/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120110.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 7
Headlines
ADVANCED ANALOGIC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
AURORA HEALTH CARE: 7th Circuit Junks Ortiz & Bembenek Appeals
BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Forsyth
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Claims Against RSUI Barred, 9th Cir. Affirms
CANDY BRAND: Settles Migrant Worker Class Action for $1.5 Mil.
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in California Over Short Sales
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Denies Final Okay of Yoshioka Class Deal
DE BEERS: 3rd Cir. Upholds $295MM Settlement in Antitrust Suits
EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Bidding Process
ELEGANT GIFTS: Recalls 2,900 Children's Chairs and Stools
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, IN: February 13 Hearing Set for Busing Suit
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Siskinds LLP Launches Class Action in Canada
HOWREY LLP: Committee Wants Service to Hispanic Farmers Halted
IKEA NORTH: Recalls 169,000 ANTILOP High Chairs Due to Fall Risk
MOSAIC CO: 7th Circuit Allows Rehearing in Potash Antitrust Suit
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Classified as Independent Contractor by Court
PERFORMANCE INC: Recalls 2,900 Bicycle Pedals Due to Fall Hazard
PROSKAUER ROSE: Sued for Obstructing SEC Probe on Stanford Biz
RENFREW POWER: Round Lake Property Owners Get Compensation
SADIA S.A.: Court Gives Final OK to Securities Suit Settlement
STATE OF ARIZONA: April 9 Hearing Set for Immigration Suit
STATE OF MICHIGAN: Judge Junks Child-Care Workers' Class Action
STERNO GROUP: Recalls 10,000 Tea Lights Due to Fire & Burn Risks
TAKEDA PHARMA: Actos Lawsuits to Be Consolidated in Louisiana
TARGET CORP: Recalls LED Flashlight Sets Due to Fire & Burn Risks
UNI-O INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4,530 O-Grill Portable Gas Grills
VALPEY-FISHER CORP: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Maryland
*********
ADVANCED ANALOGIC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated continues to defend a
consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's January 4, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.
On May 26, 2011, the Company's board of directors unanimously
approved a merger agreement among AATI, Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
("Skyworks") and PowerCo Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") that
contemplates the merger of Merger Sub with and into AATI, with
AATI surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Skyworks.
On June 6, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202403) (the "Bushansky action") naming the Company ("AATI"),
the members of AATI's board of directors, Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
("Skyworks") and PowerCo Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") as
defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that
the members of AATI's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by (a) failing to take steps to maximize the value of the
merger consideration to AATI's stockholders, (b) taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding, and (c) failing to protect against
conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and
transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in
connection with the merger that are not available to all
stockholders, and (2) that AATI, the members of AATI's board of
directors, Skyworks and Merger Sub aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to
enjoin consummation of the merger or, if the merger is completed,
to recover damages caused by the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and
costs of the lawsuit.
On June 7, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202501) (the "Venette action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, Skyworks and Merger Sub as defendants.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2011 (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges, among other
things, (1) that the members of AATI's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties by (a) agreeing to the merger for
inadequate consideration on unfair terms, (b) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and
transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in
connection with the merger that are not available to all
stockholders, (c) selling the company in response to alleged
pressure from Dialectic Capital Partners, LP ("Dialectic"), (d)
taking steps to avoid competitive bidding (including the entry by
certain AATI officers and directors into agreements with Skyworks
relating to voting commitments and inclusion in the merger
agreement of nonsolicitation provisions and a termination fee),
and (e) by causing the issuance of a materially misleading Form S-
4 Registration Statement which, inter alia, purportedly fails to
disclose material facts surrounding (i) Dialectic's impact on the
proposed merger process, (ii) the AATI board of directors'
evaluation of Skyworks and its offer for the Company, and (iii)
supporting figures and analysis regarding the fairness opinion
that the AATI Board obtained from its financial advisor, Needham &
Company, LLC, in connection with the transaction and (2) that
AATI, the members of AATI's board of directors, Skyworks and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties. The Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the
merger, and to have the court direct the defendants to implement
procedures and processes to maximize shareholder value. The
Amended Complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs
of the lawsuit.
On July 26, 2011, the court issued an order consolidating the
Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated
action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating
the Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in the
litigation.
The Company believes that the claims in the consolidated action
are without merit and intends to defend against such claims
vigorously. The Company does not believe that it is probable that
a liability has been incurred as of the date of the financial
statements or that a loss can be reasonably estimated.
Accordingly, no liability has been recorded as of the date of the
financial statements for the shareholder class action lawsuits.
AURORA HEALTH CARE: 7th Circuit Junks Ortiz & Bembenek Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it
lacks a statutory basis for appellate jurisdiction on two appeals
asserted against Aurora Health Care, Inc., over alleged inclusion
of medical information in public documents.
"Unless and until an Article III [of the U.S. constitution] judge
enters a final judgment, we have no jurisdiction to review these
matters," the Seventh Circuit opined. Accordingly, the appeals
are dismissed and the cases are remanded to the bankruptcy court,
the Seventh Circuit ruled.
The appeal case are captioned RENE R. ORTIZ, DOUGLAS L. LINDSEY,
and VALERIE JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AURORA HEALTH CARE,
INC., Defendant-Appellee; and KATHY BEMBENEK and SUSAN DANDRIDGE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, Case Nos. 10-3465, 10-3466 (7th Cir.)
The appeals stem from separate class action lawsuits filed by two
set of debtors -- the Ortiz debtors and the Bembenek debtors --
alleging that Aurora Health Care violated Wisconsin statutes by
filing proofs of claim revealing their medical information.
A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Dec. 30, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/6u4Usofrom Leagle.com.
BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Forsyth
------------------------------------------------------------
Baldwin Technology Company, Inc., disclosed in its January 4,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, that it is facing a class action lawsuit in Delaware
over its proposed acquisition by Forsyth Baldwin, LLC.
On December 29, 2011, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming as defendants
Baldwin Technology Company, Inc. (the "Company"), each member of
the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Company, such members
being Claes Warnander, Paul J. Griswold, Samuel B. Fortenbaugh
III, Rolf Bergstrom, Mark T. Becker, Gerald A. Nathe and Ronald B.
Salvagio; Forsyth Baldwin, LLC, Forsyth Capital Investors, LLC,
Forsyth Baldwin, Inc. and Forsyth Baldwin Mezzanine, Inc.,
regarding the proposed acquisition of the Company by Forsyth
Baldwin, LLC (the "Proposed Transaction"). The complaint purports
to be on behalf of a putative class of the stockholders of the
Company, other than the defendants and their affiliates. The
complaint alleges that the individual members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, and that the Company, Forsyth Baldwin, LLC, Forsyth
Capital Investors, LLC, Forsyth Baldwin, Inc. and Forsyth Baldwin
Mezzanine, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duty. The complaint seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, rescission
of the Proposed Transaction or an award of rescissory damages, and
costs and attorneys' fees.
The defendants believe that the allegations in the class action
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction; however there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Claims Against RSUI Barred, 9th Cir. Affirms
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an appeal case captioned California Dairies, Inc. v. RSUI
Indemnity Company, Case Nos. 10-16684, 10-16730, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's holding
that an exclusion clause in the parties' insurance policy bars
California Dairies' insurance coverage claims in a labor class
action complaint.
The insurance coverage claims arose out of a class action lawsuit
by current and former employees alleging that CDI violated the
California Labor Code.
A copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 21, 2011, Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/APiJfefrom Leagle.com.
