/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120305.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, March 5, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 45
Headlines
AMERICAN HOME: ProConnect Settlement Addresses RESPA Issues
BLOOMS TODAY: Sued Over "Negative Option Marketing" Campaign
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Stay Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Defibrillators" Suits Still Pending in Canada
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: No Appeal filed in Mass. Class Suit Judgment
BRISTOL MYERS: Appeal Over $28-Mil. Verdict Remains Pending
CNOOC LIMITED: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
COSTAMARE: Business Owners Mull Class Action Over Rena Spill
CVS CAREMARK: Discovery Continues in "Lauriello" Class Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Expects Final OK of FLSA Suit Deal in 2nd Quarter
CVS CAREMARK: Still Awaits Rulings in Coordinated Antitrust Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Still Defends Securities Suit in Rhode Island
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Antitrust Class Suits Over Wire Harness
DIEBOLD INC: Still Defends "LMPERS" Shareholder Suit in Ohio
EMI MUSIC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Music Royalties
ESTEE LAUDER: Sued Over Misleading Animal Testing Claims
GOV'T OF ITALY: Maroni Mulls Class Action Over Single Treasurer
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Suit vs. Unit Over Overdraft Fees Pending
HERSHEY CO: Awaits Okay of Canadian Antitrust Suit Settlement
HONDA MOTOR: AGs Won't Oppose Hybrid Class Action Settlement
HONEYWELL INT'L: Awaits Rulings in "UAW" Class Suit in Michigan
HONEYWELL INT'L: Fairness Hearing in "Allen" Suit Set for April
HONEYWELL INT'L: Reaches Agreement to Resolve Quick Lube MDL
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces MERS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
ITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Washington
LEAR CORP: Bankr. Ct. Rules on Consolidated Antitrust Suit
MEAD JOHNSON: Two Appeals Filed From Enfamil Suit Deal Approval
MIAMI CAPITAL: Six Workers File Wage Class Action
MICROSOFT: Faces Cell Phone Spamming Class Action in California
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Madison County May Join Class Action
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Continues to Defend "Dahlgren" Suit in D.C.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Defends Suits Over Proposed Google Merger
NELSONS: Sued Over False Advertising on Bach Flower Remedies
NEW ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in New York
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on May 1
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Claims in Fuel Recovery Suit Dismissed
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Livingston Suit Settlement Approved in Dec.
ROBERT MERICLE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
THOMAS & BETTS: Faces Two ABB Merger-Related Suits in Tennessee
THYSSENKRUPP: Ontario Court Certifies Sheave Jammer Class Action
TIME WARNER: Appeal From Set-Top Cable MDL Dismissal Pending
TIME WARNER: Appeal in "Brantley" Suit Pending in Ninth Circuit
TIME WARNER: Appeal in "Swinegar" Class Suit Remains Pending
TIME WARNER: Awaits Approval of "Calzada" Class Suit Settlement
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Fink" Class Suit
TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals in Privacy Suits to Be Heard This Year
TRANSUNION CORP: Expects "White" Suit Appeals Resolution in 2013
TRANSUNION CORP: Still Defends Suit Over Employment Reports
TRANSUNION CORP: Still Defends Suit Over Virginia Public Records
TWIN OAKS: Recalls 2,300 Hammock Stands Due to Fall Hazard
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Unit Faces Class Suit in California Over ODPs
VERIZON: Class Action Settlement Obtains Preliminary Approval
VIA TRAIN: Two Law Firms File Class Action in Canada
*********
AMERICAN HOME: ProConnect Settlement Addresses RESPA Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of U.S. District Court approval of a class action
lawsuit settlement agreement, American Home Shield officials said
they were pleased that the court confirmed the compliancy of the
company's new broker compensation practices featured in its
ProConnect program. In addition, the settlement fully released
brokers and agents from any past liability for compensation by
American Home Shield for home warranty sales in transactions
covered by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
"This ruling supports our position that our broker compensation
program, ProConnect, is in compliance with RESPA guidelines and
regulations," said American Home Shield president and COO Dave
Crawford. "We are pleased to receive this validation of what we
consider to be the best and most compliant program in the
industry. It's great news, not only for us, but for the thousands
of real estate professionals we work with across the country. "
In his Final Approval Order, issued December 8, 2011, Judge R.
David Proctor wrote that American Home Shield's new broker
compensation practices, which are featured in the company's
ProConnect program, are appropriate under RESPA and two HUD
interpretations issued in 2010, stating that "[t]he business
practices outlined in the Settlement make clear that AHS will not
pay a Real Estate Professional for referring business to AHS.
Instead, any payments to Real Estate Professionals will be for
compensable services."
Crawford said that, with many real estate professionals expressing
concern over RESPA-related class action risks and costs, it was
important to note that American Home Shield stands behind the
propriety of not only of its new ProConnect program, but its
previous compensation programs as well.
"The settlement is significant on many fronts, including the fact
that it contains a release of past liability for real estate
professionals who were compensated by us in RESPA-covered
transactions," he said. "We felt it was important to eliminate
exposure for those who have done business with us.
"There's been so much uncertainty and misinformation circulating
in the industry, and we believe this settlement provides a clear,
confident statement about our business practices."
As the industry leader, American Home Shield developed its
ProConnect program after consultation with industry experts,
attorneys and real estate professionals with the express intent of
providing a RESPA-compliant product, ensuring that brokers and
agents could feel confident offering warranties to their customers
in an environment of tighter regulations.
The 2008 Abney v. American Home Shield lawsuit alleged that the
company violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act through
its compensation of real estate brokers in connection with the
sale and marketing of home warranties. American Home Shield
vigorously denied the allegations made in the lawsuit, and opted
to settle the suit due to the potential expenses in defending the
case. Details on the settlement are available at
http://www.abneyclassaction.com
BLOOMS TODAY: Sued Over "Negative Option Marketing" Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Blooms Today Family of Brands deceptively enrolls and repeatedly
bills customers for its "membership programs," without their
knowledge or consent.
A copy of the Complaint in O'Brien v. Blooms Today Family of
Brands, et al., Case No. 12-cv-30041 (D. Mass.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/29/CCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph E. White III, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
63 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (800) 361-5096
E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
THE MEHDI FIRM
One Market
Spear Tower, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 293-8039
E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
filed in Massachusetts remains pending, according to Boston
Scientific Corporation's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On April 9, 2010, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System, individually and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from April 20, 2009, to March 12,
2010, filed a purported securities class action lawsuit against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit alleges certain violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, claiming that the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated because the Company failed to disclose
certain matters with respect to its cardiac rhythm management
(CRM) business, and seeks unspecified monetary damages. In July
2010, the District Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV and
Steelworkers Pension Trust as co-lead plaintiffs for the case. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint narrowing the alleged class period from October 20,
2009, to February 10, 2010.
In September 2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the action, and in October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Stay Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 19, 2010, the Iron Workers District Council Southern
Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust filed a putative shareholder
derivative class action lawsuit against Boston Scientific
Corporation and its Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware. The allegations and remedies sought
in the complaint are largely the same as those in the original
complaint filed by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System on April 9, 2010. In October 2011, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss this action without
prejudice to refile an amended complaint and the plaintiffs filed
a motion to stay the proceedings to allow them to make discovery
demands before filing an amended complaint.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Defibrillators" Suits Still Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation continues to defend class action
lawsuits filed against a subsidiary alleging injuries associated
with defibrillator systems or pacemaker systems in Canada,
according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.
Fewer than 10 individual lawsuits remain pending in various state
and federal jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation alleging
personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers
involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. In
November 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
established MDL-1708 (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota. In 2007, the Company reached an agreement
to settle up to 8,550 patient claims, including almost all of the
claims that have been consolidated in the MDL as well as other
filed and unfiled claims throughout the United States, including
those associated with the 2005 and 2006 product communications for
a total of up to $240 million. At the conclusion of the MDL
settlement in 2010, 8,180 claims had been approved for
participation and the Company made settlement payments of
approximately $234 million in total with no further payments due
under the settlement agreement. The remaining cases under the MDL
were remanded to their trial courts of origin. In the third
quarter of 2011, the Company entered into settlement agreements in
the two product liability personal injury class action lawsuits
with respect to those devices.
The Company is aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability
lawsuits pending internationally associated with defibrillator
systems or pacemaker systems, including devices involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications, generally seeking monetary
damages. Six of those lawsuits pending in Canada sought class
action status, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two
lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario
Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were
implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative
claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a
class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a
class of family members with derivative claims.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: No Appeal filed in Mass. Class Suit Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit did
not appeal the affirmation of a judgment in favor of Boston
Scientific Corporation and other defendants, according to the
Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported
securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period
March 31, 2003, through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Four other plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, each
filed additional purported securities class action lawsuits in the
same court on behalf of the same purported class. On
February 15, 2006, the District Court ordered that the five class
actions be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public
Employee Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint that alleges that the
Company made material misstatements and omissions by failing to
disclose the supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and
Department of Justice investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R)
Ranger with Sox stent recall, problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-
eluting coronary stent systems that led to product recalls, and
the Company's ability to satisfy U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulations concerning medical device quality. The
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
was granted by the District Court in March 2007.
In April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
reversed the dismissal of only plaintiff's TAXUS(R) stent recall-
related claims and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
In February 2009, the District Court certified a class of
investors who acquired the Company's securities during the period
November 30, 2003, through July 15, 2004. In April 2010, the
District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in defendants' favor. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal in May 2010. On August 4, 2011, the First
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's entry of
judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff's did not
appeal and the time for appeal has expired.
