/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 9 Headlines AMERICAN INT'L: Liverpool Lawyer Embroiled in Fraud Class Action APPLE: iPhone Users Launch Antitrust Class Action BLUE CROSS: Sued in Missouri for Controlling Reimbursement Rate CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras EBAY: Sellers Have Until Jan. 27 to Amend Paypal Class Action GOV'T OF CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wheat Board Changes HYUNDAI: Sued in California Over False Advertising on Elantra IMPERIAL SUGAR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff MANHATTAN BEACH TOYOTA: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action MF GLOBAL: Montana Farmers File Class Action v. Jon Corzine MONSANTO CO: Plaintiff to Advise Court If Seeking to Amend Case MONSANTO CO: Trial in "Bibb" Medical Monitoring Suit Began Jan. 3 MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces NIS400-Mil. Class Action in Israel PEPSI BEVERAGES: Judge Closes Overtime Class Action PINNACLE WEST: Faces Class Action Over Sept. 2011 Power Outage SABA SOFTWARE: Appeal in IPO Litigation vs. Unit Remains Pending SABA SOFTWARE: Objector's Appeal in IPO Litigation Still Pending SENEX SERVICES: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Class Action Oral Arguments Set for Jan. 10 SYNOVIS LIFE: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Baxter Merger TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits UNITED STATES: DSS Sued Over Pending Medicaid Applications WHIRLPOOL CORP: Lemberg Files Amended Class Action Complaint ********* AMERICAN INT'L: Liverpool Lawyer Embroiled in Fraud Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Bartlett, writing for Liverpool Daily Post, reports that a Liverpool lawyer is embroiled in a court case in the USA that alleges he was an accomplice in a multi-million pound Wall Street fraud. Peter Rigby, of Liverpool-based JST Lawyers, has been dragged into an action being brought by a group of international investors against American investment fund Montague Morgan Slade (MMS). The case is primarily against Michael Brown, Gordon Spedding and convicted fraudster Anthony Heald, from Sunderland, who were involved in the running of MMS. The class action alleges that Mr. Rigby, who previously acted as Mr. Heald's lawyer, "crossed the line from legal advisor to accomplice in the MMS enterprise". Mr. Rigby totally denies the allegations and he is currently fighting to have the case against him thrown out by the Supreme Court in New York. His current law firm JST Lawyers, and former firm Keith Park Solicitors, of St. Helens, are also named as defendants in the case -- mainly because Mr. Rigby worked for them at the time. In all there are 19 defendants. The case against MMS and the various defendants is set out across hundreds of pages of documents filed in New York. In essence the international investors allege that MMS claimed to manage funds from an office in Wall Street but it was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that cheated at least 50 investors out of approximately $16.6 million (GBP10.7 million). John Lundin, of New York law firm Schlam Stone, is handling the case for the investors. In documents submitted to the court by Mr. Lundin's firm, it is alleged that: "Rigby has played a role in several events that appear to have been designed to delay and frustrate investor redemptions. "Rigby knowingly made false factual representations regarding MMS that he intended investors to rely upon and on which they relied in delaying redeeming their investments and initiating civil and/or criminal actions against MMS for stealing their investments." Mr. Rigby is being represented by Chris Stanton, of Hill Dickinson, and New York lawyers have also been instructed. They have applied to the New York court to throw out the case saying that it should not fall under their jurisdiction as none of the parties involved in the case live in New York. Mr. Rigby can be reached at: Peter Rigby, Esq. JST LAWYERS Telephone: +44(0)151 282 8957 E-mail: prigby@jstlaw.co.uk Mr. Stanton can be reached at: Christopher Stanton, Esq. HILL DICKINSON Telephone: +44 (0) 151 600 8332 E-mail: christopher.stanton@hilldickinson.com APPLE: iPhone Users Launch Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Brid-Aine Parnell, writing for The Register, reports that four American iPhone users have launched a class action suit against Apple over its exclusive deals with carriers in the country and the way it runs the App Store. Apple partnered with US carrier AT&T when it first brought the Jesus-mobe to stores in 2007, in a five-year exclusivity agreement that tied users to an AT&T SIM card with no option to use another network. The four plaintiffs in the case are arguing that the restrictive partnership violates the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because it didn't give customers the "absolute legal right to modify their phones to use the network of their carrier of choice". The complaint states: "Prior to launch, Apple entered into a secret five-year contract with AT&T that established AT&T as the exclusive provider of cell phone voice and data services for iPhone customers through some time in 2012. As part of the contract, Apple shared in AT&T's revenues and profits with respect to the first generation of iPhones launched, known as the iPhone 2G, which was a unique arrangement in the industry. The Plaintiffs and other class members who purchased iPhones did not agree to use AT&T for five years. Apple's undisclosed five-year Exclusivity Agreement with AT&T, however, effectively locked iPhone users into using AT&T for five years, contrary to those users' knowledge, wishes and expectations." While the iPhone fanbois knew that their shiny new toy was coming from Apple in partnership with AT&T, they claim that they didn't know that the length of that partnership was five years and they didn't know they wouldn't get the unlock code if they asked for it, something AT&T does give out for other phones bought under contract. As well as taking issue with being stuck with one carrier, the complainants are also suing over the fruity firm's handling of its App Store. They want the court to decide that Apple's refusal to approve third-party apps that don't pay the annual fee for the software development kit, or don't hand over 30 per cent of their sales to Apple, is unlawful. If Cupertino doesn't approve an app and iPhone users download it anyway, it voids their phone's warranty -- a pretty risky move on such an expensive piece of kit. The complaint alleges: "Through these actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition, reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone voice and data services and for iPhone software applications." The four people bringing the case against Apple say they're not sure how many people could be counted in the suit, but estimate that it is somewhere in the tens of millions. The lawsuit is seeking a court order that stops Apple from selling locked iPhones unless it makes the terms clear and forces it to hand over the unlock code to everyone who already has a locked Jesus-mobe. The suit also wants the court to end the firm's monopoly in the App Store. Naturally, the complaint is also looking for attorney's fees and costs, as well as "treble damages for injuries caused by Apple's violations of the federal antitrust laws". Class actions over Apple and AT&T has been knocking around in one form or another since 2007, but this version of the complaint was officially filed in California at the end of December last year and is only being brought against Apple. Another case against both Apple and AT&T for the same antitrust violations, but brought by different plaintiffs, was already filed in 2008 and is currently moving through the courts. Apple had not replied to a request for comment at the time of publication. BLUE CROSS: Sued in Missouri for Controlling Reimbursement Rate --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that orthopedic clinics claim in a class action that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri used its market power to set "unconscionabl(y)" low rates for services. A copy of the Complaint in Rockhill Orthopaedics, P.C., et al. v. RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri, Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/BlueCross.