CANDY BRAND: Settles Migrant Worker Class Action for $1.5 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Arkansas is
on the verge of giving final approval to a settlement of a class-
action lawsuit that would pay about 1,500 migrant workers a total
of $1.5 million to make up for unpaid wages and expenses.
The lawsuit was brought in 2007 by the Montgomery, Ala.-based
Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of workers who packed
tomatoes for Candy Brand LLC in Bradley County. Several other
defendants were also named.
Settlement documents filed in U.S. District Court in El Dorado
show the workers would travel to southern Arkansas to pack
tomatoes during the eight-week summer harvest. The proposed
settlement says they weren't paid federally-mandated minimum wages
or paid proper overtime.
Also, the workers weren't reimbursed for their travel, temporary
work visa fees and other costs and they weren't paid at the
halfway point of their contracts, according to the proposed
settlement that was signed by both sides.
The suit, which alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, covers work done from 2003 through 2007, when the court
action was filed. The settlement stipulates that it applies to
workers who were legally and illegally in the U.S.
Final approval of the settlement is pending a March 27 hearing,
which Southern Poverty Law Center attorney Michelle Lapointe said
is largely a formality to allow members of the class to either opt
out of the settlement and pursue their own lawsuit or to object to
the deal's terms.
Defense lawyers Hani W. Hashem of Monticello and F. Mattison
Thomas III of El Dorado didn't return messages seeking comment,
according to AP.
The settlement says the money will be placed in trust accounts and
a settlement administrator will be in charge of making payments to
the workers.
Ms. Lapointe said the transient nature of the workers "makes it a
little bit more challenging to get in touch with everyone," but
she said the money can reach the workers.
"We've administered other settlements in cases involving migrant
workers on temporary visas, many of whom have gone back to Mexico
or Central America, and we've been able to track down a number of
people and get the word out about the settlement funds that are
available," Ms. Lapointe said.
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in California Over Short Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that homeowners
say in a class action that Capital One illegally made them pay
thousands of dollars in deficiency contributions after short sales
of their homes, though the state prohibited that in 2010.
Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 931 into law in
late 2010 to reduce foreclosures and boost short sales.
Before the law took effect in January 2011, homeowners had no
incentive to short sell their homes because while lenders could
not obtain a deficiency judgment on foreclosed properties, they
could go after homeowners who sold short.
"However, it quickly became apparent that where there was a second
mortgage, the junior lien holder often refused to release the lien
and the short sale never went through," according to the
complaint.
"In February 2011, SB 458 was introduced, and on July 15, 2011, it
was signed into law on an emergency basis. Section (a) of SB 458
expanded SB 931's prohibition on obtaining a deficiency judgment
to junior lien holders. Additionally, Section (b) of SB 458
further mandate that a 'holder of a note shall not require the
trustor, mortgagor, or maker of the note to pay any additional
compensation, aside from the proceeds of the sale, in exchange for
the written consent to the sale.'
"Capital One has refused to comply with SB 458. In clear
violation of the statute's unambiguous prohibition, Capital One
has illegally required California borrowers to pay the deficiency
on their mortgages, in addition to 'the proceeds of the sale, in
exchange for [Capital One's] written consent to the sale.' As a
result, Capital One has generated substantial revenues from the
collection of deficiencies from California-based borrowers in
connection with completing short sales."
Lead plaintiff Roni Teson says Capital One came after her for a
$60,000 deficiency contribution on her Rancho Cucamonga home, and
refused to approve a short sale offer of $570,000, even after her
Realtor reminded the bank holding company of the new law.
Ms. Teson had been diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer, was on
disability and could no longer keep up her mortgage payments,
according to the complaint, whose other named plaintiff is Laurie
Hatfield.
The complaint states: "A 'short sale' is when a borrower owes more
than his/her house is worth and the bank allows the borrower to
sell the house for less than is owed on the property. The
incentive to do nothing but await a foreclosure -- rather than
undergo a short sale -- was believed to be driving California's
spiraling foreclosure rate, which in turn was only further
reducing the equity of California's homeowners and preventing real
property values from recovering."
Ms. Teson and Ms. Hatfield cite a study from mid-2010 which showed
that the state had the second-highest foreclosure rate in the
United States.
"Modesto posted the nation's third highest metro foreclosure rate,
with 4.59% of its housing units (one in 22) receiving a
foreclosure filing. Other California metro areas in the top ten
were Merced at Number 4 (4.47% of housing units); Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario at Number 5 (4.37%); Stockton at Number 6
(4.37%); and Vallejo-Fairfield at Number 9 (3.91%). A total of
93,263 properties in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metro
area received a foreclosure filing in the first half of 2010, the
second highest total of any metro area nationwide and 2.11% of all
housing units (one in 47) -- ranking Number 35 in terms of
foreclosure rate," the complaint states.
They seek damages for violations of California's Code of Civil
Procedure, violations of California's Business and Professional
Code, conversion and unjust enrichment.
A Capital One spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit,
according to Mr. Reynolds.
A representative of Scott+Scott was not available for an
interview, Mr. Reynolds reports.
A copy of the Complaint in Teson, et al. v. Capital One N.A., Case
No. 30-2011-00534224 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/05/ShortSales.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
Kristen Anderson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
707 Broadway, Tenth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
mblasy@scott-scott.com
kanderson@scott-scott.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Denies Final Okay of Yoshioka Class Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the breach of contract class action complaint styled as Joy
Yoshioka v. Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., Case No. C-11-1625
(N.D. Calif.), Judge Edward M. Chen denied final approval of the
proposed class settlement; approval of attorney's fees and
incentive award; and motion for mandatory intervention.
The case is stayed pending further action by the Department of
Labor or the IRS, or until further order of the Court. The
parties are directed to inform the Court via joint letter of any
developments from the IRS or Department of Labor within 14 days of
any action taken by either agency. Further status conference is
set for June 15, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.
The lawsuit by brought by Joy Yoshioka in April 2011 on behalf of
herself and a putative class of all current holders of Charles
Schawb Individual Retirement Accounts. The class is said to
comprise of over 4 million IRA account holders containing more
than $384 billion in assets. The Plaintiff alleged claims for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages and
declaratory relief.
Under the preliminary approved class settlement, the Defendants
agree to amend their IRA agreements to retroactively void any
alleged problematic language. No monetary distribution to the
class is included in the settlement.
A copy of the District Court's Dec. 22, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/gaKMDTfrom Leagle.com.
DE BEERS: 3rd Cir. Upholds $295MM Settlement in Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district
court's certification of, and approval of a $295 million
settlement resolving, a consolidated price-fixing lawsuit against
the De Beers diamond company.
The 7-judge appellate panel heard the appeal en banc, with Circuit
Judges Kent A. Jordan and D. Brooks Smitch dissenting. Circuit
Judges Anthony Joseph Scirica, Marjorie Rendell, Thomas Ambro,
Julio Fuentes, D. Michael Fisher, Michael Chagares, and Thomas
Vanaskie concurring.
Plaintiffs alleged that De Beers exploited its market dominance to
artificially inflate the prices of rough diamonds. At issue on
appeal in the class action is the propriety of the district
court's certification of two nationwide settlement classes
comprising of purchasers of diamonds from De Beers S.A. and
related entities.
The Third Circuit agreed with the district court that class
members shared predominantly common issues as to the conduct of
the defendants despite possessing claims arising under differing
state laws.
The Third Circuit also affirmed the award of attorneys' fee to
class counsel of $73 million or the equivalent of 25% of the $293
million principal settlement fund.
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a majority of
judges said they did not need to ensure that each class member
possessed a viable or "colorable legal claim" when deciding
whether to certify a class.