BRISTOL MYERS: Appeal Over $28-Mil. Verdict Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, together with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of
private class actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys
general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege
that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of
their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government
programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs
based on AWPs. The Company is a defendant in four state attorneys
general lawsuits pending in state courts around the country.
Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial
in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court),
brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010,
the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the
Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court Judge issued a
decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not
go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and
enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs. The Company has moved to vacate the decision and
the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, which the Court denied. The Company and the Commonwealth
have appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
CNOOC LIMITED: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 29 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CNOOC
Limited American Depositary Shares during the period between
January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 29, 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/cnooc/
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 CNOOC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CNOOC is China's biggest offshore state oil company. CNOOC co-
owns the Penglai 19-3 oilfield in northern Bohai Bay with
ConocoPhillips China Inc. as its operator.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, CNOOC's ADSs traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of
US$270.64 per ADS on April 4, 2011.
On June 4, 2011, an oil spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield. A
second spill occurred at the PL 19-3 oilfield on June 17, 2011.
The complaint alleges that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips failed to
disclose the spills when they occurred. However, despite CNOOC's
attempts to conceal the news, news of the spills began to leak
into the market. On July 5, 2011, the State Oceanic
Administration, China's coastal regulator, officially acknowledged
the spills had occurred. Thereafter, CNOOC downplayed the extent
of the damage done by the oil spills and the impact it would have
on CNOOC's operations. On September 2, 2011, the SOA announced
that it had ordered CNOOC and ConocoPhillips to immediately
suspend all oil production at the PL 19-3 oilfield. On September
6, 2011, it was announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would
establish a Bohai Bay fund to address the environmental impact of
the oil spills. On this news, CNOOC's ADSs declined US$9.39 per
ADS on September 6, 2011. Then, on September 18, 2011, it was
announced that CNOOC and ConocoPhillips would establish a second
Bohai Bay fund. On this news, CNOOC's ADSs declined another
US$6.85 per ADS on September 19, 2011.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not in
compliance with environmental laws and regulations; (b) as news of
the oil spills emerged, the Company concealed the extent and
severity of the oil spills; (c) as news of the oil spills emerged,
the Company downplayed its responsibility to effect the cleanup of
the oil spills as it portrayed itself as being the "non-operator"
of the oilfield; (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 oil production.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
CNOOC ADSs during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Geller.
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. It represents defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
COSTAMARE: Business Owners Mull Class Action Over Rena Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand reports that a group of Bay of Plenty businesses
is planning to take a class action lawsuit in Europe against the
owners of the cargo ship Rena.
The businesses say their livelihoods were affected after the
container ship ran aground off Tauranga coast on October 5,
spilling hundreds of tonnes oil and cargo into the sea.
About 20 businesses want compensation from the ship's owner,
Costamare, for the losses they have incurred.
The group's organizer, Nevan Lancaster, says Costamare's liability
is limited under New Zealand law but could be higher in a European
court.
"The biggest issue is the New Zealand $12 million limit on what we
can claim from these guys.
"It's a bit stupid that they've got $6 billion of insurance and we
can only claim $12 million of it."
An environmental lawyer assisting the group, Robert Makgill, says
overseas lawyers are willing to help.
"He says he has been contacted by protection and indemnity
insurance litigation experts in Europe who are confident they
could initiate proceedings outside New Zealand's jurisdiction."
On Feb. 29, the captain of the Rena pleaded guilty at Tauranga
District Court to all charges against him.
CVS CAREMARK: Discovery Continues in "Lauriello" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John
Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999
settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include
insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with
respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks
approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-
specified damages based on allegations that the amount of
insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was
misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in
November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court,
naming as defendants Caremark, several insurance companies,
attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This
lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was
subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. The
attorneys and law firms named as defendants in McArthur's
intervention pleadings have been dismissed from the case, and
discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is underway.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
CVS CAREMARK: Expects Final OK of FLSA Suit Deal in 2nd Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation anticipates that final court approval of
its settlement of lawsuits filed on behalf of its assistant store
managers will be granted in the second quarter of 2012, the
Company disclosed in its February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
Since March 2009, the Company has been named in a series of
putative collective and class action lawsuits filed in federal
courts around the country, purportedly on behalf of current and
former assistant store managers working in the Company's stores at
various locations outside California. The lawsuits allege that
the Company failed to pay overtime to assistant store managers as
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and under
certain state statutes. The lawsuits also seek other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal
claims for overtime pay. The Company has aggressively challenged
both the merits of the lawsuits and the allegation that the cases
should be certified as class or collective actions. In light of
the cost and uncertainty involved in this litigation, however, the
Company has reached an agreement with plaintiffs' counsel to
settle the series of lawsuits. The court preliminarily approved
the settlement in December 2011 and the Company anticipates that
final court approval will be granted in the second quarter of
2012. The Company has established legal reserves related to these
matters to fully cover the settlement payments.
CVS CAREMARK: Still Awaits Rulings in Coordinated Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in coordinated cases alleging
violations of antitrust laws remain pending, according to CVS
Caremark Corporation's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October
2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") competitors, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was
transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a
separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract
terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue
arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in
the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.
In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated the order compelling arbitration and
staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the
appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling
arbitration of the Bellevue case. Motions for class certification
in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending. The
consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
CVS CAREMARK: Still Defends Securities Suit in Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Rhode Island, according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009. The lawsuit
names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading. In addition,
a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the
same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company. A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder
purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against
directors and officers of the corporation. This lawsuit includes
allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider
trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that
the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly
inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January
2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and the
Company plans to defend them vigorously.
The Company received a subpoena dated February 28, 2011, from the
SEC requesting, among other corporate records, information
relating to public disclosures made by the Company in 2009
concerning its PBM and Medicare Part D businesses and information
concerning ownership and transactions in the Company's securities
by certain officers of the Company. The Company received a
related subpoena dated September 20, 2011, from the SEC seeking,
among other things, additional information concerning securities
transactions by certain employees of the Company and public
disclosures made by the Company during 2009. The Company is
cooperating with these requests for information and is providing
documents and other information to the SEC as requested.
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Antitrust Class Suits Over Wire Harness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Automotive PLC is facing antitrust class action lawsuits
over its wire harness products, according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
A number of class action complaints have been filed in various
U.S. federal district courts alleging that several wire harness
manufacturers, including the Company, have violated U.S. antitrust
laws. These complaints allege that consumers overpaid for their
vehicles as a result of the alleged conduct of the wire harness
manufacturers.
At this time, the Company believes that the allegations contained
in the complaints are without merit with regard to it and it
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations set forth in
the complaints. No accruals for these matters have been recorded
as of December 31, 2011.
DIEBOLD INC: Still Defends "LMPERS" Shareholder Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Diebold, Incorporated, certain current and former
officers, and the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No.
10-CV-1461). The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between June 30, 2005, and January 15, 2008, and fees and expenses
related to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the
matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June
2010 finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC (SEC Settlement).
Management believes any possible loss or range of loss associated
with the putative federal securities class action cannot be
estimated.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
EMI MUSIC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Music Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Graciela Beltran individually and on behalf all those similarly
situated v. EMI Music, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:12-cv-01002 (N.D. Calif., February 28, 2012) is brought against
EMI for its alleged breach of contract and statutory violations of
California law, for past and continuing failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the Class income owed for royalties relating to the
licensing of musical performances and recordings sold by "Music
Download Providers" or "Ringtone Providers" under the terms of a
standard EMI recording agreement.
EMI improperly treats each digital download as a "sale" of a
physical product through its "Normal Retail Channels," which are
governed by much lower royalty provisions in the EMI Agreement,
Ms. Beltran contends. In doing so, she argues, EMI has failed to
properly account for and pay the Plaintiff and the other Class
members money owed from the licensing of master recordings to
digital content providers, and has underreported the actual number
of digital downloads that occur by treating downloads as sales of
physical product that might be returned.
Ms. Beltran is a prominent music artist residing in the state of
California.
EMI, a Delaware corporation, produces, manufactures, distributes,
licenses, and sells sound recordings of musical performances and
the audio-visual recordings of such performances.
A copy of the Complaint in Beltran v. EMI Music, Inc., Case No.
12-cv-01002 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/29/MusicRoyal.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William M. Audet, Esq.
Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
221 Main Street, Suite 1460
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
jezrin@audetlaw.com
- and -
Anthony R. Lopez, Esq.
LAW OFFICES LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES
9025 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 276-4700
E-mail: alopez@musicatty.com
ESTEE LAUDER: Sued Over Misleading Animal Testing Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Eagan Avenatti, LLP on Feb. 29 announced the filing of a class
action lawsuit against cosmetic companies Estee Lauder, Avon
Products, and Mary Kay on behalf of American consumers deceived by
the companies' false and misleading representations relating to
animal testing of their products. Beltran et al. v. Estee Lauder,
et al., United States District Court - Central District of
California, Case No. SA12-CV312 CJC (ANX).
The Class Action complaint alleges that Estee Lauder, Avon and
Mary Kay purposely defrauded consumers by falsely claiming that
their products were not tested on animals when, in reality, the
companies knew full well that they had begun testing various
cosmetic products on animals. The complaint further alleges that
the companies deliberately misled the American public by claiming
their products were "cruelty free" at the same time the companies
undertook animal testing in order to sell their products in China
and reap hundreds of millions of dollars in Chinese sales. The
complaint seeks to certify a class of over 1,000,000 consumers and
requests over $100,000,000 in punitive and compensatory damages.
