/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120314.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 52 Headlines APPLE: Wants E-Book Conspiracy Class Action Tossed ARCHIPELAGO LEARNING: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees BAY GRENVILLE: Faces Class Actions Over Falling Glass CH ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Suit Claims CITY OF ATLANTA, GA: To Pay Legal Fees in Firefighter Test Suit EMPIRE STATE: Sued Over One-Sided "Roll Up" Transaction MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Wins Dealers' Class Action in Missouri MASCO CORP: Trial in Columbus Drywall Class Suit Set for July MEDCO HEALTH: Class Certification Bids Remain Pending in PBM MDL MEDCO HEALTH: Hearing on Merger-Related Suits Deal on April 16 MEDCO HEALTH: Still Defends "Alameda" Class Suit in California MONSANTO: Details of $93-Mil. Class Action Settlement Unveiled MYLAN INC: Unit Awaits Final OK of Class Suit Settlement NCAA: Athletes Challenge Order to Pay Legal Fees in Fox Suit NOVARTIS PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action Over "Kickbacks" PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Containerboard Class Suit PANERA BREAD: Negotiates Terms of Consolidated Suit Settlement PANERA BREAD: Still Defends Employees' Class Suit in Florida RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit On hold Pending "Brinker" Ruling RADIOSHACK CORP: Certification Bids in Ill. Suit Held in Abeyance RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Defends Song-Beverly Act-Violations Suits RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties Agree to Stay "Ordonez" Class Suit SILVER LINING: Faces Class Action Over Alleged HOA Conspiracy SONY BMG: Settles Class Action Over Digital Music Revenue SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Bogus "UCTDR" Fee STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Landowners File Files Class Action STATE OF WISCONSIN: May Face Class Action Over Voter ID Law STERLING FAMILY: Sued for Ignoring Fire-Safety Regulations SURGERYLOANS.COM INC: Faces Fraud Class Action in Illinois WAL-MART STORES: Settlement in Retirement Suit Gets Final Okay WELLS FARGO: Accused of Charging Improper Tax Service Fees * Price Gouging Bill May Spur More Movie Popcorn Class Actions ********* APPLE: Wants E-Book Conspiracy Class Action Tossed -------------------------------------------------- Daniel Eran Dilger, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple has asked that a class action lawsuit claiming the company conspired with book publishers to raise the price of ebooks be thrown out, stating that the plaintiffs' arguments didn't make sense and that "this allegation just strings together antitrust buzzwords." According to a report by PaidContent.org, Apple argued "that its business plan was to sell as many e-books as possible and that it had no incentive to raise prices. It also claims that is was a new and inexperienced player in a business in which Amazon dominated with 90 percent marketshare." The plaintiffs in the case have based their claims largely upon Steve Jobs' comment to Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal, which suggested that publishers "unhappy" with Amazon's efforts to mandate a standard $10 ebook price would likely just withhold their titles from Amazon's store. Apple's attorneys say Mr. Jobs' words were being "mischaracterized" by the plaintiffs, explaining that Mr. Jobs simply thought Apple's business strategy was more attractive than Amazon's. The plaintiffs in the case argue that Apple conspired with publishers to raise the price of ebooks in order to blunt the impact of Amazon's Kindle on the tablet market, something Apple's attorneys described as a nonsensical "Kindle Theory." This "Kindle theory," Apple's filing stated, does not "make sense on its own terms. For example, if Amazon was a 'threat' that needed to be squelched by means of an illegal conspiracy, why would Apple offer Amazon's Kindle app on the iPad?" Sarcastically alluding to Amazon's loss leader book pricing, Apple's legal argument added the zinger, "Why would Apple conclude that conspiring to force Amazon to no longer lose money on eBooks would cripple Amazon's competitive fortunes?" The filing further asked, "And why would Apple perceive the need for an illegal solution to the 'Kindle threat' when it had an obvious and lawful one which it implemented -- namely, introducing a multipurpose device (the iPad) whose marketing and sales success was not centered on eBook sales?" Apple pioneered the concept of selling digital content at a fixed low price in iTunes with 99 cent songs, followed by similarly low standard pricing of videos and movies, all prices the music labels and studios balked at supporting. Apple has since relaxed its standard pricing to allow publishers to sell their content at variable prices. In ebooks however, Apple found such resistance for pushing the price of digital titles down to the $9.99 price set by Amazon that it allowed publishers to adopt their own pricing from the start, often closer to $12.99, under a model known as "agency pricing," the same model Amazon uses to sell Android apps. Under Apple's agency pricing model, publishers selling titles in its iBookstore couldn't also sell their same titles at a lower price elsewhere, another term Amazon similarly sought to use to prevent Android app developers from undercutting its own sales. Amazon Kindle users and other readers upset by the $2 difference in ebook prices set by Amazon and publishers working with Apple have asked the US Department of Justice to get involved, which has announced plans to sue Apple and book publishers Simon & Schuster, Hachette, Penguin, Macmillan and HarperCollins over the Kindle Theory conspiracy. ARCHIPELAGO LEARNING: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Archipelago Learning is selling itself too cheaply to Plato Learning, for $11.10 a share or $291 million, in Dallas County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Bushansky v. Archipelago Learning, Inc., et al., Case No. CC-12-01531-C (Dallas, Tex. Cty. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. Scott Kitner, Esq. STANLEY IOLA, LLP 3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleyiola.com skitner@stanleyiola.com - and - Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. Joshua M. Rubin, Esq. Julia J. Sun, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com jrubin@weisslurie.com jsun@weisslurie.com BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in city court claims Barnes-Jewish Hospital, BJC Health System and Washington University charge patients pricey, undisclosed fees for treatment. Named plaintiff Adam Flath claims he learned of the fees after being treated at the Center for Advanced Medicine, an outpatient facility at the Washington University Medical Center, on Oct. 3, 2011. "The treatment was a simple outpatient procedure that took three minutes at most," the complaint states. "But because this simple treatment was performed in a doctor's office next to Barnes-Jewish Hospital, the charges were $1,004.00, including a $420.00 facility fee from Barnes-Jewish Hospital, even though it was a non- hospital, outpatient procedure performed in a doctor's office, which could have been performed in any doctor's office, whether or not it was next to a hospital. "Defendants never disclosed to plaintiff before the treatment that this simple procedure would include a facility fee from Barnes- Jewish Hospital to patients who receive services at doctor's offices and outpatient clinic next to or affiliated with Barnes- Jewish Hospital, even though the services are non-hospital outpatient services." The class consists of all patients who received services at a doctor's office or outpatient clinic affiliated with Barnes-Jewish Hospital and BJC who were charged a facility fee for non-hospital, outpatient services. It seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. A copy of the Complaint in Flath v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, et al., Case No. 1222-CC01280 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Barnes.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Charpentier, Esq. GROWE EISEN KARLEN 7733 Forsyth, Suite 325 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 721-1228 E-mail: jason@groweeisen.com - and - Ryan M. Furniss, Esq. THE FURNISS LAW FIRM, LLC 1509 Washington Avenue, Suite 660 St. Louis, MO 63103 Telephone: (314) 914-2522 E-mail: rfurniss@furnisslaw.com BAY GRENVILLE: Faces Class Actions Over Falling Glass ----------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that shattering balcony glass has prompted downtown condo owners to launch class-action suits against the developers, contractors and others, the plaintiffs' lawyers said on March 8. The proposed actions in Ontario Superior Court allege negligence in the construction of two separate condo developments in which glass shattered and crashed to the streets below. The falling-glass issue prompted sealing of the balconies months ago. "(The plaintiffs) have not been able to access their balconies, thereby suffering from the loss of enjoyment of their units and the common areas," according to the statement of claim. In addition, the loss of use of the balconies has meant lower rental income and unit values, the plaintiffs claim. Each of the suits seek C$20 million in general and other damages. The action on behalf of owners and renters of the units in the Murano Towers names Bay Grenville Properties and Lanterra Developments among others. The proposed suit against Festival Tower located in the city's entertainment district names King and John Festival Corp. and the Daniels Corp. The class actions have yet to be certified and none of the allegations has been tested in any court. The defendants could not be reached immediately for comment. Murano plaintiffs say the first balcony glass shattered on the north tower in April 2010, and by last September, there had been at least 14 similar incidents. In one case last summer, tempered glass rained down from a 29th floor Murano balcony onto Bay Street, causing minor injuries to a pedestrian. In August, the sliding glass doors to the balconies were sealed and notices posted prohibiting opening the doors or using the balconies, the statement of claim says. The Festival Tower arguments are similar to those made in the Murano suit, with the plaintiffs saying they have suffered damages because their balconies were sealed after glass shattered and fell. "One or more of the defendants clad the entire facade of Festival Tower in black mesh," the suit says. Lawyer Ted Charney said the aim of the suits was to "compensate the class members for the loss of use of their outdoor living space and to motivate the builders to correct the problem as soon as possible." Among others named as defendants are architects Alliance and Toro Aluminum Railings, which installs glass panels. CH ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CH Energy Group, Inc., Steven Lant, Margarita Dilley, Steven Fetter, Stanley Grubel, Manuel Iraola, E. Michel Kruse, Edward Tokar, Jeffery Tranen, Ernest Verebelyi, Fortis, Inc., FortisUS, Inc., Cascade Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. 650697/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 7, 2012) is a shareholder class action brought on behalf of CH Energy's shareholders to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of CH Energy common stock by Fortis Inc. In pursuing this unlawful plan to sell CH Energy for inadequate consideration and negotiating the terms of the Proposed Transaction through a flawed process, each of the Defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching and aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that the Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale of CH Energy to Fortis on terms preferential to Fortis, but detrimental to the Plaintiffs and the other public stockholders of CH Energy. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of CH Energy. CH Energy, a New York corporation, provides electricity, natural gas, propane, fuel oil and other petroleum products to approximately 375,000 customers throughout New York's Mid-Hudson River Valley. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the CH Energy. Fortis is a corporation organized under the Corporations Act of Newfoundland and Labrador. Fortis is a distribution utility in Canada serving over 2,000,000 customers with gas and electricity. FortisUS is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis. Cascade is a New York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis. Cascade was formed for the purpose of facilitating the Proposed Transaction and will cease to exist upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Skelton, Esq. David C. Harrison, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway White Plains Plaza, 5th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: tskelton@lowey.com dharrison@lowey.com - and - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Christopher S. Jones, Esq. Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com cjones@saxenawhite.com jstein@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com CITY OF ATLANTA, GA: To Pay Legal Fees in Firefighter Test Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the City of Atlanta will have to pay three of its firefighters $320,000 for legal fees from a class action lawsuit claiming city officials did nothing to address allegations of cheating on a fire department promotion test, a judge ruled on March 7. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kelly A. Lee also ruled that five Atlanta firefighters who scored higher than a 90 on the city's written test for lieutenant will be stripped of their provisional promotions and corresponding pay until an independent retest can be given. The lawsuit, filed last year, alleged the city didn't fully investigate cheating allegations raised against an undisclosed number of firefighters who took the April 2010 exam. Last month, a jury ruled in favor of three firefighters who claimed, on behalf of 160 other fire employees who took the test, that two assistant chiefs provided answers to several firefighters before the exam. Deputy City Attorney Eric Richardson objected to the jury verdict and the judge's decision. He said the city intends to appeal the ruling. "There's been no proof . . . no direct evidence of cheating," Mr. Richardson said. The jury didn't indicate which individuals cheated, but Judge Lee on March 7 pointed at the top scorers when she made her decision to invalidate their promotions. "If the people who scored the top scores -- who never scored them before -- didn't cheat, then who did?" she asked during the hearing. In addition to stripping the titles, Judge Lee ruled that about 110 employees who scored 60 or more on the exam will be eligible to retest and that the exam will be administered by an independent testing agency. It remained unclear if an independent testing agency will become an ongoing requirement. All firefighters who retake and pass the test and are promoted will be paid retroactively to the date of the first test. About 80 firefighters were promoted from the first exam. Lee Parks, the attorney for the firefighters who brought the lawsuit, echoed demands of the Atlanta chapter of the International Association of Fire Fighters that the city conduct an investigation of who cheated and who enabled the cheating. Mr. Parks suggested that criminal charges be sought. "Right now, Atlanta Public School teachers are sitting in the district attorney's office because they did what these fire department members did," he said. "This is not an administrative issue. We're talking about criminal activity." Mr. Richardson said the city wouldn't pursue an internal investigation until the lawsuit is closed. Judge Lee was set to finalize her judgment, including details for the company to conduct the retest and the cost, on March 9. Mr. Richardson had said he would ask at that time that she change her decision to reverse the promotions. EMPIRE STATE: Sued Over One-Sided "Roll Up" Transaction ------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Reinlieb, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., Empire State Realty Op, L.P., Malkin Holdings L.L.C., Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, and Estate of Leona M. Helmsley, Case No. 650691/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 7, 2012) is brought on behalf of the "Participants," who are the passive investors in certain entities, including Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C, Marlboro Building Associates, L.L.C., and 1350 Broadway Associates L.L.C. The Entities were initially formed between 1953 and 1969 for the purpose of acquiring and operating certain real property, including the Empire State Building as well as several other properties in New York. The Plaintiff alleges that the Malkin Defendants are scheming to convert the equity interests owned by the class members in the Entities into cash or interests in the Company through a one- sided, unfair "roll up" transaction. He contends that the Defendants seek to consummate this Proposed Transaction through self-interested consent solicitations that fail to provide the Participants with material information sufficient to allow them to make informed decisions regarding whether to support the Proposed Transaction. Mr. Reinlieb is a Participant in 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and the Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. The Company is a Maryland corporation. Empire State Realty Op is a Delaware limited partnership and the operating partner of the Company. Malkin Holdings, Malkin Properties, L.L.C. and Malkin Properties of New York are New York corporations, while Malkin Properties of Connecticut and Malkin Construction are Connecticut corporations. Messrs. Malkins are principals of Malkin Holdings. The Helmsley Estate owns an interest in several of the Entities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc I. Gross, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017-5516 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Wins Dealers' Class Action in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- Domain-b reports that the International Arbitration Panel (IAP) has rejected claims of damages by Global Vehicles USA Inc for alleged violation of distribution agreement by Mahindra & Mahindra, as the panel found no violation of state or federal rules by the global vehicle manufacturer. The sports-utility vehicle maker also won a class action suit filed by a group of dealers in the United States district court for the eastern district of Missouri against the company and its proposed US distributor, Global Vehicles. The arbitrators held that the distribution agreement with Global Vehicles had terminated according to its own terms and M&M did not violate the agreement or any laws in the US in its dealings with Global Vehicles. The arbitrators, while rejecting the claims of Global Vehicles for damages, awarded to M&M costs of arbitration, including M&M's legal fee and expenses, the company said in its filings with the Bombay Stock Exchange. Rejecting the class action suit by a group of dealers against M&M, the arbitration panel said its dealings with potential dealers, Global Vehicles was not the agent of M&M and, therefore, it could not be liable for any actions of Global Vehicles. MASCO CORP: Trial in Columbus Drywall Class Suit Set for July ------------------------------------------------------------- A trial date in the class action lawsuit against insulation contractors, including Masco Corporation and its subsidiaries, has