"We believe that the predominance inquiry should be easily
resolved here based on De Beers's conduct and the injury it caused
to each and every class member, and that the straightforward
application of Rule 23 and our precedent should result in
affirming the District Court's order certifying the class,"
according to the 116-page decision signed by Judge Marjorie
Rendell.
The plaintiffs in the class, consolidated from seven separate
price-fixing lawsuits filed in federal courts as early as 2001,
fall within one of two types of purchaser classes. Direct
purchasers of gem diamonds bought directly from De Beers or one of
its competitors. Indirect purchasers, consisting of consumers,
jewelry retailers and other middlemen, bought rough or cut-and-
polished diamonds diamonds from sightholders or other direct
purchasers.
The settlement allots $22.5 million to direct purchasers and to
$272.5 million to indirect purchasers.
One of the majority signers, Judge Anthony Scirica, wrote a 17-
page concurring opinion to address "the evolving law on settlement
classes."
Judge Kent Jordan, a member of the original three-judge panel,
wrote a 38-page dissent, joined by Judge D. Brooks Smith. They
said the majority's "remarkable declaration sets the class action
ship in our circuit badly adrift."
The case is captioned SHAWN SULLIVAN; ARRIGOTTI FINE JEWELRY;
JAMES WALNUM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. DB INVESTMENTS, INC; DE BEERS S.A.; et al., Case No.
08-2784 (3rd Cir.).
A copy of the Opinion is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/05/debeers.pdf
Counsel for Shawn Sullivan, Arrigotti Fine Jewelry, James Walnum
are:
Craig C. Corbitt, Esq.
ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL & MASON
44 Montgomery Street - Ste. 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel No.: (415) 633-1905
Fax No.: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: ccorbitt@zelle.com
-- and --
Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
New York University Law School
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
E-mail: si13@nyu.edu
-- and --
Steven A. Katz, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY
505 North 7th Street
Suite 3600, United States Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101
Tel No: (314) 241-4844
Fax No: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: SKatz@koreintillery.com
-- and --
Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
GLANCY, BINKOW & GOLDBERG
One Embarcadero Center - Ste. 760
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel No.: (415) 972-8160
Fax No.: (415) 972-8166
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
-- and --
John A. Maher, Esq.
450 Springfield Avenue
Summit, NJ 07901
-- and --
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. Esq.
BERMAN, DE VALERIO, PEASE, TABACCO, BURT & PUCILLO
425 California Street - Ste. 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel No.: (415) 433-3200
Fax No.: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
Counsel for DeBeers are:
Jessica Biggio, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel No.: (212) 735-2060
Fax No.: (917) 777-2060
E-mail: jessica.biggio@skadden.com
-- and --
Francis Ciani-Dausch, Esq.
Tara S. Emory, Esq.
Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 200056
Tel No.: (202) 371-7860
Fax No.: (202) 661-0560
E-mail: joseph.ciani-dausch@skadden.com
tara.emory@skadden.com
steve.sunshine@skadden.com
-- and --
Matthew P. Hendrickson, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
4 Times Square, Room 33-228
New York, NY 1003
Tel No.: (212) 735-2066
Fax No.: (917) 777-2066
E-mail: matthew.hendrickson@skadden.com
Plaintiff-Appellee Shawn Sullivan was represented by:
William Bernstein, Esq.
Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
275 Battery Street - 30th Fl.
Embarcadero Center West
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 956-1000
Fax: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: wbernstein@lchb.com
efastiff@lchb.com
- and -
Joseph D. Cooper, Esq.
Tracy R. Kirkham, Esq.
COOPER & KIRKHAM
357 Tehama Street, 2nd Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94103
Non Party-Appellant Susan M. Quinn was represented by:
George M. Plews, Esq.
Christopher J. Braun, Esq.
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
1346 N. Delaware Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Tel: (317) 637-0700
Fax: (317) 637-0710
E-mail: gplews@psrb.com
cbraun@psrb.com
Non-Party Amicus Appellee Diamond Manufacturers and Importers
Association of America was represented by:
Ben Kinzler, Esq.
DIAMOND MANUFACTURERS & IMPORTERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10036
- and -
Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA
Tel: (215) 238-1700
Fax: (215) 238-1968
E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com
- and -
Joanne Zack, Esq.
BONIO & ZACK
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Tel: (610) 822-0202
Fax: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: JZack@bonizack.com
Non Party-Appellees Anco Ind. Diamond Corp.; Amer Diamond Tool &
Gauge Inc. and British Diamond Import Co. were represented by:
Edward W. Harris, III, Esq.
TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLISTER
One Indiana Square, Ste. 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317) 713-3603
Fax: (317) 713-3699
E-mail: eharris@taftlaw.com
- and -
Robert A. Skirnick, Esq.
MEREDITH, COHEN, GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK
One Liberty Plaza, 35th Fl.
New York, NY 10006
- and -
Jared Stamell, Esq.
STAMELL & SCHAGER
One Liberty Plaza, 35th Fl.
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 566-4047
Fax: (212) 566-4061
Non Party-Amicus Appellee Jewelers Vigilance Comm. was represented
by:
Cecilia L. Gardner, Esq.
JEWELERS VIGILANCE COMMITTEE
25 West 45th Street, Ste. 1406
New York, NY 10035
Counsel for Non Party-Appellants William Benjamin Coffey, Jr.,
Marvin L. Union, Tim Henning, Neil Freeman and Kylie Luke were
represented by:
Scott W. Browne, Esq.
BROWNE & BROWNE
2380 Eastex Freeway
Beaumont, TX 77703
- and -
Kenneth E. Nelson, Esq.
1100 Main Street, Ste. 2900
Kansas, City, MO 64105
- and -
Edward F. Siegel, Esq.
27600 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 340
Cleveland, OH 44122
Non Party-Appellant Aaron Petrus was represented by:
Christopher A. Bandas, Esq.
BANDAS LAW FIRM
500 North Shoreline, Ste. 1020
Corpus Christie, TX 78471
Non Party-Appellant Janet Giddings was represented by:
Robert E. Margulies, Esq.
MARGULIES WIND
3 Second Street
Plaza 10, Ste. 1201
Jersey City, NJ 07311
- and -
Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
518 E. Tyler Street
Athens, TX 75751
Non Party-Appellants Frank Ascione, Rosaura Bagolie, Matthew
Delong, Ed McKenna, Peter Perera and Thomas Vaughan were
represented by:
Ricky E. Bagolie, Esq.
BAGOLIE FRIEDMAN INJURY LAWYERS
660 Newark Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
- and -
Andrea Boggio, Esq.
BRYANT UNIVERSITY
1150 Douglas Pike, Ste. F
Smithfield, RI 02917
Non Party-Appellants Sandeep Gopalan, Manoj Kolel-Veetil, Matthew
Metz, Anita Pal, Deb K. Pal, Jay Pal and Rangesh K. Shah were
represented by:
Robert J. Gaudet, Jr., Esq.
RJ GAUDET & ASSOCIATES
791 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7230
Seattle, WA 98104
Non Party-Amicus Appellee American Antitrust Institute was
represented by:
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3009
Fax: (702) 995-4658
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Bidding Process
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a
disgruntled eBay seller claims in a federal class action that
eBay's automatic bidding process "intermeddles" with buyer-seller
relationships by increasing buyer bids by proxy, hiding bid
maximums and shortchanging sellers.
Marshall Block claims that eBay violates its own user agreement by
placing bids for prospective buyers.
When a bidder sets a maximum bid on an item up for auction, eBay's
system automatically bids on his behalf in increments up to his or
her stated maximum. If a bidder's maximum is exceeded, the new
high bidder leads the auction. If no one else bids on or exceeds
the maximum set by a bidder, the winning bidder pays only the
final auction price, not the preset maximum.