On February 16, 2012, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) announced that Estee Lauder, Avon and Mary Kay had been
removed from the organization's "cruelty free" list of companies
that do not test on animals after it was discovered that the
companies were performing animal testing. PETA subsequently
downgraded the companies and listed them on PETA's list of
companies that do conduct animal testing.
"While it may make economic sense for a company to pursue sales in
China, those sales should not occur at the expense of fundamental
principles," stated co-counsel for the Plaintiffs Michael Avenatti
of Eagan Avenatti, LLP. "Estee Lauder, Avon and Mary Kay should
have been open and honest with the American public and told the
truth -- that sales and profits were more important to them than
refusing to conduct animal testing."
"This case is about being open and honest with consumers," added
co-counsel Filippo Marchino of The X-Law Group, P.C. "If you
advertise that you are not conducting animal testing, then you
shouldn't be conducting animal testing -- it's that simple."
About Eagan Avenatti, LLP
Eagan Avenatti, LLP is a firm of trial attorneys that specialize
in litigating a variety of high profile legal disputes in courts
throughout the United States. The firm is based in Los Angeles,
California.
About X-Law Group, P.C.
The X-law Group is a firm that specializes in litigating class
action lawsuits on behalf of consumers. The firm is based in Los
Angeles, California.
GOV'T OF ITALY: Maroni Mulls Class Action Over Single Treasurer
---------------------------------------------------------------
AGI.it reports that speaking about proposals on rules about single
treasurer contained in the legislative decree on liberalization,
the former Interior Minister and Northern League member, Roberto
Maroni said, "The single treasurer is serious contempt for the
systems of municipalities that not even Craxi and the CAF
government ever did. There will be a response. We are studying a
class action with our mayors because a single treasurer would be
seriously harmful to the people."
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Suit vs. Unit Over Overdraft Fees Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit pending in Hawaii against its subsidiary, according
to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B. (ASB) had improperly
charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions. Management is
evaluating the merits of the claims alleged in the lawsuit, which
is still in its preliminary stage. Thus, the probable outcome and
range of reasonably possible loss are not determinable.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the direct parent company of
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.; American Savings Holdings, Inc.;
HEI Properties, Inc.; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust
II; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust III and The Old
Oahu Tug Service, Inc.
HERSHEY CO: Awaits Okay of Canadian Antitrust Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company is awaiting court approval of its subsidiary's
C$5.3 million settlement of antitrust lawsuits pending in Canada,
according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.
In 2007, the Canadian Competition Bureau began an investigation of
pricing practices by Hershey Canada, Inc. and other chocolate
companies. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice notified
the Company in 2007 that it had opened an inquiry but has not
requested any information or documents. The European Commission
had requested information, but subsequently informed the Company
that it had closed its file.
The Company also is a party to approximately 90 related civil
antitrust lawsuits in the United States and 13 in Canada. Certain
of these claims contain class action allegations, instituted on
behalf of direct purchasers of the Company's products as well as
indirect purchasers that purchase the Company's products for use
or for resale. These lawsuits allege conspiracies in restraint of
trade in connection with the pricing practices of the Company.
Several other chocolate and confectionery companies are the
subject of investigations and/or inquiries by government entities
and have also been named as defendants in the same litigation.
One Canadian wholesaler is also a subject of the Canadian
investigation.
The Company opines that these proceedings should not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity or
results of operations. The Company is cooperating with the
government investigations and inquiries and intends to defend the
U.S. lawsuits vigorously. With regard to the U.S. lawsuits, the
Company is not able to determine a range for the amount of any
potential liability that is reasonably possible.
On December 31, 2011, Hershey Canada, Inc. entered into an
agreement to settle the Canadian civil actions on a national
class-wide basis for the total sum of $5.3 million Canadian
dollars. This agreement is subject to court approval.
HONDA MOTOR: AGs Won't Oppose Hybrid Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys general in California
and four other states said on Feb. 29 that they won't oppose a
class-action settlement between Honda Motor Co. and owners of its
hybrid cars over inflated claims of fuel efficiency.
The five states had asked a judge for more time to consider after
Honda owner Heather Peters won $9,867 in a California small claims
court this month -- much more than the couple hundred dollars cash
that the settlement offers. The judge reluctantly granted a two-
week extension for them to declare objections.
Attorneys general in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Texas and
Washington said just hours before the extended deadline that they
will sit on the sidelines. Dan Sytman, a spokesman for
Washington's attorney general, said his office felt it had nothing
to add to objections already raised by others.
"Our filing of a brief would not bring any new argument or theory
to the court's attention. The fact that we have not filed
anything in this case does not mean we approve or disapprove the
proposed settlement," he said.
California's attorney general's office, which took a leading role
among the five states, gave no explanation in a one-sentence
statement.
Ms. Peters, who has been working full-time to derail the class-
action settlement, said she was disappointed and speculated that
lack of resources guided the states' decisions.
"The (attorneys general) would certainly have sway with the court,
but they would be adding their voice to a chorus that is already
quite loud," she said.
The development sets the stage for a hearing March 16 for San
Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor to accept or reject the
agreement between the Japanese automaker and the owners of nearly
200,000 Civic hybrids, spanning from the 2003 to 2009 model years.
Critics of the settlement say payments to consumers are too small
and payments to plaintiffs' attorneys -- more than $8 million --
are too high. The settlement would give aggrieved owners $100 to
$200 each and up to $1,000 credit toward purchase of another car.
"The high proposed attorney fee award . . . raises a suspicion of
bad faith and collusion," Honda owner Peter Fredman of Berkeley, a
plaintiffs' attorney in class action lawsuits himself, wrote to
the court.
American Honda Motor Co., the Japanese automaker's U.S.
subsidiary, has said the settlement is a "very good resolution."
The plaintiffs' attorneys said in a court filing this month that
about 1,700 eligible owners opted out of the class-action
settlement. Alan Mansfield, one of the attorneys, said duplicates
were later discovered, reducing the number of opt-outs to less
than 1,500.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Awaits Rulings in "UAW" Class Suit in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is awaiting court decisions with
respect to United Auto Workers' motion for class certification and
motion for partial summary judgment pending in Michigan court,
according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.
In July 2011, Honeywell filed an action in federal court (District
of New Jersey) against the UAW and all former employees who
retired under a series of Master Collective Bargaining Agreements
("MCBAs") between Honeywell and the UAW. The lawsuit is captioned
Honeywell v. United Auto Workers ("UAW") et. al. The Company is
seeking a declaratory judgment that certain express limitations on
its obligation to contribute toward the healthcare coverage of
such retirees (the "CAPS") set forth in the MCBAs may be
implemented, effective January 1, 2012.
In September 2011, the UAW and certain retiree defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the New Jersey action and filed a lawsuit in the
Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the MCBAs do not
provide for CAPS on the Company's liability for healthcare
coverage. The UAW and retiree plaintiffs subsequently filed a
motion for class certification and a motion for partial summary
judgment in the Michigan action, seeking a ruling that retirees
who retired prior to the initial inclusion of the CAPS in the 2003
MCBA are not covered by the CAPS as a matter of law.
In December 2011, the New Jersey action was dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds. Honeywell has filed a motion for
expedited review of the New Jersey court's dismissal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the
parties are awaiting the court's instructions with respect to how
the Michigan action is to proceed.
Honeywell is confident that the CAPS will be upheld and that its
liability for healthcare coverage premiums with respect to the
putative class will be limited as negotiated and expressly set
forth in the applicable MCBAs. In the event of an adverse ruling,
however, Honeywell's other postretirement benefits for pre-2003
retirees would increase by approximately $150 million, reflecting
the estimated value of these CAPS.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Fairness Hearing in "Allen" Suit Set for April
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on Honeywell International Inc.'s settlement of
a class action lawsuit in Arizona is scheduled for April 2012,
according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.
Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Allen, et al.
v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the
Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for
the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor
entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate
benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at
$500 million. In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to
the claim regarding the calculation of benefits. In May 2011, the
parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle
to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be
paid from the Company's pension plan). Settlement documents have
been submitted to the court for classwide approval. A preliminary
settlement order has been approved by the court and a fairness
hearing on the settlement is scheduled for April 2012. Upon court
approval of the settlement, all claims in this matter will be
fully resolved.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Reaches Agreement to Resolve Quick Lube MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. reached an agreement in principle to
resolve a multidistrict litigation commenced by S&E Quick Lube
against filter manufacturers, according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants. Parallel purported class actions, including
on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois. In June 2011, plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty
to a felony count of having made false statements to federal
investigators.
In February 2012, Honeywell reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the multi-district litigation class action as to all
plaintiffs, subject to finalization of the agreement and approval
by the court.
As previously reported, the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice notified Honeywell in January 2010 that it had
officially closed its investigation into possible collusion in the
replacement auto filters industry.
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces MERS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is facing a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio, according to
the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On January 17, 2012, the Company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio
against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system
(MERS). The complaint alleges that recording of mortgages and
assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and seeks a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to record
every mortgage and assignment on real property located in Ohio and
pay the attendant statutory recording fees. The complaint also
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although Huntington has
not been named as a defendant in the other cases, similar
litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and other
financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.
ITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
Itron, Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Washington, according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On February 23, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
Federal Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging a
violation of federal securities laws relating to a restatement of
the Company's financial results for the quarters ended March 31,
June 30, and September 30, 2010. These revisions were made
primarily to defer revenue that had been incorrectly recognized on
one contract due to a misinterpretation of an extended warranty
obligation. The effect was to reduce revenue and earnings in each
of the first three quarters of the year. For the first nine
months of 2010, total revenue was reduced by $6.1 million and
diluted earnings per share ("EPS") was reduced by $0.11.