been scheduled for July 2012, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. A lawsuit was brought against the Company and a number of its insulation installation companies alleging that certain of their practices violated provisions of the federal antitrust laws. The case was filed in October 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Columbus Drywall & Insulation, Inc., Leo Jones Insulation, Inc., Southland Insulators, Inc., Southland Insulators of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a Devere Insulation, Southland Insulators of Delaware LLC d/b/a Delmarva Insulation, and Whitson Insulation Company of Grand Rapids, Inc. against the Company, its subsidiaries Masco Contractors Services Group Corp., Masco Contractor Services Central, Inc. ("MCS Central") and Masco Contractor Services East, Inc., and several insulation manufacturers (the "Columbus Drywall case"). In February 2009, the court certified a class of 377 insulation contractors. A trial date in this case has been scheduled for July 2012. Another lawsuit filed in March 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Wilson Insulation Company, Wilson Insulation of Augusta, Inc. and The Wilson Insulation Group, Inc. against the Company, Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and MCS Central lleged anticompetitive conduct. This case has been removed from the court's active docket. In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Masco Contractor Services, and several insulation manufacturers seeking class action status and alleging anticompetitive conduct. This case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and has been administratively stayed by the court. An additional lawsuit, which was filed in September 2005 and alleged anticompetitive conduct, was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006. The Company says it is vigorously defending the Columbus Drywall case. Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes that the conduct of the Company and its insulation installation companies, which is the subject of the lawsuits, has not violated any antitrust laws. The Company is unable at this time to reliably estimate any potential liability which might occur from an adverse judgment. There cannot be any assurance that the Company will ultimately prevail in these lawsuits, or, if unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material and would not have a material adverse effect on its businesses or the methods used by its insulation installation companies in doing business. MEDCO HEALTH: Class Certification Bids Remain Pending in PBM MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck") and Medco Health Solutions, Inc. The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail pharmacies that had contracted with the Company, allege that the Company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs. The plaintiffs allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the Company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently pending before the Multidistrict Litigation Court. In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against Merck and the Company. In their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Merck and the Company engaged in price fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others, including other pharmacy benefit managements ("PBMs"), to restrain trade in the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to customers of retail pharmacies who participate in programs or plans that pay for all or part of the drugs dispensed, and conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs. The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck and the Company engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted, but this matter has been consolidated with other actions where class certification remains an open issue. In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed against the Company and Merck in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had contracted with the Company and California pharmacies that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make factual allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company action. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business practices. The plaintiffs demand, among other things, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits and injunctive relief. In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single federal judge. The motion was granted in August 2006. These actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in certain actions is currently pending before the Multidistrict Litigation Court. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. MEDCO HEALTH: Hearing on Merger-Related Suits Deal on April 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2012, for the final approval of Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s settlement of merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive Merger Agreement with Express Scripts, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (as amended on November 7, 2011, by Amendment No. 1 thereto, the "Merger Agreement") providing for the combination of Express Scripts and Medco under a new holding company, New Express Scripts. As a result of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, former Medco shareholders and Express Scripts shareholders will own stock in New Express Scripts. The shareholders approved the Merger on December 21, 2011. Twenty-two lawsuits have been filed since the announcement of the merger on July 21, 2011, that name as defendants the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, and Express Scripts. The purported class action complaints allege, among other things, a breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the pending Merger Agreement between the Company and Express Scripts. On November 7, 2011, Express Scripts and Medco Health Solutions, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs to settle the shareholder litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding their proposed merger. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, Express Scripts and Medco agreed to enter into the Amendment and to hold the special meetings of their respective stockholders to vote on the proposed mergers on such date or dates as determined by Medco and Express Scripts, but in no event prior to December 21, 2011. The shareholder meetings subsequently took place on December 21, 2011, at which time the respective stockholders voted to approve the merger. Also pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 21, 2011, subject to further consideration by the District Court at a Settlement Hearing scheduled to take place on April 16, 2012. Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, plaintiffs must file papers in support of their application for attorneys' fees no later than forty-five (45) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, making any such papers due on March 2, 2012. MEDCO HEALTH: Still Defends "Alameda" Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2004, a lawsuit captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. in the Superior Court of California. The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of all California pharmacies that had contracted with the Company and that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck, allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a 1995 consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, if not earlier, the Company failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent injunction), and that the Company and Merck had failed to prevent nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck and the Company from being disclosed to each other. The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged practices, the Company had been able to increase its market share and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the retail pharmacy class members, and that the prices of prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical manufacturers that do business with the Company had been fixed and raised above competitive levels. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business practices. The plaintiffs demand, among other things, compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits and injunctive relief. In the complaint, the plaintiffs further allege, among other things, that the Company acted as a purchasing agent for its plan sponsor customers, resulting in a system that serves to suppress competition. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. MONSANTO: Details of $93-Mil. Class Action Settlement Unveiled -------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Caswell, writing for Daily Mail, reports that details of the $93 million settlement in the Monsanto class-action lawsuit are now available, and documents confirm that thousands of Nitro area residents will be eligible for medical testing and property cleanup. The documents were obtained by the Charleston Gazette through the Freedom of Information Act. The newspaper also made the documents available online. The company settled two weeks ago with hundreds of plaintiffs in the lawsuit just prior to the start of what could have been a six- month trial in Putnam Circuit Court. According to the settlement documents, a fund will be established within 30 days to begin paying the costs of the testing of those affected residents and people who worked in the plant area. Thomas Memorial Hospital and its affiliated health programs will conduct the testing and reporting. Medical testing will be done to determine levels of chemicals that resulted from production and waste disposal at the plant from 1948 to 1969, but will include those lived, worked or attended school in the area until the present time. Plaintiffs claimed they sustained "significant exposure" to the relative general population to dioxin. A screening period to determine who will be tested will begin within 60 days. Monsanto and its successors will pay $3 million into the fund every 10 years for 30 years, and possibly more if test results reveal high levels of dioxin. Those affected will be tested every five years, or every two years if levels are found to be high. That testing will involve a physical examination and blood tests. The settlement also provides funding for property cleanup of up to 4,500 residences suspected of contamination. The cleanup program will be conducted for up to three years at a cost of $9 million. Those eligible for medical testing or property cleanup include children aged 1 to 7 who lived at least three years in the plant area from 1948 to 1968; children or adults up to age 31 who lived in the area for at least six years; adults over 18 who lived in the area at least six years; children attending Nitro schools for at least 13 years; adults who worked full time in the covered area for at least six years. Former Monsanto employees are not eligible for the medical monitoring in this case. Monsanto also has agreed to pay nearly $30 million in legal fees and costs. The court documents indicate Charleston attorney Stuart Calwell will ask a judge to approve $22.5 million in fees and $7 million in costs. Before the settlement is finalized, members of the class are to be notified and given a chance to object to the terms. The court documents indicate they are to be notified by April 5. At a hearing set for June 18, people who sign up in advance will be given a chance to speak for or against the settlement. Class members also can object by writing to the Putnam County circuit clerk in Winfield. MYLAN INC: Unit Awaits Final OK of Class Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc. is awaiting final approval of a settlement resolving class action lawsuits filed against its subsidiary, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Mylan Inc.'s specialty pharmaceutical business subsidiary, Dey Pharma, L.P., is currently a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Dey has reached a settlement of these class actions, which has been preliminarily approved by the court. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August 1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Dey was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Dey completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Dey falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Dey, that Dey caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Dey caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. NCAA: Athletes Challenge Order to Pay Legal Fees in Fox Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that former college athletes have asked for relief from orders to pay the attorneys' fees of entities could shed light on whether the NCAA steamrolled over their image-ownership rights and hoarded all the profits. In a 2009 class action, former UCLA basketball star Edward O'Bannon claimed the National Collegiate Athletic Association forced students to sign the misleading "Form 08-3a" if they wanted to play NCAA sports. This form allegedly "commercially exploits former student athletes" by giving the NCAA the right to profit from their images without compensation, long after the athletes have left school. The athletes say the NCAA, Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company violated federal antitrust laws and conspired to restrain trade by fixing their compensation to $0. The athletes served subpoenas to The Big Ten Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company, which are not defendants in the action. Big Ten and Fox objected to the requests as overly broad, and the athletes narrowed the scope of the documents they requested. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins denied that narrowed request as well in February, finding it still too broad. The Big Ten Network and Fox agreed to produce television broadcast and licensing agreements that involve NCAA Division I football and basketball, as well as documents about athletes' contract negotiations that mention publicity rights. Judge Cousins found that compromise to be reasonable, "given the confidential nature of the agreements." "The document requests . . . are not tailored to minimize the potential prejudice that the nonparties could suffer by releasing such information," the judge wrote. He also ordered the athletes to pay Big Ten and Fox sanctions, covering the costs of their litigation based on the claim that negotiating would be "fruitless." In a motion on March 8, the athletes appealed Judge Cousins' sanction order to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. The athletes took issue with Judge Cousins' view that they showed an "unwillingness to compromise during the meet and confer process," "refused to narrow the scope of their document requests," "rejected reasonable attempts to compromise" and "did not take advantage of the discovery they obtained from other sources in tailoring their requests." "Even if these findings were supported by the record (and they are not), they are not tantamount to bad faith and cannot justify an award of sanctions," the motion says. "This is especially true in this case because plaintiffs won significant portions of the disputes at issue," according to the motion authored by Michael Lehmann with the San Francisco firm Hausfeld LLC. "Judge Cousins granted discovery as to television contracts and exemplar release forms. He did not accept the third parties' arguments that copyright laws, First Amendment privileges or principles or amateurism barred the requested discovery." The athletes asked the court to set aside Judge Cousins' order and sanctions award. A copy of the Antitrust Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief From Non- Dispositive Order of Magistrate Judge Imposing Sanctions on Plaintiffs and Denying Motions to Compel in In re NCAA Student- Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 11-mc- 80300-CW (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/RsVAQR NOVARTIS PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action Over "Kickbacks" --------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that giant pharmaceutical companies are overcharging consumers more than $3 billion a year by paying undisclosed kickbacks to induce insured people to buy brand-name drugs rather than less-expensive alternatives, according to six RICO class actions filed last week in four federal courts. The class actions: two in New Jersey, two in Philadelphia, and two in Brooklyn, make similar claims. The plaintiff unions and their pension plans claim: "Defendant has paid, and continues to pay, undisclosed kickbacks to privately insured individuals so that those health plan members choose defendant's branded drugs . . . instead of less-expensive alternatives. Defendant knowingly caused health benefit providers to pay for more prescriptions of these drugs than they otherwise would have, and caused falsely inflated drug reimbursement rates to be reported to, and imposed on the members' health benefit providers for these subsidized prescriptions." All citations in this article come from a 52-page complaint in Newark, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Health and Welfare Fund individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. The union claims Novartis paid "undisclosed kickbacks to privately insured individuals so that those health plan members choose defendant's branded drugs, Diovan and Diovan HTC, instead of less- expensive therapeutic alternatives." The same plaintiff also sued Merck in Trenton, N.J., citing its brand-name drugs Janumet, Janumet XR, Januvia, Nasonex, Vytorin and Zetia. The Philadelphia class actions were filed by the New England Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund against AstraZeneca (citing Crestor and Nexium) and GlaxoSmithKline (citing Avodart and Lovaza). In the Brooklyn class actions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plans; and the Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund sued Amgen and Pfizer (citing Celebrex, Chantiz, Lipitor and Sensipar) and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Otsuka American (citing Abilify). The Newark complaint states: "Branded drug manufacturers have attacked the private prescription drug co-pay system by subsidizing plan members' co-pays in order to undermine cost- sharing arrangements between health benefit providers and those they insure. These co-pay subsidy programs reduce or eliminate individuals' co-pays regardless of financial need. Whether characterized as coupons, rebates, subsidies, or kickbacks, these payments to plan members interfere with health plans' cost-sharing provisions and intentionally influence prescription drug choices. The programs are designed, quite specifically, to reduce or eliminate privately-insured individuals' personal payment obligations so that they choose the brand name drugs and their health benefit providers foot the bill. "Although co-pay subsidy programs vary as to the drugs covered and the specific amount of the subsidy or rebate, all programs work the same way. Individuals enroll in drug specific programs online. Individuals provide basic information . . . and the drug company mails them a wallet-size card that includes instructions to pharmacists regarding how to process covered prescriptions. Some drug companies allow individuals to immediately print cards using their home computers." After presenting their card to the pharmacy, primary insurance information is entered and the pharmacists enter the co-pay card system information in the secondary insurance area. "Information regarding the extent of the co-pay subsidy or rebate is similarly computed, but