/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120326.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 60 Headlines ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Lawyer Prepares Silicosis Class Action ARGUS REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Real Estate Scam CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Court Allows Environmental Class Action CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeals Judgment in Breach of Agreement Suit CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Cell Sites CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Accessories CELLCOM ISRAEL: Defends Suit Alleging Insufficient Cell Sites CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit Over Cellular Radiation Exposure Pending CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suits Filed by Customers in Israel Pending CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unit Faces New Class Suit Over Prepaid Cards CENTRO: Former Chief Executive Testifies in Class Action CITIBANK NA: Sued Over Undisclosed Frequent Flyer Miles Tax DRIVEN SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Amphetamine FIBERON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deck Mold Warranty Policy GODADDY.COM: Sued Over Internet Domain Name Registration Charges GOV'T OF GUAM: Political Status Referendum Class Action Ongoing GOV'T OF UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Adoption Class Action H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Class Suit Remains Pending H&R BLOCK: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Consolidate 7 Class Suits H&R BLOCK: Civil Conspiracy Claim in "Menezes" Suit Dismissed H&R BLOCK: Wage and Hour Suits Remain pending in Various Courts H&R BLOCK: Plea to Decertify in "Barrett" Suit Remains Pending H&R BLOCK: Says Sum Paid for EquiCo Deal Did Not Exceed Accrual HALIFAX: May Face Class Action Over Pet Insurance Policies HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Class Suits HSBC HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Jaffe" Suit HSBC HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Appeal Madoff-Related Claims Dismissal INTELIUS: Sued Over Unlicensed Private Investigator Business KRATOS DEFENSE: Last Obj. to IPO Suit Settlement Order Settled LEIGHTON: Watchdog Calls for Harsher Continuous Disclosure Rules LEIGHTON: Class Action Bigger Threat Than Disclosure Penalties MULTILINK: EEOC to Seek Class Action Status in Harassment Suit NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Dec. 3 Trial Set for Class Action NEVSUN: Unveils Share Repurchase Program, Faces Shareholders' Suit PEGASUS WIRELESS: Settles Shareholder Derivative Class Action R. ALLEN STANFORD: Investor Class Action Can Proceed SCOTTISH WATER: Seafield Residents Seek Class Action Over Stench STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Disputes Mineral Rights Class Action THESTREET INC: Appeal from IPO Suit Settlement Dismissed in Jan. THIESS DEGREMONT: Unions Launch Class Action Over Spying Scandal TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Defective Products WELLS FARGO: Laid-Off Visa Workers File Class Action in Calif. WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Iowa Suit WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING: Recalls 7T Ceiling Fans Due to Fire Risk ********* ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Lawyer Prepares Silicosis Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Ed Cropley, writing for Reuters, reports that a South African lawyer said on March 20 he was preparing a class action lawsuit against leading gold mining firms on behalf of thousands of former miners who say they contracted silicosis, a debilitating lung disease, through negligent health and safety. Attorney Richard Spoor, whose legal battle against a South African asbestos-mining company led to a $100 million settlement in 2003, said he would file class action papers with the High Court in Johannesburg "within the next few months". "We have a very important meeting with our advocates on March 19 to thrash out the final form of the application," Mr. Spoor told Reuters. He said he had so far signed up 6,876 plaintiffs from South Africa and Lesotho, the landlocked kingdom that has provided hundreds of thousands of migrant workers to South Africa's gold mines over the last century. The principal targets of the suit would be AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields and Harmony Gold -- South Africa's three biggest gold miners -- and minor producer DRD Gold, Mr. Spoor said. Frans Barker, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Mines and the main industry spokesman on silicosis, declined specific comment. "We're continuing with our work on these issues, irrespective of the class action. We wouldn't like to respond to the class action itself because that depends very much on the merit of specific cases," he said. The planned suit, which has little precedent in South African law, has its roots in a landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court a year ago that for the first time allowed lung-diseased miners to sue their employers for damages. The plaintiff in that case, Thembekile Mankayi, had sought ZAR2.6 million (US$342,000) in damages, loss of earnings, medical bills and pain and suffering caused by silicosis and tuberculosis allegedly contracted while working for AngloGold from 1979 to 1995. Mr. Mankayi died days before the ruling. Spoor would not be drawn on the size of any desired settlement, but industry research suggests the mining houses could be facing a bill running into the billions of rand should they lose. At their height in the 1980s, South Africa's gold mines employed 500,000 men, and some medical research suggests as many as one in two former gold miners has silicosis. A 2009 paper by researchers from Johannesburg's Witswatersrand University and University College, London, estimated that there were 288,000 cases of compensable silicosis in South Africa. It also assessed the industry's unpaid compensation liability at ZAR10 billion at 1998 values. Today, that is worth ZAR27 billion -- more than US$3.5 billion. (US$1 = 7.5948 South African rand) ARGUS REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Real Estate Scam -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that investors claim in a class action in Orange County, Calif., Superior Court that Argus Realty Investors and nearly two dozen co-conspirators bilked them for $6.25 million in a scam involving development of two office buildings in Texas. Lead plaintiff Alice Gee, two other people and 24 investment trusts claim Argus representatives approached them and induced them to invest in an office complex on the busy Dallas-Fort Worth freeway. "The transaction was nothing more than a real estate scam put together by the defendants to line their own pockets," the complaint states. It continues: "The defendants arranged the acquisition of the property at a price of $13,821,000 which amount included an undisclosed 'markup' real estate commission paid to an affiliate. The defendants then, through a series of transactions and leveraging, sold securities in the form of tenant-in-common (TIC) interests and separate limited partnership interests to plaintiffs at the over-promoted equity-plus-debt raise of $16,600,000. "Defendants represented they had acquired over $500 million of commercial real estate; had more than 5 million square feet under management and offered investors 'the opportunity to participate in the ownership of institutional grade commercial real estate without the burden of individual property management' through its 'tenants-in common, direct participation, private exchange programs and real estate investment funds,'" according to the 73- page complaint. It continues: "Defendants misrepresented the transaction and the securities offered and sold, including breaching fiduciary duties and failure to disclose the actual loads which would have made the securities a less desirable option than simply paying the capital gains tax. "Because the securities and TIC interests in the property were not represented, as well as defendant's mismanagement, the property is near foreclosure which will result in the loss of the $6.25 million invested." The plaintiffs want their $6.25 million back, and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty of real estate broker, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty of attorney, constructive fraud, intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, conversion, and unfair business practices. A copy of the Complaint in Gee, et al. v. Argus Realty Investors, L.P., et al., Case No. 30-2012-00554778 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Argus.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq. Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward, Esq. Eric V. Anderton, Esq. CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION 2331 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Telephone: (714) 520-5544 E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com eanderton@catanzarite.com CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Court Allows Environmental Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the district of Montreal has authorized the bringing of the largest environmental class action in Canada's history. The court attributed the status of representative to Francois Deraspe to act on behalf of all the persons who on the evening of August 9, 2004 had burning eyes, throat ailments, airways ailments, respiratory ailments, skin rashes, cough, or who suffered an asthma attack simultaneously with their exposure to the toxic cloud released by the plant that Canadian Electrolytic Zinc operates in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec. The toxic cloud released by the plant was made up of sulphur trioxide which is a hazardous substance that transforms itself into sulfuric acid vapor when it comes into contact with air and remains airborne for hours and can be carried by the wind over dozens of kilometers while maintaining its toxicity. In 2006, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc was acquired by Xstrata which is the fourth largest diversified mining company in the world with operating profit of nearly C$7.7 billion in 2011. Mr. Deraspe will ask the court to condemn the company to pay between C$5,000 and C$10,000 to each member of the group depending on the prejudice suffered as well as exemplary damages of C$5,000. No medical proof is required to make a claim. Although the authorization to bring a class action amounts to no more than a procedure that allows a representative to file a lawsuit on behalf of a group of persons and does not prejudge in any way the outcome of the trial to come, the attorney for the company told the court, of his own volition, that his client would have no defense to offer at trial should the authorization be granted and that it had been estimated that the lawsuit could cost his client up to 900 million dollars. On the evening of the release, the wind blew from West to North East at a speed of 17 kilometers per hour resulting in the exposure of all or part of the municipalities and boroughs of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, St-Thimothee, Melocheville, Ile Perrot, Beaconsfield, Dorval, Lachine, Pierrefonds, and Kirkland to the toxic cloud. Mr. Deraspe will apply to the court in the coming days to add to that list the municipalities and boroughs of St- Laurent, Cote-St-Luc, Ahunstic-Cartierville, Mont-Royal, Hampstead, Cote-des-Neiges, Notre-Dame-de-Grace; Outremont, Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie; Villeray-St-Michel- Parc-Extension; Montreal-Nord, Laval-des-Rapides and Chomedey. In June of 2006, following a report by Environment Canada that absolved the company of any misdeeds after an investigation that took all of twenty minutes, Mr. Deraspe served a formal notice to the Canadian Environment Minister to have an investigation ordered pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The report of investigation, which rests partly on the taped testimonies of fifteen employees of the company, was made public in July of 2009. In a letter to Environment Canada, the company fully agreed with the factual conclusions of the report which unequivocally states that the release was toxic and that the company failed to call the emergency services. One can learn from the report that the release was not accidental, contrary to what the company had claimed in a written report handed over to Environment Canada in August of 2004. The report affirms that the company delayed for several days the replacement of a pump that showed extensive wear. The company kept the pump running even as a perforation was detected on it 12 hours before the release happened in spite of the unacceptable risk that it represented for the population and the environment, in the words of Environment Canada's expert. The pump broke down 12 hours later on the evening of August 9, 2004, at which time the sulphur trioxide started to be released in the atmosphere through an 80 meters high smokestack instead of being pumped into the sulphuric acid tanks. The plant should then have been shut down at once to keep the release to a maximum of 280 kilos as reported by the company's employees to Environment Canada. As stated in the report, instead of stopping