The Company believes the facts and legal claims alleged are
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend its interests.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
LEAR CORP: Bankr. Ct. Rules on Consolidated Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York ruled that claims against Lear Corporation alleging
violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the extent that they
arose prior to the Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings on November 9, 2009, according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws. Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future. Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.
Several plaintiffs filed motions with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") requesting that these
various civil complaints be consolidated into one proceeding
before a single U.S. District Court.
The motions were heard by the JPML on January 26, 2012, and on
February 7, 2012, the JPML entered an order consolidating the
complaints into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.
On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action
complaints. The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the
motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the
Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the
extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009. The
bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the
appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
The Company says the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
these proceedings.
MEAD JOHNSON: Two Appeals Filed From Enfamil Suit Deal Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class members have separately appealed the final approval of a
settlement in the class action lawsuits against a subsidiary of
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, according to its February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On November 14, 2011, the Company's subsidiary Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC ("MJC") obtained final court approval of a nationwide
class settlement with plaintiffs in eight putative consumer class
actions that had been consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuits
all involved allegations of false and misleading advertising with
respect to certain Enfamil LIPIL infant formula advertising, and
the settlement will resolve all claims in all of the pending
lawsuits. In its final order approving the class action
settlement (the "Final Order"), the court found the settlement to
be fair, reasonable and adequate. The settlement allows consumers
who purchased Enfamil LIPIL infant formula between October 13,
2005, and March 31, 2010, to receive infant formula or cash. The
amount each consumer can receive depends on how long the consumer
purchased the formula; consumers who received their formula
through the Women, Infants and Children ("WIC") program are not
eligible to participate. The period within which class members
could file claims expired on
November 25, 2011. As of the close of the claims period, the
total amount claimed by class members was less than $8.0 million.
As a result and consistent with the Company's previously-reported
obligations under the settlement agreement, MJC received court
approval on January 9, 2012, to distribute the difference between
$8.0 million and the total amount claimed in the form of infant
formula to Feeding America, the nation's largest domestic hunger-
relief charity. MJC also agreed not to oppose, and the court
approved in its Final Order, attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel of $3.5 million and $140,000, respectively.
As previously reported, MJC agreed to pay costs of notice and
settlement administration. Two class members have separately
appealed the court's Final Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. Briefing in the appeal has not yet started.
Until the appeal has been resolved, distribution of benefits to
class members will be delayed. MJC expects distribution of
benefits would begin shortly after a successful resolution of the
appeal.
The Company says it records accruals for such contingencies when
it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the loss can
be reasonably estimated. Although the Company cannot predict with
certainty the final resolution of these or other lawsuits,
investigations and claims asserted against it, the Company does
not believe any currently pending legal proceeding to which it is
a party will have a material effect on its business or financial
condition, although an unfavorable outcome in excess of amounts
recognized as of December 31, 2011, with respect to one or more of
these proceedings could have a material effect on the Company's
results of operations for the periods in which a loss is
recognized.
MIAMI CAPITAL: Six Workers File Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Elaine Walker, writing for Miami Herald, reports that six Miami
Capital Grille workers have joined a national class action lawsuit
against the restaurant and its Florida-based parent company Darden
Restaurants.
The lawsuit, which was originally filed in January in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Eastern
Division, was amended to add the workers from Miami and Los
Angeles. It already includes workers from Chicago, Washington
D.C. and New York.
The employees charge that the company violated the federal Fair
Labour Standards Act and Civil Rights Act, as well as state wage
and hour laws. Violations included failing to pay tipped
employees minimum wage, failure to pay employees for all hours
worked, failure to pay for overtime hours worked and
discrimination against minority employees with regard to
promotions.
The six Miami workers were current and former Capital Grille
employees, who worked as dishwashers or service assistants. The
Miami workers are members of Restaurant Opportunities Centers
(ROC) United, a national non-profit worker center for restaurant
workers.
"Our goal is to ensure that restaurant workers are treated fairly,
as opposed to being taken advantage of in the workplace," said
Jean Souffrant, coordinator of the Restaurant Opportunities Center
of Miami. "It's about time workers banded together and demanded
there are changes in the workplace."
MICROSOFT: Faces Cell Phone Spamming Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of individuals, led by Neil Smith, sued Microsoft to
determine whether Microsoft violated data privacy rights by
sending unsolicited text messages to cellular phones to advertise
Xbox gaming systems.
"The case of Smith v. Microsoft illustrates the complex issues
involving data privacy and unsolicited text messaging to cell
phones to promote products," says Julie Machal-Fulks --
jfulks@scottandscottllp.com -- Partner of Scott & Scott, LLP,
whose law firm handles matters related to data privacy.
Data privacy rights are a growing concern among consumers, and
this class action case raises several important legal issues,
including:
(1) The privacy rights granted to consumers
The complaint filed in the Southern District of California on
August 25, 2011 (Case #11CV1958-JLS-BGS) alleges consumers are
protected from unsolicited calls or texts by the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
(2) Does advertising sent via unsolicited text messages qualify as
spamming?
The plaintiffs argue the messages were sent en masse, without
consent of the consumers, which resulted in harassment and
additional charges by the cell phone carrier for data usage.
Further, Mr. Smith argues on behalf of the class that the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows a successful plaintiff to
obtain treble damages when the defendant knowingly sent messages
without consent.
(3) How consumers may protect themselves against unsolicited text
messages
"Unsolicited SMS advertising is becoming commonplace, and most
consumers are unaware of their privacy rights. In this case, if
the class is ultimately successful, the court may award an
injunction and statutory damages to compensate the plaintiffs,"
said Ms. Machal-Fulks.
The outcome of Smith v Microsoft will be watched closely.
About Scott & Scott, LLP:
Scott & Scott, LLP -- http://www.scottandscottllp.com-- is a
boutique intellectual property and technology law firm with an
emphasis on software disputes, technology transactions, brand
management, data privacy, and federal litigation.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Madison County May Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ronica Shannon, writing for The Richmond Register, reports that
Madison Fiscal Court decided on Feb. 29 to be part of a potential
class-action lawsuit against Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems (MERS).
MERS is billed by its Web site as a program that simplifies the
way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold
and tracked.
"Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the
need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential
and commercial mortgage loans," the Web site reads.
MERS was created as a way to bypass spending time and money
required to record these documents with the respective county
office, according to Madison County Clerk Kenny Barger.
He referred to MERS as "a shell."
"It has no employees," he said.
Because of MERS, Madison County has missed out on $598,533 in
estimated recording fees and the state has lost approximately $32
million, Mr. Barger said.
The reason Kentucky is at the forefront of this potential class-
action lawsuit is because of state law which requires these
mortgages to be filed in a county recording office, he said.
"The big banks put this together," said Madison County
Judge/Executive Kent Clark. "There's no president. There's no
vice president. It's an electronic monitoring system they use,
and it gets them away from filing fees on all these old mortgages
and repossessions."
MERS was created for two reasons, Mr. Barger said.
"Money and speed," he said. "To be required to transfer something
in this courthouse, it takes time. You have to mail it in, it has
to be recorded and mailed back. They have people overseas with
lots of cash saying, 'Sell me these mortgages.'"
Being one of the first to join would be beneficial for Madison
Countians if a class-action lawsuit were to form against MERS,
Judge Clark said.
"Then, we will receive more back than some (counties) that don't
participate," he said. "We feel like it would be in the best
interest of Madison County that we go into litigation with a lot
of other counties that might join together to hire somebody to
represent us. We'll be talking about this more. It's in the
young stages."
In other business:
* Mr. Barger received the court's permission to pay poll
workers during the North Richmond wet/dry election $566.63 for
their services and poll workers for the upcoming Boone Tavern
Restaurant wet/dry election to be paid $575.
* Judge Clark commented on a recent intergovernmental meeting
where the issue up upgrading E-911 equipment was discussed.
During the meeting, local government leaders and first responders
discussed ways of funding the operation in the future, and Judge
Clark asked whether the $3.50 amount collected from landline
telephone bills would be taken off if an additional taxing
district was to be created.
"I think it may have gotten out of hand," he said. "We never
talked about raising taxes or creating a new taxing district.
We're trying to work together as three governments looking toward
the future. We're looking at ways that we can continue to upgrade
911 and continue to provide those services to all the residents of
Madison County. I think there was a misunderstanding there."
Magistrate Roger Barger said Madison County was lucky because
there are three entities to help share the costs of E-911
operation.
* Thompson Promotional Products in Richmond was the lowest
bidder and was chosen to provide promotional items for Madison
County CSEPP/EMA (Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
Program/Emergency Management Agency).
The bid amount was $15,330.
"We do have a variety of items we give out to various
organizations and community members," said EMA Director Carl
Richards. "They have done a very good service in the past."
* The Madison County Fire Department was awarded a $40,000
Homeland Security grant to purchase new air packs for
firefighters.
* Madison County Tax Watch member and 80th District state
representative candidate Tiffany Nash invited members of the
fiscal court to attend an economic development committee meeting
hosted by the tax watch group at 8:15 a.m. March 21 at the
Richmond Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Nash announced she also planned
on inviting members of the Berea City Council and Richmond City
Commission.
The next meeting of the fiscal court is scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
March 13 at the Madison County Courthouse.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Continues to Defend "Dahlgren" Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit
captioned Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al., pending in District
of Columbia, according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.
On September 9, 2002, Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was
filed in the D.C. Superior Court containing class claims alleging
deceptive and misleading actions by defendants for failing to
disclose the alleged "debate" related to the safety of wireless
phones reflected in studies that allegedly show wireless phones
can cause harm. On December 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in Dahlgren. On March 5, 2008, the court stayed Dahlgren
pending the outcome of Murray v. Motorola, Inc., et al. After the
Murray decision, the Court lifted the stay and the Plaintiff
amended the complaint to remove the class allegations and sue in a
representative capacity on behalf of the General Public of the
District of Columbia. Dahlgren seeks treble damages or statutory
damages in the amount of $1,500 per violation, whichever is
greater, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, costs or disbursements. On July 8, 2010, the court granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The
court dismissed claims asserting that Defendants failed to
disclose the "safety debate" regarding cellular telephones and
certain claims pre-dating October 2000. The court denied
Defendants' argument that federal preemption barred Plaintiff's
claims in their entirety. Plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint on September 21, 2010.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Defends Suits Over Proposed Google Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. continues to defend shareholder
class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with a
Google Inc. subsidiary, according to the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On August 15, 2011, Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Google Inc. ("Google") and RB98 Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Google ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides for the
merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Google.
Sixteen putative class-action complaints challenging the proposed
Google Merger have been filed against Motorola Mobility and its
directors. Four of these complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois: Keating v. Motorola Mobility
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH28854, Cinotto v. Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH29297, Grossman v.
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH29738, and
Colaco v. Barfield et al., Case No. 11CH30541. Eight additional
putative class-action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court
of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Lake County, Illinois:
Groveman and Schnider v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 11CH3719, Johnson v. Jha et al., Case No. 11CH3751,
Midler v. Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. et al., Case No.
11CH3783, Mulholland and Ryan v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.
et al., Case No. 11CH3816, Iron Workers District Council of
Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Pension Plan v. Motorola Mobility
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11CH3820, Lassoff v. Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc., Case No. 11CH3831, Lang v. Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH3832 and Blumstein v.
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., No. 11CH4336. Three additional
putative class-action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery: Goldfein v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 6787, Driscoll v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et
al., Case No. 6794, and Beren v. Jha et al., Case No. 6799. One
additional putative class-action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division: Stein v. Jha et al., Case No. 11-cv-06100.
Each of the complaints has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Motorola Mobility's stockholders and each alleges that,
in approving the proposed transaction, the directors of Motorola
Mobility breached the fiduciary duties they owe to the members of
the putative class. Each complaint alleges further that Motorola
Mobility itself aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, and all complaints other than Johnson name Google
a defendant and allege that Google aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. Finally, the complaints in Midler,
Lang, Driscoll, Beren and Stein allege that RB98 Inc. also aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of duty.
All sixteen putative class-action complaints seek, among other
things, injunctive relief barring the named defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs. Motions were filed in Cook County, Lake County, and
Delaware to consolidate the putative class-actions there pending.
No judicial action has been taken on the consolidation motion
filed in Delaware. On September 27, the Circuit Court for Lake
County consolidated the eight actions before it into Mulholland.
On October 3, the Circuit Court for Cook County consolidated the
four actions before it into Keating. Also on October 3,
defendants moved the Cook County and Lake County courts for an
order designating the single venue for disposition of the
Mulholland and Keating actions. After that motion was filed, but
before the courts could act upon it, plaintiffs agreed to
coordinate the various lawsuits on a consolidated basis in the
Keating action, pending in Cook County. As a result, on
October 12, the Lake County court entered a stay in the Mulholland
action.
The consolidated complaint was brought by a putative class of the
Company's shareholders and alleges that in approving the
transaction, the directors of the Company breached the fiduciary
duties they owe to members of the putative class. The complaint
further alleges that the Company itself aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Google Inc. is also a named
defendant and plaintiffs allege that Google aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, injunctive relief barring the named defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs.
On November 8, 2011, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") resolving the matters raised in the
preliminary injunction motion relating to alleged insufficiency of
certain merger-related disclosures. In connection with the MOU,
Motorola Mobility provided supplemental information on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC and in exchange, plaintiffs withdrew their
motion for preliminary injunction. In accordance with the MOU,
plaintiffs' claims relating to the merger consideration may be
pursued following consummation of the merger with Google.
NELSONS: Sued Over False Advertising on Bach Flower Remedies
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
challenges a business's claim that boiled flowers mixed with
brandy can "bring back joy and cheerfulness when gloom descends
for no obvious reason."
Lead plaintiff Kim Allen sued Nelsons/A. Nelsons & Co., alleging
unfair competition, false advertising and consumer law violations.
London-based Nelsons has its U.S. headquarters in North Andover,
Mass.
The complaint challenges the efficaciousness of, and advertising
of, a line of Bach Flower Remedies.
According to the complaint, Dr. Edward Bach, a British physician,
"joined the laboratories of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital
in 1919" and "in 1928 he began work on his own remedies made from
plants."
From 1929 to 1935, Mr. Bach "devised 38 new remedies, almost all
of which were made from flowers, and he also proposed a
combination of some of these remedies which he called the 'Rescue
Remedy.' He propounded these remedies as a means of counteracting
various negative states of mind, such as fear, anxiety,
uncertainty, insufficient interest in present circumstances,
loneliness, and oversensitivity, among others," according to the
complaint.
The complaint does not explicitly say it, but those are hallmarks
of what has come to be known as depression.
According to the complaint, the ingredients for the remedies had
to be culled from wildflowers.
"Bach Flower Remedies are prepared by in (sic) two ways following
Dr. Bach's precise directions: the sun method and the boiling
method," the complaint states. "In the sun method, fully opened
flower heads still fresh with dew are floated on the surface of
pure spring water in a glass bowl and left for a few hours in the
sunshine, whereas in the boiling method, used for trees and
bushes, the branches and leaves are boiled in water for half an
hour. In both methods, the plant matter is removed, and,
according to Dr. Bach, the water retains the vibrations of the
flower. The liquid, called the mother tincture, is filtered and
mixed with brandy, which acts as a preservative."
And there you have it.
Today, the "remedies" are sold as 2 ml blister-pack ampules, 20 ml
bottles with a dropper, in pastilles, 20 ml oral sprays, and in
creams, lip protectors and other forms, according to the
complaint.
Nelsons advertises that its crab apple remedy "'helps [the
consumer] accept [his/her] physical imperfections and feel better
about the way [they] are,'" the complaint states. Nelsons says
the stuff is "'For relief of naturally occurring nervous
tension.'"
On its Web site, Nelson advertises the crab apple remedy as "'For
those who feel as if they have something not quite clean about
themselves. Often it is something of apparently little
importance: in others there may be more serious disease which is
almost disregarded compared to the one thing on which they
concentrate. In both types they are anxious to be free from the
one particular thing which is greatest in their minds and which
seems so essential to them that it should be cured. They become
despondent if treatment fails. Being a cleanser, this remedy
purifies wounds if the patient has reason to believe that some
poison has entered which must be drawn out,'" according to the
complaint.
Plaintiff Allen says that the "active ingredient," Malus Pumila,
even if present, "is so greatly diluted as to be effectively
nonexistent in the product, such that the product is ineffective
for its intended uses."
Applications of infinitesimal amounts of herbs, spices and whatnot
are an essential element of homeopathy.
Ms. Allen says, in effect, that it's all a bunch of hoohah.
She says she spent $3.99 on the crab apple remedy, and would not
have done do but for the false advertising.
She seeks class damages of more than $5 million, and wants Nelsons
enjoined from advertising its remedies with false claims.
A copy of the Complaint in Allen v. Nelsons, et al., Case No. 12-
cv-00495 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/29/Flowers.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
Skye Resendes, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
3636 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 202
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
E-mail: ron.marron@gmail.com
maggie.realin@gmail.com
NEW ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2012, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of New Energy Systems Group between
April 15, 2010 and November 14, 2011, inclusive, against the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers
and directors, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].
The case name is styled Santana v. Li, et al. A copy of the
complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can
be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Web site at http://www.whafh.com
The complaint alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded numerous facts known to them before and during the
Class Period concerning its profitability, the legitimacy of the
Company's business and that the Company expected it would
continually receive orders from its "loyal customers." It is
further alleged that Defendants issued statements in its SEC
filings that were materially false and misleading. Specifically:
a) Defendants knew that New Energy did not have a loyal customer
base and, therefore, knew that there was no reason to believe that
the Company would continually receive orders;
b) Defendants knew that New Energy did not produce batteries that
were sought after by the market;
c) Defendants hid the material adverse effect of counterfeit
products on New Energy's business. The filings failed to state
New Energy's inability to cease the counterfeiting of its
products; and
d) the filings failed to state that increased competition had
caused a permanent slowdown in sales.
On November 14, 2011, New Energy filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending September 30, 2011, in which the Company disclosed, among
other things, a 42% decrease in year-over-year quarterly revenue
and a customer lawsuit alleging, among other things, that its
subsidiary would not accept returns of its faulty products.
In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of New Energy common stock. Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased said common stock, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.
If you purchased New Energy common stock during the Class Period,
you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
April 10, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.
Wolf Haldenstein prosecutes securities class actions and
derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate
courts across the country. The firm has approximately 70
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New
York City and San Diego.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact:
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Derek Behnke
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (800) 575-0735
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
Web site: http://www.whafh.com
All e-mail correspondence should make reference to New Energy.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on May 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for final approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit is set for May 1,
2012, according to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 25, 2011.
On October 29, 2008, Ronald Acaldo filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler. The Complaint alleged that the
Company and the individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On November 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler. The allegations in the Howes
Complaint are identical to those in the Acaldo Complaint, as are
the class allegations and relief sought. The defendants were
never served with the Howes Complaint.
On May 14, 2009, the Court consolidated the Acaldo and Howes cases
and renamed the style of the case, "In re: Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation Securities Litigation." On May 21, 2009, the Court
granted the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group's Motion for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff. Thereafter, on June 26, 2009, the
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated (and amended) Complaint. The
Consolidated Complaint dismissed the Company and Clifford E.
Butler as Defendants. In addition, the Consolidated Complaint
added the following directors as Defendants: Charles L. Black, Key
Coker, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Jr.,
Donald L. Wass, Linda Chavez, and Keith W. Hughes. The
Consolidated Complaint alleges four causes of action: violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder solely
against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Clint Rivers, and Richard A. Cogdill
(the "Officer Defendants"). Those claims assert that, during the
Class Period of May 5, 2008, through October 28, 2008, the
defendants, through various financial statements, press releases
and conference calls, made material misstatements of fact and/or
omitted to disclose material facts by purportedly failing to
completely impair the goodwill associated with the Gold Kist Inc.
acquisition. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants,
asserting that, statements made in a registration statement in
connection with the May 14, 2008 secondary offering of the
Company's common stock were materially false and misleading for
their failure to completely impair the goodwill associated with
the Gold Kist acquisition. Finally, the Consolidated Complaint
asserts a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the Officer Defendants only, claiming that the Officer
Defendants were controlling persons of the Company and the other
defendants in connection with the Section 11 violation. By the
Consolidated Complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks certification of
the Class, undisclosed damages, and costs and attorneys' fees.
On July 27, 2009, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint for its failure to adequately plead, as to
the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims, scienter and loss causation
and, as to the Sections 11 and 15 claims, for its failure to
adequately plead misrepresentations and omissions. Defendants
requested that the Consolidated Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.
On August 17, 2010, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order on the motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying in
part, the defendants' motion. The Court dismissed without
prejudice the plaintiffs' claims alleging securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and for
controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect
to the plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation under
Section 11 of the Securities Act and for controlling person
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs
were granted leave to amend their complaint but elected not to do
so. The defendants filed their Original Answer to the Complaint
on November 15, 2010.
On May 9, 2011, the Court issued an Order setting a class
certification hearing for February 7, 2012, and ordering the
parties to confer and file a Docket Control Order by May 26, 2011.
Thereafter, as per the Court's Order, the parties negotiated a
proposed Docket Control Order, which was signed by the Court on
May 31, 2011.
The parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter for
$1.5 million, subject to Court approval. A Stipulation of
Settlement was filed on November 14, 2011. On January 23, 2012,
the Court issued an order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, in
which the Court set a hearing date for the final approval of
settlement for May 1, 2012.
If the case does not settle as expected, the defendants intend to
defend vigorously against the merits of the action and any
attempts by the Lead Plaintiff to certify a class action.
About Pilgrim's Pride
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is
one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico
and Puerto Rico. The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold
throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern
and central regions of Mexico. The Company exports commodity
chicken products to 90 countries. The Company operates feed
mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in
15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on
its and other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 25, 2011.
On December 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, the Company's Compensation Committee and other unnamed
defendants (the "Patterson action"). On January 2, 2009, a nearly
identical lawsuit was filed by Denise M. Smalls in the same court
against the same defendants (the "Smalls action"). The complaints
in both actions, brought pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132, alleged that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the
Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as
administered through the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan
(the "RSP"), and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and
Retirement Plan (the "To-Ricos Plan") (collectively, the "Plans")
by failing to sell the common stock held by the Plans before it
declined in value in late 2008, based on factual allegations
similar to the allegation made in the Acaldo securities case.
Patterson and Smalls further alleged that they purported to
represent a class of all persons or entities who were participants
in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between May 5, 2008,
through the present and whose accounts held the Company's common
stock or units in the Company's common stock. Both complaints
sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plans
suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution
in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and
the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each
of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants.
On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Smalls and Patterson actions. On August 12, 2009, the Court
ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption
"In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No.
2:08-cv-472-TJW."
Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint
("Amended Complaint") on March 2, 2010. The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez,
S. Key Coker, Keith W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller,
James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard
A. Cogdill, the Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A.
Wright, Jane Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride
Administrative Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn
Boyden, and "John Does 1-10." The Amended Complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between
January 29, 2008, through December 1, 2008 ("the alleged class
period"), and whose accounts included investments in the Company's
common stock.
Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos
Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the
Company's common stock during the alleged class period. The
Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were
"appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of
the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed. Further, the Amended
Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries
for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiffs seek actual damages
in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan attributable
to the decline in the value of the common stock held by the Plans,
to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as
benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged diminution in
value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for equitable
restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a
declaration that each of the defendants have breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's participants.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
May 3, 2010. The plaintiffs responded to that motion on July 2,
2010, dropping plaintiff Smalls from the case and adding an
additional plaintiff, Stanley Sylvestros. The defendants filed
their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 2,
2010. The defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in
support of their motion to dismiss on April 13, 2011, to which the
plaintiffs responded on April 27, 2011. The plaintiffs in turn
filed their own notice of supplement authority in opposition to
the motion to dismiss on April 27, 2011, to which the defendants
responded on May 10, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the case was
reassigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and on January 25, 2012,
Judge Gilstrap referred the proceedings to Magistrate Roy S.
Payne. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.
About Pilgrim's Pride
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is
one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico
and Puerto Rico. The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold
throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern
and central regions of Mexico. The Company exports commodity
chicken products to 90 countries. The Company operates feed
mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in
15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Claims in Fuel Recovery Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, dismissed in
November 2011 class allegations in the lawsuit commenced by
Klingler's European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc., against a subsidiary
of Republic Services, Inc., according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On November 20, 2009, Klingler's European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc.,
filed a complaint against the Company's subsidiary, BFI Waste
Services, LLC in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama,
in which plaintiff complains about fuel recovery fees and
administrative fees charged. The complaint purports to be filed
on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in Alabama.
This complaint asserts various legal and equitable theories of
recovery and alleges in essence that the fees were not properly
disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract. Class-
certification-related discovery concluded, plaintiff did not move
for class certification by the November 10, 2011 deadline, and
during a hearing on November 22, 2011, plaintiff withdrew its
class allegations. On November 29, 2011, the Court dismissed the
class allegations, without prejudice. Although Plaintiff has not
specified the amount of damages sought, the fees at issue total
less than $1,600.
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Livingston Suit Settlement Approved in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit
arising from its facility in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, was
approved in December 2011, according to the Company's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On October 13, 2009, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court,
Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, issued its Post Class
Certification Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a lawsuit
alleging nuisance from the activities of the former hazardous
waste facility owned by the Company's subsidiary CECOS
International, Inc. (CECOS) located in Livingston Parish,
Louisiana. The court granted class certification for all those
living within a six mile radius of the CECOS site between the
years 1977 and 1990. The Company appealed the class certification
order. On August 17, 2011, the court of appeals granted a joint
motion to remand the case to the trial court for the parties to
finalize a proposed settlement. The parties executed a settlement
agreement on September 15, 2011, which was approved by the trial
court at a fairness hearing on December 8, 2011. The settlement
agreement provides for payment of $29.5 million to settle the
claims of the class. Expiration of the appeal period was on
February 23, 2012.
ROBERT MERICLE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times Leader, reports that
a federal judge on Feb. 28 granted preliminary approval to a
$17.75 million settlement of the "kids for cash" class action
lawsuits reached with real estate developer Robert Mericle.
Under the order approved on Feb. 28, all seeking compensation will
be required to file a proof of claim by May 13. Class members who
fail to file the claim will be forever barred from receiving any
money from the settlement.
U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo said he found the terms of
the settlement to be sufficiently reasonable to allow the case to
advance, but final approval will not be decided until a final
settlement hearing on Sept. 10.
The ruling allows attorneys for thousands of juveniles represented
by the class to move forward with various legal obligations they
must meet to effectuate the settlement. They include notifying
all plaintiffs of their rights and their ability to opt-out of
agreement if they disagree with its terms.
Judge Caputo said he will consider the fairness and reasonableness
of the settlement at the final hearing in September, as well as
the amount of fees that will be paid to the plaintiffs' lawyers,
who could receive as much as $5.3 million.
Mr. Mericle agreed in December to pay $17.75 million to resolve a
series of class action suits filed against him for his role in the
juvenile justice scandal that led to the convictions of former
judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella on corruption charges.
The allegations in each suit varied but were based on the general
premise that judges conspired with others to improperly
incarcerate juveniles at two juvenile detention centers built by
Mr. Mericle.
The settlement impacts all juveniles who appeared before
Mr. Ciavarella, the county's former juvenile court judge, from
Jan. 1, 2003 to May 28, 2008, regardless if they are a named
plaintiff in the suit.
The agreement resolves only claims that were filed against
Mericle. Claims against other defendants, including the ex-judges
and Robert Powell, the one-time co-owner of the centers, continue.
Affected juveniles will receive between $500 to $5,000, dependent
upon whether they were incarcerated and other factors relating to
their specific cases. Parents will also be able to recover money
they paid toward their child's incarceration.
Under the order approved on Feb. 28, all seeking compensation will
be required to file a proof of claim by May 13. Class members who
fail to file the claim will be forever barred from receiving any
money from the settlement.
Those wishing to opt-out of the settlement must also do so by
May 13. They will be required to take part in non-binding
mediation with Mr. Mericle that will be conducted by attorney
Richard G. Fine of Scranton.
The amount each person who agrees to the settlement will be paid
will be decided by a claims committee, which will evaluate each
case. Appeals of the committee's determinations will be handled
by retired Judge Marina Corodemus, Judge Caputo said in the order.
The order does not indicate in which court Judge Corodemus
previously presided.
The order also states that any class member who wishes to remain
in the settlement, but to object its terms, must do so by writing
to the claims committee no later than May 12.
THOMAS & BETTS: Faces Two ABB Merger-Related Suits in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas & Betts Corporation is facing two putative class action
lawsuits challenging its proposed merger with a subsidiary of ABB
Ltd., according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.
On January 29, 2012, Thomas & Betts Corporation, Swiss-based ABB
Ltd. ("ABB") and a wholly owned subsidiary of ABB entered into a
merger agreement. At the closing of the merger contemplated by
the merger agreement, (i) the Corporation will become a wholly
owned indirect subsidiary of ABB, and (ii) each common share of
the Corporation will be converted into the right to receive $72.00
in cash (approximately $3.9 billion total purchase consideration),
without interest.
Shortly after the announcement of the merger, two putative class
action lawsuits challenging the merger were filed in the Chancery
Court for Shelby County, 20th Judicial District, for the State of
Tennessee, against Thomas & Betts, ABB, Edison Acquisition Corp.
(ABB's acquisition vehicle), and the individual members of Thomas
& Betts' Board of Directors. The complaints are captioned
Employees Retirement System of the City of Providence v. Thomas &
Betts Corporation et. al, Case No. CH-12-0164-1, and Coyne v.
Pileggi et al., Case No. CH-12-0189-3. The complaints generally
allege that the members of the Thomas & Betts Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Thomas & Betts' shareholders by
entering into the merger agreement, approving the proposed merger
and failing to take steps to maximize Thomas & Betts' value to its
shareholders, and that Thomas & Betts, ABB and Edison Acquisition
Corp. aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. In
addition, the complaints allege that the proposed merger
improperly favors ABB and that certain provisions of the merger
agreement unduly restrict Thomas & Betts' ability to negotiate
with other potential bidders. The complaints generally seek,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, preliminary
injunctive relief prohibiting or delaying the defendants from
consummating the merger, and other forms of equitable relief.
The defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
plan to defend them vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out
of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed
in the future. There is no assurance that the Company or any of
the other defendants will be successful in the outcome of the
pending or any potential future lawsuits.
THYSSENKRUPP: Ontario Court Certifies Sheave Jammer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been certified by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in a class action brought by Toronto Community Housing
Corporation and others, against ThyssenKrupp. The class action
arises as a result of a safety order issued by the Technical
Standards and Safety Authority ("TSSA") in December 2006.
Pursuant to TSSA Director's Order 207/06, all owners of traction
elevating devices that had been equipped with a ThyssenKrupp
sheave jammer were required to remove the sheave jammers and
replace them with an alternative form of emergency secondary
braking protection. The average cost of replacement was
approximately $12,000, and approximately 2000 elevators were
affected by the Director's Order.
In the class action, the plaintiffs allege that the sheave jammers
were dangerous and defective, and that they were negligently
designed, manufactured, sold or installed by the defendants. The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class, reimbursement for the
costs they incurred to replace the sheave jammer with an
alternative, reliable secondary braking device. In addition, the
plaintiffs allege that ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited
breached its maintenance contracts with some of the class members
because it refused to remove and replace the sheave jammers
without charge under the terms of its elevator maintenance
agreements.
None of the allegations have been proven in court, and the
defendants deny liability.
The Class is comprised of all persons in Ontario who owned or own
an elevating device that was fitted with a traction motor brake,
known as a sheave jammer or sheave brake, designed, manufactured,
sold or installed by any of the Defendants, that was replaced as
required by TSSA Director's Order 207/06 with an alternative form
of emergency ascending car overspeed (ACO) and uncontrolled car
movement (UCM) protection, and incurred remediation expenses as a
result. Claims made by customers who were reimbursed by Tarion
Warranty Corporation are included in this class action with
respect to Tarion's subrogated claims.
Further information regarding the class action is available on
Class Counsel's Web site at:
http://www.paliareroland.com/Elevator-Class-Action.asp
TIME WARNER: Appeal From Set-Top Cable MDL Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These
actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action
complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that the
Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various
state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices
statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services
to the leasing of set-top converters boxes. The plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages
and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September
30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17,
2011, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
TIME WARNER: Appeal in "Brantley" Suit Pending in Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brantley, et al.'s appeal from the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit against Time Warner Cable Inc. remains pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to Time Warner's
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company. The complaint, which also
named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers
(collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as
programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer
defendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged
coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell
and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor
defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to
subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "a
la carte") basis. Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported
nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are seeking,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an
injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an
"a la carte" basis. On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in this action that, among other things, dropped
the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal
coordination. On October 15, 2009, the district court granted
with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and the
programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, terminating the action.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on June 3, 2011, the
court reaffirmed the district court's decision. On July 7, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc rehearing and, on
October 31, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
withdrew the June 3, 2011 decision and directed that the appellate
panel be reconstituted to consider the plaintiffs' appeal.
The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
TIME WARNER: Appeal in "Swinegar" Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit commenced by Mark Swinegar,
et al., remains pending, according to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s
February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for
equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation
of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (the "Cable Act") against "negative option
billing" and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice
under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). Plaintiffs
are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys' fees. On
February 23, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and, on July 29, 2010, the
court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment. On
October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory
ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC")
requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company's general
ordering process complies with the Cable Act's "negative option
billing" restriction. On March 1, 2011, the FCC issued a
Declaratory Ruling that informed consent is adequate to satisfy
the requirements under the Cable Act. On March 29, 2011, the Los
Angeles County Superior Court vacated its prior summary judgment
ruling and, on May 12, 2011, the court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment. On June 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the decision, which the court denied
on July 28, 2011. On September 26, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal for the Second
District.
The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
TIME WARNER: Awaits Approval of "Calzada" Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a purported class action lawsuit filed against a
subsidiary, the Company disclosed in its February 17, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.
On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded
phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of
provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair
Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief,
restitution and attorneys' fees. On April 4, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other
things, omitted the unfair business practices claim and removed
two of the three named plaintiffs. The parties reached a
settlement to resolve this action on terms that are not material
to the Company and submitted their agreement to the court on
January 5, 2012. Absent the issuance of a final court approval of
the settlement, the Company intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Fink" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Jessica Fink and
Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., appealed the
dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.
On August 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia,
et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a
purported class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttling
technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-
speed data service. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On September 6,
2011, the district court partially granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment and/or for partial judgment on the pleadings,
but denied the motion as to two claims under the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act of 1986 ("CFAA") and one common law fraud claim. On
October 28, 2011, the district court granted the Company's motion
for reconsideration of the court's denial of the Company's motion
as to the two CFAA claims, dismissing the CFAA claims with
prejudice. On September 30, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint and, on December 23, 2011, the district court
granted with prejudice the Company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, terminating the action.
On January 23, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals in Privacy Suits to Be Heard This Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. expects that appeals from settlements in privacy
and Louisiana actions will be heard sometime this year, according
to the Company's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
The Company is a defendant in sixteen purported class actions that
arose from activities of its Performance Data Division that was
discontinued over 10 years ago. Fifteen of these purported class
actions alleging violations of federal law were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) and are known as
In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350.
These matters are referred as the "Privacy Litigation." A
companion class action alleging violation of Louisiana state law
was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union LLC, case No. 02-18553,
Civil District, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana), and referred to
matter as the "Louisiana Action."
The Privacy Litigation, which began in 2000, was the result of the
Company's sale of information, including names and addresses of
individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes. The Federal
Trade Commission challenged the Company's target marketing
practice in 1992, which challenge resulted in a final decision
rendered in 1999 holding that certain target marketing lists that
the Company sold were consumer reports as defined in the United
States Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended ("FCRA"), and were
sold for purposes not permitted under the FCRA. Following that
decision, the fifteen purported class actions were filed, alleging
that each target marketing list was sold in willful violation of
the FCRA and seeking statutory damages.
A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action
was approved on September 17, 2008 (the "Settlement"). Pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement the Company paid $75.0 million into
a fund for the benefit of class members on July 7, 2008, and the
Company provided approximately 600,000 individuals with free
credit monitoring services. All class members released their
procedural rights to pursue the claims alleged in these matters
through the pending, or any new, class action. However, all class
members (other than the named plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation
and the Louisiana Action) did retain their right to bring a
separate, individual claim against the Company for the violations
alleged in these matters provided these claims were asserted on or
before September 16, 2010 (the "PSCs"). The Settlement provides
that any money remaining in the fund after payment of notice
costs, class counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used
to satisfy any such PSCs, with remaining funds distributed on a
pro-rata basis to class members who elected to receive a potential
cash payment in the Settlement as part of the consideration to
release their procedural rights.
The Company has been advised that there are approximately 100,000
PSCs seeking payment from the Settlement fund. Through court
monitored mediation with counsel representing the class members
and the PSCs claimants, the Company has entered into agreements to
settle substantially all of these PSCs for payments from the
Settlement fund to bring this matter to conclusion. The Court, on
May 25, 2011, and September 8, 2011, rejected all objections made
by class counsel to the settlements entered into with respect to
the PSCs, and confirmed and approved these settlements as being in
accordance with the Settlement. Class counsel in the Settlement
has appealed these rulings by the Court seeking to obtain either
additional attorney fees from counsel to the PSCs claimants or a
return of attorney fees received by counsel to the PSCs claimants
to the Settlement fund.