Bid maximums are hidden from sellers and other bidders. By
keeping maximum bid amounts secret from sellers and only
transmitting as much of the bid as is necessary to keep the bidder
in the auction, eBay shortchanges sellers "because the bid amount
relayed to him by eBay is less than the actual bid amount placed
by the bidder," Mr. Block claims.
Mr. Block says that if a bidder offers a maximum bid of $100 and
wins the auction, he should have to pay $100, because on eBay a
bid is a "contract." So, Mr. Block says, if an auction closes at
$95 or less, the buyer should be liable for the entire $100
maximum bid.
He claims eBay violates user agreements by involving itself in the
transactions between buyers and sellers, so that seller class
members are "unable to receive the actual bid amount placed by the
high bidders for the item offered for sale by the seller and to
which these bidders committed themselves to pay and buy if they
were the winning bidders. . . . Plaintiff and the putative class
members have been shortchanged and damaged because the price they
were forced to accept for their listed items was less than the
price bidders actually agreed to pay should they win the auction."
Mr. Block seeks restitution and punitive damages for breach of
contract, unfair business practice and unjust enrichment.
A copy of the Complaint in Block v. eBay Inc., Case No.
11-cv-06718 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/05/eBay.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 350-4342
E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com
ELEGANT GIFTS: Recalls 2,900 Children's Chairs and Stools
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Elegant Gifts Mart Inc., of Los Angeles, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,600 children's chairs and 1,300
stools. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.
The yellow surface paint on the metal frame of the children's
chairs and stools contains excessive levels of lead which is
prohibited under federal law.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
The children's folding chairs and the stools have yellow metal
tube frames. The plastic seat, seat backs and stool have a
cartoon-like scene with monkeys, teddy bears, mushrooms and heart-
shaped balloons. "PENGKO" is printed on the chair's heart-shaped
seatback. Item number "JCA8036" is printed on a white sticker
underneath the chair's seat. Item number "JCA8037" is printed on
a white sticker underneath the stool. Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12081.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at 1 to Seven stores in Puerto Rico from September
2010 through June 2011 for between $5 and $6.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled tables and folding
chairs away from children and return them to any 1 to Seven store
in Puerto Rico or contact Elegant Gifts Mart for a full refund.
For additional information, in Puerto Rico call 1 to Seven at
(787) 290-5625 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or
call Elegant Gifts Mart collect at (323) 698-6805 between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday.
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, IN: February 13 Hearing Set for Busing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Corbin, writing for WIBC, reports that attorneys suing
Franklin Township Community Schools over the busing issue are
gearing up for February 13.
That's when a Marion County judge will hold a hearing and begin
reviewing whether to certify what could become a class action
lawsuit. Attorney Ron Frazier says he and other attorneys are
figuring out whether class-action is the best way to go.
Mr. Frazier says the move seems likely given the fact that some
eight-thousand Franklin Township students are impacted by the
district's changed policy.
Franklin Township changed its busing policy after a referendum to
raise property taxes to bridge a budget gap failed last year. The
school system says property taxes fell from four percent in 2006
to one percent which forced them to make the change. The district
continues to stand by its actions. Parents have been either
providing their own transportation for their kids or paying
upwards of $500 per child for busing through a third party.
Mr. Frazier believes Franklin Township schools will ultimately
suffer as future parents avoid moving into the district taking
their tax dollars with them. He also says Indiana Attorney
General Greg Zoeller's opinion calling the policy unconstitutional
may help boost their case to class action status.
After February 13, a judge could ultimately decide the case by
summer.
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Siskinds LLP Launches Class Action in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Siskinds LLP has launched a class action against
Graco Children's Products, Inc. and related entities regarding its
TurboBooster child car seats.
From the commencement of production in or about June 2002,
millions of TurboBooster child car seats have been sold to North
American consumers, many of which are still in use today.
The Statement of Claim alleges that TurboBooster child car seats
manufactured prior to late 2007 or early 2008 have a common design
defect that can result in the armrests changing position and/or
completely separating from the seat's base in the event of a
crash. This can result in a serious safety risk to the child
using the seat. Matthew Baer, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP,
describes the purpose of the proceeding, "We believe that through
this lawsuit, the defendants will be required to account for the
defect, explain to Canadian consumers what they knew about the
risks associated with using the TurboBooster child car seats
manufactured prior to the defect being corrected, when they first
became aware of those risks, and why nothing was done to correct
the defect in the older models. In this case, as with all of
these types of cases, we are concerned about the safety of the
product which in this case, is specifically being used by Canadian
children as a safety device."
Canadians who have TurboBooster child car seats manufactured prior
to 2008 are encouraged to visit http://www.classaction.caor to
call 1-800-461-6166 ext 2381 for more information. Quebec
residents can contact Nathalie Boulay at (418) 694-2009.
HOWREY LLP: Committee Wants Service to Hispanic Farmers Halted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in Howrey
LLP's bankruptcy case is asking the Bankruptcy Court to approve
the rejection of Client Engagement Agreements relating to
so-called Hispanic Farmers Litigation, effective no later than
Dec. 31, 2011.
Howrey provided representation to more than 700 Hispanic farmers
with claims against the United States Department of Agriculture.
Approximately 80 of these persons have been named as plaintiffs
in a putative class action styled, Garcia v. Vilsack, Civ. A. No.
00-2445 (D.D.C.), pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. A subset of those persons have been named
as plaintiffs in a companion action, Cantu v. United States of
America, Civ. A. No. 1:11CV00541 (D.D.C.), filed in the same
court. Both the Garcia and Cantu actions are putative class
actions.
In the Garcia Complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the USDA
routinely discriminated against them in its farm benefit programs
on the basis of ethnicity and gender, and failed to investigate
the claims of farmers who filed discrimination complaints with the
agency at its behest. The Garcia case was one of four similar
cases filed in the District Court that alleged claims of
discrimination against the USDA based on race, ethnicity or gender
in connection with farm benefit programs. The other cases were
Pigford v. Glickman, Nos. 97-1978 & 98-1693 (black farmers);
Keepseagle v. Glickman, No. 99-3119 (Native American farmers); and
Love v. Glickman, No. 00-2502 (female farmers; the "Love" case).
The Cantu Complaint seeks a determination that a settlement
proposed by the United States in connection with the Garcia and
Love cases violated the due process and equal protection rights of
Hispanic farmers by, among other things: allocating a smaller fund
for the resolution of such claims for the resolution of the claims
of African-American and Native American farmers (even though the
Hispanic farmer class is larger than either of those classes);
failing to provide for judicial supervision of the settlement
process, as was included in the settlements with the African-
American and Native American classes; and by capping at $50,000
the potential recoveries by each Hispanic farmer (even though
settlement with African-American and Native American farmers was
not limited by any cap if the farmer could meet the specified
evidentiary burden).
In addition to the more than 700 individuals who have signed
engagement agreements with the Debtor, more than 500 additional
persons have been in contact with the Debtor through the past
years regarding potential claims against the USDA.
According to the Committee, the amount at issue in the Hispanic
Farmers Litigation exceeds one billion dollars. The upside for
counsel who succeeds in obtaining a favorable resolution or
settlement of such litigation could be substantial. But the
expense also has been -- and could be -- substantial; the
Committee is informed that the Debtor has invested to date roughly
$30 million in legal services and almost $2 million in out-of-
pocket expenses in connection with the Hispanic Farmers
Litigation.
