/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 250 Headlines BLUE COAT: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Remains Pending BLUE COAT: Securities Suit in California Still Pending CARRIER IQ: Faces Suit for Intercepting Consumers' Private Data CARRIER IQ: Sued for Data Interception in Mobile Phones CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears DSW INC: Still Awaits Final OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement E-Z-GO: Recalls 21,900 Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Vehicles ECOLAB INC: Nalco Unit Continues to Face Suits Over COREXIT Use ECOLAB INC: Still Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal HEALTHWORKS FITNESS: Violates Mass. Wage Laws, Suit Claims HOOTERS: Atty. Says Class Action Settlement to End "Indignities" J CREW: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Sees No Wrong in "False Claims" Settlement K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in IPO Securities Suit Remains Pending MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Settles "Holton" Wage and Hour Class Suit MEDTRONIC: Stock-Drop Suit Obtains Class Certification MFS: Judge Allows Investor Suit to Proceed as Class Action PRIMO WATER: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in North Carolina PRIMO WATER: Shareholder Class Action Likely to Prevail PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Claims on Crest Toothpaste SAN FRANCISCO: K. Dermody Named Pres. of Bar Association SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Another Merger-Related Suit in N.Y. STATE BANCORP: Gets Final Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal US CONSULATE GENERAL: Faces Class Action in Indonesia Over Wall WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Juices WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Protect KH Funding Noteholders * Pace of Securities Class Action Filings Steady in 2011 ********* BLUE COAT: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a ruling resolving a consolidated securities lawsuit remains pending, according to Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011. Beginning on May 16, 2001, a series of putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the firms that underwrote the Company's initial public offering, the Company, and some of its officers and directors. These cases have been consolidated under the case captioned In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-01-CV-5143. In November 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the firms that underwrote Packeteer's initial public offering, Packeteer, and some of its officers and directors. An amended complaint, captioned In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-10185, was filed on April 20, 2002. These are two of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding brought claims under the federal securities laws against numerous underwriters, companies, and individuals, alleging generally that defendant underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities concerning the allocation of shares in the IPOs of more than 300 companies during late 1998 through 2000. Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that the underwriters' customers had to pay excessive brokerage commissions and purchase additional shares of stock in the aftermarket in order to receive favorable allocations of shares in an IPO. The consolidated amended complaint in the Company's case sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between December 9, 1999, and December 6, 2000. The amended complaint in the Packeteer case seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Packeteer's common stock between July 27, 1999, and December 6, 2000. The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation under which, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company and Packeteer, and the Company and Packeteer will not bear any financial liability. On October 5, 2009, the district court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors appealed that order to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Several of the appeals were dismissed. In May 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order granting the motion to dismiss as to one set of the remaining appeals and remanding the other set of appeals to the district court for further action. On August 25, 2011, the district court ruled that the objector that submitted the remaining set of appeals is not a class member, and therefore does not have standing to object to the settlement. That objector is now appealing the district court's August 2011 order. BLUE COAT: Securities Suit in California Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ On August 30, 2011, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers by an individual on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November 24, 2009, and May 27, 2010. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. A response to the complaint is not yet due and the court has not yet appointed lead plaintiffs. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011. CARRIER IQ: Faces Suit for Intercepting Consumers' Private Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Andre LaVertue and Gary Cribbs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., HTC, Inc., HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-06196 (N.D. Calif., December 9, 2011) accuses the Defendants of doing unlawful interception of private electronic communications emanating from private mobile phones, handsets and smart phones. The Plaintiffs tell the Court that they did not know that the Defendants were surreptitiously monitoring and collecting the Plaintiffs' private data sent through their cell phones, nor did the Plaintiffs give the Defendants permission to do so. Mr. LaVertue is a resident of New Hampshire, while Mr. Cribbs is a resident of Maryland. Mr. LaVertue owns an HTC4 EVO phone. Mr. Cribbs owns a Samsung Galaxy S2 Skyrocket phone. Carrier IQ is a provider of mobile services intelligence solutions to the wireless industry. HTC produces mobile phones and handsets, including "Android" smart phones. Samsung produces mobile phones and handsets, including "Android" smart phones. The CIQ software is embedded in HTC and Samsung phones, including the Plaintiffs' phones. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Nance F. Becker, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com nance@chavezgertler.com - and - Gary Klein, Esq. Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. Kevin Costello, Esq. RODDY KLEIN & RYAN 727 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02111-2810 Telephone: (617) 357-5500, ext. 15 Facsimile: (617) 357-5030 E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com kavanagh@roddykleinryan.com costello@roddykleinryan.com - and - Eric D. Holland, Esq. Steven J. Stolze, Esq. Steven L. Groves, Esq. HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE, LLC 300 N Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 Facsimile: (314) 241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com stevenstolze@sbcglobal.net sgroves@allfela.com - and - Jon D. Robinson, Esq. Christopher M. Ellis, Esq. Shane M. Mendenhall, Esq. BOLEN, ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP 202 South Franklin Street, 2nd Floor Decatur, IL 62523 Telephone: (217) 429-4296 Facsimile: (217) 329-0034 E-mail: jrobinson@brelaw.com cellis@brelaw.com smendenhall@brelaw.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BREMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com CARRIER IQ: Sued for Data Interception in Mobile Phones ------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Fischer, a Wisconsin resident; Kurt Fairfield, a Wisconsin resident; Harry Sarafian, a California resident; David Williams, a California resident; Stephanie Wirth, a California resident; John Swafford, a Florida resident; Luke Szulczewski, an Illinois resident; Richard Rosenfeld, a Kentucky resident; Michael Zemartis, a New Jersey resident; Timothy Dodson, a Texas resident; Evan Brooks, a Washington resident; Marcus Neal, a Washington resident; Brian Sandstrom, a Washington resident; John Woods, a Washington resident; Leonard Hobbs, a Nevada resident; and Kenneth Tishenkel, an Ohio resident, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware corporation; LG Electronics, Inc., a Korean company; LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., a California corporation; HTC Corporation, a Taiwanese company; HTC America, Inc., a Washington corporation; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean company; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. a New York corporation; and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:11-cv-06199 (N.D. Calif., December 9, 2011) asserts that CIQ claims that its software, which is embedded on cellular devices manufactured by HTC and Samsung, does not log key-strokes and, thus, does not intercept, store, and transfer consumer's electronic communications to third parties, like cellular carriers and device manufacturers. The Plaintiffs, however, allege that CIQ software does log keystrokes and does store and transmit to third parties detailed information, including the content of user messages sent and received. They argue that consumers using devices equipped with CIQ software are not notified that the software is actively running on their devices and have no idea that, and give no consent for, their private communications to be intercepted, stored, and transmitted to third parties. Plaintiffs Fischer and Fairfield are residents of Janesville, Wisconsin. Plaintiffs Sarafian, Williams and Wirth are California residents. Plaintiff Swafford is a resident of Sanford, Florida. Plaintiff Szulczewski is a resident of Lansing, Illinois. Plaintiff Zemartis is a resident of Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, while Plaintiff Dodson is a resident of Arlington, Texas. Plaintiffs Brooks, Neal, Sandstrora and Woods are residents of Washington. Plaintiff Hobbs is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, while Plaintiffs Rosenfeld and Tishenkel are residents of Kentucky. Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, created and provides software that is embedded on cellular devices manufactured by HTC and Samsung. LG Electronics Inc. is a Korean corporation and cellular device manufacturer. LG's subsidiary, LG Electronics, is a California corporation and sells its products throughout the United States. HTC is a Taiwan corporation and cellular device manufacturer. HTC's subsidiary, HTC America, is a Washington corporation and sells its products throughout the United States. Samsung Electronics America is a New York corporation, while Samsung Telecommunications America is a Delaware corporation. Both are subsidiaries of Samsung Electronics Co., a Korean company, and sell their products throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com robl@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Edwards Staggs, writing for VVDailyPress.com, reports that a local attorney has sent notice that he intends to file a class action lawsuit against the city of Victorville and Redflex Traffic Systems unless changes are made with the way red-light cameras are handled here. Robert Conaway, a criminal defense attorney from Barstow, is demanding that the two parties stop issuing tickets and that Redflex let Victorville out of its red-light camera contract. Otherwise, Mr. Conaway said he will sue unless the city begins paying San Bernardino County Sheriff's deputies to watch the live video feed and issue tickets as they occur, then appear in court to testify regarding the violations. The request stems from the primary concern cited by Mr. Conaway, local tea party members and others who've risen up to oppose the cameras: that they violate civil rights because the accused don't have the opportunity to confront their accuser. And, since employees with Redflex -- a private company headquartered in Phoenix -- are the ones first viewing the alleged violations, opponents claim testimony from local deputies should be inadmissible as evidence. Mr. Conaway filed the suit on behalf of Victorville resident Michael Curran "and others." Mr. Curran, 62, is accused of running the red light at Bear Valley and Hesperia roads on Sept. 26. He has no previous violations in San Bernardino County, according to court records. The city and Redflex have 30 days to respond to the notice. Mr. Conaway declined to answer further questions until he receives their responses. "We are confident that any action at this point is without merit," Tom Herrmann, Redflex spokesman, said on Dec. 13 by phone from the company's Phoenix headquarters. Mr. Herrmann declined to discuss specifics of the claim without having seen the suit, which Mr. Conaway sent on Dec. 9. "We are unaware of any courts in California that have deemed use of red-light cameras unconstitutional at this time," Victorville City Attorney Andre de Bortnoswky said via e-mail on Dec. 13. "Nevertheless, we will review and research the theories raised and respond accordingly." Victorville isn't particularly pleased with how the red-light cameras have worked out either, with city officials citing the "excessive" $490 fine and a questionable correlation to increased safety at most monitored intersections. In March, a split City Council approved a partnership between the city attorney's office and local attorney Brandon Wood to explore strategies for terminating Victorville's contract with Redflex before it expires in 2014. They'd hoped to have an answer within 60 days, but nine months have passed without any indication Victorville can terminate its contract for 10 red-light cameras without facing litigation from Redflex. CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholders of China Automotive Systems, Inc. are reminded of the securities class action lawsuit filed against China Automotive and certain of its officers. The class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased China Automotive securities during the period from March 25, 2010 through and including March 17, 2011. The Complaint charges that China Automotive and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its convertible notes issued on February 15, 2008; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were incorrectly stated during the Class Period; (3) that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact either Peretz Bronstein or Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via e-mail eitan@bgandg.com Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. December 26, 2011 is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. The firm's primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of both class and individual litigation claims on behalf of its clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate work, litigation and securities arbitration. DSW INC: Still Awaits Final OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- DSW Inc. is still awaiting final approval of its settlement of a consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in Ohio, according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. On May 19, 2011, Retail Ventures, Inc. ("Retail Ventures" or "RVI") shareholders and DSW Inc. ("DSW") shareholders approved the proposal presented to them at their respective special meetings of shareholders to adopt the merger agreement between DSW and Retail Ventures and to approve the merger (the "Merger"). The Merger closed on May 26, 2011. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Retail Ventures merged with and into DSW MS LLC ("Merger Sub"), with Merger Sub surviving the Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of DSW. In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, purported shareholders of Retail Ventures filed two putative shareholder class action lawsuits in an Ohio state court captioned as follows: Steamfitters local #449 Retirement Security Fund v. Schottenstein, et. al ("Steamfitters"), and Farkas v. Retail Ventures, Inc. ("Farkas"). The Steamfitters action was brought against Retail Ventures and its directors and chief executive officer and DSW. The Farkas action was brought against Retail Ventures and its directors, and DSW and DSW MS LLC, the entity that Retail Ventures since merged into ("Merger Sub"). The Steamfitters action alleges, among other things, that Retail Ventures and its directors has breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement and that Retail Ventures' chief executive officer and DSW aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Farkas action alleges, among other things, that the Retail Ventures board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement and failing to disclose certain alleged material information, and that Retail Ventures and DSW aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Both complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Merger, as well as money damages. On May 9, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the actions. In order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the parties agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of the lawsuits set forth in an executed memorandum of understanding that was filed with the court. The memorandum of understanding provided for, among other things, additional public disclosure with respect to the Merger, which was included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the shareholders of RVI and DSW. The plaintiffs have filed final settlement documents in Ohio state court, which remain subject to final court approval. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. The Company says that if the parties are unable to obtain final court approval of the settlement, then the litigation may proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. E-Z-GO: Recalls 21,900 Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with E-Z-GO, a Textron Company, of Augusta, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 21,900 TXT golf cars, Cushman shuttle vehicles and Bad Boy off-road utility vehicles. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The threaded end of the rack rod ball joint can break and the ball joint can become displaced, causing the driver to lose steering control. This can result in a crash. The firm is aware of 71 reports of the ball joint breaking, 13 of which resulted in the ball joint displacing. No injuries have been reported. The recalled vehicles are gas- and electric-powered, four-wheeled vehicles with bench seats for the driver and passengers. These models are included: Model Serial Number ----- ------------- E-Z-GO TXT Fleet golf cars 2748187 thru 2770316 E-Z-GO Freedom TXT golf cars 2748187 thru 2770316 E-Z-GO TXT shuttle vehicles 2748187 thru 2770316 Cushman Bellhop shuttle vehicles 2748187 thru 2770316 E-Z-GO ST utility vehicles 2748187 thru 2770316 Bad Boy Buggies HD, LD and 8000035 thru 8002809 LTO utility vehicles The brand and model names are printed on the side and front panels of the vehicles. Serial numbers are printed on a plate or label located on the exterior of the vehicle below the driver's seat. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12056.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at E-Z-GO and Bad Boy dealers nationwide from February 2011 through July 2011 for between $6,650 and $10,650. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and contact E-Z-GO or an authorized dealer for a free repair. E-Z-GO and E-Z-GO dealers are contacting known owners. For additional information, contact E-Z-GO toll-free at (800) 774-3946 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ezgo.com/ ECOLAB INC: Nalco Unit Continues to Face Suits Over COREXIT Use --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Nalco Holding Company continues to face lawsuits arising from the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident and relating to the use of Nalco's oil dispersant product, COREXIT(R) 9500, according to Ecolab Inc.'s December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 1, 2011, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of July 19, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Ecolab Inc., a Delaware corporation, Sustainability Partners Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Ecolab ("Merger Sub"), and Nalco Holding Company, a Delaware corporation ("Nalco"), Nalco merged with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ecolab. Matters Related to Deepwater Horizon Incident On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally requested Nalco Company, an indirect subsidiary of Nalco Holding Company, to supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant product listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federal government throughout the incident. Prior to the incident, Nalco Holding Company and its subsidiaries had not provided products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater Horizon platform. On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter. On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are grounded in the best available science." Nalco Holding Company cooperated with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT 9500, as requested by BP and government authorities. After review and testing of a number of dispersants, on June 30, 2010, and on August 2, 2010, the EPA released toxicity data for eight oil dispersants. The use of dispersants by the responding parties was one tool used by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf area from the spill. Since the spill occurred, the EPA and other federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where dispersant has been applied. Nalco Holding Company has encouraged ongoing monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and has cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval process. However, in connection with its provision of COREXIT, Nalco Company has been named in several lawsuits. Putative Class Action Litigation In June, July and August 2010, and in April 2011, Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in eight putative class action complaints filed in either the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Parker, et al. v. Nalco Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB- SS; Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv- 02078-CJB-SS; Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00881; Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Civil Action No. 11- cv-01051), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division (Lavigne, et al. v. BP PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00222-KD-C; Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00397-B) or the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division (Walsh, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00143-RV-MD; Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT) on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live and work in or derive income from the Coastal Zone. The Parker, Lavigne and Walsh cases have since been voluntarily dismissed. Each of the remaining actions contains substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the use of Nalco Company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in each of these putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Other Related Federal Claims In July, August, September, October and December 2010, Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in eight complaints filed by individuals in either the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division (Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv- 00472-M; Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00471- CG-N; Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 10-cv-00532-N), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division (Capt Ander, Inc. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR) or the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Chatman v. BP Exploration & Production, Civil Action No. 10-cv-04329; Brooks v. Tidewater Marine LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00049). In April 2011, Nalco Company was also named in Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-867, (E.D. La.); Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Alexander, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00951 (E.D. La.); and Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.). The complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and injury resulting from the use of Nalco Company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Chatman case was voluntarily dismissed. All of the cases pending against Nalco Company have been administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Civil Action No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179"). Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, the claims have been consolidated in several master complaints, including one naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil Spill (known as the "B3 Bundle"). Plaintiffs are required by Judge Barbier to prepare a list designating previously-filed lawsuits that assert claims within the B3 Bundle regardless of whether the lawsuit named each defendant named in the B3 Bundle master complaint. Nalco Holding Company has received a draft list from the plaintiffs' steering committee. The draft list identifies fifteen cases in the B3 Bundle, some of which are putative class actions. Six cases previously filed against Nalco Company are not included in the B3 Bundle. Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, claimants wishing to assert causes of action subject to one or more of the master complaints may do so by filing a short-form joinder. A short-form joinder is deemed to be an intervention into one or more of the master complaints in MDL 2179. The deadline for filing short form joinders was April 20, 2011. Of the individuals who have filed short form joinders that intervene in the B3 Bundle, Nalco Company has no reason to believe that these individuals are different from those covered by the putative class actions. These plaintiffs who have intervened in the B3 Bundle seek to recover damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring and/or property damage related to the oil spill clean- up efforts. Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder defendants have been named as third party defendants by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL 2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross defendants. In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants. Other Related State Court Actions In March 2011, Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in an amended complaint filed by an individual in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, Second Judicial District (Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi)). The amended complaint generally asserts, among other things, negligence and strict products liability claims relating to the plaintiff's alleged exposure to chemical dispersants manufactured by Nalco Company. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, medical expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2011, Nalco Company was named along with other unaffiliated defendants, in a complaint filed in Louisiana State Court, Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., No. 59-121 (25th Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana). The complaint alleges that 26 boat operators and clean-up technicians suffered health-related problems as a result of using chemicals during the oil spill response efforts. Nalco Holding Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco Company are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Nalco Holding Company also believes that it has rights to contribution and/or indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties. However, Nalco Holding Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the involvement it might have in these matters in the future or the potential for future litigation. ECOLAB INC: Still Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Ecolab Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 1, 2011, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of July 19, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Ecolab Inc., a Delaware corporation, Sustainability Partners Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Ecolab ("Merger Sub"), and Nalco Holding Company, a Delaware corporation ("Nalco"), Nalco merged with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ecolab. Following Ecolab and Nalco