The Company expects these appeals to be heard sometime in 2012.
The Company believes the amount in the Settlement fund is
sufficient to meet all demands asserted either by the noted appeal
or by any settling or non-settling PSCs.
Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.
TRANSUNION CORP: Expects "White" Suit Appeals Resolution in 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. expects that appeals challenging the approval of
a settlement of monetary claims in a class action lawsuit over
reporting of consumer debt obligations will be consolidated and
resolved sometime in 2013, according to the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In a matter captioned White, et al, v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against Equifax
Inc., Experian plc and the Company in connection with the
reporting of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations
on a consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a
bankruptcy proceeding. The claims allege that each national
consumer reporting company did not automatically update a
consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such
non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure
maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the United States Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company has agreed to a
settlement of this matter. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved
an agreement whereby the Company and the other industry defendants
voluntarily changed certain operational practices. These changes
require the Company to update certain delinquent records when the
Company learns, through the collection of public records, that the
consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy
proceeding. These business practice changes did not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's operations or those of
its customers.
In 2009, the Company also agreed, with the other two defendants,
to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for
$17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount has
been, or will be, paid into a settlement fund that will be used to
pay the class counsel's attorney fees, all administration and
notice costs of the fund to the purported class, and a variable
damage amount to consumers within the class based on the level of
harm the consumer is able to confirm. The Company's share of this
settlement is fully covered by insurance. Final approval of this
monetary settlement by the Court occurred on July 15, 2011.
Certain objectors to this monetary settlement have appealed the
decision of the Court.
The Company expects these appeals to be consolidated and resolved
sometime in 2013. If the monetary settlement is not upheld, the
Company expects to vigorously litigate this matter and to assert
what it believes are valid defenses to the claims made by the
plaintiffs. Although the Company believes it has valid defenses
and have not violated any law, and although it has additional
insurance coverage available with respect to this matter, the
ultimate outcome of this matter is not certain. However, the
Company does not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.
Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.
TRANSUNION CORP: Still Defends Suit Over Employment Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, 2011, a claim (Leslie Ellis Thomas v. VeriFirst
Background Screening LLC and Trans Union LLC, No. 211-CV-02461-PD,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) was filed purporting to be a class action alleging
that consumers did not timely receive a copy of a letter from
TransUnion Corp. or VeriFirst Background Screening LLC (an
unrelated third party), which letter notified the consumer that a
consumer report containing an adverse public record was provided
by the defendants to a prospective employer of the consumer.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter as it
does not believe it has acted in a manner that is inconsistent
with current law and regulatory guidance.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.
TRANSUNION CORP: Still Defends Suit Over Virginia Public Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action captioned Donna K. Soutter v. Trans
Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was filed in 2010 and alleges
that TransUnion Corp. fails to maintain reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect to the
collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release, dismissal
or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state court system.
The Company, like its competitors, contract with a third-party
vendor to collect public records on a timely basis. The plaintiff
alleges that the diligence used to gather and report
satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and
that the established intervals between trips to the various state
courthouses to gather this information is too infrequent. The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter as it
believes it has acted in a lawful manner.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.
TWIN OAKS: Recalls 2,300 Hammock Stands Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Twin Oaks, of Louisa, Virginia, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,300 Standard and Economy Hammock Stands. Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The foot brackets used to support the hammock can crack, causing
the stand to collapse. This poses a fall hazard to consumers.
Twin Oaks has received 43 reports of cracked foot brackets,
including several reports of consumers who fell to the ground when
the foot brackets collapsed. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves hammock stands made from steel pipe and sold
in green and black under the Twin Oaks brand. The hammock stands
are used with all Twin Oaks double and family-sized rope hammocks,
as well as all Twin Oaks fabric hammocks. Model number 14015
(green) or 14016 (black) is printed on the instruction materials
included with the stand. Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12123.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by Twin
Oaks catalog and Web site, craft fairs and independent retail
stores nationwide from December 2007 through June 2011 for between
$100 and $150.
Consumers should immediately stop using the hammock stands and
contact Twin Oaks Hammocks for instructions on returning the foot
brackets for a free replacement. For additional information,
consumers should contact Twin Oaks Hammocks at (800) 688-8946
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.twinoakshammocks.com/
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Unit Faces Class Suit in California Over ODPs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Bank is facing a class action lawsuit in California over
its overdraft protection programs, according to Umpqua Holdings
Corporation's February 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On December 29, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California-San Francisco Division (case no.
11-6700), Amber Hawthorne filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company's wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Umpqua Bank, on behalf
of herself and a national class, including a sub-class of
California residents seeking in excess of $5 million, plus
punitive damages, alleging that Umpqua Bank engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices by posting debit items in a high to low order
to maximize overdraft fees, automatically enrolling customers in
debit Overdraft Protection ("ODP") programs before the Regulation
E revisions, failing to adequately disclose posting order,
manipulating posting to maximize ODP fees and failing to advise
customers how to minimize fees. Plaintiff alleges claims for
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a
violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 (for the
California subclass).
The claims are in the initial stage of investigation but Umpqua
believes that the claims are not supportable and are overstated
and the Company intends to vigorously defend the case.
VERIZON: Class Action Settlement Obtains Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Kolton, Chtd., David Schachman & Associates, P.C., Keller
Grover LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Feb. 29
disclosed that a class action settlement has been reached that
will make it possible for Verizon landline customers to receive
100% refunds for unauthorized third-party charges. The
settlement, preliminarily approved by United States District Court
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, comes in a suit alleging that
Verizon billed its landline phone customers for charges from
third-party companies that were not authorized by the customer (a
practice known as "cramming"), in violation of federal and state
law. Verizon denies any wrongdoing. Both sides have agreed to
settle the lawsuit to avoid the cost, delay, and uncertainty of
litigation. The settlement was negotiated under the supervision
of retired judge Daniel H. Weinstein.
David Schachman, one of the lead counsel for the class, commented,
"This is a truly excellent result for the class. Verizon is to be
commended for demonstrating its commitment to protecting its
customers from unauthorized third-party charges and providing a
make-whole remedy to those who paid unauthorized third-party
charges." Fellow Class Counsel Jahan C. Sagafi, of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein continued, "Unfortunately, cramming is
widespread today because people often don't even realize that they
have been billed. Many consumers have been billed for months and
even years for these third-party charges without even knowing it.
That is why it is so important for customers to get the free
billing summaries that this settlement provides so they can check
to see if, in fact, they paid third party charges and determine
whether they authorized them."
Class Counsel Bryan Kolton added: "Some settlement class members
may have a claim for hundreds or thousands of dollars in refunds
under the settlement." Mr. Kolton added that one of the
significant benefits available to the class is Verizon's agreement
"to provide summaries of all third party charges, for free, and in
customer-friendly fashion, to any Class Member that requests the
summary." According to Mr. Kolton, this will help customers find
out if they paid these charges and, if so, will make it easy to
obtain a refund of 100% of any unauthorized charges.
As part of the proposed Settlement, Verizon has also agreed to
require various specific changes to billing practices that are
designed to prevent cramming in the future. John Jacobs, one of
the lead counsel for the class added, "It is difficult to
overstate the credit that is due Verizon for its commitment to
fixing the third-party billing system as it relates to Verizon
customers. By this settlement, Verizon has committed to extensive
and unprecedented changes that we believe will go a long way
toward eliminating cramming and will change the industry." For
example, under the settlement, "for all new landline customers,
most third-party charges can be included in the customer's phone
bill only if the customer first explicitly agrees to permit third-
party charges on their bills."
According to Class Counsel Jeffrey Keller, "Everybody associated
with this settlement worked hard to reach this remarkable result.
We are all extremely proud of the benefits this settlement will
provide to Verizon's customers."
Refund Procedure
Verizon landline phone customers nationwide (including
individuals, businesses and local governmental entities) who were
billed for third-party charges from April 27, 2005 through
February 28, 2012 will be able to recover 100% of all money they
paid in unauthorized third-party charges during that period by
submitting a "Full Payment Claim" or recover a refund of $40 by
submitting a "Flat Payment Claim." Both forms will be available
at http://www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.comand must be
submitted by November 15, 2012. There is no dollar cap on the
monetary recovery to be paid under the Settlement.
To request a summary of third party charges, a Claim Form, or more
information, contact the Settlement Administrator at
http://www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com,1-877-772-6219,
or questions@verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com
The Web site and toll free number will be operational by March 9,
2012. To get a payment, class members must submit a valid claim
form by November 15, 2012.
VIA TRAIN: Two Law Firms File Class Action in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
On February 29, 2012, a class action was commenced relating to the
VIA train derailment that occurred near Burlington Ontario, on
February 26, 2012.
Koskie Minsky LLP, a leading class action firm, and Howie Sacks &
Henry LLP, a personal injury firm, have commenced the action on
behalf of David Carmichael and all of the passengers and their
family members.
The plaintiff, Mr. Carmichael, and his son were passengers on the
train travelling from Niagara Falls to Toronto at the time of the
derailment. Mr. Carmichael suffered serious injuries, including
spinal fractures along with fractures to his ribs, nasal bone, and
sternum.
The class action is seeking compensation for physical and
psychological injuries along with loss of income and damage to
property.
*********
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 * * *