Unfortunately, the Committee says the Debtor no longer can provide
any legal services to its clients. As of Dec. 22, 2011, the
Debtor has no attorneys in its employ. In addition, Allan B.
Diamond, the Chapter 11 Trustee in the case, has informed the
Committee that he will imminently file motions to withdraw the
Debtor as legal counsel of record from the Garcia and Cantu
litigations, and the Chapter 11 Trustee will imminently send
letters to all the clients withdrawing from the representations.
Simply put, the absence of any legal staff necessarily precludes
the estate, pragmatically and legally, from continuing its legal
representation of these (or any) clients, the Committee says.
About Howrey LLP
Three creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition (Bankr.
N.D. Calif. Case No. 11-31376) on April 11, 2011, against the
remnants of the Washington-based law firm Howrey LLP. The filing
was in San Francisco, where the firm had an office. The firm
previously was known as Howrey & Simon and Howrey Simon Arnold &
White LLP. The firm at one time had more than 700 lawyers in 17
offices. The partners voted to dissolve in March.
The firm specialized in antitrust and intellectual-property
matters. The three creditors filing the involuntary petition
together have $36,600 in claims, according to their petition.
The involuntary chapter 7 petition was converted to a chapter 11
case in June at the request of the firm. In its schedules filed
in July, the Debtor disclosed assets of $138.7 million and
liabilities of $107.0 million.
Representing Citibank, the firm's largest creditor, is Kelley
Cornish, Esq. -- kcornish@paulweiss.com -- a partner at Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Representing Howrey is H.
Jason Gold, Esq. -- jgold@wileyrein.com -- a partner at Wiley
Rein.
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors is represented in
the case by:
Bradford F. Englander, Esq.
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR AND PRESTON LLP
3190 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 300
Falls Church, VA 22042
Tel: (703) 280-9081
Fax: (703) 280-3370
E-mail: benglander@wtplaw.com
In September 2011, Citibank sought conversion of the Debtor's case
to Chapter 7 or, in the alternative, appointment of a Chapter 11
Trustee. The Court entered an order appointing a Chapter 11
Trustee. In October 2011, Allan B. Diamond was named as Trustee.
IKEA NORTH: Recalls 169,000 ANTILOP High Chairs Due to Fall Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, announced a voluntary recall of about 169,000
ANTILOP High Chairs (133,000 in the United States of America and
36,000 in Canada). Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The high chair's restraint buckle can open unexpectedly, posing a
fall hazard to the child.
IKEA has received eight reports worldwide of restraint buckles
that opened unexpectedly, including three reports of children who
received minor injuries after falling from the high chair.
This recall involves ANTILOP high chairs sold in red, blue or
white. The plastic high chair has detachable silver-colored metal
legs. High chairs included in the recall have a manufacture date
between 0607 and 0911 (YYMM format) from supplier number 17389.
The production date and supplier number are molded into the
underside of the seat. "ANTILOP," "IKEA" and the model number are
printed on a label affixed to the underside of the seat. Model
numbers included in the recall are:
ANTILOP high chair blue Model # 701.467.92
ANTILOP high chair red Model # 501.467.93
ANTILOP high chair white Model # 300.697.24
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12079.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide from August 2006 through
January 2010 for about $20.
Consumers should immediately stop using the high chairs and
contact IKEA to obtain a free replacement seat restraint. For
additional information, contact IKEA toll-free at (866) 966-4532
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/
MOSAIC CO: 7th Circuit Allows Rehearing in Potash Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted
a request for an en banc rehearing filed by the plaintiffs in the
potash antitrust litigation against The Mosaic Company, according
to the Company's January 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.
On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the
"September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States
District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem
Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's
Fertilizer Case"), on October 2, 2008 another complaint (the
"October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10,
2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together,
the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11,
2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser
Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's
Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Westside
Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D.
Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop
Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly
sold and distributed potash throughout the United States. On
November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the cases in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed
a consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and
on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the
Gage's Fertilizer Case.
On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser
Cases. The amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed
and Seed, Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who
purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants
during the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended
consolidated complaint ("Class Period"). The amended consolidated
complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the
defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand;
allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold;
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and
fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The
plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive
relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including
treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also
seek costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.
On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William
H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the
"Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together
with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the
"Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases
together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively
referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases"). The defendants in
the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in
the Direct Purchaser Cases. On November 13, 2008, the initial
plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an
additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action
complaint. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases. The factual allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint are substantially identical to those with
respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases. The amended consolidated
complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was filed on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who
indirectly purchased potash products for end use during the Class
Period in the United States, any of 20 specified states and the
District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified states and the
District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as
"Unjust Enrichment States."
The plaintiffs generally sought injunctive relief and to recover
unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages for
violations of the antitrust laws of the Indirect Purchaser States
where allowed by law, arising from defendants' alleged continuing
agreement, understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in
restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or
unfair competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the
consumer protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer
Fraud States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits,
for unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust
Enrichment States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary
damages and/or full consideration where permitted by applicable
state law. The plaintiffs also seek costs of lawsuit and
reasonable attorneys' fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.
On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On November 3, 2009, the court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a)
for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged
violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan
and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa,
claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law. The
court denied the Company's and the other defendants' other motions
to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants'
motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state
a claim for relief under that section. The court, however, stated
that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases
present a difficult question under the pleading standards
enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the
defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal. On
January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court
issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of
(i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a
plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market
behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a
defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that
was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive
activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving
import trade or import commerce' under applicable law.
On September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district
court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims. On December 2, 2011,
the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and
granted the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing.
The Company believes that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust
Cases are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against
them. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says it
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or determine whether
it will have a material effect on its results of operations,
liquidity or capital resources.
The Mosaic Company -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer
and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients.
Mosaic is a single source provider of phosphate and potash
fertilizers and feed ingredients for the global agriculture
industry.
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Classified as Independent Contractor by Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
a California appeals court, in a ruling on Dec. 30, held that a
company's insurance agent was properly classified as an
independent contractor in a putative class action.
The state's First District Court of Appeals wrote in its 12-page
opinion that it had "little difficulty" concluding that the Contra
Costa County Superior Court was correct in finding in favor of
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company.
Plaintiff Kimbly Arnold had worked as a non-exclusive insurance
agent for Mutual. After she ended her contractual relationship
with the company, she filed a lawsuit claiming unpaid employee
entitlements under the state's Labor Code.
The superior court determined Ms. Arnold's causes of action
depended on her being a former "employee" of Mutual, and the
undisputed facts established she was not an employee but rather an
independent contractor.
Ms. Arnold, in appealing the superior court's summary judgment in
favor of Mutual, claimed it erred in concluding the common law
test for employment was applicable to determine whether she was an
"employee."
Mutual, on the other hand, argued the provisions of the code in
question were not subject to a statutory definition of "employee,"
but were subject to the common law test.
The company contended that undisputed material facts established
Ms. Arnold as an independent contractor rather than a former
employee under the common law test, and she was not entitled to
relief.
The appeals court sided with Mutual, saying the evidence had
"telling characteristics."
"It shows, for example, that Mutual managers make themselves
available to assist agents, as distinguished from supervising
them. Training is generally not mandatory and is offered chiefly
for the guidance of 'new' agents. Training is required only with
respect to compliance with state law directives. Managers provide
assistance with sales or clients when an agent 'wants them to
assist.' Software is provided by Mutual as a 'best practice[e]'
to enable agents to sell its products more successfully.
Conference rooms, if available, are provided as a courtesy to
agents seeking to set up a meeting and have no other space in the
office," Presiding Justice James J. Marchiano wrote for the court.
