/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120529.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 105
Headlines
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Settles TCPA Class Action for $9 Mil.
CHICAGO, IL: Panhandlers File Class Action v. Police
COSTAR GROUP: Has Yet to File Deal in LoopNet Acquisition Suit
DE BEERS: Antitrust Class Action Settlement Finalized
EASTMAN KODAK: Faces Class Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
EQUINIX INC: Cement Masons Had Until May 2 to Amend Complaint
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investor Class Action in California Over IPO
FACEBOOK INC: Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Files Class Action Over IPO
FACEBOOK INC: Girard Gibbs Files Class Action Over IPO
FACEBOOK INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action Over IPO
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Expects "Hays" Suit to Be Resolved by 4Q 2012
FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in "Billhofer" Suit
FOCUS MEDIA: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in "Palny" Suit
FOCUS MEDIA: Gets Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Settlement
GRANITE CITY, IL: Sued Over Vehicle Impoundment & Towing Fees
GROUPON: Securities Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
HOME DEPOT: Employees' Overtime Class Action Split Up
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Awaits Approval of "Fankhouser" Suit Deal
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Appeals Orders Granting Class Certification
IMAX CORP: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on June 14
IMAX CORP: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
INDONESIA: Anti-Tobacco Advocates to File Class Action
J.B. HUNT: Evaluates Calif. Sup. Ct. Decision in Similar Suit
KT CORP: Trial in Suit Over 2G PCS Termination Began in January
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Suit Still Pending in Delaware
LABORATORY CORP: Defends Two Suits Pending in W.V. and Florida
LITHIA MOTORS: Still Awaits Okay of "McClintic" Case Settlement
LITHIA MOTORS: Still Defends Consolidated "Neese" Suit in Alaska
LKQ CORP: Recognized $8.3-Mil. Gain Due to Suppliers Suit Deal
LORILLARD INC: Awaits Plaintiff's Filing of Certiorari Petition
LORILLARD INC: Fee Application in "Scott" Suit Still Pending
LORILLARD INC: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for October 5
LORILLARD INC: Motions to Dismiss Kansas Suit Granted in March
LORILLARD INC: Loews-related Product Liability Lawsuits Pending
M/I HOMES: Seven Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims in Drywall Suit
MASON COS: Stoneberry Recalls 200 Kitchen Table and Chair Sets
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Unit Faces "Miller" Class Suit in Michigan
MYLAN INC: All Claims in Suits vs. Unit Now Settled & Dismissed
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Texas Lawyer Files Class Action Over Concussions
SELECT BRANDS: Recalls 4,069 Kitchen Selectives(R) Blenders
*********
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Settles TCPA Class Action for $9 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., Class Counsel, Douglas
Campion and Joshua Swigart, and Defense Counsel, Hugh McCabe, on
May 23 announced an agreement to resolve a class action pending
against the company in federal court in California. The court
recently gave preliminary approval to the settlement. The lawsuit
alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by calling cell phones using an automated dialer or
with a prerecorded voice message without the recipients' prior
express consent.
Under the terms of the settlement, AllianceOne denies any
liability, but to terminate the exposure, will participate in
funding a $9 million settlement fund to fully resolve the matter.
"AllianceOne continues to believe firmly that the lawsuit is
without merit. AllianceOne is committed to providing high-quality
service to its clients in compliance with applicable laws. Given
the expense and disruption associated with prolonged litigation,
however, we believe this settlement is in the best interest of
AllianceOne and its shareholders," said Tim Casey, President and
Chief Executive Officer, AllianceOne.
"As Class Counsel, we believe the settlement is fair and
reasonable and provides substantial benefit to the class. The
settlement fund will provide compensation to class members who,
without their prior consent, received cell phone calls from
AllianceOne," said Douglas Campion, Attorney, Law Offices of
Douglas J. Campion.
The agreement is subject to final court approval. The recovery,
less attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to Class Counsel,
will be distributed to class members who received an autodialed
call from the company or their affiliates and agents on a cell
phone without their prior consent between February 8, 2004 and
November 30, 2010, under procedures to be implemented by the court
overseeing the settlement. After paying administrative expenses,
attorneys' fees and costs, a donation to a charitable
organization, and awards to class members, the remaining amount in
the settlement fund, if any, will be returned to AllianceOne.
For more information about the settlement, please visit
http://www.AllianceOneSettlement.com
Class Counsel: Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion; Defense Counsel:
Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall & Trexler
CHICAGO, IL: Panhandlers File Class Action v. Police
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chicago police are trying to
"whitewash the Magnificent Mile of panhandlers" with threats of
arrest, falsely claiming it's illegal to panhandle on that stretch
of Michigan Avenue, panhandlers say in a federal class action.