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Horn, Esq. Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com jkronawitter@hab-law.com - and - Diane Breneman, Esq. Stacey L. Dungan, Esq. BRENEMAN DUNGAN, LLC 311 Delaware Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-0114 - and - Scott S. Bethune, Esq. DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2930 P.O. Box 26250 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-1600 E-mail: sbethune@dbjlaw.net CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Cuevas, writing for KPCC, reports that the city of Victorville faces a potential $9 million class action lawsuit unless it changes the way it uses red-light cameras. The people who want to sue also targeted the company that installed the camera system. Barstow attorney Bob Conaway wants to file the lawsuit on behalf of more than 4,000 people who received and paid tickets issued by Victorville's red-light camera system. Each fine costs about $490. Conaway says he'll back off if the city dumps the camera system, or revises the way it's operated. "Cease the data gathering and ticket citations being issued," he demanded. "There should be an actual live body observing the date feed from these machines. Cops to verify the data as it's coming in. That would be the way to keep the machines in and to make it not violate due process and the California rules of evidence." Mr. Conaway says the cameras, operated by Phoenix-based Redflex Camera Systems, violate civil rights because they don't give ticketed motorists the opportunity to confront their accuser. The lawyer also says it's not right that the city allows a for-profit company to process evidence that law enforcement personnel should handle. "That's the remarkable thing, the decision making on which tickets to issue is made by Redflex," explained Mr. Conaway. "They have a machine-generated signature on the ticket from an officer that says, 'I know this to be true on information and belief.'" The lawsuit Conaway may file next month would seek to recover more than $2 million in fines red-light runners have already paid, $6 million for insurance premium hikes and another million dollars in legal fees and lost wages. A spokesman for Redflex says the company is confident that the case has no merit. He would not say whether its attorneys had reviewed the claim. Last year, the Victorville City Council split on whether to terminate its contract with Redflex over some of the same issues raised in the complaint. EBAY: Sellers Have Until Jan. 27 to Amend Paypal Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that eBay sellers who filed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the company last year have until January 27 to file a second amended complaint, a judge ruled on January 5. eBay had filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge granted in part and denied in part. According to the lawsuit allegations, "While eBay lists purported alternative payment methods, eBay has through its intentional action made it so PayPal is the only viable option for sellers." The plaintiffs also complained about eBay's policy of collecting commission fees on shipping costs. The plaintiff, eBay seller Charlotte Smith, filed the lawsuit against eBay on April 12, 2010, over the company's policy that forces sellers to use its PayPal online payment service. Ms. Smith's complaint alleges that eBay sellers "effectively have and will continue to have no choice but to accept payment using only eBay owned PayPal, and as a result sellers are and will continue to be required to pay eBay through PayPal an additional fee up to 3% and .30USD per transaction. Defendant's actions constitute an unlawful tying arrangement resulting in an impermissible restraint of trade, in violation of federal law." eBay had moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims because, under the Clayton Act, private antitrust claims are subject to a four- year statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs had claimed that eBay's 2002 acquisition of PayPal "eliminated competition and expanded (eBay's) own market dominance," such that eBay "possesses effective monopoly power in online auction markets." But Ms. Smith's lawsuit referred to several developments in eBay's history that increasingly limited sellers ability to accept other forms of payment, including its ban on Google Checkout, cash, and money orders. In his ruling last week, the judge referred to another case involving Rite Aid retail merchants and American Express: "much like the plaintiffs in the Rite Aid case, Plaintiffs here premise their tying claims on eBay's continued modification of the Accepted Payment Policy. As in the Rite Aid case, the Court concludes that those changes do constitute overt acts, and it finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that those changes inflicted new and accumulating harm on them. In addition, Plaintiffs have alleged that eBay had the ability to and did enforce the purported tying arrangement within the limitations period." The judge, however, agreed with eBay that the plaintiffs failed (1) to allege facts to show that a tying arrangement exists; (2) to allege facts that show an actual adverse effect on competition; (3) to allege facts supporting the relevant markets; and (4) to allege facts showing antitrust injury." Although the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing an adverse effect on competition, it shall address each of Defendants arguments." For example, the judge writes, "the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that the alleged tie caused harm to competitors in the tied product market. Because Plaintiffs may be able to allege such facts, the Court shall grant them one final opportunity to amend." eBay Charges Fees on Shipping Costs Plaintiffs also wanted relief from eBay's practice charging "improper collection of shipping fees as part of final value fee," a policy that infuriates many eBay sellers. The judge said, however, that plaintiffs had not alleged that they they did not consent to pay eBay a final value fee. "Although leave to amend should be freely granted, in light of the facts of this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs would not be able to state a claim for conversion." The Smith v eBay lawsuit is not the only case in which sellers have claimed eBay violated antitrust laws, and in November, plaintiffs in one class-action lawsuit against PayPal (Fernando vs. PayPal) asked a judge to intervene in a related lawsuit (Zepeda vs. PayPal) on the grounds that they involved essentially the same charges, and that any rights accorded to one class would be available to the other. GOV'T OF CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wheat Board Changes ------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit was launched in Saskatoon on Jan. 9 seeking $15.4 billion in damages resulting from changes made by the Harper government to the Canadian Wheat Board. Plaintiff Duane Filson, a farmer, teacher and municipal politician from Woodrow, Sask., represents a class that could include any Prairie grain farmer who sold wheat or barley to the Canadian Wheat Board in 2011 or 2012. Mr. Filson ran for the federal Liberals in the 2011 general election in the riding of Cypress Hills-Grasslands, losing to the current parliamentary secretary responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Conservative David Anderson. Merchant Law Group LLP launched the suit on farmers' behalf. Class action lawsuits must be certified by a judge before they can proceed, and the claims in the suit have not been proven in court. The