Also, Justice Marchiano noted, while Mutual pays its agents in
two-week periods, payments are comprised of commissions and
bonuses established by policy, and there is no guaranteed
compensation.
"The salient evidentiary points established Arnold used her own
judgment in determining whom she would solicit for applications
for Mutual's products, the time, place and manner in which she
would solicit, and the amount of time she spent soliciting for
Mutual's products. Her appointment with Mutual was nonexclusive,
and she in fact solicited for other insurance companies during her
appointment with Mutual," the justice wrote.
Ms. Arnold's assistant general manager at Mutual's Concord office
also did not evaluate her performance and did not monitor or
supervise her work, Justice Marchiano noted.
In addition, agents who chose to use the Concord office were
required to pay a fee for their workspace and telephone service,
he added.
"[Ms.] Arnold's minimal performance requirement to avoid automatic
termination of her appointment was to submit one application for
Mutual's products within each 180-day period. Thus, under the
principal test for employment under common law principles, Mutual
had no significant right to control the manner and means by which
Arnold accomplished the results of the services she performed as
one of Mutual's soliciting agents," the appeals court wrote.
Attorneys for Mutual said the ruling serves as an important
precedent for similar insurance workplace disputes, especially in
light of new penalties in California for willful misclassification
of independent contractors.
Representing Mutual are:
Francis J. "Tripper" Ortman III, Esq.
Eden Anderson, Esq.
Robb D. McFadden, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
CA 94105-2930
Tel: (415) 397-2823
Fax: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: fortman@seyfarth.com
eanderson@seyfarth.com
rmcfadden@seyfarth.com
"We're extremely pleased with the appellate court's ruling, which
is very important in articulating California law with regard to
independent contractors in the insurance agent context," Mr.
Ortman said in a statement.
"The opinion provides a recipe for deposition preparation and
should prove useful as a roadmap for both plaintiff and defense
practitioners involved in independent contractor cases."
PERFORMANCE INC: Recalls 2,900 Bicycle Pedals Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Performance, Inc., of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,900 units of 2011 Forte Pro Carbon
Road Pedals. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The pedal body can break or crack during use, causing the rider to
lose control and posing a fall hazard.
Performance has received three reports of the pedals breaking. No
injuries have been reported.
Forte Pro Carbon Road Pedals are sold in sets of two bicycle
pedals that attach to cycling shoes. The pedal body is black and
is made of lightweight carbon injected thermoplastic. The axle is
a black and made of chromium molybdenum steel with a black steel
axle. The front, top of the pedal has "Carbon" printed in red;
the top middle has "EPS-R" embossed in the body with the "R" in
red and on the top rear of the pedal the word "Forte" printed in
white. The outer edge of the pedal has the Forte logos, crossed
F's, in white. The catalog number, 50-8128, is used in all
catalogs. Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12078.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Performance's Web site, catalogs and Performance retail stores
from February 2011 through October 2011 for about $100.
Consumers should immediately stop using these bicycle pedals and
contact Performance to obtain a full refund. For additional
information, contact Performance at (800) 553-8324 between 9 a.m.
and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web
site at http://www.performancebike.com/
PROSKAUER ROSE: Sued for Obstructing SEC Probe on Stanford Biz
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that dozens of
investors who say they were fleeced by Allen Stanford's $7 billion
Ponzi scheme claim a Proskauer Rose attorney aided and abetted the
fraud by "obstructing an SEC investigation" of Mr. Stanford's
operations.
In three nearly identical 95-page complaints filed in Harris
County Court, the investors sued Proskauer Rose LLP, its attorney
Thomas Sjoblom, Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Antigua-based C.A.S.
Hewlitt & Co. Ltd.
Both Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke are based in New York
City.
Stanford Financial Group's owner R. Allen Stanford was charged in
February 2009, and indicted in June 2009, on allegation of running
a $7 billion Ponzi scheme by selling certificates of deposit at
Stanford International Bank on Antigua, with promises of
substantial, but unreal, returns.
"From the mid 1980s through February 2009, R. Allen Stanford
('Stanford') -- a former bankrupt gym owner from Mexia, Texas --
built a financial service empire that at its height boasted 30,000
customers in 130 countries managing billions of dollars in
investment funds," according to a class action filed this week
against Proskauer Rose by lead plaintiffs Cesar Garza and Patrick
Kane.
"The empire was comprised of over 140 companies from across the
globe, all of which were ultimately owned by Stanford himself.
The companies operated under the brand name 'Stanford Financial'
and their worldwide headquarters were located in Houston, Texas,"
according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs, who live in Mexico, say Mr. Stanford's scheme was
fueled by sale of certificates of deposit issued from Stanford
International Bank in Antigua. Stanford Financial established
offices throughout Latin America to solicit investors in the CDs,
according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs claim by 2009 Stanford International Bank's "vast
network of domestic and foreign offices had sold over $7.2 billion
in CDs."
The scheme fueled Mr. Stanford's rise to the ranks of the world's
richest people; he appeared on the Forbes list with a personal
fortune valued at $2.2 billion.
The plaintiffs claim that according to a March 31, 2010 report
from the SEC Office of Inspector General the SEC suspected
Stanford Financial was running a Ponzi scheme as early as 1997.
"The SEC just didn't have the solid evidence it needed to prove
the fraud due to Stanford's crafty construction and implementation
of his scheme, centered as it was around Antigua-based SIBL,"
according to the complaint.
It adds: "The bottom line is that between 1997 and 2005, every
person at the SEC who looked at Stanford, including examination
staff and enforcement staff, had determined that Stanford was
operating some kind of fraud or Ponzi scheme."
The plaintiffs say SEC investigators referred the Stanford case to
the agency's enforcement division in April 2005.
At that point, "defendant Tom Sjoblom, with 20 years experience as
a high level SEC enforcement lawyer, entered the scene and spent
the next four years delaying and obstructing the SEC's
investigation of Stanford by lying to the SEC, telling the SEC
that he himself had checked Stanford out and that it was not a
Ponzi scheme, advising Stanford to hide documents from the SEC,
and even omitting to disclose the existence of the formal SEC
investigation in audit response letters at Stanford's request,"
according to the complaint.
The complaint claims that Mr. Sjoblom, practicing first at
Chadbourne & Parke then at Proskauer Rose, worked feverishly to
"justify SIBL's refusal to turn over information about its
investments to the SEC," by claiming that Antiguan confidentiality
laws prevented Stanford International Bank from turning over
documents about its CDs to the SEC.
The plaintiffs seek class certification and actual and punitive
for aiding and abetting violations of the Texas Securities Act,
breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, negligence, and
illicit acts under Mexican law.
On Dec. 22, 2011 a federal judge in Houston ruled that Stanford
was mentally competent to stand trial on charges that he ran
Stanford Financial Group's Ponzi scheme.
Mr. Stanford was declared incompetent in January 2011 because of
an anti-anxiety drug addiction he developed while jailed in
Houston. He spent more than 8 months at a federal prison in
Butner, N.C., getting treatment for his addiction, and being
evaluated for any long-term injuries from a 2009 jailhouse fight,
according to news reports.
Mr. Stanford claimed he cannot remember some of the events in his
life before the 2009 prison fight. But U.S. District Judge David
Hittner didn't buy it and set Mr. Stanford's trail for Jan. 23.
A copy of the Complaint in Garza, et al. v. Proskauer Rose, LLP,
et al., Case NO. 2011-77793 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/05/Stanford.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward C. Snyder, Esq.
Jesse R. Castillo, Esq.