A copy of the Complaint in Pindak, et al. v. City of Chicago, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-04005 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/24/ChiCops.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
- and -
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
4510 N. Paulina Street, 3E
Chicago, IL 60640
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
COSTAR GROUP: Has Yet to File Deal in LoopNet Acquisition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2011, CoStar Group, Inc. signed a definitive
agreement to acquire LoopNet, Inc. The transaction is subject to
customary closing conditions, including antitrust clearance. The
holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of LoopNet's
common stock and Series A Preferred Stock, voting together as a
single class on an as-converted basis, approved the adoption of
the merger agreement on July 11, 2011.
In May 2011, LoopNet Inc., the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the
Company. The stockholder actions allege, among other things, that
(i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties
to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet
to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to LoopNet
stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made incomplete
or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board. The stockholder actions seek class action
certification and equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the merger. The parties have stipulated
to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a
consolidated complaint. In June 2011, counsel for the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement of this litigation, which could result
in a loss to the Company of approximately $100,000. The proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the
merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides
information/marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.
DE BEERS: Antitrust Class Action Settlement Finalized
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Bates, writing for JCK, reports that the four-year-old
De Beers antitrust class action settlement is just about final,
after an appellant had his "motion for reconsideration" denied by
the Supreme Court on May 21. The Court first rejected the appeal
on April 2.
"It's all wrapped up," plaintiff lawyer Jared Stamell tells JCK.
"There are no more appeals."
Mr. Stamell says the members of the direct class -- referring to
trade companies that purchased directly from De Beers -- should
start receiving their checks within 45 to 60 days. But at press
time he wasn't sure when the rest of the checks would be sent.
"We are trying to do everything as quickly as possible,"
Mr. Stamell says. "But it will take a little time."
Another plaintiff attorney, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., says that the
first trade checks should be sent out in June, and the consumer
checks will be sent later this summer.
De Beers' director of communications David Prager says the company
is "very pleased" that the case is just about finished.
"This normalizes business for De Beers in America," he says. "If
you think about the past century, this is a milestone moment."
Mr. Prager says that while nothing will change right away, the
completion of the case will allow De Beers a lot more freedom in
how it does business in the U.S.
"A lot of the past restrictions we have had previously are now
gone," he says. "It is no secret that it was very difficult for
us when we travelled to America. We have clearly not jumped into
America with both feet and we have resisted contracting with
American companies. When you have normalized business in the
States, a lot of those things fall away and you have a lot more
opportunities."
The $300 million settlement was first reached in 2006, and
approved by a Federal judge in 2008. But since then it has faced
a seemingly never-ending string of delays, as appellants have held
up the settlement over questions of jurisdiction and how the class
was certified.
In July 2010, a court ruling from the Third Circuit overturned the
original settlement. A subsequent decision by the En Banc Panel
of the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit reinstated the
decision 10 months later. The appellants then decided to appeal
to the Supreme Court.
In addition to mandating that De Beers distribute $300 million to
direct and indirect purchasers of diamonds, the settlement also
mandates that De Beers refrain from engaging in conduct that
violates federal and state antitrust laws. The suit charged that
De Beers had monopolized the price of diamonds, and conspired to
fix, raise, and control diamond prices. De Beers has denied
wrongdoing.
EASTMAN KODAK: Faces Class Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company is facing class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company (the "Company") and its
U.S. subsidiaries (the "Filing Subsidiaries," and together with
the Company, the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for relief
(the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, case number 12-10202.
Subsequent to the Company's Chapter 11 filing, between
January 27, 2012, and March 22, 2012, a number of lawsuits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York, as
putative class action lawsuits, against the current and certain
former members of the Board of Directors, the Company's Savings
and Investment Plan (SIP) Committee and certain former and current
executives of the Company. None of these actions are reasonably
possible to result in a material loss to the Company. The
lawsuits are filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA). The allegations concern the decline in the Company's
stock price and its alleged resulting impact on SIP and on the
Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Also following the
Chapter 11 filing, on February 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in
federal court in the Southern District of New York against the
Chief Executive Officer, the President and Chief Operating Officer
and the Chief Financial Officer, as a putative class action
lawsuit under the federal securities laws, claiming that certain
Company statements concerning the Company's business and financial
results were misleading.
The Company says lawsuits of this nature are not uncommon for
companies in Chapter 11. On behalf of all defendants in these
cases, the Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit
and will vigorously defend them. Although the nature of
litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company reasonably
expects none of these cases, individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material impact upon the Company.
EQUINIX INC: Cement Masons Had Until May 2 to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit commenced by Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust agreed that plaintiffs had until
May 2, 2012, to file their second amended complaint, Equinix, Inc.
disclosed in its April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.
On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers. The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages,
fees and costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November
7, 2011. On March 2, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss without prejudice and gave plaintiffs thirty days in
which to amend their complaint. Pursuant to stipulation and order
of the court entered on
March 16, 2012, the parties agreed that plaintiffs had May 2,
2012, to file a Second Amended Complaint.
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investor Class Action in California Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that as with the case in
Manhattan, a class of investors claim that Facebook shared crucial
information with preferred investors before the company's already
contentious Initial Public Offering.
A copy of the Complaint in Spatz, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-02662 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/24/2662%20Facebook%2024.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
manifold@whafh.com
rickert@whafh.com
moran@whafh.com
- and -
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
weintraub@whafh.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
E-mail: levitt@whafh.com
FACEBOOK INC: Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Files Class Action Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
12cv4081, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Facebook, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
May 18, 2012 initial public offering, against the Company and
certain individual defendants and the lead underwriters of the IPO
for violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Facebook operates a social networking company worldwide. On or
about May 16, 2012 Facebook filed with the SEC a Registration
Statement for the IPO. On May 18, 2012, the Prospectus with
respect to the IPO became effective and 421 million shares of
Facebook common stock were sold to the public at $38/share,
thereby valuing the total size of the IPO at more than $16
billion. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that Facebook was experiencing a
severe reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of users of
its Facebook app or Web site through mobile devices rather than a
traditional PC such that the Company told the Underwriters to
materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012. And,
defendants failed to disclose that during the roadshow conducted
in connection with the IPO, certain of the Underwriter reduced
their second quarter and full year 2012 performance estimates for
Facebook, which revisions were material information which was not
shared with all Facebook investors, but rather, selectively
disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted
from the Registration Statement and/or Prospectus.
As of May 22, Facebook common stock was trading at approximately
$31/share, or $7/share below the price of the IPO. Plaintiffs and
the Class have suffered losses of more than $2.5 billion since the
IPO.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 23, 2012. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member. If you wish to discuss this action or any questions
concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via e-mail
at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com
A copy of the complaint can be viewed at:
http://www.bernardmgross.com
Plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
FACEBOOK INC: Girard Gibbs Files Class Action Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP on May 24 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. on behalf of
investors who purchased shares of Facebook common stock pursuant
or traceable to the company's initial public offering. The
Facebook lawsuit charges the company, its officers and directors,
and underwriters with violations of federal securities laws for
false and misleading statements made in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. Facebook
investors who would like to learn more about their legal rights
can contact Girard Gibbs at (866) 981-4800 or visit our Web site:
Girard Gibbs Facebook Lawsuit Investigation.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Facebook failed to
disclose to the investing public the material information that the
company was experiencing, and anticipating, a significant drop in
revenue due to an increase of users accessing Facebook through
mobile devices. According to news reports, this lower revenue
projection was selectively released by underwriter banks to only
certain large investor clients and not included in the
Registration Statement.
Facebook debuted at a highly-anticipated initial public offering
last week, selling 421 million shares for $38 per share. However,
in the days following the IPO, the company's stock price dropped
by nearly 18% to about $31, well below its initial offering price.
"The reports that the lead underwriters shared this critical
information with only a handful of their biggest clients are very
troubling," said attorney Jonathan Levine of Girard Gibbs. "It is
crucial that all investors in public companies are provided with
the most accurate information available when they are investing."
If you invested in Facebook common stock and would like to learn
more about this lawsuit, or have questions concerning your legal
rights as a Facebook investor, contact Girard Gibbs at (866) 981-
4800 or visit our Web site: Girard Gibbs Facebook Legal
Investigation. Any member of the putative class may seek a lead
plaintiff position through counsel of his or her choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
would like to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must
move the Court no later than July 23, 2012. A copy of the
complaint is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Girard
Gibbs LLP's Web site: http://www.GirardGibbs.com
Girard Gibbs LLP represents investors, employees, consumers and
small businesses in cases involving consumer protection, personal
injury, securities, antitrust, and employment laws.
Contact: Jonathan Levine, Esq.
Girard Gibbs LLP
Telephone: 415-981-4800
E-mail: JKL@GIRARDGIBBS.COM
FACEBOOK INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on May 23 disclosed that it filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Facebook, Inc. who acquired
shares of common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
May 18, 2012 initial public offering.
If you purchased Facebook shares pursuant or traceable to the
Company's May 18, 2012 IPO, you may, no later than July 23, 2012,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any
member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.
For more information please contact either Peter Safirstein or
Sheila Feerick at Morgan & Morgan, Five Penn Plaza, 23rd floor,
New York, New York 10001 or by telephone at (212) 564-1637, or by
email to securitieslaw@ForThePeople.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.ForThePeople.com
Facebook's May 18, 2012, IPO raised over $16 billion by selling
over 420 million shares of the Company's common stock to investors
at a price of $38.00 per share. In connection with the IPO,
certain Defendants filed a Registration Statement with several
amendments and a Prospectus.