first court date to consider the certification of the class is expected in about two months. "This lawsuit is not about the single desk [monopoly marketing system]," said Tony Merchant. "If you're going to make changes, you have to compensate," Mr. Merchant said, noting that when the federal government ended the Crow Rate subsidy for shipping grain by rail, farmers were compensated. Documents filed in court say that farmers should be compensated for losing all of the wheat board's assets at the time the government's changes took effect: $100 million in cash, over 3,000 rail cars, the prepaid purchase value of lake freighters for shipping grain by sea, an office building in Winnipeg and other intangible assets, as valued by experts for the purpose of the lawsuit. Part of the claim includes damages for lost price premiums previously obtained with the selling power of the board's monopoly. The wheat board had operated as a shared governance organization since 1998, with farmer-elected directors constituting the majority of the representatives on its board. Proceeds from the board's sales were returned to Prairie grain farmers. Legislation that received royal assent Dec. 15 ended the wheat board's monopoly over marketing Prairie wheat and barley as of Aug. 1, 2012. The eight remaining farmer-elected board members were dismissed, leaving five government-appointed directors in charge of the organization's future. The board continues to operate for the 2012 crop year and beyond as a voluntary seller for Prairie grain farmers, who may now also sell to other private sector buyers in an open market. After a five-year transition period, the government appointees who now manage operations will determine if the wheat board can continue to operate as a viable voluntary organization in an open market. If it cannot, it could be dissolved by the government altogether. The lawsuit argues that when the changes were made, sole control over the wheat board moved out of farmers' hands and into the government's, despite the fact that it will continue to exist as a voluntary seller. "A corporate dissolution requires surplus funds, proceeds and assets to be returned to appropriate creditors and stakeholders," the lawsuit argues. "The dissolution of the [farmer-controlled wheat board] . . . requires the return of all funds, proceeds and assets accumulated . . .back to the class, the rightful owners of the CWB value." The lawsuit deems the legislation as having "unlawfully repurposed" tangible and intangible assets of farmers, causing $15.4 billion in estimated damages and removing all the value and benefits derived from the previous marketing system. Further, it argues that the government has "wrongfully and intentionally interfered with the business relations" between the plaintiff, the wheat board and the former farmer-elected directors. The lawsuit claims a "breach of implied trust" to maintain the wheat board's assets to the benefit of the farmers it served, and claims that the new voluntary wheat board controlled by the government has been "unjustly enriched" by the changes. "How can a voluntary wheat board function? What can they offer?" Mr. Merchant said. "Economists say it isn't going to work and those assets will be dissipated." "Farmers say give me my share right now. I don't want to go into that new gamble," Mr. Merchant says. "Our government has delivered marketing freedom for Western Canadian farmers and we will continue to work with farmers to make sure the CWB remains a viable marketing option," said Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz in a statement on Jan. 9. "It's disappointing to see further misguided legal action," the statement says, adding that this "baseless action" does not affect the arrival of an open market for Prairie wheat and barley as of Aug. 1, 2012. Tony Merchant can be reached at: Tony Merchant, Q.C. MERCHANT LAW GROUP LLP Suite 501 - 224 Fourth Ave. S. Saskatoon, SK S7K 5M5 Telephone: (306) 359-7777 E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com HYUNDAI: Sued in California Over False Advertising on Elantra ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court class action claims Hyundai falsely advertises that the Elantra gets 40 mpg, though it gets "considerably less." IMPERIAL SUGAR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Sugar Company is awaiting a court decision on a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011. On August 30, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, styled as Dawes v. Imperial Sugar Company, et al., Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-03250, alleging that the Company, its current President and Chief Executive Officer, and its current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, violated the federal securities laws. On September 22, 2011, another shareholder filed a nearly identical putative class action lawsuit against the Company, its current President and Chief Executive Officer and its current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas styled as Hassan v. Imperial Sugar Company, et al., Civil Action No 4:11-cv-03457. On October 28, 2011, these cases were consolidated by the court. The complaints assert fraud claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and allege that the defendants made misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's sales and business prospects, which purportedly were disclosed on August 5, 2011, when the Company announced its third fiscal quarter results. A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff was filed on October 31, 2011. Pursuant to the agreed-upon schedule, the lead plaintiff will file an amended complaint 45 days after entry of an order appointing the lead plaintiff. The Company says this matter is in the early stages and it cannot predict the ultimate outcome. MANHATTAN BEACH TOYOTA: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case filed by Sanford Wittels & Heisler on Jan. 9 in Los Angeles' Superior Court claims that John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota knowingly permits a corporate culture of racial discrimination and harassment. The complaint alleges that John Elway and his business partners, Mitchell D. Pierce and Jerry L. Williams, have refused to take action, even though they have been made aware of the discrimination and the intolerable working conditions it creates for the dealership's loyal and hardworking employees of color. The former Sales Manager and long-time employee of John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota, Timothy Sandquist, filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other current and former employees of color. Mr. Sandquist, an African American, describes how he and other class members were driven out of the dealership, due to Elway and his partners refusing to curtail the constant racial discrimination and harassment that they were subjected to while working at the former Denver Bronco quarterback's Toyota dealership. Mr. Sandquist is represented in the matter by Janette Wipper and Felicia Medina, from the San Francisco office of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP. "It is beyond belief that anyone could ignore the pervasive racial discrimination and harassment that Mr. Sandquist and other employees experienced at John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota," said Ms. Wipper. "This workplace is the very epitome of a hostile work environment." The complaint identifies Darrell Sperber, the General Manager at John Elway's Toyota, as a repeat harasser and the primary source of the rampant racial harassment. Mr. Sperber was allegedly the originator of frequent racial slurs, epithets and stereotypes, including referring to non-Caucasian employees as "dumb Mexicans," "goddamn Mexicans," "apes," "Aunt Jemimas," "camel people" and "slant eyes." Mr. Sperber also encouraged personnel of the dealership to make demeaning and vicious racist comments about non-Caucasian customers who chose not to