CASTILLO SNYDER, P.C.
300 Convent Street, Suite 1020
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 630-4200
E-mail: esnyder@casnlaw.com
jcastillo@casnlaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Foley, Esq.
Douglas J. Buncher, ESq.
NELIGAN FOLEY, LLP
Republic Center
325 N. St. Paul, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 840-5320
E-mail: nfoley@neliganlaw.com
dbuncher@neliganlaw.com
RENFREW POWER: Round Lake Property Owners Get Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Newman, writing for Renfrew Mercury, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court has awarded $85,450 in costs to a group of
Round Lake property owners who are pursuing a class action suit
against Renfrew Power Generation.
Justice Robert Smith delivered the formal order in early December
in favor of the group known as Coalition 108. The formal order
was a result of Justice Smith's summer ruling, in which he
concluded that the group had grounds to pursue a class action suit
against RPG.
The formal order was a result of Justice Smith's summer ruling, in
which he concluded that the group had grounds to pursue a class
action suit against RPG.
Renfrew Power Generation Inc. is a for-profit business whose
registered owner is the Town of Renfrew.
Coalition 108 is a reference to the elevation of 107.5 feet,
beyond which controlled flooding is not allowed to happen on Round
Lake.
According to Coalition 108 members, at least 17 times during the
last 40 years water levels have risen beyond that level as a
result of flooding control at Tramore dam, located at the
southeast corner of Round Lake.
"Clearly, the main purpose of the class action suit isn't to
obtain legal costs, but it's an important first step," said
Coalition 108 chairman Ken Boland from his Round Lake cottage
during the Christmas break.
"It's also important to obtain funds to continue the action . . .
We're very happy, as we were in the summer, to be told that this
was an appropriate class action suit."
Another member of the coalition's five-member steering committee
is Round Lake resident Don Bohart.
"We're rather overjoyed because the court must believe that we
have a legitimate reason to ask for class action," said Mr.
Bohart.
At the same time, Justice Smith's formal order says "nothing in
this order shall prejudice any defenses, including limitation
defenses, that the defendant may have."
Of the $83,450 in awarded costs, an $11,000 portion is for out-of-
pocket expenses to process the application of certification for
the class action.
The remaining $73,450 is for legal costs incurred by Coalition
108.
Renfrew Power Generation could be out a whole lot more cash, since
Coalition 108 is claiming $4 million in property damages.
Last summer, the Ontario Superior Court ruled Coalition 108 had
grounds for pursuing a class action suit related to charges that
Renfrew Power Generation has exceeded flooding regulations, in
recent years, when controlling water elevations at Tramore dam.
Tramore is among the dams RPG controls in the Bonnechere River
watershed.
In its class action suit, Coalition 108 says it is seeking damages
for flooding, and related property damage, that has occurred since
2002.
Coalition 108's next step is to locally advertise the implications
of the class action suit for all Round Lake property owners. The
coalition has 150 supporters, but a successful class action would
allow any compensation to be awarded to about 450 property owners.
After that advertising campaign, Coalition 108 must await a
survey.
To be conducted by a Toronto-based expert, the survey will
determine what is and isn't Renfrew Power Generation's flooding
rights on the lake. That can't be performed until after the
spring melt in 2012.
The three-fold goal of Coalition 108 continues to be protection of
lake-side properties, recovery of legal costs, and compensation
for property damage.
The coalition's steering committee consists of Boland, Bohart,
John Haydon, Gord McCay and Renfrew resident Doug Fraser.
Justice Smith's formal order also requires Renfrew Power
Generation to file a statement of defense within 45 days of the
early-December order.
He also ordered RPG to provide flooding-related documentation
within 60 days of the December ruling.
SADIA S.A.: Court Gives Final OK to Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit In re Sadia S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No.
08-Civ-9528 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Shira A. Scheindlin entered final
approval of the class action settlement and plan of allocation.
The Settlement represents a recovery of between 30% and 76% of
maximum provable damages.
The Plaintiffs' Class Counsel is awarded fees equivalent to 30% of
the settlement amount or $8.1 million, plus interest. Class
Counsel is also granted $732,228 in expenses, plus interest.
Class Representatives are awarded $14,177.50 in costs and
expenses.
The class action complaint against Sadia and several of its
current and former officers is based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding Sadia's currency
hedging practices.
A copy of the District Court's Dec. 28, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/gzSnvsfrom Leagle.com.
Counsel for Plaintiffs are:
Curtis Victor Trinko, Esq.
LAW OFFICES of CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Tel No.: (212) 490-9550
E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com
Catherine A. Torell, Esq.
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Tel No.: (212) 838-7797
E-mail: ctorell@cohenmilstein.com
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Matthew Keith Handley, Esq.
Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
stoll@cohenmilstein.com
Joseph E. White, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Christopher Steven Jones, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
2424 N. Federal Highway
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Tel No.: (561) 361-5000
E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
msaxena@saxenawhite.com
cjones@saxenawhite.com
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, L.L.C.
240 Mineola Blvd., Mineola
New York 11501
Tel No.: (516) 741-4977
E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
John J. Gross, Esq.
Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
Stuart Berman, Esq.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
David M. Promisloff, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087
Tel No.: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jgross@ktmc.com
cnelson@ktmc.com
sberman@ktmc.com
skaskela@ktmc.com
dpromisloff@ktmc.com
Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Road
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
Tel No.: (484) 588-5516
E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
Marc I. Gross, Esq.
POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Tel No.: (212) 661-1100
flqian@pomlaw.com
migross@pomlaw.com
Alan Ian Ellman, Esq.
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Stefanie Jill Sundel, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Tel No.: (212) 907-0877
E-mail: aellman@labaton.com
ckeller@labaton.com
ssundel@labaton.com
Counsel for Defendants Sadia, S.A., Gilberto Tomazoni, Welson
Teixeira, Jr., Walter Fontana Filho, Eduardo Fontana D'Avila are:
Lawrence Steven Hirsh, Esq.
Jonathan Dick Siegfried, Esq.
John Eric Schreiber, Esq.
James P. Smith, III, Esq.
Kelly Anne Librera, Esq.
DEWEY & LEBOUEF, LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
Tel No.: (212) 259-8000
E-mail: lhirsh@dl.com
jsiegfri@dl.com
jschreiber@dl.com
jpsmith@dl.com
klibrera@dl.com
Counsel for Defendant Adriano Lima Ferreira are:
Charles A. Stillman, Esq.
Nathaniel Ian Kolodny, Esq.
Scott M. Himes, Esq.
STILLMAN, FRIEDMAN & SHECHTMAN, P.C.
425 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel No.: (212) 223-0200
E-mail: cstillman@stillmanfriedman.com
nkolodny@stillmanfriedman.com
shimes@stillmanfriedman.com
STATE OF ARIZONA: April 9 Hearing Set for Immigration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge set an April 9 hearing
for considering a request by opponents of Arizona's 2010
immigration enforcement law to grant class-action status in their
lawsuit that seeks to declare the law unconstitutional.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other
opponents are asking U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to grant
class-action status for people whose immigration status was
questioned because of their race, day laborers deterred from
seeking work in public and people discouraged from traveling with
immigrations in Arizona because of the law.
Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers opposed the request for class-action
status and argue the proposed class lacks legal standing to pursue
the case.
Judge Bolton blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial
portions, but allowed other provisions to take effect.
STATE OF MICHIGAN: Judge Junks Child-Care Workers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has dismissed a lawsuit
aimed at recovering millions of dollars in union dues paid by
Michigan child-care providers who work at home.