the plant immediately, the employees of the company tinkered with the pump for a good 20 minutes during which the toxic gas was being released in the environment. Realizing that their efforts were pointless, they finally decided to stop the plant, not without having released approximately 10 tons of toxic gas in the environment as the foreman and the chief environment of the company told the firefighters and Environment Canada. The company not only failed to call the emergency services at the time of the release, odd as it may seem, it is 911 which, overwhelmed with calls from citizens complaining about the toxic cloud, called the company to find out if they had anything to do with the release. They were told that a "small problem" had occurred, as stated in the Fire Department report. The firefighters, alerted by citizens, had to go the plant of the company, more than 90 minutes after the beginning of the release, to see for themselves how "small" the problem was. Once on the premises, they learnt that a toxic cloud of 10 tons of sulphur trioxide had been released in the environment from an 80 meters high smokestack while the wind was blowing at 17 km/h towards densely populated areas. The firefighters ordered the triggering of the company's emergency plan. On that warm summer evening, the company's recklessness not only exposed hundreds of thousands of citizens to the harmful effects of a toxic cloud in the quiet of their homes, but its pretense worsened their predicament by preventing them from taking simple protective measures like remaining inside, closing the doors, windows and vents, and shutting down any system that draws air from the outside. Mrs. Chantal Desjardins, the attorney for Mr. Deraspe, said that she was very pleased with the authorization since the class action is the only means that the citizens have to protect their environment and assert their rights. She said that she hoped that the company will assume responsibility since it has no defense whatsoever to oppose to the class action. Indeed, in May of 2010, in a last-ditch attempt to derail the class action, the company filed a motion to have it dismissed on the grounds that the courts had already ruled on that matter. The Superior Court of Quebec denied the motion in December of 2010 and its ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal in February of 2011. The application filed by the company for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in September of 2011. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeals Judgment in Breach of Agreement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Cellcom Israel Ltd. appealed from a judgment against it in a class action lawsuit alleging breach of agreement, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In March 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region, by plaintiffs alleging to be the Company's subscribers in connection with allegations that the Company has unlawfully charged its subscribers for providing them with call details records. In August 2009, the District Court of Central Region approved a request to certify a lawsuit as a class action, relating to an allegation that the Company breached the agreements with its subscribers by charging them for a call detail service it previously provided free of charge, without obtaining their consent. The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS440 million. In December 2011, the Court decided against the Company, accepted the allegation and ordered the Company to repay its customers the sum charged for the service in the amount of approximately NIS22 million plus interest and linkage differences from the date of each payment made by the subscribers, an amount of NIS200,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs and a fee for the plaintiffs' attorney equal to 10% of the sum to be repaid plus VAT. In January 2012, the Company appealed the judgment with the Supreme Court and the execution of the judgment was stayed until the appeal is decided. The Company says it has recorded a provision for the entire sum in its financial statements. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Cell Sites -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of plaintiffs living near its cell sites, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company (and two other cellular operators) in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, by plaintiffs alleging to be residing next to cell sites of the defendants which the plaintiffs allege were built in violation of the law. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have created environmental hazards by unlawfully building cell sites and therefore demand that the defendants will compensate the public for damages (other than personal damages, such as depreciation of property and/or health related damages which are excluded from the purported class action), dismantle existing unlawfully built cell sites and refrain from unlawfully building new cell sites. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the compensation claimed from the defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS1 billion. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLCOM ISRAEL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Accessories --------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of customers, who buy accessories for carrying cellular handsets, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In June 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and three other cellular operators in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by an Israeli citizen, in connection with the allegation that the defendants mislead customers who buy accessories for carrying cellular handsets or do not disclose to them relevant data concerning radiation hazards associated with the usage of accessories for carrying cellular handsets, allegedly contrary to the cellular handsets manufacturers' instructions and warnings and the Israeli Ministry of Health' recommendations. Thereafter, the plaintiff also requested interim remedies to prevent further sale of such accessories by the Company and two other defendants (the forth allegedly doesn't sell such accessories) or to require them to take necessary precautionary measures, including by complying with alleged disclosure duties and by ceasing alleged misleading, which were rejected by the court in October 2011. In July 2011, at the request of the Company, the purported class action was transferred to be heard by the Judge hearing the purported class action filed against the Company and three other cellular operators in May 2011, by the same plaintiff and three other plaintiffs, raising similar questions. The total amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS1 billion (out of a total sum of approximately NIS2.7 billion against all defendants), substantially all for non monetary damages. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLCOM ISRAEL: Defends Suit Alleging Insufficient Cell Sites ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging it does not have sufficient number of cell sites, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In May 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company (and the three other Israeli cellular operators) in the District Court of Central Region, by four plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully and in violation of their license and agreements with their subscribers fail to construct cell sites in a sufficient quantity, scope and coverage in order to provide cellular services in the requisite quality; fail to test, repair and notify the subscribers that non-ionizing radiation level for repaired handsets may exceed the manufacturer's specifications and the maximum level allowed by law; fail to inform and caution the subscribers of the risks related to the manner of carrying the handset and its distance from the subscriber's body; all of which allegedly increase the level of non-ionizing radiation and health risks to which the subscribers are exposed. In September 2010, at the Company and two other cellular operators' request, the Court instructed the transfer of this purported class action to the Tel- Aviv-Jaffa District Court, to be heard by the Judge hearing the purported class action filed against the Company in December 2007 (by plaintiffs alleging that the Company and the two other Israeli cellular operators have created environmental hazards by unlawfully building cell sites). If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS3.68 billion (the total amount claimed from the four defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS12 billion). About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suit Over Cellular Radiation Exposure Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging damages due to exposure to cellular radiation, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In March 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and another cellular operator, in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by two plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the defendants, in connection with allegations that the defendants breached their license by failing to purchase insurance against monetary liability which the defendants may suffer due to bodily damages that allegedly may be caused by cellular radiation. The plaintiffs request the court to award compensation in an amount equal to the insurance premiums allegedly payable for insuring such liability (estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 300 million per year per defendant) for the past seven years and to order the defendants to purchase such insurance coverage in the future. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS4.2 billion, out of which NIS2.1 billion is attributed to the Company individually. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLCOM ISRAEL: Suits Filed by Customers in Israel Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. disclosed in its March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, it is defending these class action lawsuits in Israel: * 28 purported class actions have been filed against the Company in connection with allegations that it unlawfully, in violation of its license or agreements with its subscribers, charged or overcharged its subscribers for its services, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be from approximately NIS5 million to approximately NIS200 million or which were not estimated by these plaintiffs, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions. In three of the purported class actions (two for a total amount claimed if certified as class actions, of approximately NIS14 millions and third in which no amount claimed was estimated), settlement agreements in immaterial sums were filed with the court and the procedures are still pending. In a class action for an estimated amount claimed of NIS28 million, a settlement agreement in which the Company guarantees the repayment of in-consequential sums by third parties was filed with the court and the procedure is still pending; * 15 purported class actions were filed against the Company in connection with allegations that it misled its subscribers, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be from approximately NIS21 million to approximately NIS2.7 billion, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions. In three of the purported class actions (for a total amount claimed if certified as class actions, of approximately NIS149 million), settlement agreements of immaterial sums were filed with the court and the procedures are still pending. One purported class action (for which no amount claimed was estimated) was dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs appealed the ruling and another purported class action (for which no amount claimed was estimated) was dismissed following plaintiff's request and appealed by the Israeli General Counsel regarding a procedural question regarding such dismissal; * Four purported class actions were filed against the Company in connection with allegations that it unlawfully, in violation of its license or agreements with its subscribers, build and operate its network and sell handsets and related equipment, including in relation to alleged hazards relating to non ionizing radiation emitted from cell sites and end-user equipment in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be from approximately NIS 1 billion to approximately NIS 3.7 billion, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions; * Three purported class actions were filed against the Company in connection with allegations that it unlawfully sent to its subscribers and to other parties commercial messages, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs in two purported class actions to be approximately NIS 3 million and approximately NIS 50 million and which were not estimated by the plaintiffs in the third purported class action, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions. In the purported class action in which no amount claimed was estimated, a settlement agreement for immaterial sums were filed with the court and the procedure is still pending; * Three purported class actions were filed against the Company in connection with allegations that the Company unlawfully, in violation of its license or agreements with its subscribers discriminate between its subscribers, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be from approximately NIS 60 million to approximately NIS 306 million, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions; * Two purported class actions were filed against the Company in connection with allegations that it unlawfully, in violation of its license or agreements with its subscribers failed to provide certain services, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 20 millions and approximately NIS 60 million, if the lawsuits are certified as class actions; and * Two purported class actions were filed against the Company in connection with allegations that it failed to provide customer care in accordance with the provisions of its license and applicable law, in amounts estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 107 millions and approximately NIS 361 million (which was filled against three additional operators without specifying the amount claimed from the Company), if the lawsuits are certified as class actions. The Company says it has recorded appropriate provisions for each of the settlement agreements filed with the courts in the class action lawsuits. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unit Faces New Class Suit Over Prepaid Cards ------------------------------------------------------------ Cellcom Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing another class action lawsuit alleging it misled purchasers of certain international prepaid cards, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In November 2010, the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa approved a request to certify a lawsuit as a class action, relating to an allegation that Netvision Ltd., the Company's wholly owned subsidiary and two other long distance providers, misled the purchasers of certain prepaid cards for long distance calls bought between 2004 and 2008 in relation to certain bonus minutes and reduced certain minutes in certain circumstances. The total amount claimed from all the defendants was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS2.2 billion, of which approximately NIS818 million was attributed to Netvision. In December 2010, the defendants filed a request for appeal with the Supreme Court challenging the decision and in March 2011 the district court's decision was stayed. In February 2012, after the end of the reporting period, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Netvision and certain other long distance operators in the District Court in Tel-Aviv Jaffa, by a plaintiff alleging that the defendants mislead the purchasers of certain international prepaid cards in connection with the amount of minutes included in certain calling cards. The total amount which is claimed from the Company was assessed by the plaintiffs in approximately NIS2.7 billion (and from any other defendant). At this early stage, it is not possible to assess their chances of success. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CENTRO: Former Chief Executive Testifies in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that former Centro chief executive Andrew Scott has denied suggestions he bullied staff at the shopping center owner ahead of the release of the company's erroneous 2007 financial accounts. Mr. Scott took to the witness stand in the eighth day of the class action trial relating to the company's 2007 near-collapse, after the company revealed it was struggling to refinance billions in debts that were incorrectly classified as non-current. Under cross-examination by counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mr. Scott was asked if he ever discouraged members of the company's executive team from raising issues at their bimonthly meetings. "I suspect some of my actions and language would do so (discourage people), but that wasn't the intention," Mr. Scott said. When asked by Richard McHugh, SC, for PwC, if he would shoot the messenger if there was a problem with the message, Mr. Scott said that wasn't his intention. "Did you ever bully anyone?" Mr. McHugh asked. "If things needed to be done quickly, I suspect some people could misinterpret it that way, but I don't believe that I did," Mr. Scott told the court. Mr. McHugh pressed Mr. Scott as to why former chief financial officer Romano Nenna said he felt sickened when he realized the company's accounts contained a AUD3.1 billion error, asking Mr. Scott if he had done anything to make Mr. Nenna afraid of him. Mr. Scott said he had not done anything to cause Mr. Nenna to fear him, adding: "I thought he might've been embarrassed." Hundreds of Centro shareholders have joined the two class actions against the company and PwC, together worth AUD600 million. The shareholders claim they were made aware of the 2007 accounting error only in December that year when the company revealed it was having refinancing issues. The company's share price subsequently collapsed. PwC is count- claiming against Centro, alleging Centro withheld key documents. PwC also claims it warned Centro that there might be trouble with the accounts. Earlier, Mr. Scott told the court that PwC partner Stephen Cougle did not raise any issues with the company's accounts in early August just days ahead of their release to the stock exchange. "At that meeting, your honor, I recall Stephen Cougle confirmed that the audit was really done and that PwC had signed off on the accounts," Mr. Scott said. "I think he did mention also that there were some minor amendments but that nothing would be material." Centro is also facing allegations from shareholders it failed to give enough warning to investors that it was having trouble refinancing its considerable debt pile. Mr. Scott was presented with minutes taken of the company's board meeting in March 2007. They showed former chairman Brian Healey had voiced concerns the company would become "hostages to fortune" and there was a "possibility of egg on face". They also showed Mr. Nenna had told the board in March that nine months might not be enough to refinance a billion-dollar portion of the debts. Mr. Scott defended Centro's use of short-term debt to facilitate acquisitions as those purchases would grow the company. "Our raison d'etre was to look after shareholders," he said. The case continues. CITIBANK NA: Sued Over Undisclosed Frequent Flyer Miles Tax ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a customer claims in a federal class action that Citibank lured him to open a new account by offering frequent flyer miles on American Airlines, without explaining the tax obligations of the "value" of the air miles -- while Citibank got a tax break by calling the miles a business expense. Lead plaintiff Amer Safadi claims he signed up after getting a promotional offer in the mail. He claims Citibank issued him 60,000 frequent flyer miles after he complied with the terms of the promo, which included opening new checking and savings accounts with a certain amount of money, and using the associated debit card "a certain number of times within a certain time period thereafter." But Mr. Safadi says Citibank did not inform him, or the class, that it would "issue a [federal tax] Form 1099 for receipt of the airline miles, failed to state that Citibank had already calculated what it believed was the 'value' of the airline miles for reporting purposes on the Form 1099; failed to state what that 'value' to be reported on the Form 1099 would be; and failed to state whether the airline miles would ever expire or otherwise lose the 'value' that they may have. Rather, the offer simply states: 'Customer is responsible for taxes, if any.'" After he opened his account, Mr. Safadi says, he was "surprised" to receive a Form 1099 from Citibank, "indicating plaintiff had received $1,500 worth of 'income' from Citibank for receipt of the airline miles. . . . "This amount far over-states the actual 'value' the airline miles may have, if indeed they have any 'value' to plaintiff at all. However, defendant is motivated to over-state the 'value' of the airline miles issued to plaintiff since the amount reported on the Form 1099 may qualify as a business expense for defendant, and may therefore decrease defendant's tax obligation, resulting in a significant financial benefit to defendant at plaintiff's expense." Mr. Safadi says in his complaint that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, sent a letter to Citigroup's CEO on Jan. 30, requesting that Citibank stop issuing Form 1099s to its customers. Mr. Brown is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection. "In a newspaper interview response, Citibank implied that it would continue the practice of issuing Form 1099s notwithstanding consumer complaints and the problem with assigning a 'value' to the frequent flier miles," the complaint states. Mr. Safadi seeks an injunction, restitution and punitive damages for consumer fraud, unfair competition and breach of contract. A copy of the Complaint in Safadi v. Citibank N.A., Case No. 12-cv-01356 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Citibank.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason E. Baker, Esq. Brent Jex, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 6255 Lusk Blvd., Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 558-9400 - and - Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 6870 Embarcadero Lane Carlsbad, CA 92011 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 DRIVEN SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Amphetamine ------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a diet supplement maker is selling a mislabeled amphetamine with claims that it is "safe" and "helps put you in a fantastic mood," a man claims in a class action in Superior Court. Lead plaintiff Aaron Karmann sued Driven Sports, claiming its Craze diet supplement contains amphetamine, "a dangerous ingredient which is regulated as a controlled substance and a dangerous stimulant in California and thus cannot be lawfully included in a dietary supplement. A visit to Driven Sports' Web site on Tuesday found this ad: "Imagine having something available that helps you train BEYOND YOUR LIMITS. Imagine endless energy. No weight is too great and no personal record is safe. That something would give you unmatched results, where others have failed. That something is Craze"!, the ultimate in pre-workout power!" But Mr. Karmann says: "Defendant claims that the product is a 'dietary supplement' which is legal, safe, and efficacious. In reality, the product is intentionally tainted with amphetamine, the illegal and dangerous controlled substance that is not declared as an ingredient on the product's label." He claims that defendant's product "is intentionally tainted with amphetamine, the illegal and dangerous controlled substance that is not declared as an ingredient on the product's label." The complaint adds: "Defendant makes representations regarding the efficacy, safety and legality of the product which are false, misleading and deceptive. These include, without limitation, that Craze is 'safe,' that it 'helps put you in a fantastic mood and enhances your focus,' that it is 'designed to enhance your workouts and enhance your progress,' and that it can be used by students for studying. "Plaintiff and members of the class relied on defendant's misrepresentations and would not have paid as much, if at all, for the products but for defendant's misrepresentations. As a result, defendant has wrongfully taken millions of dollars from California consumers. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to enjoin the ongoing defrauding of thousands of California consumers by defendant, and to recover the money taken by its illegal practices." Mr. Karmann seeks an injunction, costs, restitution, disgorgement, and punitive damages. A copy of the Complaint in Karmann v. Driven Sports, Inc., et al., Case No. RIC 1203768 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Craze.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 895 Dove Street, Suite 425 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com FIBERON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deck Mold Warranty Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers, represented by Hagens Berman, who purchased Portico- brand decking manufactured by Fiberon have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that when their decking developed mold and fungus, the company failed to honor its warranty and pay for the deck to be repaired or replaced. The class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Fiberon, LLC, also known as Fiber Composites, LLC, manufactured Portico Series Decking products, which are made from a composite material comprised of wood fiber and polyethylene. The material was marketed as a premium alternative to traditional natural wood products at more than double the cost, the complaint alleges. However, according to the lawsuit, the company told consumers that it expressly warrants Portico products for 20 years, and that the decking is more resilient to cracks, mold, splinters and other problems typically associated with traditional natural wood decking. The company also implied that Portico products would require less upkeep, the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs claim that contrary to the claims made by Fiberon, Portico decking has a defect that results in extensive molding, mildew and other fungal growth that discolors the deck. They also claim they sought to have their deck repaired or replaced under Fiberon's 20-year warranty, but the company refused to cover the damage. One of the plaintiffs named in the complaint is David Fleisher, of North Wales, Pennsylvania. He purchased Portico decking because he believed it would be a low maintenance alternative to traditional wood decking. According to the complaint, his deck soon developed fungal growth, including large black spots. He had the deck cleaned, but the discoloration reappeared, so he sent a letter to Fiberon asking for relief under the warranty. Fiberon responded to his letter, admitting that the deck likely had mildew or mold, but refused to cover the damage under its warranty, court documents state. Instead of covering the damage or replacing the decking, the company tells consumers to clean their decks with chemical products at their own expense, the lawsuit claims. However, consumers say the cleaning methods do not prevent the mold for reappearing. Some of Fiberon's competitors offered similar composite decking products which reportedly have similar problems, and have settled class-action claims stemming from consumer complaints. Following those settlements, Fiberon allegedly removed its Portico products from the market. The lawsuit asks the court to award consumers damages, including a full refund or replacement of their decks. Hagens Berman invites potential plaintiffs who have suffered losses as a result of fungal growth on their Portico Decking to contact an attorney by calling 206-623-7292. The firm can also be reached by emailing Portico@hbsslaw.com More information about this case is available at http://www.hbsslaw.com/Portico About Hagens Berman Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- represents consumers, workers, whistleblowers and investors in complex litigation. The firm has offices in ten cities. GODADDY.COM: Sued Over Internet Domain Name Registration Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims GoDaddy.com offered free registration of five or more Internet domain names, then "overbilled and charged the customers for those ostensibly 'free' services upon the renewal of the customer's Internet domain names." A copy of the Complaint in WineStyles, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-00583 (D. Ariz.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/GoDaddy.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Hodkin, Esq. Stephen J. Padula, Esq. PADULA HODKIN, PLLC 101 Plaza Real South, Suite 207 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 544-8900 E-mail: ahodkin@padulahodkin.com GOV'T OF GUAM: Political Status Referendum Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that the attorney representing Dave Davis in the Class Action lawsuit against the Guam Election Commission over the referendum on political status has given the court a list of 49 names of prominent island resident who may have "discoverable information" in the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in Guam District Court last November alleging that the Guam Election Commission has "illegally and unconstitutionally" refused to allow Guam voters who do not meet the definition of "native inhabitant" to register for the non- binding referendum. A Rule 26 disclosure filed on March 16 states that some of those named are said to have information "relating to racial appeals, statements characterizing the plebiscite as having a racial character." Among those in that category are Speaker Judi Won Pat, Senators Ben Pangelinan and B.J. Cruz, Executive Director of the Guam Commission on Decolonization, Edward Alvarez, and President of Chamorro Affairs Joseph Artero-Cameron. Attorney General Lenny Rapadas has filed a motion to dismiss the case because it fails to present a "justiciable case or controversy." But shortly after the filing, the Attorney General entered into settlement negotiations with Davis' Attorney, Christian Adams of the Election Law Center in Washington D.C. According to the latest scheduling order, also filed on March 16, "The parties have discussed various ways . . . to ascertain the political wishes of subsets of the population of Guam . . . and share at least a measure of theoretical agreement that alternative registration and electoral structures are available to accomplish some objectives of the current and challenged system." But, the scheduling order notes "any settlement would require the modification of an existing registration system and . . . may require the Guam Legislature's approval." Both sides have agreed to submit the case "to a settlement conference sometime during late September 2012." GOV'T OF UNITED KINGDOM: May Face Adoption Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ted Jeory, writing for Express.co.uk, reports that a wealthy psychiatrist who faces being struck off over claims he deliberately misdiagnosed parents to please social workers once tried to persuade a committee of MPs to make his techniques a national standard, the Sunday Express can reveal. Porsche driving Dr. George Hibbert is under investigation by the General Medical Council over claims he falsified psychiatric reports on parents so he could rake in business from local authorities. It is claimed he misdiagnosed parents with mental disorders so that social services could persuade judges to issue care orders. It is thought many children have been taken away from their natural parents and adopted with new families for life in what could be one of Britain's biggest scandals. Dr. Hibbert's Assessment in Care business earned hundreds of thousands of pounds by charging councils around the country GBP6,000 a week for each parent in his care. The Sunday Express, which has led the way in exposing dangers of relying on single expert witness testimony in court proceedings, can now reveal that such was his confidence in his lucrative work that he supplied evidence to the Justice Select Committee two years ago. Mr. Hibbert and family solicitor Jill Canvin, who lives with him at his country home in Wiltshire, produced a dossier for MPs in August 2010 in which they boasted the merits of their methods. They said the Government would save GBP125 million a year if it adopted their Tadpole Parenting Assessment software, named after their Tadpole Cottage assessment centre. They said their techniques should be the basis for a national standard for social services so that delays and administration in the family court system could be reduced. "We have a proposal which would provide a rational basis for [Court] Guardians to reduce their workload," they said, adding: "This would be achieved by enabling social services to make more consistent, reliable and fair assessments of parenting." They told MPs that their recognition of the "poor" standard of social services was "endorsed" by Barnardo's , which was at that time headed by Martin Narey, who is now the Coalition's Adoption Tsar and acclaimed by David Cameron. Dr. Hibbert and Ms. Canvin said their methods should be run in a pilot scheme that would test the IQs of parents and monitor their behavior. They sell their Tadpole Parenting Assessment via their Web site. As a result of the GMC investigation, a lawyer acting for a mother known for legal reasons as 'Miss A', who had her child removed after she says she was misdiagnosed with bipolar by Dr. Hibbert, now believes a massive class action against the Government is in store. Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, said he had already been contacted by several other parents who have been allegedly misdiagnosed by experts like Dr. Hibbert all over the country. He said: "This is a wider problem than just one case. These experts start out as clinicians but then they seem to get corrupted by money and the commercial opportunities." Lib Dem MP John Hemming has through the pages of the Sunday Express previously called for a national inquiry into the use of single expert testimonies in court proceedings because he believes they can be "hired hands doing their masters' bidding". Neither Dr. Hibbert nor Ms. Canvin could be contacted, but a spokesman for the psychiatrist at the Medical Protection Agency, the indemnity organization for doctors, said professional confidentiality meant Dr. Hibbert was "unable to comment on allegations raised in relation to care of a patient". H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. has been named in a putative class action styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The plaintiffs allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL) product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in December 2003. An appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification decision. The Company is appealing the reversal. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc.'s portfolio includes loans originated by Sand Canyon Corporation, previously known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, and its subsidiaries (SCC) and purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank), which constitute 63% of the total loan portfolio at January 31, 2012. On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450 CJC). Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection with the failure to pay severance benefits to employees when their employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of Option One. Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims. On September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which remains pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to case's outcome or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. H&R BLOCK: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Consolidate 7 Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion to consolidate seven class action lawsuits before a single court for pretrial proceedings, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. A series of class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011, concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund anticipation check (RAC) products, styled Anthony Johnson v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-09577) (C.D. Cal.); Norma Molina-Servin v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-08244) (N.D. Ill.); William Wimbley v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-24159) (S.D. Fla.); Sandy Morton v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:11-cv-00859) (E.D. Ark.); Iris Orta v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-01149) (E.D. Wis.); Maggie Murchio v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No.1:12-cv-00063) (W.D. Md.); and Catherine Gaddy v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:12-cv- 00052) (M.D. N.C). The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent acts in violation of various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act, and by offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2011, to consolidate the cases before a single court for pretrial proceedings (In Re Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation, MDL No. 2334). This motion remains pending. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. H&R BLOCK: Civil Conspiracy Claim in "Menezes" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County, South Carolina, dismissed in February 2012 plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants in a lawsuit commenced by Brian Menezes, according to H&R Block, Inc.'s March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim against MCM. Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI. Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants. Plaintiffs' other claims remain pending. The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. H&R BLOCK: Wage and Hour Suits Remain pending in Various Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- Wage and hour class action lawsuits filed against H&R Block, Inc., are still pending in various courts, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. The Company has been named in several wage and hour class action lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, Case No. RG08366506 (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging improper classification and failure to compensate for all hours worked and to provide meal periods to office managers in California); Arabella Lemus, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251 (United States District Court, Northern District of California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging failure to timely pay compensation to tax professionals in California); Delana Ugas, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central District of California, filed July 13, 2009) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals in California for all hours worked and to provide meal periods); and Barbara Petroski, et al. v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals nationwide for off-season training). A class was certified in the Lemus case in December 2010 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2007 to 2010); in the Williams case in March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company- owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011); and in the Ugas case in August 2011 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011). In Petroski, a conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for certain training courses occurring on or after April 15, 2007). Two classes were also certified under state laws in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in those states). A trial date has been set in the Williams case for April 30, 2012. The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in addition to statutory penalties under state and federal law, which could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class members who worked in California. A portion of the Company's loss contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of loss that the Company considers probable and estimable. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to predict. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows, individually or in the aggregate. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Lemus case in January 2012, subject to approval by the federal court in California in which the case is pending. This settlement would require a maximum payment of $35 million, although the actual cost of the settlement would depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The federal court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 10, 2012. A final approval hearing is scheduled to occur on May 10, 2012. The Company says it has recorded a liability for its estimate of the expected loss. If for any reason the settlement is not approved, the Company says it will continue to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. H&R BLOCK: Plea to Decertify in "Barrett" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc.'s portfolio includes loans originated by Sand Canyon Corporation, previously known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, and its subsidiaries (SCC) and purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank), which constitute 63% of the total loan portfolio at January 31, 2012. On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08- 10157-RWZ). Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages. The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. In March 2011, the court issued an order certifying a class, which defendants sought to appeal. On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider its certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter. SCC has filed a motion to decertify the class, which remains pending. The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that it considers probable and estimable. The Company believes SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. H&R BLOCK: Says Sum Paid for EquiCo Deal Did Not Exceed Accrual --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. disclosed in its March 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012, that the amount it paid during its third quarter did not exceed the amount it had previously accrued with respect to its settlement of a class action lawsuit involving its subsidiaries. The Company's subsidiary, RSM EquiCo, Inc. (EquiCo), its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006, and styled Do Right's Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. (the "RSM Parties"), Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange County. The complaint contains allegations relating to business valuation services provided by EquiCo, including allegations of fraud, conversion and unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre- judgment interest and attorneys' fees. On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all claims. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case for a maximum payment of $41.5 million, although the actual cost of the settlement will depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The California Superior Court granted final approval of the settlement on October 20, 2011. The Company says it previously recorded a liability for its best estimate of the expected loss. The Company disclosed that the amount it paid during its third quarter did not exceed the amount it had previously accrued. HALIFAX: May Face Class Action Over Pet Insurance Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Latham, writing for Metro, reports that an official review of possible mis-selling of pet insurance policies is to be undertaken by the financial watchdog. It follows a number of complaints from pet owners who claim Halifax, Lloyds and NIG mis-sold them policies for 'life-long' cover. After the policies were withdrawn last month, many customers said they feared having to put their pets to sleep because they could not afford costly treatments. More than 1,000 pet owners have since set up an action group to consider taking a joint class action against the insurers. The members of PAWs -- Pets Alliance Watchdogs -- recently met to seek legal advice about how best to fight for damages. Marc Gander, founder of the Consumer Action Group, said an inquiry into pet insurance was 'long overdue'. But he added: 'For many pet owners, it will be too late. A payment of money to compensate for a dead pet is callous.' The Financial Ombudsman Service will only look into a customer's complaint if they have already contacted their insurer and are unhappy with the response they received. HSBC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ HSBC Holdings plc continues to defend certain class action lawsuits relating to the setting of U.S. dollar LIBOR, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Various regulators and competition and enforcement authorities around the world including in the UK, the U.S. and the EU, are conducting investigations related to certain past submissions made by panel banks in connection with the setting of London interbank offered rates ('LIBOR') and European interbank offered rates. As certain HSBC entities are members of such panels, HSBC and/or its subsidiaries have been the subject of regulatory demands for information and are cooperating with their investigations. In addition, HSBC and other panel banks have been named in putative class action lawsuits filed by private parties in the U.S. with respect to the setting of U.S. dollar LIBOR. Based on the facts currently known, the Company says it is not practicable at this time for it to predict the resolution of these regulatory investigations or putative class action lawsuits, including the timing and potential impact, if any, on HSBC. HSBC Holdings plc is the holding company for the HSBC Group. The Company provides a variety of international banking and financial services, including retail and corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and insurance. The Group operates worldwide. HSBC HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Jaffe" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- HSBC Holdings plc is awaiting a final judgment to be entered by an Illinois court in a class action lawsuit involving its subsidiary, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 State Attorneys General relating to real estate lending practices, Household International (now HSBC Finance Corporation) and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v Household International Inc, et al No 2. C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed August 19, 2002). The complaint asserted claims under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999, and October 11, 2002. The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 State settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. Following a jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs, the Court issued a ruling on November 22, 2010 within the second phase of the case to determine actual damages, that claim forms should be mailed to class members, and also set out a method for calculating damages for class members who filed claims. As previously reported, lead plaintiffs, in court filings in March 2010, estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between US$2.4bn to US$3.2bn to class members,' before pre-judgment interest. On December 22, 2011, plaintiffs submitted the report of the Court-appointed claims administrator to the Court. That report stated that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was approximately US$2.23bn. Now that the claims administration process is complete, plaintiffs are expected to ask the Court to assess pre-judgment interest to be included as part of the Court's final judgment. On January 27, 2012, the Court held a status conference at which it set a schedule for the Company to provide plaintiffs with objections to the claims and for plaintiffs to respond to such objections. The Court also indicated at that conference that it expects to schedule a further conference in April 2012. The Company expects the Court's final judgment to be entered at some point after this conference. Despite the jury verdict and the November 22, 2010 ruling, HSBC continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case, and intends to appeal the Court's final judgment, which could involve a substantial amount once it is entered. Upon appeal, HSBC Finance will be required to provide security for the judgment in order to suspend its execution while the appeal is ongoing by either depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account or posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including any pre-judgment interest awarded). Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages, including the outcome of any appeals, there is a wide range of possible damages. HSBC believes it has meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both liability and damages and will argue on appeal that damages should be nil or a relatively insignificant amount. If the Appeals Court rejects or only partially accepts HSBC's arguments, the amount of damages, including pre judgment interest, could be higher, and may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant amount to somewhere in the region of US$3.5bn. HSBC Holdings plc is the holding company for the HSBC Group. The Company provides a variety of international banking and financial services, including retail and corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and insurance. The Group operates worldwide. HSBC HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Appeal Madoff-Related Claims Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in class action lawsuits arising from Bernard L. Madoff's fraud have appealed the dismissal of all remaining claims against HSBC defendants, according to HSBC Holdings plc's March 7, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ('Madoff') was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ('Madoff Securities'), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser. Since his appointment, the trustee has been recovering assets and processing claims of Madoff Securities customers. Madoff subsequently pleaded guilty to various charges and is serving a 150 year prison sentence. He has acknowledged, in essence, that while purporting to invest his customers' money in securities and, upon request, return their profits and principal, he in fact never invested in securities and used other customers' money to fulfill requests for the return of profits and principal. The relevant U.S. authorities are continuing their investigations into his fraud, and have brought charges against others, including certain former employees and the former auditor of Madoff Securities. Various non-US HSBC companies provided custodial, administration and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the U.S. whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities. Based on information provided by Madoff Securities, as at November 30, 2008, the purported aggregate value of these funds was US$8.4bn, an amount that includes fictitious profits reported by Madoff. Based on information available to HSBC to date, the Company estimates that the funds' actual transfers to Madoff Securities minus their actual withdrawals from Madoff Securities during the time that HSBC serviced the funds totaled approximately US$4bn. Plaintiffs (including funds, fund investors, and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in lawsuits in the U.S., Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain lawsuits (which included four U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors. In July 2010, the U.S. District Court Judge overseeing a putative class action in the Southern District of Florida dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. In November 2011, the US District Court Judge overseeing three related putative class actions in the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a proposed amended settlement agreement pursuant to which, subject to various conditions, the HSBC defendants had agreed to pay from US$52.5m up to a maximum of US$62.5m. In December 2011, the court lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary approval of the settlement. In light of the court's decisions, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement. The Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate. Plaintiffs in all three actions have filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. HSBC Holdings plc is the holding company for the HSBC Group. The Company provides a variety of international banking and financial services, including retail and corporate banking, trade, trusteeship, securities, custody, capital markets, treasury, private and investment banking, and insurance. The Group operates worldwide. INTELIUS: Sued Over Unlicensed Private Investigator Business ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that in two class actions on the frontier of Internet law, people claim that Intelius and Digimedia dba Peoplefinder work as private investigators in Missouri without state certification. Intelius, based in Bellevue, Wash., offers its services through its Web site intelious.com. Named plaintiff Michael Brown claims Intelius says its investigations can get information about crimes threatened or committed against the United States; the identity, credibility, habits, business, integrity, credibility, trustworthiness, loyalty, movements, affiliations, and reputation of certain individuals; and information on a person's address, phone number history, social media history, criminal record, family and financial history. Mr. Brown says Intelius is working as a private investigator without a license. In the second class action, filed by the same law firm, lead plaintiff Thuy Nguyen makes the same accusation against Digimedia.com dba Peoplefinder.com "At no pertinent time has defendant ever held a license [to] engage in private investigator business in the State of Missouri, nor has it ever held a license to engage in business in the State of Missouri as a private investigator agency," Mr. Brown says in his complaint in St. Louis County Court. "Moreover, defendant has never applied for any such licenses. "At no pertinent time have any of defendant's employees ever been licensed pursuant to RMSo Sec. 324.1104 to engage in private investigator business in the state of Missouri. "At all pertinent times, defendant's failure to hold the license(s) . . . was information that a reasonable consumer would consider important in deciding whether to hire defendant for the purpose of having the defendant or its employees engage in private investigator business." The class consists of all Missourians who have bought private investigations from Feb. 1, 2010 to final judgment. The law requiring such a license was passed in 2007, but Mr. Brown's attorney, Michael Kruse, said the state finally got the mechanisms to enforce the law on Feb. 1, 2010. "We were concerned with the value customers are getting in light of the licensing statue," Mr. Kruse told Courthouse News. "They have a right to comply with the law. There is a reason why the state of Missouri felt it needed such controls and companies can't be above the law through their business model using the Internet." The classes seek an injunction, rescission of contracts, restitution and actual and punitive damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation by omission, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Mr. Kruse filed the nearly identical class action against Digimedia.com dba Peoplefinder.com. Mr. Kruse said he does not expect his firm to file any more class actions against private investigation companies. "We were looking at several different companies and those two were the most major violators," Mr. Kruse said. A copy of the Complaint in Brown v. Intelius, Inc., Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/Intelius.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James G. Onder, Esq. Michael S. Kruse, Esq. ONDER, SHELTON, O'LEARY & PETERSON, LLC 110 E. Lockwood, 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 963-9000 E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com kruse@onderlaw.com - and - John F. Medler, Jr., Esq. THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, LLC 7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 360 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 727-8777 E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com - and - Joel J. Schwartz, Esq. ROSENBLUM, SCHWARTZ, ROGERS & GLASS, P.C. 120 South Central, Suite 130 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-4332 E-mail: jschwartz@rsrglaw.com KRATOS DEFENSE: Last Obj. to IPO Suit Settlement Order Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2012, the last objection to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit was settled, according to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.'s March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 25, 2011. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were previously defendants in several parallel class action shareholder complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, consolidated under the caption In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case 01-CV-4779. These complaints were consolidated into an action captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (the "IPO Cases"). On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the Court close the IPO Cases. Notices of appeal of this decision were filed. In January 2012, the last objection to the decision was settled. All remaining appeal rights have expired without any financial obligation having been incurred by the Company. LEIGHTON: Watchdog Calls for Harsher Continuous Disclosure Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Butler and Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the corporate watchdog has called on big business to keep the market properly informed after finding troubled construction giant Leighton was too slow to tell investors of a AUD900 million hole in its books. Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman Greg Medcraft on March 18 called for harsher continuous disclosure rules, saying penalties for breaches should be increased. Leighton has paid ASIC AUD300,000, the maximum possible, after being hit with infringement notices for failing to tell the market of losses in three crucial areas: the Victorian desalination plant, the Brisbane Airport Link and its Dubai offshoot. The company has also signed a court-enforceable undertaking, agreeing to employ a consultant who will overhaul the company's disclosure policies for the next three years. ASIC's action gives new impetus to a planned class action against Leighton, with lawyers at Maurice Blackburn now potentially able to sift through the masses of information gathered by the regulator during its seven-month investigation. Mr. Medcraft defended ASIC's use of infringement notices, rather than legal action, as "timely and efficient". "The message can be very clear to directors of listed companies in Australia -- it reinforces the requirements in relation to their continuous disclosure operations. "Basically the listing rules require that if a company has information which a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price of a company's shares then they should disclose it." He said infringement penalties were set by the government. "I think they could be more, but that's a matter for government." By March 18 last year, Leighton management knew that each of its three problem areas were in hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of trouble, the corporate regulator said in an outline of facts released on March 18. But the company did not disclose the depths of its woes to the market until nearly a month later, on April 11, when it announced a AUD907 million slump in its fortunes. While previously Leighton had expected profit for the year of AUD480 million, it said it now expected a loss of AUD427 million -- information ASIC said should have been disclosed earlier. The admission, and an associated AUD757 million emergency capital raising, sent Leighton stock into free fall, carving 11.9 per cent from its price when it came out of a trading halt later that week. LEIGHTON: Class Action Bigger Threat Than Disclosure Penalties -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that corporate governance professionals have backed the regulator's call for stiffer penalties when companies fail to keep investors informed of profit downgrades. The calls follow a AUD300,000 penalty levied on construction giant Leighton on March 16 for keeping knowledge of a AUD900 million hole in its books from investors for a month. They said the threat of a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit acted as a bigger brake on corporate misbehavior than the possibility of action by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Ian Ramsay, of the University of Melbourne's centre for corporate law and securities regulation, said the infringement notice system used to penalize Leighton was failing to meet its aim of being a quick alternative to legal action. He said ASIC had issued only 18 infringement notices for failing to disclose market-sensitive information since they were introduced in 2004, and it was taking the regulator an average of about 250 days to issue a notice -- well in excess of its target of 90 days. "There's a real problem in the system," Professor Ramsay said. He said the maximum $100,000 penalty paid by Leighton for each of its three infringements was "not particularly large", but cautioned that meaningful penalties that hurt might encourage companies to fight ASIC in court, draining the regulator's limited resources. Dean Paatsch, a corporate governance specialist, backed ASIC's call for tougher penalties, but said shareholder class actions were a far greater deterrent to company directors. A class action could shred a director's reputation and inflict far more financial pain on a company, he said. "By all means give the regulator more teeth, but private enforcement has got far greater force than these fines at the moment," Mr. Paatsch said. Andrew Watson, a principal at Maurice Blackburn, said the ASIC penalties bolstered the law firm's shareholder class action against Leighton. "We anticipate being in a position to make an announcement in the relatively near future," he said. The manager of strategy and engagement at the Australian Council of Super Investors, Phil Spathis, said the call by the ASIC chairman, Greg Medcraft, for tougher penalties at the weekend suggested the existing laws were similar to hitting offenders "with wet lettuce". "The first disincentive should actually be ethics. While the majority of people tend to these sort of issues, some of them may need a second disincentive, which may mean looking at [higher] fines," he said. The managing director of White Funds Management, Angus Gluskie, said the fine was small in the context of a multinational such as Leighton but it was another black mark against the company's reputation. The Australian Institute of Company Directors and the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury, Bernie Ripoll, did not comment on March 19. MULTILINK: EEOC to Seek Class Action Status in Harassment Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The HR Specialist reports that Multilink, an Elyria-based supplier of computer networking equipment, is fighting off an EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit that might have been prevented if it had investigated an employee's initial complaint. Nancy Noble originally complained about sexual harassment shortly after she began working there in 2009. The EEOC alleges that although Multilink's HR staff and other managers were aware of the sex-based harassment and abusive work environment, the company failed to conduct a proper investigation or take action to stop the misconduct. Now the EEOC is suing on Ms. Noble's behalf, seeking injunctive relief, lost wages and benefits. But that could be the least of the company's worries. The EEOC wants class-action status for the lawsuit, which means it could be open to all other women who worked in Multilink's Elyria office. That means the sky's the limit on the company's potential liability. NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Dec. 3 Trial Set for Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Dow Jones Newswires reports that an Australian judge has set a December trial date for a class action brought by a group of investors seeking around AUD450 million (US$476.6 million) in compensation against National Australia Bank Ltd. Both institutional and retail investors have signed up to the class action, alleging that Australia's fourth-largest lender by market value breached continuous-disclosure obligations and behaved in a misleading and deceptive way over its exposure to AUD1.2 billion in impaired collaterized debt obligations. CDOs are financial instruments commonly blamed for contributing to the 2008 global financial crisis. Justice Gaetano Pagone set the trial date for Dec. 3 in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case is estimated to run for 16 weeks, with lawyers for the class action, claimants and the bank describing it as complex. NEVSUN: Unveils Share Repurchase Program, Faces Shareholders' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MidnightTrader.com reports that Nevsun Resources Ltd. on March 19 announced the initiation of a common share repurchase program using the normal course issuer bid facility under Toronto Stock Exchange rules. Nevsun has received approval from the TSX to purchase up to 4,009,408 common shares of the Company, representing approximately 2% of the 200,470,415 common shares issued and outstanding as at March 15, 2012. In separate news, the law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announced on March 16 that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Nevsun between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012. The complaint alleges that Nevsun and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) Nevsun's mining at the Bisha Mine resulted in a material amount of waste rock, rather than gold ore; (ii) that gold ore and gold from the Bisha Mine was materially less than the amount estimated by the company's model and defendants had reason to know this based on data routinely collected from the Bisha Mine throughout the class period; (iii) that Nevsun was progressing through the ore body much more quickly than planned in order to maintain gold production at a rate that would not reveal to investors that the amount of gold at the Bisha Mine was materially less than the company's model; (iv) that Nevsun was aware that its model was materially defective because the actual amounts of gold mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the model previously disseminated; and (v) Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the Bisha mine. PEGASUS WIRELESS: Settles Shareholder Derivative Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Fazio | Micheletti LLP has negotiated the settlement of a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of former Fremont, California-based Pegasus Wireless Corporation against several former members of Pegasus's Board of Directors. The case is Chen v. Jasper Knabb, et. al. (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG 07310978). Plaintiff Chen, a current Pegasus shareholder, alleges that in June 2006 Pegasus's former President and CEO, Jasper Knabb, agreed to purchase 1,250,000 shares of Pegasus stock for $8 per share. In September 2006, the price of Pegasus stock had plummeted to less than $1 a share, yet the Pegasus Board of Directors voted to approve the repurchase of 870,375 shares of the stock Mr. Knabb had purchased for the original price of $8 a share -- roughly eight times the then-current purchase price -- causing Pegasus to effectively give away several millions of dollars to Mr. Knabb. The Defendants who appeared in the action (the "Individual Defendants") dispute these allegations and deny any liability. Summary of Proposed Settlement. Following extensive discovery, litigation, and mediation, the Individual Defendants and their insurer have agreed to (1) pay a total of $1,450,000 ("Settlement Fund"), which shall be used to compensate Pegasus, pay the attorney fees and expenses Plaintiff's counsel incurred as a result of prosecuting the case, and pay an incentive award to Plaintiff in amounts to be approved by the Court, and (2) to pay up to an additional $50,000 in notice/administration costs (with any costs in excess of $50,000 to be paid from the Settlement Fund). In exchange, Pegasus's claims against all Defendants will be released and the action will be dismissed. Because the lawsuit is a derivative action brought on behalf of Pegasus, and is not a class action brought on behalf of shareholders, no shareholder will be compensated directly by this settlement and, therefore, there is no claims procedure for shareholders. You Have a Right to Object /Comment on the Settlement. Any current Pegasus shareholder who wishes to comment on or object to the proposed settlement has the right to file a comment/objection and appear at the Settlement Hearing, provided you comply with the procedures set forth in Section 8 of the Detailed Notice prior to 05-15-12, including filing your objection with the Court Clerk, Alameda County Superior Court, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612 and serving a copy on all counsel listed below. Requirements also include the need to establish that you currently own Pegasus stock. Notice of Hearing. A hearing will be held on 06-06-12 at 3:00 p.m. before the Honorable Steven Brick, Department 17, 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine: (1) whether the Settlement should be approved as adequate, fair, and reasonable; (2) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (3) the award of Plaintiff counsels' attorneys' fees and costs and incentive award to Plaintiff of $2,500; and (4) any other necessary matters. Plaintiff's counsel intend to request a fee of $500,000 plus their litigation costs of $17,900, which are less than the amounts counsel actually incurred in prosecuting the case. If the settlement is approved, shareholders will be bound by the decision and will be deemed to have released any derivative claims that have or could have been brought in the Action. Individual claims will not be released. Counsel For Plaintiff: For Individual Defendants: Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Susan S. Muck, Esq. Dina E. Micheletti, Esq. Felix S. Lee, Esq. Fazio | Micheletti LLP Jennifer Bretan 2410 Camino Ramon, Ste 315 Fenwick & West LLP San Ramon, CA, 94583 555 California Street, 12th Floor Web site: www.fazmiclaw.com Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Web site: www.fenwick.com R. ALLEN STANFORD: Investor Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------- Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that R. Allen Stanford's aggrieved investors can press state court class-action lawsuits they filed seeking to recover losses in his $7 billion international fraud scheme, a U.S. appeals court ruled. The New Orleans based panel on March 19 reversed a lower-court decision that the claims were barred by a federal law preventing plaintiffs from pursuing state-law claims arising from the purchase or sale of federally regulated securities. A federal court jury in Houston on March 6 found Mr. Stanford guilty of mail and wire fraud in the sale of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is to be sentenced June 14. The purchase or sale of securities is only "tangentially related" to Mr. Stanford's scheme, the unanimous three-judge panel said, reviving four lawsuits filed against those who sold the CDs and lawyers and an insurer for the Stanford bank. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Mr. Stanford and two other top executives in his organization in February 2009, alleging they misled investors about the nature and oversight of the Antiguan bank and the CDs it issued. He and other executives were indicted on federal charges four months later. Finance chief James Davis pleaded guilty to fraud in August 2009 and testified against Mr. Stanford in his six-week trial. U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas, who has been overseeing the SEC case and related litigation, took jurisdiction over the investor claims removed from state to federal court. Lower-Court Ruling He dismissed them because Mr. Stanford advertised the CDs as being backed by regulated securities and some investors sold securities to finance their CD purchases. Those facts put the CD-related suits in the ambit of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the judge ruled. The appeals court disagreed. "We find that the fact that some of the plaintiffs sold some 'covered securities' in order to put their money in the CDs was not more than tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme," the New Orleans panel said. The case is Roland v. Green, 11-10932, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans). SCOTTISH WATER: Seafield Residents Seek Class Action Over Stench ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotsman reports that residents who have been plagued for years by the notorious Seafield Stench are calling for a change in the law so they can sue Scottish Water over the odor. Rob Kirkwood, on behalf of Leith Links Residents Association, has submitted a petition to the Scottish Parliament, arguing people in Scotland should be able to take collective "class actions" against companies, as is already the case south of the Border. A similar case in Liverpool against United Utilities led to an out-of-court settlement of millions of pounds for residents. Earlier this month, people living near the Seafield works complained the smell, which some have endured for decades, had returned to the area despite a GBP20 million odor improvement project. Scottish Water, which owns the plant, blamed weather patterns. The Leith residents were forced to drop an earlier attempt to take legal action against Scottish Water after running into problems over Scotland's disclosure laws, which do not require firms to provide information needed for a court case. A previous petition to the parliament was also abandoned after a review of Scotland's civil law system by Lord Gill recommended the present obstacles to multi-party or "class" actions should be removed. Mr. Kirkwood said: "We were advised to drop the petition because something positive was possibly going to happen but nothing has, so we are back again. "We hope that by tweaking existing rules, we can ensure people in Scotland can have the same access to justice as people in England and Wales." The Scottish Government said it planned to publish a consultation on proposed changes to the system, including class actions, towards the end of the year. But Mr. Kirkwood said that was kicking the issue into the long grass. He said: "The Gill report was a comprehensive review of what could and could not be done. What they are now proposing is yet another review. These are standard tactics for politicians who want to shelve proposals for as long as possible." Edinburgh Northern and Leith Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm backed the residents, saying: "Groups of people cannot take civil action in Scotland and that needs to be corrected." A Scottish Government spokesman confirmed the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Legal Aid Amendment Scotland Bill 2012 would not address class actions. But he said: "The Scottish Government fully supports the Scottish Civil Courts Review recommendations in principle, including the creation of a new type of class action procedure in Scotland." STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: Disputes Mineral Rights Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Elijah Nouvelage, writing for Williston Herald, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in Williams County Court earlier this month claims the state has made millions of dollars at the expense of private mineral rights owners along the banks of the Missouri River in the Williston area. "I think the rulings in this case has very broad applications," said Jan Conlin, an attorney representing local mineral rights owners in the case. The class action is comprised of several Williston families, including Stanford and Amy Reep and the Florence E. Irwin family. Other plaintiffs on the lawsuit, which includes "all others similarly situated" are from Minot and elsewhere in North Dakota, officials said. Being sued are the State of North Dakota, North Dakota Board of University and School Lands and North Dakota Trust Lands Commissioner Lance D. Gaebe. "Under North Dakota property law dating back to territorial times, private owners of land along rivers and lakes throughout the state take rights in that land to the low water mark," according to a press release from Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, the Minneapolis-based law firm that filed the lawsuit. "Individuals have purchased mineral interests in land above the low water mark of rivers, lakes, and other waters in North Dakota with the understanding that they own those mineral interests." However, the state maintains it owns all land and mineral rights from the high-water mark of one side of the river to the high- water mark on the other side, Ms. Conlin said. "The State of North Dakota and the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands have wrongfully asserted absolute title to those privately owned mineral interests in land along rivers and lakes in North Dakota between the low water mark and the high water mark," according to the press release. The lawsuit brings into question about a 50-mile stretch of riverbank from the Montana border to near New Town. There are potentially thousands of acres of affected mineral rights, that may affect hundreds of mineral rights owners or more, Ms. Conlin said. There are many mineral rights owners who don't own much acreage and don't have monetary backing to battle the state on the issue, she added. Although the state has not yet responded in court to the lawsuit, Ms. Conlin said she expects the state to maintain the stance that it owns the mineral rights. Ms. Conlin said she expects the court to schedule in the next few weeks a timeline for the case to proceed. No judge has been assigned the case yet, she said. Similar lawsuits against the state, arguing who owns the mineral rights along rivers and lakes, where the waterline can move year by year, have been filed in the past. THESTREET INC: Appeal from IPO Suit Settlement Dismissed in Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- TheStreet, Inc., disclosed in its March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that the last remaining appeal from the settlement of a consolidated lawsuit over its initial public offering was dismissed in January. In 2001, the Company, certain of its current or former officers and directors and certain underwriters were named in a securities class action related to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). Similar lawsuits were filed against approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters, all of which are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the district court (the "IPO Litigations"). The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from investors and that some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the Company's stock. The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs. In 2003, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims against it under Rule 10b-5 but motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 were denied as to virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases, including the Company. In addition, some of the individual defendants in the IPO Litigations signed a tolling agreement and were dismissed from the action without prejudice on October 9, 2002. In 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in 2005 but in 2007 the settlement was terminated, in light of a ruling by the appellate court in related litigation in 2006 that reversed the trial court's certification of classes in that related litigation. In 2009, another settlement was entered into and approved by the trial court. Under the settlement, the Company's obligation would be paid by the issuers' insurance companies. The settlement was appealed; in May 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed one appeal and remanded another appeal to the District Court to determine whether the appellant has standing; in August 2011, the District Court determined that the applicable appellant did not have standing, which decision was appealed. In January 2012, the appeal was dismissed and the settlement is to be effected. THIESS DEGREMONT: Unions Launch Class Action Over Spying Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ewin Hannan, writing for The Australian, reports that unions have launched a landmark class action against the builders of Victoria's desalination project, claiming the joint venture allowed information on thousands of workers to be kept and accessed by controversial strike breaker Bruce Townsend. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union and other unions have begun action in the Federal Court in what is the latest chapter of the spying scandal first exposed by The Australian in 2010. Bill Oliver, the CFMEU's Victorian secretary, said the legal action had been taken because workers believed Thiess Degremont had allowed Mr. Townsend to access information on up to 18,000 workers, including current employees and those no longer employed at the plant, as well as job applicants. It emerged on March 19 that Thiess Degremont admitted to the union on February 15 that Mr. Townsend remained in possession of personal information supplied by at least 500 individuals. Lawyers for the unions alleged in court on March 16 that in giving him access to the information, Thiess had breached the Privacy Act, the Trade Practices Act and the Competition and Consumer Act. Mr. Townsend had been ordered to deliver to the court all private information on the workers by 2.15 p.m. on March 20. "Everyone in Australia has a right to go to work without being spied on by their bosses," Mr. Oliver said. "If information is desired and collected, there should be consent. Collecting information like Townsend did is unlawful, unethical and outside the bounds of the regular occurrence on construction sites or any other workplace." Unions will seek damages and compensation, although specific amounts to be claimed have not been nominated. Their lawyer, Marcus Clayton, head of industrial law at Slater & Gordon, said that "this case could be the first of its kind in Australia". "This case will be about what are an employer's obligations in relation to personal information provided by employees," he said. "We will also claim in this case that the arrangement between the joint venture and the covert operatives to spy on workers was unlawful." Thiess Degremont spokeswoman Serena Middleton on March 19 acknowledged it took nine months to pass the information to the union about the accessing of data. "An investigation by Deloitte Forensic in November 2010 concluded that knowledge of the engagement of (Mr. Townsend's firm) ASI was limited to certain project-level managers, who are no longer employed by the joint venture," Ms. Middleton said. "The investigation also confirmed that ASI had not carried out any covert surveillance on the project, and had not accessed any payroll data. "In May 2011, TDJV received new information that ASI had accessed other personal information about employees. "We shared this information with the CFMEU in February 2012 and agreed that we would be advising all of the individuals involved in mid-April. "Further, we agreed to work with the CFMEU to jointly recover the information from ASI. "We offered to share this same information and recovery process with the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. "Thiess Degremont has brought claims in the Supreme Court of Victoria to recover the information from ASI. "We welcome Slater & Gordon's claim against ASI, which may strengthen the prospect of information being recovered." After The Australian revealed the existence of the operation to spy on unions and workers at the plant using ASI (Australian Security & Investigations), the company terminated the employment of human resources executive Marcus Carroll and the plant's chief, Greg Miller. Thiess chief executive Neville Power, who said he was unaware of the spying, left soon afterwards to become head of the Fortescue Metals Group. Thiess has been trying to retrieve more than AUD567,000 it paid ASI. TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Defective Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend purported class action lawsuits alleging certain defects in its products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser Group") on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs. These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (the "Hagens Berman Firm") on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case. On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement. On April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final. On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original complaint. In its Final Order approving the surface flaking settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP ("Cohen & Malad") on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana. On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa, Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated plaintiffs. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs in these purported class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend these lawsuits. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. WELLS FARGO: Laid-Off Visa Workers File Class Action in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo laid off H-1B visa workers and denied them tens of thousands of dollars in severance benefits by falsely claiming the workers had resigned, a worker claims in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Vinay Karamsetty, a web developer, claims Wells Fargo owes him $42,415 plus interest. He claims Wells Fargo, the nation's second-largest bank, executed its unfair scheme "due to the economic climate and Wells Fargo's merger with Wachovia Bank," and that the bank admitted as much in its layoff notices. Mr. Karamsetty, whom Wells Fargo hired in 2007, claims the bank violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying "employee benefits under an employee benefit plan regulated and governed by ERISA." He says the bank also violated its own Wells Fargo Co. Salary Continuation Pay Plan, which also is named as a defendant. The complaint states: "In April 2009, Wells Fargo made a company- wide decision to not renew any H-1B visas due to the economic climate and Wells Fargo's merger with Wachovia Bank. "As soon as an employee's H-1B visa expires, he loses lawful immigration status and is required to leave the United States Immediately." In doing so, Mr. Karamsetty says, "Wells Fargo explained that it made a business decision to displace all H-1B visa holders due to 'the current economic climate and the merger with Wachovia.'" Wells Fargo knew the laid-off workers would have to find another job immediately or leave the country, and by mischaracterizing their termination as "voluntary," it denied them severance benefits, Mr. Karamsetty claims. "Wells Fargo exploited this predicament by denying H-1B visa holders any benefits under the plan under the guise that they 'voluntarily' terminated their employment and were thus ineligible for benefits under the plan," the complaint states. "This position was concocted and implemented by a plan administrator with an undisputed conflict of interest, both as a Wells Fargo employee and fellow plan participant." Mr. Karamsetty claims Wells Fargo hired the visa workers with promises that they would get severance payments, based on years worked, if they were "displaced" for "business reasons," or subjected to "position elimination." Mr. Karamsetty says he and the class are owed benefits under those terms. "In April 2009, Karamsetty and the class members suffered a 'position elimination' under the terms of the plan and became entitled to plan benefits," the complaint states. Mr. Karamsetty says that under the plan, he "was, and still is, entitled to a lump sum of $42,415.34, plus interest," since his last day of work, March 1, 2010. He seeks class damages and costs for ERISA violations and discrimination. A copy of the Complaint in Karamsetty v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-01364 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/21/WellsFargo.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison H. Goddard, Esq. James R. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 398-4760 E-mail: ali@pattersonlawgroup.com jim@pattersonlawgroup.com WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Continues to Defend Iowa Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ West Bancorporation, Inc.'s subsidiary continues a defend a purported class action lawsuit brought by Darla and Jason T. Legg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Iowa, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged by West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on bank card transactions are impermissible finance charges under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for payment violated its duties of good faith under the Iowa Uniform Commercial Code and Consumer Credit Code. West Bank believes many of the allegations made in the plaintiffs' petition are factually and legally inaccurate and that substantial defenses exist for all of the claims raised in the litigation. West Bank is vigorously defending this litigation. The litigation is still in a very preliminary stage. The Company believes that the likelihood of a loss as a result of this lawsuit is "reasonably possible" for disclosure purposes (i.e., greater than "remote" but less than "probable"). The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now because there are substantial and different defenses concerning the various claims of potential liability and class certification. Even if legal liability is established under some theory, which West Bank believes would be improper under existing Iowa law, the amount of each plaintiff's damage claim would likely require individual determination due to the potential applicability of different offsets or credits. WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING: Recalls 7T Ceiling Fans Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Westinghouse Lighting Corp., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 ceiling fans. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The two 60-watt light bulbs included with the ceiling fans exceed the fan's maximum wattage, which can cause the ceiling fans to overheat or fail. This poses fire and shock hazards to consumers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The following Westinghouse Lighting ceiling fans with 24, 30 and 42-inch diameter blades are included in this recall. "Westinghouse" is printed on the fan's ceiling canopy. The item number is printed on the fan's motor housing. Item Number Description ----------- ----------- 72243 24-inch ceiling fan gun metal finish with opal-frosted light kit 6 blades (black/graphite color) 78631 24-inch ceiling fan chrome finish with opal-frosted light kit 6 blades (dark wood/beech color) 72245 30-inch ceiling fan espresso finish with opal-frosted light kit 3 blades (espresso/dark cherry color) 78763 30-inch ceiling fan chrome finish with opal-frosted light kit 3 blades (dark wood/beech color) 78764 42-inch ceiling fan gun metal finish with opal-frosted light kit 3 blades (black/graphite color) Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12135.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by home improvement and hardware stores, home centers and electrical product suppliers nationwide and online at www.amazon.com from January 2011 through January 2012 for between $135 and $150. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceiling fans and contact Westinghouse Lighting for two free replacement 40-watt light bulbs. For additional information, contact Westinghouse Lighting toll-free at (888) 417-6222 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.westinghouselighting.com/ ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne 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 * * *