purchase a vehicle. According to Mr. Sandquist, dealership personnel victimized by Mr. Sperber have no recourse in dealing with the regular harassment discrimination, because all methods of reporting on- the-job discrimination, harassment or abuse are funneled through Mr. Sperber himself. The complaint alleges that several employees who did complain about Mr. Sperber's harassment and discriminatory behavior were retaliated against with further harassment and sometimes termination. It is also alleged that employees of color experienced significant and ongoing disparities in compensation, promotion and other employment opportunities in comparison to the dealership's Caucasian employees. As set forth in the complaint, as recently as June 2010, an anonymous employee survey provided overwhelming evidence that employees at John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota were constantly harassed and discriminated against by Mr. Sperber. Despite the widespread complaints, the defendants, including Elway, took no disciplinary action against Mr. Sperber, nor did they implement any initiatives to remedy and end harassment and discrimination at the dealership. Mr. Sandquist filed the class action to force the John Elway and his two business partners to abide by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Unfair Competition Law that make the discrimination and harassment practiced at the dealership illegal. The lawsuit seeks to end the systematic, unlawful harassment and discrimination at John Elway's Manhattan Beach Toyota, through the implementation of policies and programs that restore equal employment rights at the dealership. About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in qui tam, employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in major class action cases in the United States. The firm also represents individual clients in employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and personal injury matters. In May 2010, the firm secured the largest jury award in the U.S. in a gender discrimination class action in an employment case when a jury returned a verdict of $253 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. For more information, contact Sanford Wittels & Heisler at (202) 742-7777. For more information, contact Jamie Baum, 1-847-502-3825 Janette Wipper and Felicia M. Medina can be reached at: Janette Wipper, Esq. Felicia M. Medina, Esq. SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 375-8903 Facsimile: (415) 391-6901 E-mail: jwipper@swhlegal.com fmedina@swhlegal.com MF GLOBAL: Montana Farmers File Class Action v. Jon Corzine ----------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Galli, writing for ABC News, reports that Montana farmers have filed a class action suit against former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, charging that the failed financial firm run by Mr. Corzine stole millions from their accounts to pay off its spiraling debts, and that Mr. Corzine's "single-minded obsession" with making MF Global a big player on Wall Street led to the firm's collapse. MF Global's clients included 38,000 wheat farmers, cattle ranchers and others who "hedged" their crop prices by placing millions in MF Global accounts. Those accounts were supposed to be "segregated and secure," according to the federal suit, meaning MF Global could not draw on those funds. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all 38,000 customers, alleges that when MF Global made a series of bad investments -- notably in European debt -- it began "siphoning funds withdrawn from segregated client accounts" to cover its debts. "This is a suit by the real victims of MF Global," said plaintiff's attorney Mark Baker of the law firm Anderson, Baker & Swanson. "The missing funds were not investments in MF Global, or loans to MF Global, but rather the customer's own money as collateral to guaranty their contracts. They were not to be used by others -- let alone their own broker -- to speculate on risky and exotic securities." Mr. Corzine was at the helm of the firm when it declared Chapter 11 on October 31, the eighth-largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. Regulators initially thought $600 million in customer funds had gone missing, but later upped their estimate to $1.2 billion. Only 60 percent of customer funds could be found. The Montana complaint takes square aim at Mr. Corzine, alleging that the former governor longed to make MF Global a Wall Street powerhouse through a series of risky investments. The lawsuit says Mr. Corzine, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, had a "single- minded obsession" when he took over in early 2010. But Mr. Corzine was reckless in his zeal, according to plaintiffs' attorneys, instead trading in the risky debt of European countries. MF Global grew not through sound business, alleges the complaint, but "through Corzine's political lobbying and the commingling and looting of customers' segregated accounts." "Once over $1.2 billion in customer accounts was unaccounted for, the Defendants were quick to bury their heads deep in the sand," the lawsuit claims. According to the February issue of Vanity Fair, Mr. Corzine, who reportedly made over $16 million between 2010 and 2011, was shopping for a chateau in France with his wife two weeks before MF Global filed for bankruptcy. Testifying before the House Agriculture Committee in December, Mr. Corzine said he had no idea where the $1.2 billion in missing customer funds had gone and that investigators are still untangling what happened. Later in the month, he appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee to deny any wrongdoing. "I never directed anyone at MF Global to misuse customer funds. I never intended to, and as far as I'm concerned, I never gave instructions that anyone could misconstrue," he said. Mark Baker can be reached at: Mark Baker, Esq. ANDERSON, BAKER & SWANSON, PLLC One South Montana Avenue, Suite L-1 Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 449-3118 Facsimile: (406) 449-0667 MONSANTO CO: Plaintiff to Advise Court If Seeking to Amend Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri directed the lead plaintiff of a securities class action lawsuit against Monsanto Company to advise the Court whether it intends to seek leave to move to amend its complaint, according to the Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011. On July 29, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, styled Rochester Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed against the Company and three of its past and present executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit alleged that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements between January 7, 2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's earnings guidance for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and the anticipated future performance of its ROUNDUP business. On November 1, 2010, the Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the action. On January 31, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and four of its past and present executive officers in the same action. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements during the same time period, regarding the Company's earnings guidance for fiscal 2009 and 2010 as well as the anticipated future performance of its ROUNDUP business and its Seeds and Genomics business. Lead plaintiff claims that these statements artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock and that purchasers of the stock during the relevant period were damaged when the stock price later declined. Lead plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs. The Company believes it has meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent its interests vigorously in this matter. On April 1, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 14, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion, and defendants' reply thereto was filed on August 12, 2011. On December 12, 2011, lead plaintiff moved to supplement the record on the motion to dismiss with facts concerning the SEC investigation of the Company's financial reporting associated with customer incentive programs for glyphosate products and the Company's restatement of its financial results for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and certain quarters of fiscal year 2011. On January 5, 2012, the Court denied lead plaintiff's motion to supplement the record, directed lead plaintiff to advise the Court in writing by January 11, 2012, whether lead plaintiff intends to seek leave to move to amend its complaint, and set a briefing schedule with respect to lead plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint in the event lead plaintiff moves for leave to amend. MONSANTO CO: Trial in "Bibb" Medical Monitoring Suit Began Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for the medical monitoring class action lawsuit captioned Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., began on January 3, 2012, the Company disclosed in its January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011. On December 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, its former parent, Pharmacia Corporation, and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Pharmacia's former subsidiary, Solutia Inc., and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The lawsuit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action certification hearing was held on October 29, 2007. On January 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property damage and for medical monitoring. On November 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the property class. The trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on January 3, 2012. MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Drayer, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Christopher J. Artinian, John K. Castle, John J. Connolly, Robert A. Goldschmidt, William C. Anton, Alan A. Teran, Stephen E. Paul, David B. Pittaway, Dianne H. Russell, Zane Tankel, Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., Fertitta Morton's Restaurants, Inc., Fertitta Morton's Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 2012-CH-00706 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 9, 2012) is a stockholder class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company against its Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the Defendants' decision to sell the Company to Fertitta at an inadequate and unfair price following a grossly unfair process. The Plaintiff alleges that the sale of Morton's to Fertitta contemplated by a December 2011 merger agreement is unfair and inequitable to Morton's public stockholders and constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of the Board. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Merger Agreement and transactions approved and contemplated thereby, including a tender offer, are unfairly and inequitably coercive to the public stockholders and that the stockholders are not provided with a voluntary choice whether to tender their shares. Mr. Drayer is a shareholder of Morton's. Morton's, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates restaurants, including upscale steakhouse restaurants under Morton's The Steakhouse name and Italian restaurants under the Trevi name. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Fertitta Morton's Restaurant and Fertitta Morton's Acquisition, Inc. are Delaware corporations and wholly owned companies of Tilman J. Fertitta, founder, chairman of the board, President, CEO and primary shareholder of Landry's Restaurants. Both companies were organized for the sole purpose of making a tender offer for the outstanding shares of common stock of Morton's and completing the Merger. Landry's is a national, diversified restaurant, hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of high end and casual dining restaurants, primarily under the names of Landry's Seafood House, Rainforest Cafe, The Chart House, Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., Claim Jumper, Saltgrass Steak House and Oceanaire, as well as a fine dining signature group of restaurants Vic & Anthony's, Grotto, Willie G's and others. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Shedden, Esq. Tony Kim, Esq. SCHAD, DIAMOND & SHEDDEN, PC 332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 939-6280 Facsimile: (312) 939-4661 E-mail: jshedden@lawsds.com tkim@lawsds.com - and - Peter Bull, Esq. Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. BULL & LIFSHITZ, LLP 18 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 213-6222 Facsimile: (212) 213-9405 E-mail: jml@nyclasslaw.com pdb@nyclasslaw.com PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces NIS400-Mil. Class Action in Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------- A request for a NIS400 million class action suit against Partner Communications Ltd. was filed in the Petach Tikva District Court on Jan. 9, claiming damages for harm caused its customers due to overcharging, "harassment, wasting time, and mental anguish." Wireless carrier Partner operates the Orange brand in Israel. The suit, which was submitted by Raanan Bashan and Leah Nemas- Kahati from the Raanan Bashan Law Offices, claims that, "Partner systematically mistreats hundreds of thousands of customers, causes them to waste time, and inflicts trouble, mental anguish, despair and much frustration." The claimant says that this is in flagrant violation of the Ministry of Communications' license terms. "This request concerns a war attrition that is deliberately being waged by Partner against its customers, in an enraging, heavy- handed, outrageous way, lacking in good faith," said the class action claimants -- two small private companies that are Partner customers, called Leverage and Entrepreneurship Ltd., A.A.A. Software Consulting & Manufacturing Ltd., as well as the Raanan Bashan Law Offices, which is also a client. According to the plaintiffs, "With the aim of maximizing profits and reducing expenses, Partner has abused hundreds of thousands of customers, treated them with flagrant disregard, wasted their time, hassled them, caused them aggravation, despair and unimaginable frustration, all while abusing its enormous commercial power and the fact that these customers allowed it in complete faith to charge their accounts." The request for class-action approval focuses on cases where Partner customers' accounts were overcharged, and customers tried to subsequently reverse the charges. According to the claimants, in these cases, it takes a long time for customers to receive a response from a customer service representative at Partner, at which point the customers have to go through a huge saga until Partner corrects the accounting mistakes. In this exact way, Leverage and Entrepreneurship Ltd. was overcharged by Partner. "This discovery led to a frustrating saga that lasted almost a year, during which time Leverage and Entrepreneurship's CEO approached Partner and its representatives time and again by phone, e-mail, sms, fax, by physically arriving at the customer service center, and by trying to stop the transfer of funds that Partner was illegally carrying out." The suit also claims that these are not isolated cases, or exceptions to the norm, but the "deliberate, biased, and calculated" conduct of Partner. It was further claimed in the suit that Partner's lack of good faith in this conduct was even more severe in light of the company's extraordinary profitability. Partner's revenue over the past three years has been an average of NIS 6 billion, with net profit reaching almost unprecedented levels in the Israeli market: 20% of revenue, or NIS1.2 billion a year. "With numbers like these," the suit claims, "The duty of care and to act in good faith requires Partner to have an appropriate customer services department that can provide reasonable and effective service to its customers." PEPSI BEVERAGES: Judge Closes Overtime Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge shut the door on Jan. 9 on a class action alleging that Pepsi owes overtime to current and former merchandisers at the McKees Rocks, Pa., plant, citing an undisclosed settlement. A copy of the Order of Court in Thieret, et al. v. Bottling Group, LLC, d/b/a Pepsi Beverages Company, Case No. 11-cv-00644 (W.