The lawsuit claimed union representation was forced on self-
employed people who weren't state employees and got no benefit
from paying dues. But U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker in Grand
Rapids said there simply were too many conflicts to make it a
class-action case.
He said there may be child-care providers who had no problem
paying dues.
"Determining whether a refund is inappropriate would require the
court to conduct an individualized inquiry into the motivation of
each and every class member's union membership to determine
whether that member voluntarily submitted to the deduction in the
first place," Judge Jonker said in a Dec. 22 order.
Disputes over laws governing unions, he said, should be in the
Capitol, rather than the courts.
"We're disappointed with the judge's decision and foundation staff
attorneys are planning to appeal," said Patrick Semmens, a
spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,
which filed the lawsuit.
The case centered on the representation of 40,000 home-based
workers. The union was created in 2006, although only 15% of
providers cast ballots. During the administration of Gov.
Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, state officials deducted dues from
public subsidies paid to people who watched low-income kids.
The union, a partnership between the United Auto Workers and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said
it offered important training and settled problems between child-
care providers and the Department of Human Services. Dues totaled
nearly $4 million, according to the lawsuit.
The department stopped deducting dues last year after the election
of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, saying the workers were not state
employees.
Unions are mandatory representatives of personal-care workers in
more than a dozen states, according to National Right to Work.
STERNO GROUP: Recalls 10,000 Tea Lights Due to Fire & Burn Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 10,000 cases of 5 Hour Tea Lights were voluntarily recalled
by The Sterno Group LLC, of Des Plaines, Illinois, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The tea light wax can overheat resulting in the wax catching fire,
posing a burn and fire hazard.
Sterno has received several reports of the flame from the tea
lights catching the wax on fire. No reports of injuries have been
received.
The recall involves Sterno Bulk Pack 5 Hour Tea Lights, item
numbers 505TL and 505S. The tea lights are standard sized, white
wax tea light candles contained in small aluminum cups with no
additional identification markings. The tea lights were sold in
cases containing 500 tealight candles. Each case contains 10
boxes with 50 individual tea light candles. This recall only
involves tea lights with codes ranging from 11060 to 11151 which
can be found printed on both the outside of the case and on the
back of the box of 50. Picture of the recalled products is
available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12710.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
through food service distributors and other restaurant supply
stores nationwide from April 2011 through October 2011 for between
$36 to $50 per case. The recalled tea lights were not sold to
retail consumers.
Stop using these candles immediately and return any unused candles
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Food service
distributors and restaurant supply stores have been directly
notified about this recall by mail. For additional information,
contact Sterno toll-free at (877) 478-3766 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.sterno.com/
TAKEDA PHARMA: Actos Lawsuits to Be Consolidated in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actos lawsuits against Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. will be
consolidated before one judge in Louisiana federal court,
announces Class Action.org. The Actos lawsuits claim that the
drug causes bladder cancer, a side effect about which the
manufacturer and co-defendant Eli Lilly & Co. failed to properly
warn the public. In September, Takeda reported that 54 federal
Actos lawsuits had been filed, and dozens more have followed,
according to court records. Potentially, Actos users who were
diagnosed with bladder cancer may still have legal recourse to
file a claim for damages, such as medical expenses; however, there
is a time limit for filing all Actos lawsuits and failure to act
within this window will prevent the patient from ever taking legal
action for their disease. If you or a loved one has been
diagnosed with bladder cancer after taking Actos, visit
http://www.classaction.org/actos.htmltoday for a free, no
obligation case review.
Thousands of patients have reportedly contacted attorneys about
filing Actos bladder cancer lawsuits. Such action was taken after
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in June 2011 that
patients who used the diabetes medication for more than a year may
have an increased risk of developing bladder cancer. It has been
alleged that Takeda withheld information and failed to properly
inform doctors and patients about this Actos bladder cancer risk.
Patients who took Actos and were diagnosed with bladder cancer may
be able to file a claim seeking compensation with the help of an
Actos bladder cancer lawyer. Currently, the attorneys working
with Class Action.org are offering a free online case evaluation
which can help determine a patient's eligibility for an Actos
lawsuit. Potentially, an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit can seek
compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and
other damages related to the patient's diagnosis. To learn more
about Actos lawsuits and to receive your free case review, visit
Class Action.org today.
About Class Action.org
Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org-- is dedicated to
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices.
TARGET CORP: Recalls LED Flashlight Sets Due to Fire & Burn Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 55,000 sets of 6-pc. LED Flashlight.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
When turned on, the flashlights can heat up, smoke or melt, posing
fire and burn hazards.
Target has received reports of four incidents with the
flashlights, including two minor burn injuries to consumer's
hands.
This recall involves 6-pc. LED Flashlight Sets. They are made of
silver plastic with black rubber around the handle and light base.
The flashlight sets have UPC code 490021010049 printed on the back
of the package. They were sold in sets of six, including two
small flashlights measuring about 3 inches long, two medium
flashlights about 6 inches long and two large flashlights about 7
1/2 inches long. Pictures of the recalled products are available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12080.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from October 2010 through
December 2011 for about $10 per set.
Consumers should immediately stop using the flashlights and return
them to any Target store for a full refund. For additional
information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/
UNI-O INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4,530 O-Grill Portable Gas Grills
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Uni-O (Xiamen) Industries Corporation of Xiamen, China, announced
a voluntary recall of about 4,530 O-Grill Portable Gas Grills.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The regulator on the grill can leak gas which can ignite, posing a
fire and burn hazard to consumers.
Uni-O has received 10 reports of grills catching fire. No
injuries or property damage have been reported.
This recall involves Iroda O-Grill models 1000 and 3000 produced
before 2010. Some were also sold under the Tailgating Gear brand.
Both models are lightweight, portable, clamshell-type propane
grills with steel bodies, cast iron cooking surfaces, retractable
legs and a handle. They can be used with either 1-pound propane
cylinders or 20-pound propane tanks. The grills come in orange,
red, green, blue, silver and black and have the words "O-Grill"
stamped on the metal grill cover. Recalled O-Grills do not have
ventilation slots in the regulator cover where the propane bottle
screws in. Grills with ventilation slots in the regulator cover
are not subject to the recall. Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12077.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by LL
Bean, Stoneman, BBQG, Walgreens, REI, Dillards and Dick's Sporting
Goods nationwide from November 2008 through December 2010. The O-
Grill 1000 sold for $149 and the O-Grill 3000 sold for $189.
Consumers should immediately stop using the grills and contact
Uni-O to receive a free replacement grill. For additional
information, contact the firm toll-free at (888) 847-8968 between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.regcen.com/OGRILL/
VALPEY-FISHER CORP: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valpey-Fisher Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in
Maryland over its proposed merger with CTS Corporation, according
to the Company's January 4, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
A putative class action lawsuit entitled "Boon Ping Teoh v.
Michael J. Ferrantino, Jr. et al." (Civil Action No. V356627) has
been filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,
against Valpey-Fisher Corporation (the "Company"), the Company's
directors, CTS Corporation ("CTS") and its indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary, VF Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub"). The lawsuit was
filed on December 13, 2011, and first served upon the Company on
or about December 26, 2011. The Plaintiff's complaint generally
alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its stockholders by (i) approving, for inadequate
consideration, the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CTS, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 17,
2011, between the Company, CTS and Merger Sub and (ii)
disseminating a materially misleading proxy statement in
connection with a Special Meeting of Stockholders of the Company
to be held on January 24, 2012, to consider approval of the
merger. The Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, monetary
damages and attorneys' fees.
The Company and its directors intend to rigorously contest the
claims set forth in the lawsuit.
*********
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. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and
Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2012. 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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *