are aware that victims may seek action
collectively and that they may have to fork out money in damages
they otherwise might have not paid because the victims were not
ready to claim individually," the spokesman said. The Bill
provides for private individual group action, filed by a person
who suffered a grievance or a registered consumer association, on
behalf of consumers in disputes with businesses relating to goods
and services.
INDIANA INVESTMENT: Loses Bid to Block Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that an Indiana
woman can complete a $10 million class-action settlement against a
group of defendants that she claimed bilked millions of dollars
from a cemetery trust fund.
Angela Farno had pre-paid for mausoleum space, a casket,
entombment and perpetual care services at Forest Lawn Cemetery.
She later joined a class action suit that alleged that several
defendants looted the trust funds from four Indiana cemeteries
were part of Robert Nelms' $27 million purchase of a family
mortuary business.
Matthew Goldberg, who was a partner with Mr. Nelms in a company
called Indiana Investment, was accused of concealing the
misappropriation of the trust funds.
Ms. Farno and the class-action defendants came to a settlement,
but Mr. Goldberg tried to block it. He did not agree to the
settlement and did not want to be bound by the class certification
that would be part of it.
Mr. Goldberg's interlocutory appeal was rejected by the Indiana
Court of Appeals, which explained that he would not be prejudiced
by the class certification.
"Goldberg has failed to establish plain legal prejudice in this
case. It is undisputed that the class settlement did not
interfere with Goldberg's contractual rights or his ability to
seek contribution or indemnification, nor did it strip him of a
legal claim or cause of action," Judge Terry Crone wrote on behalf
of his colleagues.
Appellants Matthew Goldberg and Indiana Investment Corporation,
LLC were represented by:
Thomas W. Farlow, Esq.
Darren A. Craig, Esq.
Michele Lorbieski Anderson, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
Telephone: (317) 237-3800
E-mail: tfarlow@fbtlaw.com
dcraig@fbtlaw.com
mlorbieskianderson@fbtlaw.com
Appellee Angela K. Farno was represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square
Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
Appellee Forest Lawn Memory Gardens, Inc. was represented by:
Fred R. Biesecker, Esq.
Donald M. Snemis, Esq.
Brian J. Paul, Esq.
ICE MILLER LLP
One American Square
Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200
Telephone: (317) 236-2100
E-mail: fred.biesecker@icemiller.co
donald.snemis@icemiller.com
brian.paul@icemiller.com
LEEDS MORELLI: Faces Class Action Over Nextel Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
putative class action charging Leeds, Morelli & Brown with
striking a collusive settlement of employment discrimination
claims with Nextel has been brought back to life.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
dismissal of claims by a class of Nextel employees who allege
Leeds Morelli breached its fiduciary duty by accepting a deal with
Nextel in which the firm would be paid $2 million to persuade its
clients to settle en masse, $3.5 million more on a sliding scale
as claims were settled and another $2 million to work as a
consultant for Nextel for two years once the claims were resolved.
Under the terms of the settlement, Leeds Morelli also promised it
would not accept new clients with claims against the company or
refer any non-claimants to other lawyers or law firms, according
to both sides in the litigation.
The settlement agreement, the Second Circuit found in Johnson v.
Nextel Communications Inc., 09-1892, "created an enormous conflict
of interest between" the law firm and its clients.
The circuit reversed Southern District Judge George Daniels, who
had granted Nextel's motion to dismiss on March 31, 2009.
Of the initial 587 plaintiffs nationwide who sued Nextel and Leeds
Morelli, the law firm reached a confidential settlement with all
but 41. Two of those 41 went to trial in Colorado state court,
where the law firm prevailed, leaving 39 people who will now
pursue their various claims in the class action against the firm
before Judge Daniels in New York.
Nextel is still facing all 587 of the original plaintiffs on the
claim it aided and abetted fraud, aided and abetted breach of
contract, aided and abetted malpractice, and tortuous interference
with contract.
Oral arguments at the circuit were heard on June 8, 2010, by
Judges Ralph Winter and Peter Hall and, sitting by designation,
Southern District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum.
Judge Winter wrote the panel's 24-page opinion finding that the
plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and
Nextel had aided and abetted that breach.
