/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120206.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 25 Headlines BP: Must Indemnify Halliburton for Oil Spill Claims, Court Rules CHARTER COMMS: Rejection of Winchester Class Claims to be Vacated CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 4,500 Hurricane Style Lights CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 5,700 Holiday Tea Light Candle Warmers COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action COMCAST CORP: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Business Practices CON CARE: Trial Court Junks Ogden's Civil Rights Action CONTAINER STORE: Recalls 7,200 Lush Life(R) Colored Power Strips HECLA MINING: Robins Geller Files Investor Class Action in Idaho METLIFE INC: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Death Master File NEWPAGE CORP: Feb. 3 Deadline Set for Retirees' Proofs of Claim PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen's Suit Gets Class-Action Status PAYCHECK TODAY: Arbitration Provision is Void, App. Ct. Says PHILIPPS PETROLEUM: Relators Not Entitled to Writ of Mandamus ST GEORGE AND BANKSA: Faces Class Action Over Late Payment Fees STARLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Calif. Over Spam Text Messages STATE OF DENVER: Teacher's Union Files Class Action TUESDAY MORNING: California Employees' Suit Still Pending UNITED STATES: VA Sued for Discriminating Against Older Nurses WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unsolicited Calls WELLS FARGO: Accused in California Suit of Aiding Ponzi Scam WESTINGHOUSE SOLAR: Court Approved "Hodges" Suit Deal in Dec. YAZAKI CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Michigan YAZAKI CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Antitrust Class Action * Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in Canada ********* BP: Must Indemnify Halliburton for Oil Spill Claims, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that BP must indemnify Halliburton for damages from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but not punitive damages or the cost of defense, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's order does not pertain to BP's charge of fraud against the cement manufacturer. "BP is required to indemnify Halliburton for third-party compensatory claims that arise from pollution or contamination that did not originate from the property or equipment of Halliburton located above the surface of the land or water, even if Halliburton's gross negligence caused the pollution," Judge Barbier wrote in the order issued on Jan. 31. Judge Barbier, who is overseeing the consolidated litigation over the worst oil spill in history, issued a similar order last week, that BP must indemnify Transocean for third-party compensatory claims. "A remaining issue that was not addressed in the Transocean indemnity order concerns fraud," Judge Barbier wrote in his latest order. "BP alleges in its cross complaint and third party complaint that Halliburton made fraudulent statements and fraudulently concealed material information concerning the cement tests it conducted and other matters, and that BP, relying on these statements, allowed Halliburton to pour the unstable cement slurry that led to the uncontrollable well and blowout. BP asserts that the language of the indemnity does not extend to fraud, nor would public policy permit such indemnification, given that fraud involved willful misconduct exceeding gross negligence. Halliburton denies that it committed fraud, but also argues that BP's allegations are merely breach of contract claims cloaked as fraud. . . . "The court agrees that fraud could void an indemnity clause on public policy grounds, given that it necessarily includes intentional wrongdoing. . . . The court is also mindful that 'mere failure to perform contractual obligations as promised does not constitute fraud but is instead breach of contract.' "Consequently . . . there are material issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on the issue. The court defers ruling on this issue." The first liability trial in the oil spill is to begin on Feb. 27. A copy of the Order and Reasons in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.) (Barbier, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/BPHallib.pdf CHARTER COMMS: Rejection of Winchester Class Claims to be Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Missouri, sitting en banc, directed a trial court to vacate its order striking Winchester City, Missouri's class action allegations against Charter Communications. The class action lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Winchester against Charter on behalf of itself and other similarly situated Missouri municipal corporations and political subdivisions, seeking (1) a declaratory judgment requiring Charter and other telephone service providers to comply with validly enacted municipal ordinances that require them to pay a license tax on gross receipts derived from various fees and services connected to their operations and (2) an order requiring Charter to pay all license taxes owed to the class. "The trial court exceeded its authority in striking Winchester's class claims on the basis of RSMo Supp. 2009 section 71.675's purported bar on cities and towns serving as class representatives in suits to enforce or collect business license taxes imposed on telecommunications companies," the Missouri Supreme Court opines. The petition for writ of mandamus is captioned STATE ex rel. COLLECTOR OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI and CITY OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, Relators, v. THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. JAMISON, Respondent, Case No. SC 91631 (Mo. Sup. Ct.). A copy of the Missouri Supreme Court's Jan. 17, 2012 Order is available at http://is.gd/3wt9AWfrom Leagle.com. CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 4,500 Hurricane Style Lights ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Middleboro, Massachusetts, and retailer, Christmas Tree Shops, of Union, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,500 Hurricane Style Lights. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. An electrical short circuit can occur in the light's internal wiring, causing smoke and posing a fire hazard. The firm has received one report of the product causing smoke and a burning smell. No injuries or property damage have been reported. The recalled Hurricane Style Light is a circular lamp with a white metal basket and moveable handle for hanging or carrying at the top. It has a colored glass insert in blue, pink, or green and uses a mini light bulb. The model number "DML0593" and SKU/UPC number "000015806710" are printed on the price tag attached to the product. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12099.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Christmas Tree Shops in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions from December 2010 through November 2011 for about $7. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and return it to any Christmas Tree Shops location for a full refund. For additional information, please contact Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at (888) 287-3232 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.christmastreeshops.com/ CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 5,700 Holiday Tea Light Candle Warmers -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Middleboro, Massachusetts, and retailer, Christmas Tree Shops, of Union, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 5,700 holiday-themed tea light candle warmers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The candle warmers can catch fire because the warming bowl is positioned too close to the tea light candle, posing fire and burn hazards. The firm has received one report of the Snowmen candle warmer catching on fire causing a minor burn injury to a consumer's hand. This recall involves holiday-themed tea light candle warmers in the shapes of snowmen and gingerbread houses. A warming bowl with wax fragrance tablets is suspended above the tea light candle. The Snowmen model has SKU/UPC 000016005396 and the Gingerbread house model has SKU/UPC 000016005372 printed on a label on the bottom of the product. The tea light candle warmers are about eight inches tall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12098.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Christmas Tree Shops in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest from November 2011 through December 2011 for about $8. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tea light candle warmers and return them to any Christmas Tree Shops store to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at (888) 287-3232 any time, or visit the firm's Web site http://www.christmastreeshops.com/ COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Columbia Laboratories, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Columbia securities between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, inclusive. This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. If you are a shareholder who purchased Columbia securities during the Class Period, you have until Monday, April 2, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. Columbia is an international pharmaceutical company that develops and markets women's health care and endocrinology products. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Columbia conditioned investors to believe that the Company's PROCHIEVE progesterone vaginal gel 8% ("PROCHIEVE 8%"), a gel intended to prevent preterm births in women with short cervices, would receive FDA approval through a host of materially false and misleading statements regarding the safety and efficacy of the product, as well as reportedly positive results from PROCHIEVE's clinical trials. On January 17, 2012, the FDA published information ahead of a meeting by the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs of the FDA scheduled for January 20, 2012. The FDA documents revealed that PROCHIEVE 8% did "not support the efficacy of progesterone gel compared with placebo in reducing the risk of preterm births before 33 completed weeks of gestation among women with a short cervical strength." Moreover, the safety of the gel was similar to a placebo as "[n]o maternal deaths occurred and the rates of fetal, neonatal and infant deaths were similar in both treatment arms." As a result of this revelation, Columbia shares declined $1.305 per share or more than 54%, to close at $1.095 per share on January 17, 2012. On January 20, 2012, the Advisory Committee voted 13 to 4 not to recommend approval of PROCHIEVE 8%, as the risks of the progesterone gel outweighed the benefits. As a result, Columbia's shares declined an additional $0.874 per share or more than 55%, to close at $0.706 per share on January 23, 2012. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm that specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. The firm has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., COMCAST CORP: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Comcast charges customers whose service was suspended for failure to pay for services they did not receive while they were suspended, in Superior Court. A copy of the Complaint in Ritchie v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. CV173162 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Cruz Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/Comcast.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. Elizabeth M. Gonsiorowski, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 CON CARE: Trial Court Junks Ogden's Civil Rights Action ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sam A. Crow dismissed on Jan. 30, 2012, a civil rights action lawsuit commenced by Garrett Jack Ogden against Con Care, Inc., et al., for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The complaint was originally filed as a class action, but Judge Crow declined to certify the class in an earlier order dated July 2011. All plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice except for Mr. Ogden. Mr. Ogden instead was directed by Judge Crow to file a supplemental pleading providing specific factual assertions in support of his claims. CONTAINER STORE: Recalls 7,200 Lush Life(R) Colored Power Strips ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Container Store Inc., of Coppell, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 7,200 Lush Life(R) power strips. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The power strips have undersized wiring, and the wiring and plastic strip fail to meet the requirements for fire resistance, posing a fire hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves three designs of brightly-colored, six-outlet power strips with model number 8001-6 embossed on the back. Power strip designs include Pop Power Strip in Scroll (black with white scroll), Dot (blue with orange, white and lime green dots and a lime green cord), and Zebra (black and white zebra stripes). The power strips have three-foot power cords. "Lush Life(R) power strips by design" is printed on the product's packaging. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12097.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The Container Stores nationwide and on the firm's Web site http://www.containerstore.com/from October 2011 through December 2011 for about $15. Consumers should stop using the recalled power strips immediately and return them to any of The Container Store locations for a full refund plus a $15 merchandise card. For additional information, consumers should contact The Container Store toll-free at (888) 266-8246 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time on Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.containerstore.com/ HECLA MINING: Robins Geller Files Investor Class Action in Idaho ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of purchasers of Hecla Mining Company common stock during the period between October 26, 2010 and January 11, 2012. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 1, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/hecla/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Hecla and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hecla is engaged in discovering, acquiring, developing, producing, and marketing silver, gold, lead and zinc. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose operational problems at Hecla's Lucky Friday silver mine. As a result of defendants' false statements, Hecla's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $11.34 per share on December 29, 2010. Due to a series of accidents at the Lucky Friday mine during 2011, the Mine Safety and Health Administration engaged in a close inspection of the mine. In early December, MSHA issued an accident report accusing Hecla of safety failures that led to the death of a miner in April 2011. Thereafter, on January 5, 2012, MSHA issued a closure order for the Lucky Friday mine for the removal of built-up material in the shaft that had been leaking from a pipe into the shaft for a number of years. On January 11, 2012, Hecla announced that the Lucky Friday mine would be closed for up to a year based upon MSHA's order. As a result of the closure, Hecla reduced its estimated silver production for 2012 from more than 9 million ounces to around 7 million ounces. On this news, Hecla stock dropped $1.23 per share, to close at $4.61 per share on January 11, 2012, a one-day decline of 21%. According to the complaint, during the Class period, defendants knew but concealed from the investing public the following adverse facts: (a) the Company was not in compliance with safety regulations at its Lucky Friday mine; (b) the Company had allowed sand and concrete material to improperly build up in the mine shaft over a period of years, creating a safety hazard; (c) following the December closure, the Company would be unable to reestablish mining operations at the Lucky Friday mine by February 2012, as the Company had previously represented; (d) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (e) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's operations and its expected silver production. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta. It is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. METLIFE INC: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Death Master File -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that MetLife used a public database of death notices to stop its clients' annuity payments, but ignored the database when it informed the insurer that it must start paying on a policy, shareholders say in a derivative class action. MetLife exploited the Social Security Administration's Death Master File (DMF) to withhold more than $52 million in life insurance benefits to survivors, in some cases for as long as 40 years, lead plaintiff Jack Fishbaum claims in New York County Court. "Specifically, MetLife has consulted the DMF assiduously for those clients with annuities to enable the company to stop paying annuity payments at the time of death," the complaint states. "For regular life insurance policies, however, MetLife ignores the DMF so that the company can avoid paying death benefits. MetLife disregarded the DMF for life insurance policies despite touting that beneficiaries would receive benefits upon the death of the insured. This practice enables Met Life to draw the value of a permanent life policy down to the final point of cancellation and continue to collect interest on unclaimed benefit cash. In such instances, MetLife also continues to be a 'beneficiary' of the amount with interest collected, and can, over time, allow its requirement to pay benefits at all to basically expire. Thus, MetLife has long used the DMF to promptly stop issuing annuity payments to contract holders who have died, but has ignored the same list to locate family members of deceased policyholders in order to issue payments to a life insurance beneficiary." Mr. Fishbaum says the practice has subjected MetLife to state investigations. "As a result of MetLife's unfair and wrongful practices, the company is now the subject of numerous investigations by state regulators," the complaint states. "Additionally, MetLife's stock price has declined after it was forced to take charges to increase its reserves in connection with the use of the DMF." Defendants in the derivative class action include MetLife CEO and Chairman Steven A. Kandarian; former CEO and President C. Robert Henrickson; and directors Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Eduardo Castro- Wright, Cheryl W. Grise, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, Alfred F. Kelly, James M. Kilts, Catherine R. Kinney, Hugh B. Price, David Satcher, Kenton J. Sicchitano, and Lulu C. Wang. Mr. Fishbaum claims the directors "knew, or were reckless in not knowing that the company was wrongfully and unfairly using the SSA's DMF to determine whether its annuity policyholders had died so that MetLife could stop making payments, but ignored the SSA's DMF to determine whether death benefit payments were due under life insurance policies. Accordingly, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company and have subjected the company to hundreds of millions of dollars in charges, a substantial drop in the value of the company's stock, adverse publicity, lawsuits, potential fines, investigation costs, and other occurrences harmful to the company." On Feb. 2, 2010, MetLife reported "earnings of $822 million, up significantly from $277 million, largely due to strong business growth, [and] significant equity market improvements," according to the complaint. The company's 2009 Form 10-K, released weeks later, revealed the company's liabilities, stating: "'The liability for policy and contract claims generally relates to incurred but not reported death, disability, long-term care and dental claims, as well as claims that have been reported but not yet settled. The liability for these claims is based on the company's estimated ultimate cost of settling all claims. The company derives estimates for the development of incurred but not reported claims principally from actuarial analyses of historical patterns of claims and claims development for each line of business. The methods used to determine these estimates are continually reviewed. Adjustments resulting from this continuous review process and differences between estimates and payments for claims are recognized in policyholder benefits and claims expense in the period in which the estimates are changed or payments are made,'" according to the complaint. Mr. Fishbaum says MetLife's press releases on April 29 and July 29, 2010, both reported positive financial results, but the Aug. 2, 2010 release mentioned that it had received a subpoena form the New York State attorney general. MetLife denied the allegations. "We believe that any allegations that information about the TCA [Total Control Account] is not adequately disclosed or that the accounts are fraudulent or otherwise violate state or federal laws are without merit," the company stated, according to the complaint. Mr. Fishbaum says that California- and Florida-based regulators probed the allegations in 2011. California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and Controller John Chiang held a hearing on May 23, 2011, which found that "life insurers with access to the Social Security Administration's 'Death Master File' are not using information about deaths to trigger payments to life insurance beneficiaries," according to the complaint. On July 5, 2011, Reuters reported that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued subpoenas to MetLife and eight other insurers, and MetLife disclosed its mounting liabilities the following month, according to the complaint. "As a result of these disclosures, MetLife's stock price declined 11 percent between Friday, August 5, 2011 and Monday, August 8, 2011," the complaint states. It calls the results of Mr. Schneiderman's investigation damning. "As a result of its investigation, the New York State Department of Financial Services determined that life insurers in New York -- including MetLife -- have been withholding more than $52 million in life insurance benefits to the survivors of deceased policy holders -- in some cases for as long as 40 years," the complaint states. "The results of the investigation revealed that at least 7,934 policies were outstanding because of the failure of insurance companies to consult the Death Master File. One such case involved a policyholder who died in 1970. Another case involved an outstanding payment of $673,485, plus interest. Benjamin Lawsky, the Superintendent for the Department of Financial Services, indicated that 'this is just the beginning.' Currently, an additional 950,000 policies are under review, and 27,889 new 'old' claims were being processed. Eventually, the amount owed to beneficiaries is expected to reach hundreds of millions of dollars. The Department claims that insurers -- including MetLife -- have shirked their responsibility to match policies to the official record of deaths." Mr. Fishbaum says the individual defendants wanted to maintain their stock options at shareholders' expense. A chart of the 12 defendant directors' compensation for 2010,not including the CEO or previous CEO, show that all 12 received more than $226,000 that year. Mr. Fishbaum seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and indemnification, abuse of control and waste of corporate assets. A copy of the Complaint in Fishbaum v. MetLife, Inc., et al., Index No. 12100955 (N.Y. Sup. ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/MetLife.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth M. Gonsiorowski, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 30 Broad Street, Suite 1401 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 382-2221 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 - and - Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC The Preston Commons 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 706-9314 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Patrick Powers, Esq. Mark Taylor, Esq. Peyton Healey, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR Campbell Centre II 8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-8900 E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com mark@powerstaylor.com peyton@powerstaylor.com NEWPAGE CORP: Feb. 3 Deadline Set for Retirees' Proofs of Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Shuda, writing for NPR, reports that in a recent legal notice to retirees involved in a class-action lawsuit against the company, which suit fights cutbacks in retiree health benefits, NewPage Corp. said retirees had until 5:00 p.m. Friday, Feb. 3, to file proofs of claim against the papermaker. However, attorneys for the retirees said they don't have to file their own claims because their unions will do that for them. "They do intend to submit a claim on behalf of all the retirees who worked at mills where the United Steelworkers represented them," said Bill Payne -- wpayne@stemberfeinstein.com -- a Pittsburgh-based attorney representing the USW and the retirees. "People are certainly free to send in a claim (on their own) and say, 'You wrongfully terminated my benefits,'" he said. Other unions also plan to file similar documents on behalf of their members, said Marianne Robbins, a Milwaukee-based attorney representing the other unions. It remains unclear whether retirees who were not union members need to take action individually, though attorneys were hoping to extend the Friday deadline, Payne said. Cliff Bowers, a local NewPage spokesman, declined to comment on the case, saying the company does not discuss pending litigation. Bill Clendenning, a Grand Rapids resident and former Wisconsin Rapids millworker, filed the lawsuit in 2009, along with the union and fellow retired millworkers from Niagara and Kimberly. The class-action case alleges that unlawful changes to the retiree benefits program were made under the direction of Stora Enso North America, which owned some of the affected mills from 2000 through 2007. In a November 2009 letter to retirees, NewPage announced plans to implement a three-year gradual phase-out of the employer contributions of health insurance premiums for former employees who retired after 1985 and are older than 65, starting in 2010. The plans included decreasing the company's contribution by 33 percent each year for three years. United Steelworkers attorneys are trying to halt the third and final phase of the plan, which was supposed to take place this month, Mr. Payne said. Meanwhile, the fate of the lawsuit itself remains unclear while the Ohio-based papermaker is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, he said. "It's sort of up in the air right now," Mr. Payne said. PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fishermen's Suit Gets Class-Action Status ---------------------------------------------------------- Ilene Aleshire, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that a judge has granted class-action status to a federal lawsuit filed by two fishermen against Clackamas-based Pacific Seafood Group, the nation's largest seafood company. Brookings fishermen Lloyd Whaley and Todd Whaley claim that Pacific Seafood Group illegally exploits its market power as a wholesaler to pay fishermen below-market prices for whiting, groundfish and shrimp from Northern California to the Canadian border. They also allege that Pacific Seafood illegally conspired with another processor, Washington-based Ocean Gold Seafoods, to suppress prices for whiting. Both companies have denied the allegations. Pacific said it has benefited fishermen by opening up new markets, putting more fishermen to work and allowing them to earn more than they would without the company's buying power and influence. Portland attorneys Mike Haglund -- haglund@hk-law.com -- and Mike Kelley -- kelley@hk-law.com -- who represent the father-and-son Whaleys, asked to have the case certified as a class-action suit. That means that up to 1,500 fishermen by the lawyers' count potentially could tap into the $67 million to $83 million in damages that Messrs. Haglund and Kelley are seeking, should they win the suit. U.S. District Judge Owen Panner on on Jan. 31 certified the lawsuit as a class-action suit. Pacific Seafood's general counsel, Craig Urness, said, "We're disappointed that the judge did grant class certification status. We are currently reviewing our options for appeal of the class certification ruling." The most important thing to remember, Mr. Urness said, is that the judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action suit "is not a review of the facts of the case. We have a lot of rulings to go that will depend on the facts. And the facts clearly reflect that the claims being made (by the fishermen) are without merit." Mr. Haglund, for his part, described the ruling as "a major validation" of his clients' suit. "They (Pacific Seafood) have been calling us frivolous from day one. This demonstrates that's not the case." Mr. Haglund also contended that Pacific Seafood does not have the automatic right of being granted an appeal -- that decision, he said, falls with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. With the suit slated for trial in June, "the odds that the 9th Circuit would take this now are extremely low," Mr. Haglund said. "Why not wait and have a complete (trial) record?" Although the judge's ruling on Jan. 31 was only on whether to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit, Mr. Haglund said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year to deny class-action status to a lawsuit filed by Walmart employees signaled to judges that "you're free as part of your evaluation of whether to grant class action to take a peak at the merits of the case." "(Pacific's attorneys) are trying to minimize the significance of this decision," Mr. Haglund said. PAYCHECK TODAY: Arbitration Provision is Void, App. Ct. Says ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a purported class lawsuit against Apex 1 Processing, Inc. Apex 1, dba as Paycheck Today, is a "payday loan" business which includes in its loan contracts a compulsory arbitration provision. The lawsuit was brought by Akeala Edwards on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that Apex engaged in unfair trade practices. Apex moved to dismiss and to compel Ms. Edwards to arbitrate as an individual, not as a class representative. The Appeals Court agrees with the trial court that the arbitration provision is null and void given that the National Arbitration Forum as the arbitral forum was integral to the arbitration agreement but is no longer available to conduct consumer arbitrations. Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act cannot be used as a mechanism to appoint a substitute arbitrator, the Appeals Court adds. Douglas B. King, Esq. -- dking@woodmclaw.com -- and Matthew M. Adolay, Esq. -- madolay@woodmclaw.com -- of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana, represent Apex 1 Processing. Irwin B. Levin, Esq. -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- and Vess A. Miller, Esq. -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com of Cohen & Malad, LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana, represent Akeala Edwards. A copy of the Appeals Court Jan. 20, 2012 Opinion is available for free at http://is.gd/O5D9POfrom Leagle.com. PHILIPPS PETROLEUM: Relators Not Entitled to Writ of Mandamus ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by ConocoPhillips Company, et al., as relators, complaining of two orders issued by the Honorable Brady G. Elliot in a class action against Phillips Petroleum Co. Judge Elliot is the presiding judge of the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. The underlying suit is the class action captioned Kathryn Aylor Bowden, et al. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al., 247 S.W.3d 690(Tex. 2008), where the Texas Supreme Court approved certification of Subclass 2. The class action allege that Phillips Petroleum underpaid royalties due under oil and gas production leases through its inter-affiliate transactions. The two orders entered in the Phillips class suit that the Relators complain about are: 1. The trial court's January 2011 denial of their motion to decertify the class; and 2. The trial court's October 2011 denial of the Relators' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that certain claims are not included in Subclass 2. "Relators have not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus on the ground that the trial court improperly denied a motion for partial summary judgment," the Appeals Court held. A copy of the Appeals Court's Jan. 24, 2012 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/LxmigXfrom Leagle.com. ST GEORGE AND BANKSA: Faces Class Action Over Late Payment Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Leonie Lamont, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the class action against Australia's biggest banks over late payment fees has escalated, with lawyers on Feb. 1 in Sydney drawing two more banks into the case -- St George and BankSA. In what is the biggest class action in Australia's history, the law firm Maurice Blackburn is seeking to recover as much as AUD200 million in what it says are unlawful fees charged by the banks on credit card and other accounts. The class action's first target in 2010 was the ANZ bank, and in December it widened its net to include the Comnmonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Westpac and Citi. In December, the banks announced they would vigorously defend the action. St George and BankSA are owned by Westpac, and have yet to comment on the Federal court action filed against them. St George and Bank SA are the latest Australian banks to be taken to court by customers angry at the fees they are charged. Maurice Blackburn senior associate Paul Gillett said the legal firm and bank customers taking part in the class action were in for a long fight to recoup the fees plus interest. "Everyday Australians are sick of the banks taking them for granted," Mr. Gillett told reporters in Sydney. "And they are sick of the banks throwing their weight around and sick of the banks making massive profits while they do it. "Maurice Blackburn is doing what it can to try and get some of that money back for families and small businesses around this country." More than 10,000 St George and Bank SA customers are party to the action. They are seeking to recoup AUD16 million in fees which the customers say they have been unfairly charged by the two banks. The latest action follows a AUD50 million claim the law firm launched in September 2010 on behalf of ANZ customers trying to claim back exception fees. STARLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Calif. Over Spam Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a mother claims in a federal class action that "one of the nation's largest purveyors of telephone pornography" sent her spam text messages that were "distressingly viewed" by her 10-year old daughter. Elaine Harris sued California-based Starline Communications International, seeking statutory and treble damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and an injunction ordering it to "cease all wireless spam activities". The complaint describes a trifecta of obnoxious behavior: sending unwanted spam, which is offensive, at the cost of recipients who don't want it. The complaint states: "In a recent effort to promote its 'adult' telephone services business, defendant, one of the nation's largest purveyors of telephonic pornography, engaged in an especially pernicious form of marketing: the transmission of unauthorized advertisements, in the form of 'text message' calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation. "By effectuating these unauthorized text message calls (hereinafter, 'wireless spam'), defendant has caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the invasion of privacy caused by wireless spam, but also because consumers like plaintiff frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such wireless spam." Citing the Pew Research Center, Ms. Harris says 57 percent of adults with cell phones have received "unwanted or spam text messages on their phone." "Over the course of an extended period beginning in at least 2011, defendant directed the mass transmission of wireless spam to the cell phones nationwide of what it hoped were potential customers of its phone sex services," the complaint states. "For instance, on or about January 19, 2012, plaintiff's cell phone rang, indicating that a text call was being received. "The 'from' field of such transmission was identified cryptically as '818-620-6912,' which is a dedicated telephone number or 'long- code' operated by defendant's agents that transmits text messages en masse through devices known as modern banks and/or carrier gateways. The body of such text message read: Baby I'm Way Hotter Than The Girl Who's Been Getting You Off In Your Wet Dreams! See My Pic & Get My Phone # On http://www.[an Internet address. "The Web site contained in the above text message is owned and operated by defendant and/or its agents and further promotes defendant's products. "Within days of receiving the above text call, which was distressingly viewed by plaintiff's ten-year old daughter, plaintiff received additional spam text message advertising containing further lewd and offensive content from defendant and/or its agents, in knowing violation of plaintiff's privacy." Ms. Harris seeks $500 in damages for each member of the class, for each violation, trebled. The law firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Starline Communications could not be reached. A copy of the Complaint in Harris v. Starline Communications International, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00778 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/PornSpam.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com STATE OF DENVER: Teacher's Union Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Yesenia Robles, writing for The Denver Post, reports that the Denver teacher's union has filed a class-action grievance in anticipation of a budget plan that Denver Public Schools was expected to announce on Jan. 31 that would extend middle school hours. "We are not against extended learning opportunities, but the district so far has refused to negotiate with us," said Carolyn Crowder, executive director of the Denver Classroom Teacher's Association. The filing means DPS will be required to sit down with officials from the teachers union within seven days. If parties aren't able to start a negotiation process, they will have to go to an arbitrator. The DPS plan would extend the school day by an hour in the afternoon, so students are in class until 3:30 p.m. at some schools. Ms. Crowder said the union would like to ensure the ultimate decision on extending the school day is a school-level choice. "DPS communication to parents has centered around announcing changes instead of soliciting ideas. The planning teams from the fourteen schools were told to design their own plans and "think outside of the box" and yet, this past week were given "one-size- fits all" directives," according to a union news release. DPS disagrees, and said the process will allow schools to apply for funds to extend the day, and DPS will select a few schools based on the best proposals. "The opportunity for extended learning time for our students has remarkable promise for additional enrichment, student advancement, and extra learning for students who are behind," said DPS spokesman, Mike Vaughn. "We look forward to receiving the school- based proposals for how they might extend their time and benefit their kids." Ms. Crowder said teachers also want to create clear guidelines on who will be supervising students during the additional time, and want to ensure they will be paid at the regular rate. "As I understand what they propose is to pay teachers the professional development rate that they pay when teachers stay an extra day for a training session for instance, but this is not the same thing," Ms. Crowder said. "We're not asking for them to make more money, just their regular teaching rate." Professional rates for teachers vary, but are usually half or one third of teacher's regular hourly wages, Ms. Crowder said. Mr. Vaughn said the district will abide by the contract language. "Any teacher who volunteers to work a longer day in these extended-time pilots will, of course, receive the extra pay specified in the collective bargaining agreement," Mr. Vaughn said. "We do not believe that this needs to be a conflict in any way with our teachers' union." TUESDAY MORNING: California Employees' Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- In December 2008, a class action lawsuit against Tuesday Morning Corporation was filed by hourly, non-exempt employees in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, alleging claims covering meal and rest period violations. The putative class action has now been limited to Senior Sales Associates in California during the class period. The parties are presently conducting discovery. The Company does not expect this complaint to have a material impact on its results of operations or financial position. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. UNITED STATES: VA Sued for Discriminating Against Older Nurses -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed in Manhattan accuses the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs of discriminating against older registered nurses. WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo Dealer Services and Hyundai Motor Finance harass consumers with months of automatically dialed, unsolicited calls to their cellphones, a class claims. A copy of the Complaint in Dobbs v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00050425 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/dobbs.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potter, Esq. Russell Handy, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com - and - Shawn Morris, Esq. Will Lemkul, Esq. Shanna Bailey, Esq. MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP 9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 566-7600 E-mail: morris@morrissullivanlaw.com lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com bailey@morrissullivanlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Accused in California Suit of Aiding Ponzi Scam ------------------------------------------------------------ William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that a brokerage firm's Ponzi scheme, aided and abetted by Wells Fargo Capital Finance and the Greenberg Traurig law firm, cost investors "hundreds of millions" of dollars. Lead plaintiff David Nolan sued Wells Fargo Capital Finance, Wells Fargo Foothill and Greenberg Traurig, of New York, in Alameda County Court. Mr. Nolan alleges seven causes of action, including fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and secondary liability for securities fraud. From 2002 to 2007, Mr. Nolan says, he and other investors saw great returns on their investments in the now-bankrupt RE Loans, a brokerage firm that secured developer loans by holding liens on real estate throughout California. The developer loans were funded by Mr. Nolan and other investors who purchased membership interests in RE Loans' fund. In early 2007, the fund had 1,400 investors and was worth more than $700 million, but it had to stop accepting new money because it had violated state and federal securities laws, according to the complaint. Rather than notify its investors of this, and of its impending illiquidity, RE Loans turned to Greenberg Traurig and Wells Fargo to help hide the problems, Mr. Nolan says. "To that end, the [RE Loans] managers, actively aided by Greenberg, procured unauthorized third party financing from Wells Fargo," the complaint states. "This third party financing was secured to enable the fund to make certain preferential payments while creating the illusion of fund liquidity sufficient to continue to pay a return to its investors. Greenberg arranged for its other client -- Wells Fargo -- to issue a $50 million line of credit. "Moreover, Wells Fargo demanded that the [RE Loans] managers collateralize the $50 million line of credit with all of RE Loan's assets -- an amount in excess of $700 million -- and demanded that its security interest take priority over any security interests held by members. Wells Fargo also required that RE Loans endorse and deliver over $250 million of notes receivable to Wells Fargo. The line of credit from Wells Fargo was funded in or about July 17, 2007. "Defendants Greenberg and Wells Fargo -- which was [sic] clearly conflicted -- knew and deliberately and recklessly disregarded the fact that the Wells Fargo line of credit itself contravened the expressed provisions of published offering circulars that had previously been issued to and used to solicit funds from the RE Loans investors. These offering circulars limited the fund's sources of operating capital to cash subscriptions from new investors, existing mortgage loans of the developer borrowers and mergers with existing partnerships or LLCs -- prohibiting RE Loans from raising capital through third party borrowing." Mr. Nolan says Wells Fargo's line of credit was "substantially exhausted" almost immediately after it was established in July 2007, exacerbating the fund's liquidity crisis. Mr. Nolan claims that Greenberg Traurig wrote "formal Exchange Offering documents" for an "Exchange Transaction," which was sent to investors on and after Oct. 8, 2007. "Among other documents, the Exchange Offering materials included a so-called 'Confidential Memorandum' issued to the fund's investors with copies of a proposed 'Exchange Agreement' and an 'Operating Agreement.' 'The Confidential Memorandum intentionally concealed the deteriorating financial condition of RE Loans and the insolvent shell that would remain after the Exchange Transaction," according to the complaint. "The Confidential Memorandum falsely assured the investors that all was 'well' with RE Loans through misleading statements that '[t]he loan portfolio continues to perform well,' the properties securing those loans '[are] adequate in value to preserve the fund's economic interests,' or it was 'likely . . . that the fund will be able to pay principal and interest on' the investor notes, and conveyed a message that the investors would be better off after the proposed reorganization and exchange of their membership interests," according to the complaint. But Mr. Nolan says: "In fact, through the Exchange Offering, the fund managers-knowingly aided and abetted by Greenberg and Wells Fargo-eliminated the RE Loans' harmed investors' equity interests and their rights in RE Loans by duping them into tendering their membership interests in RE Loans in exchange for promissory notes: an exchange that in reality, was a subterfuge to (1) persuade the plaintiff and harmed investors to unwittingly agree after-the-fact to the unauthorized line of credit loan and (2) unwind or legitimize the managers' past violations of the law." Mr. Nolan claims that "Wells Fargo was aware of the false and misleading statements in the Exchange Offering documents, which Wells Fargo had insisted upon and required as a condition of the line of credit. And both Wells Fargo and Greenberg knew that the representations contained in the Exchange Offering documents were false and misleading as they each possess knowledge of the true financial condition and affairs of RE Loans and that it did not have the authority to have obtained third-party financing from or pledge its assets as collateral to Wells Fargo. "As a consequence of the foregoing misrepresentations, RE Loan investors were induced and coaxed into approving the reorganization on November 1, 2007. Consequently, their membership interests in RE Loans were replaced with promissory notes, converting plaintiff and investors in RE Loans into noteholders. "These transactions had a devastating impact on the rights and interests of the RE Loans members and resulting noteholders -- the harmed investors. They were stripped of effective recourse to RE Loans' assets and were placed by the assignment in a subordinated position to Wells Fargo. In one transaction orchestrated by the managers, Greenberg, and Wells Fargo, the plaintiff and RE Loans members lost all the rights they previously held and enjoyed as equity shareholders in RE Loans and were relegated to second-tier creditors with junior security interests." Then, Mr. Nolan claims, the defendants created a new investment vehicle called Mortgage Fund '08 (MF'08). He claims the RE Loans manager and Greenberg created "false and misleading solicitation materials" for MF'08, which "falsely represented the true condition of MF'08. "Greenberg prepared these materials, and along with Wells Fargo, know that MF'08 was in essence a Ponzi- scheme entity that was largely targeting then-existing RE Loans investors and duping them into investing money in MF'08 that was being channeled to hide the defendants' unlawful misconduct respecting RE Loans. To that end, and without adequate disclosure to the investors, money raised by the managers from the MF'08 investors was being 'loaned' to RE Loans in order to pay, in material part, loan obligations to Wells Fargo." Mr. Nolan says RE Loans began defaulting on its Wells Fargo obligations within a few months of the exchange transaction. He claims Wells Fargo amended the operative loan documents no less than seven times between late 2007 and 2010, imposing "onerous collateral requirements, higher interest rates, and other restrictions to gain further control over the assets" of RE Loans. "By March 13, 2010, the debt to Wells Fargo had climbed to $65 million," the complaint states. "Subsequently, Wells Fargo, which had previously acted overtly to facilitate the fund managers' self-dealing to the prejudice of plaintiff and the harmed investors, came in for the kill. In August-September 2011, Wells Fargo began exercising its rights as a secured creditor with respect to the collateral assigned by RE Loans and is in the process of liquidating the underlying properties. . . . "While defendants have profited, investors have been gravely harmed. Many of these investors are elders. Many invested all of their retirement funds. Others invested their entire life savings. Many of those investors were induced or convinced to mortgage their homes to invest with RE Loans. Others are now destitute. All harmed investors were victims of fraud, intentional breaches of fiduciary duty, and violations of the law. "Plaintiff now seeks relief on behalf of himself and the harmed investors, who have collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars arising from the intentional fraud, misconduct and self- dealing complained of herein, and as aided and abetted by Wells Fargo and Greenberg. These claims are direct, not derivative, because the wrongs were directed toward and injured plaintiff and the harmed investors." A copy of the Complaint in Nolan v. Wells Fargo capital Finance, Inc., et al., Case No. RG12614850 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/WellsFargo.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com WESTINGHOUSE SOLAR: Court Approved "Hodges" Suit Deal in Dec. ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered final approval of the settlement of the class action lawsuit captioned Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et al., in December 2011, according to Westinghouse Solar, Inc.'s January 30, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 15, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order (the "Class Action Order") granting final approval to the settlement of the class action complaint filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers on May 18, 2009, captioned Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. C-09-02147. Pursuant to the settlement and Class Action Order, the class action lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and on the merits, resulting in a release of all claims and a cash payment made exclusively from the proceeds of the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance. YAZAKI CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Michigan ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that federal antitrust class actions accuse Yazaki Corp. of conspiring to control the market for auto instrument panel clusters and fuel senders, which measure how much gas is in the tank. A copy of the Complaint in Kendrick, et al. v. Yazaki Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-10407 (E.D. Mich.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/YazakiGas.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Seth Gassman, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: hsalzman@labaton.com bpersky@labaton.com klerner@labaton.com sgassman@labaton.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C. 55 N. Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929.0900 E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com YAZAKI CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP is the first law firm in the country to file three antitrust class action lawsuits on Jan. 31 against certain automotive parts suppliers for fixing the prices of and rigging the bids for certain automotive parts, including heating control panels, fuel senders and instrument panel clusters. The actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and follow an earlier class action filed in late 2011 against suppliers of automotive wire harness systems. Labaton Sucharow's civil lawsuits emanate from an overarching criminal investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry. This investigation has already resulted in nearly $750 million in criminal fines and is expected to yield the largest fines in DOJ history. Yazaki Corporation and DENSO Corporation, both named in the new lawsuits, have agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total of $548 million in criminal fines for their roles in the antitrust conspiracies. Hollis Salzman -- hsalzman@labaton.com -- Managing Partner of Labaton Sucharow LLP's Antitrust Practice Group, stated, "In our experience, when companies engage in price fixing of this magnitude, it is only a matter of time before their house of cards falls. These conspiracies affected virtually every business and person who owns a car in the United States during one of the most vulnerable periods in our economy." The cases are captioned LaCava, et al. v. Denso Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-10410, Kendrick, et al. v. Yazaki Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-10407, and Wilson, et al. v. Yazaki Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-10406. Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- is a law firm representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. It has offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, * Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in Canada ----------------------------------------------------------- Securities class action filings in Canada reached their highest level to date in 2011 with 15 new filings, according to NERA Economic Consulting's annual report, Trends In Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2011 Update. The previous high was 12 filings in 2008. Driving this increase in filings are so called "Bill 198" cases, which are those involving claims in respect of an issuer's continuous disclosure obligations pursuant to PartXXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (OSA) and analogous sections of the other provincial securities acts. Nine of the 15 cases filed in 2011 were Bill 198 cases, compared to the seven filed in 2010. A total of 35 Bill 198 cases have been filed since the new provisions came into force in 2005. Of these, 24 remain unresolved, 10 have settled, and one has been dismissed. "The uptick in securities class actions filings observed since 2008 is clearly not a transient phenomenon," said NERA Senior Vice President and Trends co-author Mark Berenblut. "This trend has been driven by filings of Bill 198 cases, which account for more than two-thirds of the cases filed between 2008 and 2011." "This upward trend seems likely to continue at least through 2012. Several factors may influence the number of filings and the size of settlements in the future, including future rulings in leave applications, certification motions, and any trial judgments, as well as the evolving landscape of US class actions involving foreign companies and investors following the US Supreme Court decision in Morrison," added NERA Vice President and Trends co- author Brad Heys. Filings against Chinese Companies Three of the new filings during 2011 were made against Chinese companies whose shares trade on the TSX or TSX Venture Exchange. These filings are a reflection of one of the major trends driving class action filings in the United States last year. The filings in Canada include the case against Sino-Forest--one of the highest-profile suits brought against Chinese companies on either side of the border. Additional Securities Class Action Trends Other key findings from the report include: -- There are 45 active Canadian securities class actions as of December 31, 2011. These cases represent a total of approximately C$24.5 billion in outstanding claims. -- Of the six non-Bill 198 class action filings made in 2011, one involved only prospectus claims, one is related to a takeover bid, two involved allegations related to the management of investment funds, and two involve allegations of a Ponzi scheme. -- As noted in previous annual reports, Canadian companies face the risk of class action litigation in the United States, with parallel actions in Canada. In 2011 five Canadian-domiciled companies were named as defendants in six securities class action filings in the US, up from the three cases filed in each of 2009 and 2010, but down from the eight cases filed in 2008. -- Two cases settled in 2011 for total payments by defendants of C$58.6 million. This includes the actions against Norbourg Asset management (C$55 million) and Redline Communications Group (C$3.6 million). -- Ontario continues to be the venue for the majority of Canadian shareholder class action filings. In 2011, 12 of the 15 new cases were filed in the province. -- Five of the 15 Canadian securities class actions filed in 2011 were brought against companies in the minerals sector and four were brought against companies operating in the finance sector. Two were brought against forestry companies. -- In 2011, the average time to filing was about 10.5 months from the end of the proposed class period. However, the median time to filing cases filed was significantly lower in 2011 at just under three months, down from approximately twelve months for cases filed in 2010. Class Action Trend Series NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for more than 15 years. In addition to this Canada Trends report, the firm produces two US Trends studies annually, and reports for the UK, Australia, Japan, and Italy. This year-end study was authored by NERA Economic Consulting Senior Vice President Mark Berenblut and Vice President Bradley Heys. Trends In Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2011 Update may be downloaded from: http://www.securitieslitigationtrends.com About NERA NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges. For nearly half a century, NERA's economists have been creating strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government authorities, law firms and corporations. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves clients from over 20 offices across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, 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 * * *