only after the patient's primary insurance is processed (and billed). "The pharmacist and PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] use the reimbursement benchmark, which the brand name drug company provides to the reporting agency, to calculate the usual charge (i.e., unreduced by the amount of the subsidy) to the health benefit insurer for the procurement of that prescription drug. The pharmacist and PBM do so without advising the insurer that, at the same time, the plan member's personal cost share obligation is being picked up by the drug's manufacturer. As a result, the private health benefit provider pays for the medication at its usual (but in fact now inflated) cost, and it does so without being told that the usual cost-share obligation has not been paid by the enrollee, but rather by the brand manufacturer. "In effect, defendant bribes plan members to choose its branded drugs over less-expensive therapeutic alternatives in order to get the health benefit plan to pay for the bulk of the cost of its more expensive branded drugs. From the member's perspective, the branded drug and therapeutic alternatives cost close to, if not exactly, the same amount. But the price of the health benefit plan's share of the therapeutic alternative with the lower co-pay and the branded drug with the higher co-pay may differ by a factor of ten." The complaint adds: "A recent study estimated that these kickbacks will increase health benefit providers' prescription drug costs by $32 billion over the next ten years. . . . "For example, Illinois plans are expected to spend nearly $1.4 billion extra on prescription drug costs as a result of co-pay coupons or programs during that time; Florida, New York, California and Texas will spend an extra $2 billion each in the next decade as a result of the same programs." The Newark and Trenton classes seek damages for RICO violations and commercial bribery. They are both represented by Lisa Rodriguez with Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, of Haddonfield. The Philadelphia plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Kodroff with Spector Roseman, as are the Brooklyn plaintiffs in the complaint against Amgen-Pfizer. AFSCME is represented by Jason Zweig with Hagens Berman in its complaint against Bristol-Myers Squibb. A copy of the Complaint in Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Health and Welfare Fund v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 14267 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on March 7, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/NovartisKick.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. Nicole M. Acchione, Esq. TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC 258 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara M. Mahoney, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eight Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq. Kristen Johnson Parker, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com kristen@hbsslaw.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Bethany R. Turke, Esq. Dawn M. Goulet, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com brt@wexlerwallace.com dmg@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jkodroff@srkaw-law.com PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Containerboard Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- During September and October 2010, Packaging Corporation of America and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers were named as defendants in five purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act. The lawsuits have been consolidated in a single complaint under the caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of containerboard products during the period from August 2005 to the time of filing of the complaints. The complaint was filed as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of containerboard products during such period. The complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees. The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were denied by the court in April 2011. PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend this lawsuit vigorously. However, as the lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery, PCA is unable to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. PANERA BREAD: Negotiates Terms of Consolidated Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement resolving a consolidated purported class action lawsuit in California are under negotiation, according to Panera Bread Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 27, 2011. On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa. On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Business and Professions. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. On November 17, 2011, the parties reached a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the class action lawsuits and the class action filed by David Carter. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the Company agreed to pay a maximum amount of $5.0 million to purported class members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are under negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final approval by the California Superior Court. The agreement of $5.0 million is included in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 27, 2011. Carter Suit On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company, and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. This matter against the Company's subsidiary was consolidated with the Sotoudeh lawsuit and is expected to be resolved under the Memorandum of Agreement. PANERA BREAD: Still Defends Employees' Class Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective, and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 27, 2011. RADIOSHACK CORP: "Brookler" Suit On hold Pending "Brinker" Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit captioned Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation is on hold pending a supreme court ruling in the similar case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On April 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation, claiming that the Company violated California's wage and hour laws relating to meal and rest periods. The meal period portion of the case was originally certified as a class action in February 2006. The Company's first Motion for Decertification of the class was denied in August 2007. After a favorable decision at the California Court of Appeals in the similar case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the Company again sought decertification of the class. Based on the California Court of Appeals decision in Brinker, the trial court granted the Company's second motion for class decertification in October 2008. The plaintiffs in Brookler appealed this ruling. Due to the unsettled nature of California law regarding the obligations of employers in respect of meal periods, the Company and the Brookler plaintiffs requested that the California Court of Appeals stay its ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification ruling pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Brinker. The appellate court denied this joint motion and then heard oral arguments in the case on August 5, 2010. On August 26, 2010, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification of the class, and the Company's Petition for Rehearing was denied on September 14, 2010. On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which granted review and placed the case on hold pending its decision in Brinker. On November 8, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Brinker. It is expected that a decision will be rendered by the Court sometime in April 2012. The outcome of this case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the period in which the resolution is recorded. RADIOSHACK CORP: Certification Bids in Ill. Suit Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for class certification in a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Illinois have been held in abeyance, according to RadioShack Corporation's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On September 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Redman claims that the Company violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by displaying the expiration dates of the Company's customers' credit or debit cards on electronically printed transaction receipts. Mr. Redman filed a motion seeking to certify a class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions occurring after June 3, 2008, that displayed the expiration date of the person's credit or debit card. On November 3, 2011, Mario Aliano and Vitoria Radavicuite filed a similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company, also in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA. Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radaviciute initially filed a motion seeking to certify a class that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the expiration date of the person's credit or debit card. On December 28, 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radaviciute filed an amended complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class that was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois. On January 11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the judge presiding over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of relatedness, and the two cases were consolidated for all purposes. On January 25, 2012, the presiding judge referred the matter to the magistrate judge assigned to the consolidated cases for mediation, extended the time by which the Company must respond to the pending complaints to such time as the magistrate judge shall order, and is holding the motions for class certification in abeyance. The Company says it is defending these cases, but is currently unable to reasonably estimate the loss, if any, that may result from them. RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Defends Song-Beverly Act-Violations Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- RadioShack Corporation continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In November 2010, RadioShack received service of process with respect to the first of four putative class action lawsuits filed in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles Superior Court; Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Central District of California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Southern District of California; and Grant v. RadioShack, San Francisco Superior Court). The plaintiffs in all of these cases seek damages under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (the "Act"). Plaintiffs claim that under one section of the Act, retailers are prohibited from recording certain personal identification information regarding their customers while processing credit card transactions unless certain statutory exceptions are applicable. The Act provides that any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. In each of the cases, plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the Act by asking them for personal identification information while processing a credit card transaction and then recording it. The Company says it is defending these cases, but is currently unable to reasonably estimate the loss, if any, that may result from them. RADIOSHACK CORP: Parties Agree to Stay "Ordonez" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Parties in Ordonez v. RadioShack Corporation agreed to stay the lawsuit pending a California Supreme Court decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In May 2010, Daniel Ordonez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, filed a Complaint against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court. In July 2010, Mr. Ordonez filed an Amended Complaint alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to provide required meal periods, provide required rest breaks, pay overtime compensation, pay minimum wages, and maintain required records. In September 2010, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The proposed putative class in Ordonez consists of all current and former non-exempt employees for a period within the four (4) years preceding the filing of the case. The meal period claims raised in Ordonez are similar to the claims raised in Brookler case. Pursuant to a motion filed by the Ordonez parties, the court recently granted a Stipulation and Order to Stay Proceedings pending the decision of the California Supreme Court in Brinker case. The Company says the outcome of this case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements in the period in which the resolution is recorded. SILVER LINING: Faces Class Action Over Alleged HOA Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that homeowners' associations conspired to use straw purchasers to wrest control of their boards of directors, and hired attorneys "who were also part of the conspiracy" to file construction-defect lawsuits in which co-conspirator contractors made inadequate repairs, a class action claims in Clark County Court. "Once the lawsuits were brought, defendants conspired to pay construction contractors to make superficial repairs that did not address the real underlying defects in the buildings," according to the complaint. Lead plaintiff Kimberly Karol sued 11 people, at least one contractor, eight named HOAs, and other Roe HOA's, property management companies and others. Since 2006, defendants "set up a variety of corporations or companies in order to purchase various units in the communities known as Chateau Versailles, Sunset Cliffs, Palmilla, Vistana, Terrasini, Chateau Nouveau, Park Avenue and Pebble Creek," the complaint states. "Co-conspirators would then transfer fractional interests to straw purchasers in order to allow these purchasers to run for HOA board elections." The complaint states: "The straw purchaser defendants would then run for election to the HOA board at their respective community, and once elected, breached their fiduciary duty to the homeowners by accepting from co-conspirators compensations, gratuities and other remuneration that improperly influenced, or reasonably appeared to influence, their decisions, resulting in a conflict of interest. After being elected to the board and accepting payments from co-conspirators, the straw purchaser defendants then voted in a manner directed by and favorable to the co-conspirators, including voting to hire a law firm and construction company designed by the co-conspirators to handle legal and construction work at the condominium." Defendants David Amesbury and his law firm "then gave access to the supposedly 'legitimate' election ballots in order to further the conspiracy and manipulate the outcome of the HOA board elections," the complaint states. The class claims the defendants manipulated votes to award construction contracts to defendants Silver Lining Construction, Platinum Community Services and a third unknown property management company, and then "retain attorneys whom were also part of the conspiracy." The class claims that defendant attorney Nancy Quon "would then litigate alleged construction defect suits against the contractors responsible for building the defective buildings, then ultimately attempted to settle out of court for millions of dollars." Defendant Leon J. Benzer and Silver Lining Construction "would then do very minor and superficial repairs on the home and distribute the settlement money to other co-conspirators," the complaint states. The class claims the superficial repairs hurt homeowners' property values "due to a combination of negative publicity, which left a negative stigma on their properties, issues with the title of their home, and the diminution of the values of their home by at least 5 percent due to the instigation of frivolous construction defect lawsuits." Plaintiff Karol owns a condo in the community known as Vistana. Co-plaintiff Louise Mumby owns a condo in the Chateau Nouveau community. Defendants Darryl Scott Nichols, Marcella Z. Triana, Angela Esparza, Daniel J. Solomon and Steven Wark are accused of acting as "straw purchasers" who ran for HOA board elections. Defendants Mary Ann Watts, Deborah Genato and Denise Keser were community and property managers for the various communities accused of participating in the scheme, according to the complaint. Leon J. Benzer, a HOA board member, is accused of awarding construction contracts to defendant Silver Lining Construction. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for conspiracy and negligence. A copy of the Complaint in Karol, et al. v. Benzer, et al., Case No. A-12-657729-C (NeV. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/HOAs.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Q. Callister, Esq. Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq. CALLISTER + ASSOCIATES, LLC 823 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Fifth Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 385-3343 E-mail: mqc@call-law.com SONY BMG: Settles Class Action Over Digital Music Revenue --------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the list of musicians suing major record labels over digital music revenue has grown during the past few months. At issue in these cases is what musicians should get when a customer on a digital outlet like iTunes buys a song or album. Soon, in a breakthrough case involving Eminem's producers, a trial will be held to determine what damages look like when a court has determined that digital downloads should be treated as a "license" instead of a "sale," as many musicians argue is proper. In the meantime, one case has just settled. It's actually one of the oldest cases on this front, a five-year battle between Sony BMG and musicians including The Allman Brothers, Cheap Trick, and The Youngbloods. Here's the details on Sony's deal. The attorney for the class of musicians revealed the settlement in a filing on March 7. According to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement -- necessary and by no means guaranteed -- Sony will pay its recording artists (and the lawyers) a total $7.95 million to resolve outstanding claims in the case. The deal also provides for a 3 percent bump in artists' royalty rates with respect to digital income. A substantial portion of the pot, if approved, will go to artists who had at least 28,500 total downloads off of Apple's iTunes. The lawyers will take home more than $2.5 million of the settlement money. A small fraction has been set aside for artists whose download levels weren't very significant. Perhaps most crucial is who will be eligible to make a claim on the money. Class members include many older musicians whose contracts were signed between 1976 and 2001, include clauses where 50 percent of net revenue is shared from licensed music, don't cap net receipts paid, don't include express rates for digital exploitation and were not later modified to entail digital exploitation. Is it a fair deal? Hard to say, but the plaintiffs in the case originally requested at least $25 million in damages and pointed out that artists such as The Youngbloods were getting 4.7 cents for a 99 cent download when the plaintiffs believed it should be in excess of 30 cents. The types of artists eligible to make claims and the 3 percent royalty bump for the bigger artists also will guide the fairness calculus. If the judge approves the deal, it will be legally binding on Sony BMG musicians who qualify as class members unless they expressly opt out. That's important because there are many other lawsuits pending over the issue of digital music exploitation, including a recent one against Sony by Toto. More lawsuits are expected to be filed, too. By making the deal, Sony could escape the future legal wrath of many musicians. The original suit estimated that more than 100 class members were involved, but during the litigation, several thousand smaller musicians also spoke up about their own potential claims. The deal comes after the plaintiffs' lawyer reports two years of "extensive, intense settlement negotiations," with assistance from a mediator and the named plaintiffs. "We believe that the settlement is in the best interest of the class," says Brian Caplan at Caplan & Ross, who represented the plaintiffs. SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Bogus "UCTDR" Fee ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Spirit Airlines charges a bogus $2 "Unintended Consequences of Department of Transportation Regulations" fee, which is "nothing more than a profit-generating device," in Cook County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Newman v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 12CH08311 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Airline.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North LaSalle St., Suite 1010 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Landowners File Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Thornton, writing for Minnesota Lawyer, reports that Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi filed a class action suit on behalf of a group of landowners in North Dakota, claiming actions by the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands, the State of North Dakota, and the Commissioner of the Trust Lands Department have deprived them of their mineral interests without just compensation. The suit claims the actions violate both the U.S. Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution, as well as North Dakota eminent domain statutes. Under North Dakota property law, private owners of land along rivers and lakes throughout the state take rights in that land to the low water mark. Individuals have purchased mineral interests in land above the low water mark of waters in North Dakota with the understanding that they own those mineral interests. As oil and other minerals have been discovered in those lands, companies have used horizontal and hydraulic fractured drilling to access the oil. The state has issued leases to private companies to extract the oil regardless of the private ownership of the mineral rights, the lawsuit claims and in doing so, the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands has received millions of dollars from leasing mineral interests it does not own. Jan Conlin -- jmconlin@rkmc.com -- a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi and former resident of Williston, is representing the plaintiffs along with co-counsels Charles L. Neff of Neff Eiken & Neff, in Williston, ND., Thomas J. Conlin -- tom@conlinlawfirm.com -- of the Conlin Law Firm, LLC in Minneapolis and David Bossart of the Bossart Law Firm in Fargo. STATE OF WISCONSIN: May Face Class Action Over Voter ID Law ----------------------------------------------------------- WTMJ reports that four groups fighting against Wisconsin's voter ID law could file a class action lawsuit. While the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera argued their suit in state court, the ACLU of Wisconsin already has a federal lawsuit pending, and is now considering taking it one step further. "One of the steps we could be taking this spring is to certify our federal lawsuit as a class action suit," said Stacy Harbaugh of the ACLU. "We're both arguing that there's going to be a disproportionate impact on minorities. In a federal lawsuit under the federal constitution we're hoping to continue the discussion we started all the way up to the supreme court." Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters has also filed a suit, in state court. "Our lawsuit argues that our legislature never had the authority to enact this law," said Andrea Kaminski of the League of Women Voters. While Judge David Flanagan temporarily blocked the law, the attorney general says he will fight to get it back on the books for the April elections. The state's Republican Party has filed a complaint against Judge Flanagan. Neither the ACLU nor the League of Women Voters thinks the fact that Judge Flanagan signed a recall petition will affect their case. "Judges have first amendment rights so they can sign petitions like that," said Stacy Harbaugh. The League of Women Voters is asking for a similar temporary injunction. That case was set to be heard on March 9 by a different Dane County judge. The Gov. Walker administration plans to get the law back in time for the April election. Meanwhile, the attorney general's office hasn't filed that appeal yet and a spokeswoman told TODAY'S TMJ4 they plan to file that appeal this week. STERLING FAMILY: Sued for Ignoring Fire-Safety Regulations ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that L.A. Clippers basketball team owner Donald Sterling willfully ignored fire-safety regulations at his "unsafe and dangerously maintained" West Hollywood apartment building, three tenants claim in a Superior Court class action. "In an effort to save a few dollars," Mr. Sterling let fire alarms and smoke detectors at his 54-unit multistory building fall into disrepair, according to the complaint. Lead plaintiffs Troy Robinson, Tina Ghods Djourabchi and Beth Fox say Sterling then failed to take immediate action to fix the system, even after a fire broke out. The complaint names Donald T. Sterling dba Beverly Hills Properties, his wife Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust and Does 1-100 as defendants. "Despite the reality of the reckless and indifferent manner in which 'defendants' own, operate and manage their 'properties,' they run advertisements with weekly and sometimes daily frequency, usually in the Los Angeles Times, touting their 'luxury apartments' and '50,000 satisfied tenants,'" the complaint states. "Defendant Sterling also seeks to promote his philanthropic efforts by advertisements touting his purported philanthropy in an effort to create good will in the community to enhance the image of the 'properties.' In truth, upon information and belief, defendants' apartments are unsafe and dangerously maintained, and defendant Sterling is a landlord who regularly overcharges for rent, while secretly and unknown to the tenants, not conducting, nor causing them to be conducted, required routine fire safety equipment maintenance on the 'properties.' Moreover, 'defendants' have developed across the board, company wide practices and follow said practices for the operation of the 'properties' that put profit before the safety of their tenants; an integral part of this plan involves intentionally refraining from complying with fire safety laws and regulations and the inspections required by law and regulation. By engaging in said conduct the 'defendants' can keep the cost of operating and managing the properties below that of the competition that regularly comply with the fire safety laws and regulations." Beverly Hills Properties told Courthouse News that the lawsuit is frivolous. "All Beverly Hills Properties managed buildings are inspected and have been maintained at the highest level for 50 years," house counsel Douglas Walton said in an e-mail. "Its records and those of third parties confirm that all fire regulations are complied with, to the letter." But the tenants say Mr. Sterling waited four weeks to inspect faulty smoke detectors and fire alarms after a September 2009 fire "caused serious personal injury and substantial property damage losses." "During this four-week time period, defendants falsely informed tenants of the building that the premises were safe and habitable when defendants knew the smoke detectors and fire alarm system was not working rendering unsafe the occupancy of the building," the complaint states. "'Defendants' finally performed an inspection of the building's fire and smoke alarm system on October 26, 2009. This inspection uncovered widespread failure to comply of each and every single piece of fire protection equipment-including alarms, hoses and water pressure-at the building including the fact that the mini-horn alarms were not working in 52 or the 54 apartments within the building." Then, after the inspection, it allegedly took another five months to fix the system. Tellingly, Philomena Wong, property director of Mr. Sterling's Beverly Hills Properties, replied, "I don't know," when lawyers asked her during a deposition if it was important to maintain a fire-detection system, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Wong is not a named defendant. This is not the first time Mr. Sterling has run into legal troubles over his properties. In late 2005, the Clippers owner paid $5 million to settle claims that he drove blacks and Latinos out of his Koreatown apartments. In 2009, Mr. Sterling settled with the Justice Department for more than $2.7 million in a housing-discrimination case related to apartments in the same neighborhood. The Los Angeles Times reported that Mr. Sterling had said: "Black tenants smell and attract vermin." The class seeks exemplary and punitive damages for breach of the warranty of habitability, tortious breach of warranty, violation of the Business and Professions Code, and unjust enrichment. Neither Messrs. Sterling nor Levine immediately responded to requests for comment. A copy of the Complaint in Robinson, et al. v. Sterling, et al., Case No. BC480447 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Sterling.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Albert J. Gopin, Esq. Peter K. Levine, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER K. LEVINE 5455 Wilshire Blvd Suite No. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 934-1234 SURGERYLOANS.COM INC: Faces Fraud Class Action in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- Juan G. Boyce and Tempestt M. Boyce, on behalf of themselves and a class v. SurgeryLoans.com, Inc., doing business as MedicalFinancing.com and MFC; Highlands Financial Services LLC; Oak Rock Financial, LLC; Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC; and Dr. Bhanoo Sharma, Case No. 2012-CH-08148 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 7, 2012) is brought to secure redress for the Defendants' alleged unlawful credit practices, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act, the Illinois Sales Finance Agency Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Boyces, who sought a loan for cosmetic surgery, claim in their class action that the online financing service nearly doubled the amount of the loan request in the contract, and was not licensed to make such a loan at all. The complaint states: "In December 2011-January 2012, Mrs. Boyce desired elective surgery procedures from Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC. "Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC offered to arrange financing. "SurgeryLoans.com, Inc. authorized the disbursement of $4,320.48 to Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, on account of such procedure." The Boyces say SurgeryLoans.com "assists patients seeking cosmetic or elective surgery with financing for their desired procedure." It allegedly extends credit to more than 26 consumers per year. But the Boyces say their loan documents contained some peculiar language. "In the 'retail installment contract,' the 'service provider' was Dr. Sharma rather than Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, even though the disbursement is to Shape Cosmetic Surgery," the complaint states. It continues: "The 'amount financed on the TILA disclosures was stated as $8,000, even though only $4,320.48 was disbursed to Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC. "The 'retail installment contract' did not contain a promise to pay Dr. Sharma or Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, as is appropriate for a retail installment contract, but instead directed payment to Highlands Financial Services, LLC, 7921 Southpark Plaza, Suite 108, Littleton, CO 80120 'or to the current assignee holding your contract." The assignment had Dr. Sharma assign his rights to SurgeryLoans.com Inc., and SurgeryLoans.com, Inc., assign its rights to Highlands Financial Services LLC. "The 'retail installment contract' also provided for 'interest,' although there is no 'interest' in a true retail installment contract. Only a loan has 'interest.'" An addendum to the finance agreement "authorized SurgeryLoans.com, Inc., or its assignee, in the event of default, to charge a credit card or execute a 'shadow check' (also known as a telephone check) on the consumer's bank account," the Boyces say. The complaint continues: "Because of the ambiguous and inconsistent nature of the documents, it is unclear whether the 'creditor' is Dr. Sharma, Shape Cosmetic Surgery, LLC, or SurgeryLoans.com, Inc." The Boyces add: "SurgeryLoans.com, Inc. has never been licensed to make loans at over 9 percent or purchase retail installment contracts by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation." Nor are Highlands Financial Services or Oak Rock Financial licensed to make loans at more than 9 percent, the Boyces say. They seek damages under the Truth in Lending Act, punitive damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and injunctive relief under the Sale Finance Agency Act. They claim a lien upon defendants' assets for at least one-third of damages sought. Plaintiffs are husband and wife and residents of Cook County, Illinois. SurgeryLoans.com is a California corporation and uses the trade names MedicalFinancing.com and MFC. SurgeryLoans.com extends credit to more than 26 consumers and documents transactions as loans, in some as retail installment contracts, and in others as revolving credit accounts. Highlands Financial is a limited liability company with its principal offices in Colorado. Highlands Financial is the party to whom the promise to pay in the "retail installment contract" signed by the Plaintiffs was payable. Oak Rock, a Delaware limited liability company, purchases "retail installment contracts" and collects them from consumers. Shape Cosmetic is a limited liability company with offices in Hazel Crest, Illinois. Dr. Sharma is the principal of Shape Cosmetic. A copy of the Complaint in Boyce, et ux. v. SurgeryLoans.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 12CH08148 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/09/Surgery.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com WAL-MART STORES: Settlement in Retirement Suit Gets Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the largest U.S. private employer, and Merrill Lynch (MER) won a judge's final approval to pay $13.5 million to settle claims the retailer's employees were charged excessive 401(k) fees. U.S. District Judge Gary A. Fenner in Missouri approved the accord at a hearing on March 7, according to the court docket. Merrill Lynch, the plan's trustee now part of Bank of America Corp., will pay $10 million and Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal- Mart will pay $3.5 million. The docket entry said the "court orally grants motion for approval of class action settlement" and "written order to be issued." In 2009, a U.S. appeals court overturned Judge Fenner's decision the previous year throwing out the suit. Wal-Mart was accused in the suit of failing to offer retirement plans that limit the amount of fees and expenses that are charged when employees make investments. The complaint also included an allegation that the improper administration of the plans cost participants more than $60 million. The class-action, or group, lawsuit was filed by Wal- Mart employee Jeremy Braden. "We're pleased to have settled the matter," Greg Rossiter, a Wal- Mart spokesman, said in a phone interview. Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America, said the bank was pleased to resolve the case "and continue to provide a high-quality plan for Walmart employees." Gretchen Obrist, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment. The case is Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 08-cv-3109, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri. WELLS FARGO: Accused of Charging Improper Tax Service Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Ronald M. Gutierrez, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo Real Estate Tax Services, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv- 01135 (N.D. Calif., March 7, 2012) accuses Wells Fargo of charging the Plaintiff and the other class members "Tax Service Fee," even though it provides no tax service. The action is brought to recover this alleged improperly assessed fee. Mr. Gutierrez relates that the Tax Service Fee is collected by Wells Fargo at the close of escrow to cover its costs of handling payment of real estate taxes assessed on property financed by loans it originated. However, he asserts, about 10% of borrowers with a Wells Fargo home loan directly pay their own real property taxes, and that for these borrowers, including him and the class members, Wells Fargo does not establish an escrow account for the payment of taxes and does not pay the borrowers' real estate taxes. Nonetheless, he contends, Wells Fargo charges and collects the Tax Service Fee from these borrowers, while providing no tax service. Mr. Gutierrez is a resident of San Francisco, California. During the class period, Wells Fargo issued two home loans to the Plaintiff on his real property located at 514 4th Avenue, San Francisco, California. Wells Fargo markets, sells, and services residential home mortgage loans throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Paula M. Roach, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com * Price Gouging Bill May Spur More Movie Popcorn Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York legal reform says the movie popcorn class action lawsuit that is gaining headlines could be a preview of the state's class action future if a pending bill passes the state Senate. The class action lawsuit filed by Joshua Thompson of Michigan says it is unfair for movie theaters to force patrons to buy their food. He filed the lawsuit after his local theater stopped allowing outside food. Mike Seinberg of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York wrote on March 8 that the case reminds him of legislation pending in the state Senate. The Private Right of Action for Price Gouging bill puts power currently held by the Attorney General's Office into private individuals represented by trial lawyers. The bill passed the state Assembly on March 7. "If this legislation were to pass, a lawsuit could be brought against a gas station inadvertently overcharging by $0.03 per gallon of gas," Mr. Seinberg wrote. "If they had 1000 customers who bought ten gallons of gas, they would have inadvertently overcharged their customers by $300. With this new law in place they could face $1,000,000.00 in potential lawsuits." The bill provides for a minimum recovery of $1,000 per plaintiff and allow for an additional recovery of $5,000 per plaintiff if the defendant is found to have committed a willful violation of the law. Mr. Seinberg says the bill doesn't clearly define price gouging and relies on courts to define it on a case-by-case basis. "If this power, designed for the Attorney General, got into the hands of private attorneys, we could see a flood of lawsuits like these hurting the business climate in our state," he wrote. ********* 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 * * *