Holding Company's announcement of a planned merger transaction on July 20, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Nalco, members of Nalco's board of directors and Ecolab in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (DuPage County, State of Illinois): Jack Mozenter v. Nalco Holding Co., Ecolab, Inc., et al., No. 2011MR001043. Three additional purported class action lawsuits were also filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit: Ziegler v. Nalco Holding Company, et al., No. 2011 L 861, Stasik v. Fyrwald, et al., No. 2011 CH 3745 and Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County v. Nalco Holding Co., et al., No. 2011 L951. The four actions were consolidated by the Circuit Court on September 7, 2011. The lawsuits allege that the planned merger transaction is the result of an unfair and inadequate process, the consideration to be received by Nalco's stockholders in the merger is inadequate and that the members of Nalco's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits were later amended to allege that the disclosures regarding the proposed merger as submitted by Nalco in a draft proxy statement for its shareholders were inadequate. (The lawsuits also allege that Ecolab aided and abetted the Nalco board of directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties to Nalco's stockholders.) The lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining Ecolab and Nalco from proceeding with the merger unless Nalco implements procedures to obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders, directing the Nalco board of directors to exercise its fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of Nalco's stockholders and seeking additional disclosures in the proposed proxy statement. Nalco believes the allegations are meritless. On October 24, 2011, the parties to the consolidated actions reached an agreement in principle regarding settlement of the consolidated actions. The defendants have entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction of the litigation. Under this settlement, the consolidated actions will be dismissed with prejudice on the merits and all defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to, among other things, the merger and any related disclosures. The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the merger, completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification and final approval by the court. In exchange for the releases provided in the settlement, Ecolab and Nalco have provided additional disclosure requested by plaintiffs in the consolidated action related to, among other things, the negotiations between Ecolab and Nalco that resulted in the execution of the merger agreement, the financial forecasts prepared by Ecolab and Nalco, the opinions provided by Ecolab's and Nalco's respective financial advisors in connection with the merger and the fees paid to those advisors by Ecolab and Nalco over the past two years. The settlement will not affect any provision of the merger agreement or the form or amount of the consideration to be received by Nalco stockholders in the merger. The parties have agreed that the lead plaintiff may apply to the court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, which, under certain circumstances, defendants have agreed not to oppose. HEALTHWORKS FITNESS: Violates Mass. Wage Laws, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- DeAnna Putnam, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Healthworks Fitness Centers, Inc., and Mark Harrington, Sr., Case No. SUCV2011-04423 (Mass. Super. Ct., December 6, 2011) is brought on behalf of individuals, who have worked for the Defendants at Healthworks fitness centers in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in numerous violations of wage laws, including not paying employees for all hours worked and not paying overtime. The Plaintiff seeks treble damages, interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. Ms. Putnam is a resident of Waltham, Massachusetts. She was employed as a personal trainer for the Defendants at the Healthworks Fitness Center at 325 Harvard Street in Brookline, Massachusetts, from approximately August 2010 to June 2011. She was also employed as a group fitness instructor at Healthworks from approximately 2006 to June 2011, during which time she performed work at all of the Healthworks clubs. Healthworks is a corporation that operates fitness centers in Massachusetts. Mr. Harrington is an owner and operator of Healthworks Fitness Centers, Inc. He is listed on the Massachusetts Secretary of State's Web site as the president, treasurer, secretary, director, and registered agent for Healthworks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Michael Rabieh, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hschwab@llrlaw.com mrabieh@llrlaw.com HOOTERS: Atty. Says Class Action Settlement to End "Indignities" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Chow, writing for FindLaw, reports that a class-action Hooters lawsuit settlement will bring an end to "indignities" suffered by the restaurant chain's waitresses, an attorney for the workers says. The suit, filed in March 2010 in Sacramento, involved about 400 Hooters workers at the chain's central California locations who claimed the company violated their rights as employees, KCRA-TV reports. Hooters is known for outfitting voluptuous waitresses in tight-fitting t-shirts. The workers alleged they weren't allowed to take breaks as required by law, had to pay out-of-pocket for their uniforms, and were held financially responsible when customers bailed on paying their checks. All of those practices will now change, at least in central California, plaintiffs' attorney Burton Boltuch told KCRA-TV. Mr. Boltuch called the settlement "vindication" for the "indignities endured" by the workers. The Hooters lawsuit settlement gives the workers financial compensation, Mr. Boltuch said, though he declined to go into details. The agreement also relaxes Hooters' uniform requirements, KCRA-TV reports -- though it's not clear exactly what those relaxed requirements will entail. A Hooters spokesman declined to comment about the settlement. But an employee-rights advocate told KCRA it sends a powerful message to the restaurant industry, in which workers are often denied breaks as a matter of course. Breaks and meal periods are not required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. But they are mandated by law in many states including California, which also requires employers to pay the cost of workers' uniforms. This Hooters lawsuit is actually Mr. Boltuch's third against the company. He's also brought similar suits against Hooters restaurants in San Francisco and Los Angeles. J CREW: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that a judge approved a shareholder class action settlement over the controversial buyout of J Crew Group Inc on Dec. 14, and blasted the retailer's sale process as "icky." The settlement caps a buyout in which J Crew Chief Executive, Millard Drexler negotiated the $3 billion sale before telling his board. Shareholders approved the deal narrowly, in a cliff-hanger vote. The settlement provides $16 million for shareholders. J Crew also agreed to reduce barriers that were meant to protect the deal for the two private equity buyers, TPG Capital and Leonard Green & Partners. Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine also took the unusual step of removing two of the six shareholders who were acting as lead plaintiffs representing the rest of the class. The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System was removed as a lead plaintiff because it had voted for the sale, which Judge Strine said "doesn't make them look good." The only individual acting as a lead plaintiff, Martin Vogel, was also removed because he opposed the settlement. The plaintiffs had sued J Crew's board for agreeing to sell the retailer too cheaply. The sale closed in March and shareholders agreed to settle their lawsuit in September. Mark Vogel, a New Jersey lawyer and investment adviser who represented his father Martin Vogel at the Dec. 14 hearing, said the class action process was driven by attorneys who "confined me to a silo" and "steamrolled" him. "Lead counsel's game is to intimidate the one individual who managed to find his way into their cozy club," Mark Vogel said. For example, he said he learned that attorneys had agreed to an initial settlement three days after it had been signed. He also criticized the other plaintiffs, which were pension funds, noting that only one of them had voted against the deal they were litigating over. Four abstained from voting. "The class should be represented by members who take an active interest," he told the court. Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer PA, who represented the class of shareholders, told the court that no one had more input than Mr. Vogel in the process, but that did not give him a right to control the case. "With six lead plaintiffs, one doesn't get a veto," Mr. Grant said. The case has taken several odd turns. At one point the defendants sued the plaintiffs for backing out of an initial agreement to settle. A large part of the Dec. 14 two-hour hearing was spent in an argument between Mark Vogel and Judge Strine over J Crew's value, with Mr. Vogel saying it was worth as much as $9 billion. "I'm somewhat suspicious that the world will go gangbusters for J Crew," said Judge Strine, who kept noting that no one else bid for the company. Judge Strine also criticized the behavior of J Crew's directors and chief executive for allowing TPG Capital, one of the buyers, to get a head start in the sale process, which he said may have eliminated potential rivals. "It's icky stuff," said Judge Strine. "This was not good corporate governance." Judge Strine also approved fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys of $6.5 million. The case is In Re J Crew Group Inc Shareholder Litigation, Delaware Chancery Court, No 6043. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Sees No Wrong in "False Claims" Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company on Dec. 7 commented on the settlement of false claims allegations with the U.S. Department of Justice associated with the Company's former ETHEX generic pharmaceutical subsidiary. In connection with a multi-defendant action captioned United States ex rel. Constance Conrad v. ETHEX Corp., et al., No. 02- 11738-RWZ (D. Mass.), K-V has agreed to pay a total of $17 million over five years to resolve False Claims Act allegations raised by the government that ETHEX, the Company's former generic pharmaceutical subsidiary, allegedly failed to advise the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that two products - Nitroglycerin Extended Release Capsules (Nitroglycerin ER) and Hyoscyamine Sulfate Extended Release Capsules (Hyoscyamine ER) - purportedly did not qualify for coverage under federal health care programs. K-V admitted no wrongdoing in settling the matter. The settlement includes a multi-year payment schedule with nominal near-term capital requirements. "We are satisfied with the settlement terms and the resolution of a legacy issue associated with our former ETHEX subsidiary," stated Greg Divis, chief executive officer of K-V. "The agreed terms include a reasonable five-year payment schedule, with less than $1 million to be paid within the first year. We are also pleased that the government deemed our current operations and compliance function sufficiently robust as to not require a corporate integrity agreement. The closure of this matter is another step forward as K-V moves ahead as a women's healthcare focused branded specialty pharmaceutical company." K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears -------------------------------------------------------------- On October 19, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint for violations of the federal securities laws against K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 2011-cv-01816. The action covers all purchasers of the common stock of K-V between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011, inclusive. This is to remind you that if you purchased the common stock of K-V during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court by December 19, 2011. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott, scottlaw@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott K-V Pharmaceutical Web site for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/new/securities-fraud-litigation- 1533-k-v-pharmaceutical-company-kv-a.html. There is no cost or fee to you. The complaint filed in the action charges that during the brief Class Period, the Company issued false and misleading statements claiming the Food and Drug Administration had granted K-V the exclusive distribution rights over its "Makena," a drug compound that had previously been prescribed by physicians for decades to prevent miscarriages, and that the agency would enforce those rights by preventing K-V's competitors from distributing generic compounds of Makena. The complaint also alleges that defendants told investors K-V's Makena distribution program was designed to "expand access" to the drug compound, including to low-income and other at-risk groups, while concealing that the $1,500 list price K-V was charging would actually reduce availability of the drug compound to physicians and their patients. As a result, based on a fundamental misperception of K-V's sales and earnings potential, the complaint charges that K-V's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, allowing K-V to sell $200 million worth of senior secured notes, with the proceeds used in large part to pay down the Company's debts. The complaint alleges that the truth began to come to light on March 17, 2011, when two U.S. Senators publicly questioned the bona fides of K-V's distribution program, stating "the financial assistance is not sufficient and does not extend to certain groups of women," and so that in reality, "KV Pharmaceutical's actions will result in diminished access to appropriate health care for women and result in increased preterm births." It is alleged that this partial disclosure caused K-V's stock price to fall precipitously, removing some of the stock inflation. Then, following the FDA's own March 30, 2011 statement that the agency did "not intend to take enforcement action against" K-V's competitors for distributing the generic version of K-V's Makena, K-V's stock fell further on extremely high trading volume. Finally, following K-V's April 1, 2011 disclosure that K-V was reducing Makena's list price by nearly 55% to $690 per injection -- versus the previous list price of $1,500 -- the market learned on April 4, 2011 that many physicians would never prescribe Makena to their patients due to flaws in the distribution program. On this news, K-V's stock price fell an additional 9.5% in a single trading session. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in IPO Securities Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a court's August 2011 ruling in a consolidated securities lawsuit remains pending, according to Marvell Technology Group Ltd.'s December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. In 2001, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning certain alleged underwriting practices related to the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on June 29, 2000. The actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed, naming as defendants certain investment banks that participated in the IPO, the Company, and two of its officers, one of whom is also a director. Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by allegedly failing to disclose that the underwriters received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of their clients. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and fees. In addition, this case has been coordinated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against underwriters and issuers for approximately 300 other IPOs. Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, allowing certain claims to proceed. The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial liability. The Company and other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. In 2009, the district court issued an order of final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors filed appeals, a number of which were dismissed by agreement or by the appellate court. The current matter on appeal is the district court's August 2011 ruling that the remaining appellate was not a class member with standing to object to the settlement. If for any reason the settlement does not become effective, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims against it and intends to defend the action vigorously. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Settles "Holton" Wage and Hour Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Marvell Technology Group Ltd. entered into an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit commenced by a former employee of its subsidiary, according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton ("Holton"), a former employee of Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. ("MSI"), filed a civil complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Holton alleges that MSI misclassified him as an exempt employee. Holton claims that due to its misclassification MSI owes him unpaid wages for overtime, penalties for missed meal periods, and various other penalties under the California Labor Code, as well as interest. Holton also pursues a cause of action for unfair business practices under the California Business & Profession Code. Holton brought his complaint as a class action. On July 8, 2009, the court granted certification of the following class: "All Individual Contributor Engineers who held the title of PCB Designer, Associate Engineer, Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior Engineers, who at any time during the class period while holding these positions did not have a degree above a baccalaureate degree nor a degree above a baccalaureate degree in a field of science related to the work performed, and worked for MSI in California, at any time from October 19, 2002 through the present." MSI disputes all of plaintiff's class claims. On June 23, 2011, MSI filed a motion for decertification of the class, which was heard by the court on August 25, 2011. On September 6, 2011, the court granted decertification of the plaintiffs' meal period claims and denied the remainder of MSI's motion for decertification of the class. On September 19, 2011, the parties attended a mediation and subsequently agreed in principal to settle this matter. On November 23, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement and plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The anticipated settlement amount has been recorded in the Company's financial statements for the three months ended October 29, 2011, and is not significant to the results of operations for the three and nine months ended October 29, 2011. MEDTRONIC: Stock-Drop Suit Obtains Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ Nate Raymond, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that Medtronic's lawyers at Kirkland failed to convince a St. Paul, Minn., federal district court judge to deny class certification on the grounds that shareholder plaintiffs in a stock-drop suit had fudged the testimony of 13 confidential witnesses. Ruling that it was "premature" to determine whether the plaintiffs had accurately represented witnesses' testimony, Judge Paul Magnuson certified the class on Dec. 12. MFS: Judge Allows Investor Suit to Proceed as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that an investor class action against the accounting firm KPMG and former directors and executives of the failed MFS property investment group received belated good news on Dec. 14, when a Federal Court judge said he would allow a two-year-old compensation suit to proceed. Justice Nye Perram said the case, in which he has previously rejected two attempts to file long statements of claim, had "a tortured procedural history". Earlier this year, Justice Perram said if the plaintiffs filed a fresh pleading of 50 pages or less he would consider whether it could go to trial. On Dec. 14, he allowed the new claim to proceed after rejecting complaints by KPMG and the individual defendants, including the former managing director of MFS, Michael King. However, he ordered the investors, whose legal costs are funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd, to pay the costs thrown away on the earlier pleadings, saying there was "much to be said for the view that the last two years have been a waste of time". "Given the expense in getting to this point, it would be unfair in my opinion for the applicants not to have to confront the consequences of what has been done on their behalf until the present application," Justice Perram said. Since the suit was filed in April 2009, the class action has used three consecutive firms of solicitors and three consecutive senior barristers. The judge rejected a claim from the defendants for additional so-called "indemnity costs", or reimbursement of all costs incurred. Justice Perram predicted that the hearing was "a good way off" and said all sides were steeling themselves for "a long and drawn-out procedural Stalingrad in which no quarter will be given". The investors want to recover losses sustained when the MFS Premium Income Fund collapsed in 2009. The class action is defined as registered holders of units in the fund between January 2007 and October 2008, when redemptions were frozen. Justice Perram will allow a negligence claim against KPMG, which audited the fund's compliance with the plan required under its registration as a managed investment scheme. He will also allow a claim of breach of the compliance auditor's duty as defined in the Corporations Act. The class action will also sue former directors and executives of MFS, which changed its name to Octaviar Ltd in 2009, and of the responsible entity for the fund. Allegations against the individuals include failing to prevent unsecured loans by the fund to related parties which they should have known were not authorized. PRIMO WATER: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Primo Water Corporation in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about November 4, 2010, and the Company's offering of common stock on or about June 17, 2011, as well as purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 4, 2010, and August 10, 2011, inclusive. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Dec. 2. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/primowater/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Primo Water, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Primo Water, together with its subsidiaries, provides multi-gallon purified bottled water, self-serve filtered drinking water, and water dispensers in the United States and Canada. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) neither demand nor sales of the Company's products were as robust as represented; (b) stores owned by the Company's largest retail customers did not carry the Company's products so the Company was not generating any revenue from those locations; (c) the Company's growth and business prospects were heavily dependent upon the ability of the Company's two largest customers to sell products from other, unrelated companies before those customers would order products from Primo Water; (d) the Company's primary retail customers would not be in a position to order any of the Company's products until after those retail customers cleared out other inventory sitting on their shelves, including inventory related to products sold by competitors to the Company; (e) the Company's largest retail customers had delayed promotions of the Company's products, which negatively impacted the Company's sales; (f) the Company's growth rate had slowed and would be slower for the rest of 2011, if not beyond; (g) the Company would not meet the financial guidance it provided to investors; and (h) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis of fact and were materially false and misleading when made. On August 10, 2011, the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2011, the period ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $2.0 million or a loss of $0.10 per share, compared to Company's projections in May 2011 of earnings ranging from a loss of $0.03 to a gain of $0.02 per share and analyst projections of a gain of $0.07 per share. The Company also revised downward its financial projections for the third and fourth quarters of 2011 and provided guidance for the full year of 2012. Following the Company's announcements on August 10, 2011, the price of Primo Water common stock collapsed from $13.92 per share on August 9, 2011 to close at $5.40 per share on August 10, 2011 -- a one day decline of $8.52 per share, or 61% -- on extremely heavy volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Primo Water common stock during the Class Period, including all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Primo Water in or traceable to the Company's Offerings. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. On Dec. 6, 2011, Primo Water Corporation disclosed that it intends to vigorously defend recent allegations against the Company made in a purported class action securities lawsuit. The Company believes the claims are without merit. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta. PRIMO WATER: Shareholder Class Action Likely to Prevail ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that it appears a role of the dice whether the class-action lawsuit filed against Primo Water Corp. will be successful for plaintiffs and shareholders in gaining damages. Exhibit one for a dour outlook: two high-profile shareholder lawsuits -- including one in Forsyth County -- filed in October 2009 against Wachovia Corp. were dismissed in February 2011 by a N.C. Business Court judge. Exhibit one for a promising outlook: a $91 million settlement agreed to by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. in February 2007 to settle a securities class action and derivative lawsuits filed in 2004 and 2005 against the company and its management. The securities class action includes all investors who bought Krispy Kreme's securities between March 8, 2001, and April 18, 2005. The settlement included $51.8 million in common stock and warrants to purchase common stock to be issued by the company, and a cash payment of $34.9 million from the company's directors' and officers' insurers. Bruce McDaniel, a Raleigh attorney for the plaintiffs in the Primo Water lawsuit, said he was involved in the Krispy Kreme lawsuit and a securities lawsuit filed in January 2009 against Triad Guaranty Inc. Mr. McDaniel expressed confidence that Primo shareholders would prevail, whether through a settlement or through the legal system that may take 18 to 24 months to reach a jury trial. "When it comes to potentially misleading actions involving the Securities Act, it's more an issue of 'seller beware' than 'buyer beware,'" Mr. McDaniel said. "The ultimate question to be resolved by either Primo or a judge is how bad was it -- were Primo's disclosures and nondisclosures misleading enough to constitute liability?" The eight Wachovia plaintiffs claimed, just as in the Primo lawsuit, that they were misled by management during the bank's collapse in 2008. The lawsuits were filed Oct. 1, 2009 -- two days after the announcement that Citigroup would buy Wachovia and nine days before Wells Fargo & Co. beat out Citigroup and bought Wachovia with the blessing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Both lawsuits had as defendants Wachovia and Wells Fargo, as well as Ken Thompson, former chairman and chief executive of Wachovia, and Robert Steel, who succeeded Thompson as chief executive and was in charge when it was sold to Wells Fargo. In February 2011, John Jolly Jr., chief special Superior Court judge for complex business cases in N.C. Business Court, dismissed the lawsuits. Judge Jolly agreed with the defendants "that North Carolina does not permit direct shareholder claims for losses resulting solely from a drop in stock value and that the plaintiffs' injury was felt equally by all Wachovia shareholders . . . and the corporation itself." Judge Jolly's ruling wasn't a popular one among shareholders, considering that Tony Plath, a finance professor at UNC Charlotte, estimated about $1 billion in shareholder value vanished in the Carolinas from the Wachovia collapse. "Basically, the Business Court concluded there's no compelling reason that the plaintiffs should be treated any differently from any of Wachovia's other shareholders, and we all lost a bunch of money," Mr. Plath said. Local and regional shareholders said in 2008 that Wachovia executives counted on and manipulated their loyalty to what had been one of the steadiest blue-chip companies in North Carolina. It had posted dividends that provided an affordable and comfortable retirement for many employees and investors. Wachovia executives and well-to-do institutional investors aren't the only ones who took a severe financial blow. Also hit were many Winston-Salem residents and the institutions they support: churches, schools, nonprofits, and foundations. The problems also affected residents and potential residents of local retirement and nursing homes, and those retirees wanting to stay in their own homes. Most of those individuals and groups continue to struggle to recover from the share-price collapse, and hold slim hope of regaining their investment through Wells Fargo. "As an old-line, legacy North Carolina company, it's really difficult to find North Carolina investors who didn't have a significant piece of their wealth in Wachovia's stock," Mr. Plath said. "It's taken a severe toll on retirement savings plans, 401(k) investment resources, college-savings plans, (and) mutual- fund shares for North Carolina investors." In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed Wachovia and the executives were negligent and misrepresented the financial status of the bank, therefore breaching the duty of a corporate director or officer. The officers were accused of "publishing allegedly false public SEC filings, press releases and earnings calls regarding the financial strength, stability and liquidity of Wachovia, beginning in January 2007 and concluding in September 2008." Several Wachovia executives were accused of selling, for a profit, about 200,000 shares of stock from 2006 to 2008 "based on inside information about Wachovia's financial status not disclosed to Wachovia shareholders or the public." Judge Jolly ruled the plaintiffs did not offer viable claims of negligence, misrepresentation and breach of corporate duties. He dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that they could have reduced their financial damages by selling Wachovia stock before the Citigroup and Wells Fargo offers were announced had they known Wachovia's true financial plight. In the Krispy Kreme case, after the company went public in April 2000, it became an investor favorite by beating earnings expectations for 13 consecutive quarters. That performance spurred a share price that topped out at $108.50 in November 2000. The stock was split twice in 2001. In July 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission began a probe into Krispy Kreme's accounting practices. On March 4, 2009, the SEC ordered that Scott Livengood, its former chairman and chief executive; John Tate, its former chief operating officer; and Randy Casstevens, its former financial officer, pay a combined $783,000 for violating accounting laws and for fraud. Krispy Kreme received only a cease-and-desist order from committing or causing violations of several provisions of the Securities Act. Neither the executives nor the company admitted or denied wrongdoing. "The Krispy Kreme case was a far more extreme example of promising more than you can deliver in an offering circular, and then committing fraud in order to cover up the poor financial performance of the company," Mr. Plath said. "Krispy Kreme had far more merit as a case against management than Primo, at least based on the information contained in the circular and the subsequent behavior of management to cover up the true condition of the company. Granted, there may be more to Primo's troubles than a slowly developing distribution network, but right now, it looks like a completely different case than Krispy Kreme." PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Claims on Crest Toothpaste ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Procter & Gamble falsely advertises that its Crest Sensitivity toothpaste provides relief from tooth sensitivity pain "within minutes." A copy of the Complaint in Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 13600 in Case No. 33-av- 00001 on Dec. 13, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/14/CCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi. Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. Christopher Marlborough, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 SAN FRANCISCO: K. Dermody Named Pres. of Bar Association -------------------------------------------------------- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on December 15 announced the installation of Kelly Dermody as president of the Bar Association of San Francisco. Founded in 1872, BASF serves legal professionals and the community by promoting access to justice and excellence and diversity in the legal profession, and by providing legal and pro bono services to disadvantaged and underserved individuals. A long-time supporter and volunteer of BASF, Ms. Dermody has served on BASF's Board of Directors since 2005, and has held the leadership positions of Secretary, Treasurer, and President-Elect. "We are extremely proud that our partner Kelly Dermody has been installed as President to lead one of the nation's premier bar associations," stated Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser's Managing Partner. "Kelly is deeply committed to the work of BASF and is a passionate advocate for the rights of employees and consumers, civil rights, human rights, increased access to legal services, and initiatives to address hiring, retention, and advancement of attorneys from historically underrepresented groups. She will provide BASF the same outstanding leadership that she provides our firm as a member of our Executive Committee." The Chair of Lieff Cabraser's employment practice group, Ms. Dermody is litigating many of the most significant and challenging employment class action lawsuits in our nation today, including complaints brought by applicants and employees alleging gender and/or race discrimination by nationally prominent corporations, overtime pay lawsuits by workers at leading firms, and ERISA claims on behalf of employees and retirees who have lost retirement funds due to pension plan abuses. Ms. Dermody also represents consumers in consumer protection cases. California Lawyer magazine awarded her its California Lawyer of the Year Award for her successful prosecution of several class action lawsuits against California's main hospital chains for charging the uninsured exorbitant and unconscionable prices for medical care. Under settlements in these cases, uninsured patients received over $1 billion in refunds or bill adjustments. Ms. Dermody has been a leader in organizations devoted to serving the public interest, improving access to justice, and ensuring that the rights of historically disenfranchised persons are protected. In addition to her service as BASF President, Ms. Dermody is a Member of the Governing Council of the ABA's Labor and Employment Law Section and Co-Chair of the Independence of the Judiciary Committee of the National Association of Women Judges. Super Lawyers has recognized Ms. Dermody as one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers and Top 50 Female Super Lawyers in Northern California. Best Lawyers has selected her as one of the Best Lawyers in San Francisco for three consecutive years. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Another Merger-Related Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sonesta International Hotels Corporation is facing another class action lawsuit arising from its proposed merger with PAC Merger Corp., according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation entered into a proposed transaction (the "Transaction") contemplated by an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 2, 2011, by and among Sonesta Acquisition Corp. (f/k/a Property Acquisition Corp.), a Maryland corporation ("Parent"), PAC Merger Corp., a New York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"). On December 1, 2011, a putative class action complaint captioned GAMCO Investors, Inc. v. Peter Sonnabend, et al., Index No. 653328/2011, was filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division against Sonesta, each member of Sonesta's Board of Directors, Hospitality Properties Trust, Parent and Merger Sub. The action was filed by a purported stockholder of Sonesta, on its own and on behalf of a putative class of Sonesta stockholders. The complaint makes similar allegations to those alleged in the Broadbased Fund action and seeks a judgment requiring Sonesta to make corrective disclosures, awarding the plaintiff and class compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and an award of all costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. STATE BANCORP: Gets Final Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A case was filed on May 6, 2011, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of a putative class of State Bancorp, Inc. ("State Bancorp") stockholders against State Bancorp, State Bancorp's directors and Valley National Bancorp ("Valley") challenging the merger of State Bancorp into Valley (Edith K. Grossman v. State Bancorp, Inc., et al (No. 600469/2011)). On October 24, 2011, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle the action. The agreement was set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties ("MOU"). On October 26, 2011, the Honorable Timothy S. Driscoll signed a Preliminary Approval Order with regard to the lawsuit and the MOU, among other things scheduling a hearing on the approval of the settlement by the court. On November 29, 2011, following a final settlement hearing, the Honorable Timothy S. Driscoll, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, issued an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice, according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. US CONSULATE GENERAL: Faces Class Action in Indonesia Over Wall --------------------------------------------------------------- Kukuh S. Wibowo, writing for TEMPO Interactive, reports that advocate Muhammad Sholeh, representing six Surabaya residents, has filed a class action lawsuit against the US Consulate General in Surabaya as well as the local police chief. The file was submitted to the Surabaya District Court on Dec. 13. The plaintiff protested the construction of a wall in front of the consulate's office. The waist-high and 7-meter-long wall was built four years ago to impede demonstrators. "The wall must be dismantled because it's built on Indonesia's legal area and often causes traffic jams," said Mr. Sholeh. Consulate staffer Esti Durahsanti refused to comment. WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Juices -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Walgreens 100% Grape Juice and Walgreens 100% Apple Juice "contain significant levels of arsenic and lead." A copy of the Complaint in Boysen v. Walgreen Co., et al., Case No. 11-cv-06262 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/14/Arsenic.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. J. Kirk Boyd, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com kboyd@rocklawcal.com WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Protect KH Funding Noteholders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Gresser, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:11-cv-06175 (N.D. Calif., December 8, 2011) is brought on behalf of all persons, who held KH Funding Company Series 3 Senior Secured Investment Debt Securities as of February 5, 2010, excluding Wells Fargo and its affiliates. Ms. Gresser relates that KH Funding's repeated failures to pay requested Series 3 Note redemptions outside of the 30-day grace period were continuing events of default under the Indenture -- a contractual agreement between KH Funding and Wells Fargo to which the Class members are third-party beneficiaries. Under the Indenture, upon the occurrence and continuation of an event of default, Wells Fargo was obligated to exercise its rights and powers under the Indenture to protect the interest of holders of the Notes, Ms. Gresser says. She alleges that Wells Fargo, however, breached its obligation by its recurrent failure to exercise its rights and powers under the Indenture despite its knowledge of the events of default and KH Funding's deteriorating financial condition. Ms. Gresser is a resident of Aventura, Florida. She owns Series 3 Senior Secured Investment Debt Securities issued by non-party, KH Funding. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association. Wells Fargo, or its predecessor by merger, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., was the Indenture Trustee for the Series 3 Notes and Series 4 Subordinated Unsecured Investment Debt Securities issued by KH Funding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Todd Espinosa, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com ecp@girardgibbs.com tie@girardgibbs.com * Pace of Securities Class Action Filings Steady in 2011 -------------------------------------------------------- The pace of filings of class actions under federal securities and commodity laws held relatively steady in 2011 as compared to the previous three years, according to NERA Economic Consulting's semi-annual report, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2011 Year-End Review, released on Dec. 14. While shareholder filings continue to be filed at a relatively steady level as compared to the past three years, there has been a substantial shift in the composition of suits filed. A surge in cases involving Chinese companies listed in the US and in M&A objection suits, along with a waning of credit-crisis cases, has been driving this trend. NERA Trends authors project there will be 232 shareholder class action filings in 2011, broadly in line with levels observed in 2010 (241), in 2009 (218), and 2008 (245). Suits objecting to a merger or an acquisition have accounted for 29% of filings so far in 2011, and filings against Chinese companies have accounted for approximately 18%. Filings against Foreign-Domiciled Firms Filings against foreign-domiciled issuers reached 64 in 2011, more than double the annual count observed in recent years. This surge in suits is largely attributed to the surge in filings against Chinese companies. So far in 2011, there have been a total of 29 filings against Chinese-domiciled firms. However, this number understates the number of Chinese firms targeted, as not all companies based in China are legally domiciled there. When the Trends authors included Chinese companies that are either domiciled in China or have their principal executive offices in the country, there have been 39 suits against Chinese companies in 2011. Settlements Average settlement values of securities class actions fell to $31 million in 2011, well below the 2010 average of $108 million. However, the annual average settlement figure can be significantly impacted by large settlement outliers. Excluding settlements in excess of $1 billion, as well as 309 small settlements related to IPO laddering cases that were approved in October 2009, there is still a substantial decline in average settlements from 2010 to 2011--from $40 million in 2010 to $31 in 2011. An alternative metric Trends authors use is median settlements. In 2010, the median settlement reached an all-time high of $11 million, but in 2011, this figure fell to $8.7 million--below the previous two years but still the third highest on record. Additional Settlement Trends -- The number of settlements in 2011 also declined as compared to previous years. -- 54% of cases that settled or have a scheduled court approval date in 2011 did so for less than $10 million, well up from the 41% observed in 2010. -- Only 6% of 2011 settlements were for more than $100 million, down from 8% in the previous year. -- Aggregate amount paid out in settlements ($2.6 billion) is at its lowest level since 2004. "The year 2011 may be remembered as the year that saw the explosion of Chinese company-related lawsuits, the continued dominance of M&A cases alleging breach of fiduciary duty, and the sunset of credit crisis-related litigation," said NERA Senior Vice President and report co-author Dr. John Montgomery. "Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see how the level of filings may change or whether new categories of litigation will predominate." "The number of settlements has declined, with the median settlement in 2011 falling below last year's high on $11 million, but still the third-highest on record," said NERA Senior Consultant Robert Patton. "Settlement amounts also reflect the stage of litigation," added NERA Senior Consultant Jordan Milev. "Settling after a motion for summary judgment is denied could drive up the settlement amount by an estimated 62%, on average." Additional Shareholder Class Action Trends -- Filings by sector: Securities class actions against financial sector companies accounted for roughly 16% of cases in 2011, as contrasted with nearly half in 2008 and 2009. -- Filings against companies in the electronic technology and technology services sector accounted for the largest percentage in the year, with 21% of filings. Health technology and services companies accounted for 15% of filings. Filings of credit crisis- related class actions largely subsided in 2011, with 11 cases filed. Such litigation is approximately a third of its level last year, when it had already declined by about two-thirds from its 2008 peak. -- Aggregate plaintiffs' attorney fees, at $594 million, fell in 2011 to their lowest level since 2004. This decline is largely attributed to the combination of the lower average and median settlement size, and fewer settlements occurring in 2011. -- Cases were filed considerably more quickly in 2011--the average time to file in 2011 was 109 days, as compared to 175 days last year. NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for more than 15 years. Two reports are published per year: a mid- year study and an annual review at year's end. This year-end study was authored by NERA Senior Vice President Dr. John Montgomery and Senior Consultants Dr. Jordan Milev, Robert Patton, and Svetlana Starykh and includes data on filings and dismissals through November 30, 2011, and settlements through December 31, 2011. For more details, and to read the full report, visit: http://www.nera.com/recenttrends About NERA NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges. For half a century, NERA's economists have been creating strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading law firms and corporations. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves clients from more than 20 offices across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. ********* 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 * * *