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/PepsiSettlesOrder.pdf PINNACLE WEST: Faces Class Action Over Sept. 2011 Power Outage -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action blames Pinnacle West Capital Corp., Arizona Public Service Co., and San Diego Gas & Electric for the Sept. 8, 2011 power outage that affected 1.4 million SDG&E customers in Southern California for 12 hours. A copy of the Complaint in Busalacchi, et al. v. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00090095 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/PowerOutage.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Ian Rott, Esq. Eric M. Overholt, Esq. HIDEN, ROTT & OERTLE, LLP 2635 Camino del Rio South, Suite 306 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 296-5884 Facsimile: (619) 296-5171 E-mail: mrott@hrollp.com eoverholt@hrollp.com SABA SOFTWARE: Appeal in IPO Litigation vs. Unit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the initial public offering litigation involving Saba Software, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according to the Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011. Centra Software Inc., certain of its former officers and directors and the managing underwriters of Centra's initial public offering were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2001, and purported to serve the Centra defendants on or about March 18, 2002. The original complaint has been superseded by an amended complaint filed in April 2002. The action, captioned in re Centra Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988, is purportedly brought on behalf of the class of persons who purchased Centra's common stock between February 3, 2000, and December 6, 2000. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that, in connection with Centra's initial public offering in February 2000, the underwriters received undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for allocating shares to them and also agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in exchange for the agreement of those customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The complaint asserts that Centra's registration statement and prospectus for the offering were materially false and misleading due to their failure to disclose these alleged arrangements. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount against Centra and the named individuals. Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998; the complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned in re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92. On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated actions moved to dismiss all the actions, including the action involving Centra. On July 15, 2002, Centra, along with other non- underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, moved to dismiss the litigation. On October 9, 2002, pursuant to agreements tolling the statute of limitations for claims related to the litigation, the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named Centra officers and directors in the litigation. Subsequent addenda to the agreements extended the tolling period through August 27, 2010. On February 19, 2003, the District Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the claims against Centra under Rule 10b-5. The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases, including Centra. In June 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies. In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval. The District Court granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. On August 31, 2005, the District Court issued a preliminary order further approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the settlement classes. The District Court also appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement class members by January 15, 2006. The settlement fairness hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court reserved decision at that time. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. The Company's case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, counsel for the issuer defendants informed the District Court that this settlement could not be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be certified. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the settlement agreement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. Briefing on the class certification motion was completed in May 2008. That motion was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the Court close these actions. On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the tolling period stated in the agreements between the plaintiffs and the named Centra officers and directors, the plaintiffs filed a notice to terminate the tolling agreement and recommence litigation against the named Centra officers and directors. The plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not intend to take any further action against the named Centra officers and directors at this time. Appeals of the opinion granting final approval were filed, all of which were disposed of except certain appeals were remanded to the district court to determine standing to appeal. On August 25, 2011, the district court issued an order holding that the remaining objector had no standing to appeal. The August 25, 2011 order has been appealed. The Company says that, on behalf of Centra, it intends to dispute these claims and defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the district court's August 25, 2011 order remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the litigation is uncertain. SABA SOFTWARE: Objector's Appeal in IPO Litigation Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal by a settlement objector in the initial public offering litigation involving Saba Software, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011. In November 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 6, 2000, and December 6, 2000. The complaint alleges violations by the Company and its officers and directors of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged compensation arrangements entered into by the underwriters in connection with the initial public offering. An amended complaint was filed in April 2002. Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998. The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration statement for the initial public offering failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from investors and that some investors in the initial public offering agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the Company's stock. The complaints were later consolidated into a single action. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs. On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated actions moved to dismiss all of the actions, including the action involving the Company. On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, moved to dismiss the litigation. On February 19, 2003, the District Court ruled on the motions. The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims against the Company under Rule 10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the allegations against the Company. The District Court also granted the motion of the individual defendants, Bobby Yazdani and Terry Carlitz, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board and former Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Company's Board of Directors, to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 10b-5 and Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases, including the Company. In June 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies. In June 2004, an agreement of partial settlement was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval. The District Court granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. On August 31, 2005, the District Court issued a preliminary order further approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the settlement classes. The District Court also appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement class members by January 15, 2006. The settlement fairness hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court reserved decision at that time. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. The Company's case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, counsel for the issuer defendants informed the District Court that this settlement could not be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be certified. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the settlement agreement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. Briefing on the class certification motion was completed in May 2008. That motion was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the Court close these actions. Appeals of the opinion granting final approval were filed, all of which were disposed of except certain appeals were remanded to the district court to determine standing to appeal. On August 25, 2011, the district court issued an order holding that the remaining objector had no standing to appeal. The August 25, 2011 order has been appealed. The Company says it intends to dispute these claims and defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the district court's August 25, 2011 order remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the litigation is uncertain. SENEX SERVICES: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria D. Robinson, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, and People of the state of Illinois ex rel. Gloria D. Robinson v. Senex Services Corporation and Jaffe & Berlin, L.L.C., Case No. 2012-CH-00556 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 6, 2012) seeks redress for the conduct of Senex in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection Agency Act. The Plaintiff alleges that although unlicensed, Senex collected debts from debtors located in Illinois, including her, in violation of the ICAA. She asserts that Sections 14 and 14b of the ICAA make it a crime to engage in the business of a collection agency without a license. Ms. Robinson is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Senex is an Indiana corporation doing business in Illinois. Senex purchases or claims to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise. Jaffe & Berlin, an Illinois law firm, represented Senex in its collection lawsuits against the Plaintiff and other Illinois residents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com cmiller@edcombs.com SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Class Action Oral Arguments Set for Jan. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal reports that the United States Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments on Jan. 10 in a class-action lawsuit initiated by eight California civil servants against the Service Employees International Union Local 1000, a state affiliate of the SEIU. In 2005, Local 1000 union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all state employees covered by a union monopoly bargaining contract for a union "Political Fight-Back Fund," regardless of their union membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals supported by then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, including one that revoked public employee unions' special privilege of using forced union dues and fees for political contributions without employee consent. California government employees were given no chance to opt out of Local 1000's political fund. Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation -- the nation's leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism -- was set to argue before the Supreme Court on Jan. 10 that the workers should not have been forced to pay for the SEIU union officials' political spending spree. It is the 15th time Foundation attorneys would appear before the Court. SYNOVIS LIFE: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Baxter Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. is facing two shareholder class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with a Baxter International Inc. subsidiary, according to Synovis' January 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011. On December 12, 2011, Synovis, Baxter International Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Baxter"), and Twins Merger Sub, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Baxter ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Baxter will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Synovis for $28.00 per share in cash, without interest, and pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Baxter (the "Merger"). Beginning December 14, 2011, two putative shareholder class action complaints challenging the proposed Merger were filed in Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District, State of Minnesota, against Baxter, Merger Sub, Synovis and individual members of the Company's board of directors. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of Synovis by entering into the Merger Agreement, approving the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to maximize the value of Synovis to its shareholders, making materially inadequate disclosures regarding the proposed merger, and that Synovis, Baxter and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition, the complaints allege that the transaction improperly favors Baxter and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Synovis' ability to receive a topping bid or negotiate with rival bidders. The complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger and other forms of equitable relief. The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in these proceedings are without merit; however, there can be no assurance as to the outcome or timing of the resolution of these proceedings. The Company, therefore, is unable to estimate the amount or potential range of any loss that may arise out of these proceedings. The possible resolutions could include a delay or prohibition of consummation of the Merger, a determination and judgment against the Company or a settlement that requires a substantial payment by the Company that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The lawsuit against three of Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant. The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The lawsuit requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as punitive and exemplary damages. Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case. As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined. Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc. from the lawsuits, and the Company's subsidiaries operating in Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs. Most of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as defendants. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs. Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant. The lawsuits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from these lawsuits. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving approximately 250 plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3. The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from lawsuit to lawsuit. Following dismissal of certain causes of action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the remaining causes of action typically include, among other things, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability, willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally request, among other things, general and punitive damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and medical monitoring costs. As of January 6, 2012, none of the plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any specific amount or range of damages. Some of the lawsuits include additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants. The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them. The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits may be filed against it alleging damages due to injuries to persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011. UNITED STATES: DSS Sued Over Pending Medicaid Applications ---------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that the Department of Social Services, having been "systematically stripped of workers," failed to process Medicaid applications in a timely manner, a federal class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 9 by legal aid attorneys says. One of the two named plaintiffs is just one of the nearly 5,000 Connecticut residents whose applications for Medicaid have been pending well beyond the 45-day period generally required for processing applications, the lawsuit says. "At the end of November, 2011, nearly 55 percent of all of the Medicaid applications were pending beyond the federally-mandated time limits," the lawsuit says. As a result, Paul Shafer, the lead plaintiff, "has been unable to access Medicaid coverage for his anti-seizure medication." The second named plaintiff Joshua Harder, is one of hundreds of individuals whose applications have been approved, but is subject to the spend-down requirement. Although Mr. Harder provided his medical bills in compliance with the spend-down requirement for the six month period between July 1 to December 2011, he was not provided Medicaid benefits and has been unable to receive further medical treatment. DSS workers not only cannot timely process applications, but they also cannot timely process Medicaid annual reviews, legal aid attorneys said in a press release. As a result, individuals who continue to be eligible for Medicaid and have timely submitted their annual redetermination forms are nevertheless routinely cut off of Medicaid. But the Department of Social Services spokesman said filing a lawsuit may not have been the best way to handle this situation. "We are disappointed that legal services has chosen to file a lawsuit that will consume precious time and resources, rather than working with us on practical approaches to re-investing in DSS," David Dearborn, DSS spokesman, said in a statement. "It's common knowledge that the agency has dealt with major, double-digit percentage staffing losses over the last decade and increasing monthly Medicaid (19.5%) and SNAP (81.0%) caseloads over the past five years. To meet these critical needs, we are working with the Office of Policy and Management to refill existing vacancies and hire additional staff; and we have begun the process of upgrading the entire IT infrastructure." "We realize of course that the state has had budgetary problems," Shelley White, an attorney representing Mr. Shafer, said. "But even under these circumstances, states must comply with federal law if they want to continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars of federal reimbursement under Medicaid. One of the most basic requirements of federal law is that applications for Medicaid must be processed timely, in a specified number of days, so that Medicaid is actually available when needed." Sheldon Toubman, another one of the attorneys with New Haven Legal Assistance Association, noted that "previous administrations seemed to not value the essential benefit programs administered by DSS and thus severely cut back on its staffing in successive budgets. It is unfortunate that Governor Malloy's Administration and his Commissioner of Social Services inherited such a severely hobbled agency." "However, given his commitment to preserving the safety net, we are optimistic that Governor Malloy will step up to the plate and recognize the need to reverse these cutbacks and thus avoid jeopardizing federal funds," Mr. Toubman said. "As Commissioner Rod Bremby has emphasized, we can't correct and resolve issues resulting from lack of investment over the past decade in a matter of months," Mr. Dearborn said. "However, the Commissioner and agency are committed to doing so as promptly and as cost-effectively as possible." Mr. Toubman bristled at the notion that the lawsuit would tie up resources, since this has been an issue for years. As for the IT system, he said the earliest those improvements will be made is 16 months from now, "how does that help someone on Jan. 9 can't get onto Medicaid?" he wondered. He said what they need now is more staff. He suggested a bunch just retired in October and could easily be hired back. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Lemberg Files Amended Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Lemberg & Associates LLC has filed an amended class action complaint on behalf of a client that alleges that Whirlpool Corporation, which has merged with Maytag Corporation, and Service Net Warranty engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices regarding the companies' service contracts. According to attorney Sergei Lemberg, "Thousands of consumers -- or perhaps hundreds of thousands -- were ripped off by Whirlpool and Service Net when those companies did not repair or replace faulty appliances per the terms of the service contracts." According to the amended class action complaint, when he purchased his Maytag clothes dryer, the plaintiff also bought a three-year service contract that promised to repair or replace the appliance if it failed. The complaint states that it also gave the warrantor the option of "buying out" the contract by either refunding the original purchase price less the amount of claims paid, or replacing the dryer with a comparable product. Instead of refunding the original purchase price or replacing the dryer, the complaint alleges that the defendants told the plaintiff that he was only entitled to a refund for the present value of the dryer, minus the cost of the repairman's visit. According to Lemberg, "That is absurd, since the point of buying a service contract is to avoid the cost of repair." The plaintiff alleges that Maytag, which was subsequently purchased by Whirlpool, and Service Net Warranty, which administers the service contracts, failed to fulfill the terms of the service contract by improperly administering buy-outs. As such, the suit alleges that the his dryer's buy-out, and buy-outs given to similarly situated consumers, constituted breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Lemberg concludes, "Consumers purchase service contracts to ensure that they will be protected should an appliance need repair or replacement. Corporations and service contract providers need to be held accountable to the terms of the service contracts. On behalf of our client, we are determined to do whatever it takes to give consumers who have been victimized an avenue of redress." This release references Sherman v. Maytag Corporation, Whirlpool Corporation, and Service Net Warranty, LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 3:11-cv-01010-JBA). About Lemberg & Associates, LLC The attorneys at Lemberg & Associates, LLC practice in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, California, Maryland, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about consumer law, remedies available to consumers who are victims of service contracts, and other relevant issues. Sergei Lemberg can be reached at: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES 1100 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: 855-301-2100 E-mail: esponseteam@lemberglaw.com ********* 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 * * *