He said the plaintiffs alleged that, after hearing extravagant
promises of a recovery against Nextel, Leeds Morelli signed a
"Dispute Resolution and Settlement Agreement" (DRSA) with Nextel
on Sept. 28, 2000, that laid out a three-stage process for
settlement.
In the first stage, each individual client would get an interview
with Nextel and conduct direct negotiations. In the second stage,
there would be non-binding mediation of any unresolved claims. In
the third, there would be binding arbitration of the remaining
unresolved claims.
The complaint filed in 2006 charged a conspiracy between the law
firm and the company, and asserted that Leeds Morelli had
perpetrated commercial bribery, fraud, unjust enrichment, legal
malpractice, breach of contract, unauthorized practice of law,
conversion and, because the retainer agreement was signed in New
Jersey, violation of that state's racketeering law. It alleged
the plaintiffs were not allowed to review the full settlement
agreement, but were instead given a "highlights" document in which
they allegedly waived any claim of conflict of interest by the law
firm.
Judge Daniels found that New York law applied and the breach of
fiduciary duty claim and fraud claims failed because, by signing
individual agreements and pledges of good faith to help keep the
terms of the dispute resolution agreement confidential, the
plaintiffs had, in fact, confirmed they had the chance to review
the settlement.
Judge Daniels also disposed of the remaining claims, including the
malpractice claim, finding the plaintiffs had failed to allege
that the money paid by Nextel to Leeds Morelli would have
otherwise gone to the plaintiffs.
Conflicts for Firm
On the appeal, Judge Winter first said that New Jersey's choice of
law rules apply before he turned to the merits and the circuit's
opinion that the dispute resolution agreement "created overriding
and abiding conflicts of interest" for Leeds Morelli and
"thoroughly undermined its ability to 'deal fairly, honestly, and
with undivided loyalty'" with its clients.
He said the deal "on its face created enormous incentives" for the
law firm "to obtain from each and every one of its clients waivers
of important rights."
The "inevitable purpose" of the settlement agreement, Judge Winter
said, "was to create an irresistible incentive-millions of dollars
in payments having no relation to services performed for, or
recovery by, the claimants-for Leeds Morelli & Brown to engage in
en masse solicitation of agreement to, and performance of, the
DRSA's terms from approximately 587 claimant clients."
This, he said, was a violation of the firm's "duty to advise and
represent each client individually," a conflict that was "severely
aggravated" by the sliding scale payment system, which depended on
how quickly the claims were resolved, and the commencement of the
$2 million consulting contract.
In the court's "candid opinion," he said, the "DRSA was an
employment contract between Nextel and LMB designed to achieve an
en masse processing and resolution of claims that LMB was
obligated to pursue individually on behalf of each of its
clients."
He said that "the opportunity for claimants to give informed
consent was so burdened that the DRSA is not consentable."
The circuit said it did not matter that the plaintiffs were
allowed to consult with another attorney before signing off,
because "an initial attorney hired to bring a discrimination
action does not fulfill his or her representational obligations by
presenting a client with a proposal that can be considered in an
informed manner only by hiring a second attorney."
Kenneth Thyne and Angela Roper of Roper & Twardowsky in Totowa,
N.J., represent the plaintiffs.
Ms. Roper said on Sept. 27 that Leeds Morelli's argument boiled
down to "if people signed these documents, it must be OK."
She said it was "disturbing" that the attorneys who represented
Leeds Morelli were "representing to the court that these clients
were involved in arms length transactions."
Michael McConnell of McConnell Fleischner Houghtaling in Denver
argued for Leeds, Morelli & Brown and name partners Lenard Leeds,
Steven A. Morelli and Jeffrey K. Brown.
Mr. Brown said on Sep. 27 that both Nextel and the law firm hired
their own ethics experts to review the terms of the settlement
before approving it.
A statement issued by the firm on Sept. 27 noted that the issues
before the Second Circuit were litigated in Colorado, where a jury
"found nothing inappropriate with the arrangement" between Nextel
and the firm.
Before the firm signed the agreement, "two nationally renowned
ethics experts, Professors Roy Simon and Geoffrey Hazard both
found the arrangement to be ethical and appropriate," the
statement said. "On a full record and consideration of all
relevant evidence, we are confident that any judge or jury would
come to the same conclusion as the Colorado jury, that there was
nothing inappropriate in LMB's actions."
Lawrence R. Sandak of Proskauer Rose argued for Nextel.
LITTLE TIKES: Expands Recall of Toy Workshop and Tool Sets
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Little Tikes, of Hudson, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
more than 1.7 million additional units of Little Tikes(R) Workshop
and Tool Sets. About 1.6 million toy workshop sets and trucks
with the same toy nails were recalled in August 2009. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The recalled workshop and tool sets have oversized, plastic toy
nails that can pose a choking hazard to young children.
The firm has reported two additional incidents, occurring prior to
the August 2009 recall, of children who choked when the toy nail
became lodged in their throat. Both children were treated in a
hospital and made a full recovery.
This recall involves the toy nails sold as part of 11 additional
models of Little Tikes(R) Workshop and tool sets listed. The toy
nails are oversized, plastic, and about 3 1/4 inches long by 1 1/4
inch in diameter. The nails are either red or blue and have a
large round head; below the nail head there is a plastic ridge,
slightly smaller than the nail head and about 1 inch in diameter.
The model number may be found on some of the products.
Model # Name Sold
------- ---- -----------
4491 Workshop 1994 - 1995
4601 Deluxe Workshop 1996 - 1999
0827 Carry Along Workshop 1997 - 1998
4765 Revv 'n Roar Mechanics Workshop 1997 - 1999
0627 Carry Along Tool Caddy 1996 - 2002
4174 Home Center Workshop 2001 - 2002
4789 Workbench 1997 - 1998
4071 Little Tikes Workshop 1990 - 1994
0014 Kohl's Workshop Tool Set 2000
4497 Menard's Home Center Workshop 2003 - 2004
4201 Action Power Workshop 2002 - 2004
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11334.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and China and sold by mass merchandise retailers
nationwide from 1990 through 2004 for between $25 and $100.
Consumers should immediately take the toy nails away from young
children and contact the firm for free replacement toy nails. For
additional information, contact Little Tikes at (800) 321-0183
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.littletikes.com/
LM IMPORT: Recalls 1,900 Toy Cars Due to Lead Paint Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
manufacturer, LM Import & Export, Inc., of Miami, Florida, and
distributor, Mega Wholesales Corporation, of Miami, Florida,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,900 toy cars. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
Surface paint on the toy cars contains excessive levels of lead, a
violation of the federal lead paint standard.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
The products are sold in packages of four or six toy cars which
are painted in silver, black or blue with red stickers with
"super," "max" and "racing" labeled on the top and sides of the
cars. The 4" plastic car sets have item numbers "43835" and
"43836" printed on a white label on the back of the cardboard
packaging. "Gallop X" or "RACING CARS" is also printed on the
product packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11335.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Mega Wholesale stores throughout Miami, Florida,
from September 2010 through January 2011 for between about $2 and
$3 per set.
Consumers should take these toys away from children immediately
and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.
For additional information, contact LM Import & Export collect at
(305) 622-7122 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday. LM Import & Export will accept collect calls.
LUMINOSITIES/WINDFLAME: Recalls 26T Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Luminosities/Windflame Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota,
and manufacturer, Fuel Barons Inc., of Stateline, Nevada,
announced a voluntary recall of about 26,500 bottles of
OZOfire(TM) Pourable Gel Fuel (Formula 4). Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning. This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see
the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited. Gel
fuel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to
consumers that can be fatal.
Luminosities/Windflame has received one report of an incident
involving the gel fuel. No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves pourable OZOfire(TM) pourable gel fuel
packaged in clear one-quart plastic bottles. The gel fuel does
not have citronella. The label on the container includes the
words "OZOfire(TM)," "Fuel Barons Inc.," "Formula 4," and "Pure
Bio-Ethanol Fuel Pourable Gel." The fuel is poured into a
stainless steel cup in the center of ceramic firepots or other
decorative lighting devices and ignited. These products are
affected by this recall:
Size Model UPC
---- ------------------------ ----------------
1 QT OZOfire(TM) Pourable Gel UPC 804879254133
Fuel (Formula 4)
Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11340.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold online at specialty and gift shops, furniture
stores and home and garden stores and other stores nationwide,
through home and garden catalogs and home decorators and landscape
architects and online including http://www.amazon.com/from
October 2010 through August 2011 for between $4 and $12.
Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel in
firepots and return all bottles to the retailer where the consumer
purchased the fuel for a full refund. For additional information,
contact Luminosities/Windflame toll-free at (855) 774-2260 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.windflame.com/
This firm is part of a larger set of pourable gel fuel recalls.
For more information, please see:
News Release: Nine Manufacturers, Distributors Announce Consumer
Recall of Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash
Fire Hazards (Sept. 1, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11315.html]
News Release: Napa Home & Garden Recalls NAPAfire and FIREGEL
Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
(June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11255.html]
OnSafety Blog: Stop Using Pourable Gel Fuels (June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/09/stop-using-pourable-gel-fuels/]
Alert: Press Statement on Gel Fuels and Other Illuminating Fuels
(June 14, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/fuels06142011.html]
NAKED JUICE: Sued in Calif. Over Naked Juice "All Natural" Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Sanford at Courthouse News Service reports that Naked Juice
sold its consumers a bill of goods, fraudulently promising that
its beverage products are "100% juice," "all natural," and "non-
GMO," a federal class action claims in Los Angeles.
The plaintiffs contend that Naked Juice intentionally uses
misleading language to give consumers "the false impression that
the beverages vitamin content is due to the nutritious fruits and
juices, rather than the added synthetic compounds such as calcium
pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde)" and
"Fibersol-2 (a proprietary synthetic digestion-resistant fiber
produced by Archer Daniels Midland and developed by a Japanese
chemical company), fructooligosaccharides (a synthetic fiber and
sweetener) and inulin (an artificial and invisible fiber added to
foods to . . . increase fiber content without the typical fiber
mouth-feel)."
The amounts of synthetic substances added is "substantial"
according to the plaintiffs who cite as an example that "there is
more Fibersol-2 than . . . any ingredient derived from
blackberries" in Naked Juice's Blue Machine drink which is labeled
as an "all-natural blueberry and blackberry 100% Juice Smoothie."
Sara Sandys of Houston, Texas is the lead plaintiff in the suit
and says that she and other members of the class relied on Naked
Juice's representations that the drinks were 100% juice and all
natural when she regularly drank the company's products.
She cites an article from the October 2007 edition of "Beverage
Industry", in which Naked Juice appears to agree that the words on
its label are important.
The article quotes the former General Manager of Naked Juice, Adam
Carr, explaining how and why a consumer purchases a Naked Juice
Product:
"They take a bottle of Naked Juice off the shelf and start reading
the packaging. One the front of the bottle, in addition to seeing
the name of the product, they see the family name, the '100% juice
smoothie' and 'no sugar added' tags, and Naked Juice's Pound
Promise of 'a pound of fruit in every bottle'. Then consumers can
rotate the bottle around and see the list of fruits that are
inside and see the functional benefits a product boasts."
The side list of fruits serves as an "alternate ingredient list,"
the suit says, and because it is printed several times larger than
the actual ingredients, "It is the list that [Naked Juice] intend
consumers read and rely upon."
The suit says that "almost all soy products are now genetically
modified" and thus Naked Juice knows that genetically modified --
or genetically engineered -- organisms must be in its juices "by
design or by contamination."
The suit alleges that 11 synthetically derived substances --
including niacinamide, d-alpha tocopherol acetate, cyanocobalamin,
and pyridoxine hydrochloride -- are contained in Naked Juice
drinks which it says belie the label's claims that the beverage
contains only the "freshest, purest stuff in the world."
The class asks for compensatory and punitive damages as well as an
injunction against Naked Juice stating that its products are 100%
juice, are all natural and that they contain no genetically
modified organisms.
A copy of the Complaint in Sandys v. Naked Juice Company, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-08007 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/28/nakedjuice.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN LAW FIRM
1919 Decatur St.
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (866) 298-4150 ext. 101
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
- and -
Shirish Gupta, Esq.
FLASHPOINT LAW, INC.
1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (650) 539-4019
E-mail: sgupta@flashpointlaw.com
NATIONAL MILK: Sued Over Allegations of Raw Milk Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Robb and Nels Thogersen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Milk Producers Federation,
aka Cooperatives Working Together; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.;
Land O'Lakes, Inc.; Dairylea Cooperative Inc.; and Agri-Mark,
Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04791 (N.D. Calif., September 27, 2011)
accuses CWT and its members of taking coordinated efforts over the
past eight years to limit the production of raw farm milk through
premature "herd retirements" in order to increase the price of raw
farm milk used to supply milk and other milk products.
The Plaintiffs argue that the purpose and effect of the herd
retirement program was to reduce the supply of raw farm milk in
order to increase its price, which in turn increased the price
paid by consumers for milk and other fresh milk products.
Mr. Robb is a resident of Waukesha, Wisconsin, while Mr. Thogersen
is a resident of Greenfield, Wisconsin. Both Plaintiffs purchased
milk and other fresh milk products during the Class Period and was
injured as a result of the Defendants' illegal conduct.
NMPF was established in 1916 and is based in Arlington, Virginia.
The members of NMPF's cooperatives, which are over 40,000 dairy
producers, make the majority of the nation's milk supply. CWT "is
a voluntary, producer-funded national program developed by NMPF,
to strengthen and stabilize milk prices." DFA has its
headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, and is the largest dairy
farmer cooperative in the country. Land O'Lakes is the second
largest cooperative in the nation. Dairylea is headquartered in
Syracuse, New York, and is the fifth largest U.S. dairy
cooperative. Agri-Mark is located in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and
markets more than 300 million gallons of milk each year for more
than 1,300 producer members.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
George W. Sampson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
george@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
820 North Boulevard, Suite B
Oak Park, IL 60301
Telephone: (708) 776-5604
Facsimile: (708) 776-5601
E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Guri Ademi, Esq.
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
David J. Syrios, Esq.
Corey M. Mather, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
sademi@ademilaw.com
dsyrios@ademilaw.com
cmather@ademilaw.com
NCAA: Ex-Football Players Sue Over Lack of Medical Monitoring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two former college football players who suffer from the residual
effects of head injuries filed a class-action lawsuit on Sept. 28
against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA),
accusing the governing body of neglecting to protect student-
athletes from concussions and their aftermath.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by leading class-action law firm Hagens Berman, the
complaint accuses the NCAA of turning a blind eye to coaches who
teach players to use their heads for tackling, failing to
establish a NCAA-wide system for screening head injuries and
shirking its financial obligations to injured student-athletes who
need medical treatment after they've left college.
"The NCAA system is a cash cow that generates $750 million in
revenue each year without having to pay student-athletes a dime,"
said Steve Berman, attorney representing injured NCAA football
players and managing partner of Hagens Berman. "These athletes
are the ones paying the price -- with their health."
The case alleges that despite a mounting body of scientific
evidence linking concussions to depression, dementia and early-
onset Alzheimer's, among a host of other medical problems, the
NCAA has failed to enforce the safety measures it introduced in
the 1970s.
The lawsuit would force the NCAA to institute a medical monitoring
program to track the long-term effects of head trauma as they
manifest themselves in former football players, and to pay for any
resulting medical care.
The complaint claims that NCAA football coaches continue to
encourage players to use tackling methods that promote head
trauma, including helmet-to-helmet hits. The harshest penalty
ever imposed on coaches who teach this tactic was a letter of
reprimand, according to the complaint.
Teams are assessed 15-yard penalties for dangerous tackling and
violators can be ejected from a game or suspended. But the NCAA
fails to address the consequences for players who were coached to
use their helmets to make the tackle, the lawsuit states.
Under the NCAA system, student-athletes are permitted to return to
play the next calendar day after sustaining a concussion, meaning
they can be back on the practice field less than 24 hours after a
serious brain injury, putting their health in peril, the lawsuit
states.
In 2003, a University of North Carolina study partially-funded by
the NCAA found that college football players require a full seven
days to regain their pre-concussion abilities. It also found that
athletes with a history of concussions were more likely to sustain
future concussions. Researchers suggested that athletes with
multiple concussions should be informed of the risks of returning
to football before they make the decision.
The NCAA has yet to establish such a protocol, according to the
lawsuit. Instead, it relies on its member schools to self-police
their own return-to-play policies, putting the onus on the dazed
football player to report injuries and seek medical attention, the
complaint states.
Further, the NCAA has yet to develop a system for identifying at-
risk players, nor guidelines that would establish a criteria for
deciding if and when they should return to football, according to
the complaint.
The lead plaintiffs in the suit are former University of Central
Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens and former Northwestern
University offensive lineman Alex Rucks, who say their lives have
been fundamentally altered as the result of brain trauma that
could have been prevented.
Mr. Owens, 22, was hit in the head from behind while taking part
in a voluntary practice the summer before his freshman season.
According to the complaint, Mr. Owens never received medical
attention from the team despite feeling dizzy, having difficulty
seeing and being unable to drive home. The 2008 incident was the
first of numerous head injuries for Mr. Owens, who was named
Arkansas' Top Offensive Player and one of the state's top Scholar-
Athletes his senior year of high school.
The second week of his first season, a linebacker knocked
Mr. Owens unconscious in practice, according to the lawsuit.
UCA's trainers told Mr. Owens' roommates he had a "severe
concussion" and to wake him up every couple of hours. He sat out
for several weeks until he was cleared to return to the practice
team. During a 2010 game, Mr. Owens was returning a punt when he
was leveled by an opposing player, who later called the play "the
highlight of his career," according to a story in the Tulsa World.
Mr. Owens experienced memory loss, headaches, an inability to
concentrate, anxiety and depression. His grades plummeted despite
his once-sterling academic record. In May of 2011, he dropped out
of school and football as a result of the debilitating effects of
repeated head trauma.
Mr. Rucks, who played at Northwestern from 2004 to 2008, was never
formally diagnosed with a brain injury, but suffered numerous
blows to his head that led to symptoms consistent with a
concussion. The NCAA never tested or followed-up with Mr. Rucks
to determine whether he'd been concussed, or if he was
experiencing post-concussion syndrome, the suit alleges.
Since his playing days, Mr. Owens has suffered from the symptoms
of post-concussion syndrome, including the loss of concentration
and memory, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges the NCAA never encouraged football players to
report or complain about their physical well-being, nor does it
educate players about head-injury prevention or the telltale
symptoms of a concussion.
The lawsuit, a class action, seeks to represent current or former
NCAA football players who have medical or team records indicating
they sustained a concussion(s) or suffered concussion-like
symptoms while playing football at an NCAA school, and who have,
since ending their NCAA careers, developed chronic headaches,
dizziness, dementia, Alzheimer's disease or other physical and
mental problems as a result of the concussion and have incurred
medical expenses from such injuries.
All class members would be notified that they may require frequent
medical monitoring. NCAA-wide return-to-play guidelines would be
established. The NCAA would mandate that team physicians learn to
detect concussions and sub-concussions, as well as determining
when a player is at an increased risk of harm. It also seeks to
redress the intangible losses suffered by these class members.
This month, another class-action lawsuit was filed against the
NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois citing similar allegations.
Hagens Berman invites potential plaintiffs to contact the office
at NCAAConcussions@hbsslaw.com or by phone at 206-623-7292.
You can learn more about this case by visiting
http://www.hbsslaw.com/NCAAConcussions
About Hagens Berman
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- represents workers, whistleblowers,
investors and consumers in complex litigation. The firm has
offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles,
Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1993, HBSS
continues to successfully fight for investor rights in large,
complex litigation.
OMNICARE: Faces Securities Class Action in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------
Greg Chalmers, writing for Benzinga, reports that the Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Omnicare
between January 10, 2007, and August 5, 2010, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Omnicare provides pharmaceuticals, and related pharmacy and
ancillary services to long-term healthcare institutions. The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Omnicare and
certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to
disclose material adverse information concerning Omnicare's
business and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to the
federal Medicare program, and to several state Medicaid programs,
for services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid
regulations, while repeatedly representing that Omnicare was
operating in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
The Complaint further alleges that Omnicare's reported net sales
and accounts receivable throughout the Class Period were
artificially inflated as they included the proceeds of the
nonconforming Medicare and Medicaid claims.
No class has yet been certified in the action.
REAL FLAME: Recalls 100,000 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Real Flame, of Racine, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary recall of
about 100,000 bottles of Real Flame Pourable Gel Fuel. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning. This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see
the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited. Gel
fuel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to
consumers that can be fatal.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves pourable gel fuels sold in 29.9-ounce and
29.98-ounce, one-quart clear plastic bottles and sold with or
without citronella oil. The label on the container has a stylized
flame and the words "Real Flame" and "Pourable Gel Fireplace
Fuel." The fuel is poured into a stainless steel cup in the
center of ceramic firepots or other decorative lighting devices
and ignited. These products are affected by this recall:
Size Model Number SKU
---- ------------ -------------
29.9 ounce 2164 752-370012641
1.0 QT 2164 752-370012641
29.98 ounce 2165 752-370021658
with Citronella
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11338.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Target.com, Meijer.com, JCPenney.com,
Sears.com, Amazon.com and Realflame.com from January 2009 through
August 2011 for between $10 and $13.
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel
fuel and return the gel fuel to the firm for a full refund. For
additional information, contact Real Flame toll-free at (866) 918-
8766 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.realflamerecall.com/or write to the firm at Real
Flame, 7800 Northwestern Ave., Racine, Wis. 53406
This firm is part of a larger set of pourable gel fuel recalls.
For more information, please see:
News Release: Nine Manufacturers, Distributors Announce Consumer
Recall of Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash
Fire Hazards (Sept. 1, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11315.html]
News Release: Napa Home & Garden Recalls NAPAfire and FIREGEL
Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
(June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11255.html]
OnSafety Blog: Stop Using Pourable Gel Fuels (June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/09/stop-using-pourable-gel-fuels/]
Alert: Press Statement on Gel Fuels and Other Illuminating Fuels
(June 14, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/fuels06142011.html]
REEBOK: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes for $25 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chesto, writing for The Patriot Ledger, reports that Reebok
has agreed to pay $25 million to resolve allegations that it
improperly pumped up the effectiveness of its popular EasyTone
shoes.
The settlements resolve Federal Trade Commission charges and
allegations in five class-action suits that the Canton company
deceptively promoted its EasyTone and RunTone shoes by suggesting
that they were more effective at improving leg and butt muscles
than regular sneakers.
The $25 million will be set aside in an escrow account to be
distributed as refunds to consumers, either directly by the FTC or
through the class-action settlement.
Reebok also agreed to separately pay up to $3.6 million for
plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses as part of the class-action
settlement that was filed in Boston federal court on Sept. 28.
The shoe company also agreed to be barred from making claims about
the shoes' muscle-toning efficacy without scientific evidence to
back them up.
Reebok issued a statement vehemently denying the FTC's
allegations. The company said it stands behind its EasyTone
technology, which it said is the first line of shoes to be
inspired by balance-ball training. The company said it has
received enthusiastic feedback from thousands of EasyTone
customers and that it remains committed to further development of
EasyTone products.
The EasyTone line was a badly-needed hit soon after it was
launched in 2009. Reebok had struggled under its new owner,
German sneaker maker Adidas, for several years and it was on the
hunt for a blockbuster product that would ignite sales. The
company, which is now enjoying a revenue revival, actually found
two: The ZigTech line would prove to be popular as well.
Reebok's ad campaign focused on EasyTone shoes' unstable sole
design as a way to require certain muscles to do more work while
the wearer walked.
But the shoes, which sell for $80 to $100, became targets for
attorneys within the past year. Reebok faced lawsuits alleging
that it had no real scientific proof of its claims and that
consumers were misled -- and, in some cases, injured -- by these
shoes.
Consumers who purchased eligible Reebok toning shoes or EasyTone-
brand apparel can apply for a refund from the $25 million
settlement through the Federal Trade Commission's Web site or
through the administrator of the class-action settlement. The
parties involved in the class action litigation recommended Rust
Consulting Inc. to be the settlement administrator.
RENTECH INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc. on Sept. 28 disclosed that it has received final
court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action
and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a
number of its current and former directors and officers. The
lawsuits related to the Company's restatement in December 2009 of
certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the
first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed
that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle
the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted
and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual
defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection
with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8
million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of
attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated
shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court
for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative
Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
(Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File
No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance
practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay)
plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of
the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative
settlement payments are covered by Rentech's insurance carriers.
About Rentech, Inc.
Rentech, Inc., incorporated in 1981, provides alternative and
clean energy solutions and manufactures and sells nitrogen
fertilizer products.
SMART SOLAR: Recalls 1,400 Bottles of Pourable Gel Fuel
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Smart Solar Inc., of Oldsmar, Florida, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 bottles of Smart Jel Gel Fuel. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning. This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see
the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited. Gel
fuel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to
consumers that can be fatal.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves pourable gel fuels packaged in 30-ounce
plastic bottles and sold with or without citronella. The label on
the container says "Smart Garden" and "SmartJel." The fuel is
poured into a metal cup in the center of ceramic firepots or other
decorative lighting devices and ignited. These products are
included in this recall:
Size Model Number/SKU Description
---- ---------------- -----------
30 oz. SJ3200 SmartJel Citronella
Formula IPA Gel Refill
30 oz. SJ3201 SmartJel Unscented
Formula IPA Gel Refill
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11339.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at online and selected specialty stores from
January 2011 through June 2011 for between $10 and $20.
Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel in
firepots and return all bottles to the company for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Smart Solar at (813) 343-5770
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday
or visit the company's Web site at http://www.smartsolar.com/
This firm is part of a larger set of pourable gel fuel recalls.
For more information, please see:
News Release: Nine Manufacturers, Distributors Announce Consumer
Recall of Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash
Fire Hazards (Sept. 1, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11315.html]
News Release: Napa Home & Garden Recalls NAPAfire and FIREGEL
Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
(June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11255.html]
OnSafety Blog: Stop Using Pourable Gel Fuels (June 22, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/09/stop-using-pourable-gel-fuels/]
Alert: Press Statement on Gel Fuels and Other Illuminating Fuels
(June 14, 2011)
[http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/fuels06142011.html]
WOODLANDS SCHOOL: Class Action Settlement Deadline Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Bailey, writing for CKNW, reports that the deadline has
been extended for people who suffered abuse at New Westminster's
Woodlands School to become part of a class action settlement.
The original deadline was September 19, "We appeared before Chief
Justice Baumann because there are still hundreds of claims that
have to be filed and we were bumping up against the September 19,
2011 deadline. It was agreed by all parties that the deadline
would be extended by at least 6 months."
Lawyer David Klein says they're now expecting to hear back in 6 or
8 weeks whether a cut-off date will be set for 6 months from now,
or whether that will be left open until further notice.
Anyone who lived at Woodlands on or after August 1, 1974, is
eligible to submit a claim to the settlement.
Mr. Klein says 850 former residents have come forward and plan to
put in claims, but he says there are still about 100 who have not
yet come forward.
* Class Action Certifications Rising in Canada
----------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that certification of class action
lawsuits is on the increase, raising tactical questions about
whether defendant insurers should even bother fighting
certification, or simply fight the good fight at trial.
Laura Cooper, partner at Fasken Martineau, discussed class action
statistics and legal strategies at the National Insurance
Conference of Canada (NICC) in Vancouver on Sept. 27.
"With respect to class actions generally, I'm sorry to say the
news isn't great," Ms. Cooper said. "Certification of class
actions is definitely on the upswing.
"In the past year, in Ontario, where I primarily practice, out of
24 certification motions that were contested, 20 of them were
certified. That was a change from the previous record of some 60%
certification."
In other words, it is getting to be more difficult for defendant
insurers to defeat certification.
"Not surprisingly, given those stats, we're seeing lots of new
class actions in all kinds of fields -- product liability,
franchising, competition, securities and consumer remedies,"
Ms. Cooper said. "Those aren't going to go down anytime soon."
Also, Ms. Cooper said, the costs to fight class actions are
increasing, because defendant insurers are trying harder and
harder to defeat class certification or at least narrow its scope.
"So certification motions on class actions can easily be hundreds
of thousands of dollars or more before the determination,"
Ms. Cooper said. "Of course, that's because the stakes are so high
for the defendants."
Strategically, Ms. Cooper said there aren't many opportunities for
defendant insurers to accept certification and just go ahead and
fight at trial. "As I say, that's not going to happen very often,
but you should always think about it," she said.
But in some circumstances, insurers have fought hard throughout
the certification process knowing that the plaintiff counsel's
side had limited or depleted resources for a class action trial.
Thus, if the defendant's side knows it has more resources than the
plaintiff's side, it might be beneficial tactically to start a war
of attrition by fighting certification from the very outset.
*********
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, Joy A. Agravante, 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 * * *