The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO was materially false and misleading in
violation of the federal securities laws. More particularly, the
complaint notes that Facebook failed to disclose to the investing
public the material information that the company was experiencing,
and anticipating, a significant drop in revenue due to an increase
of users accessing Facebook through mobile devices. According to
news reports, this lower revenue projection was selectively
released by underwriter banks to only certain clients and not
included in the Registration Statement.
About Morgan & Morgan
Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In
addition to securities law, the firm also practices in the areas
of personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product
liability.
CONTACT: Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
Telephone: (212) 564-1637
E-mail: securitieslaw@ForThePeople.com
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Expects "Hays" Suit to Be Resolved by 4Q 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its April 27, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012, that it anticipates that the
class action lawsuit pending in California will be resolved by
fourth quarter of 2012.
On November 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a purported class action in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, titled Vivian Hays, et al. vs. Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who deposited
their exchange funds with LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Service
("LES") and were not able to use them in their contemplated
exchanges due to the alleged illiquidity of LES caused by the
collapse of the auction rate security market in early 2008.
Plaintiffs allege Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (which was merged into
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) knew of the problems at
LES and had an obligation of disclosure to exchangers, but did not
disclose and instead recommended exchangers use LES in order to
fund prior exchangers' transactions with money from new
exchangers.
In the initial complaint, plaintiffs sued the Company's
subsidiaries Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Lawyers
Title Insurance Corporation for negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, constructive fraud and aiding and abetting LES. Plaintiffs
ask for compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest
and reasonable attorney's fees. The case was transferred on the
Company's motion to a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding
in South Carolina and a status conference was held on April 22,
2011. This case was stayed until a decision was made on motions
pending in a similar class action against an unrelated party. The
court in that case ruled on June 15, 2011, on the motion to
dismiss the complaint filed by the unrelated party and dismissed
the complaint. The plaintiffs in the case against Commonwealth
Land Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation filed an amended complaint on August 15, 2011. The
complaint added approximately twenty new plaintiffs and two new
defendants; Commonwealth Land Title Company and LandAmerica
Charter Title Company, both of which are affiliates of the
Company, also known as FNF. It also expanded the causes of
action. The new causes of action are aiding and abetting fraud
committed by LES; conspiracy to commit fraud with LES; aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty by LES; aiding and abetting
conversion of trust funds by LES; enterprise liability;
negligence; breach of fiduciary duty; conversion of escrow funds
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
liability. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on September 30, 2011, as it believes it has
strong legal and factual defenses to this action. The Amended
Complaint did not seek a specified amount of damages as to each of
the plaintiffs but is seeking damages to plaintiffs and potential
class members measured by the loss of their property,
consequential damages and other elements of damages including
punitive and treble damages. A hearing on the motion to dismiss
was held on January 17, 2012, but was not ruled on before the MDL
Court filed a suggestion of remand to the Judicial Panel on MDL,
suggesting that the Hays case be remanded to California court and
that a standalone 1031 action be remanded to the New York court
where the actions were transferred from. There was no opposition
to the suggestion and the matters were remanded.
On January 26, 2012, the LES liquidation trust filed a motion to
approve a settlement agreement between the LES liquidation trust,
the LFG liquidation trust and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of
London with the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. The motion asks the bankruptcy court to approve the
settlement, which would have the effect of exhausting all
insurance coverage for the LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
("LFG") entities, including the entities FNF purchased from LFG
that are named as defendants in the Hays action. The entities
purchased from LFG are co-insureds under the Lloyds policies, had
made claims based on the LES 1031 litigation, and other claims as
a result of operations. Despite having made these claims as co-
insureds, and having requested notice and an opportunity to
negotiate with Lloyds and the LES liquidation trust to find a
mutually acceptable resolution to all claims, Lloyds and LES
excluded the Companies from the negotiation. On February 16,
2012, the Company filed an objection to approval of the
settlement. The Company argued that the self-insured retention
amounts and potential coverage have not been sufficiently
disclosed and/or are incorrectly calculated, as well as that it is
inequitable to exhaust coverage under the policy by settling with
the LES liquidation trust leaving the Company's claims
unsatisfied.
On March 29, 2012, the LES liquidation trust, the LFG liquidation
trust, the Companies affiliated with FNF and certain underwriters
at Lloyd's of London entered into a Settlement Agreement and
Release (the "Settlement"). The Settlement contemplates an $11.0
million payment being made by the Companies to settle the
purported class action; $3.2 million of which will be paid by the
Lloyd's of London underwriters. The Company anticipates that this
matter will be resolved by fourth quarter of 2012. If the
Settlement is not approved, the Company says it intends to
continue to vigorously defend the action.
FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in "Billhofer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in March 2012 lead plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the class action lawsuit captioned Billhofer v.
Flamel Technologies S.A., et al., according to Flamel's April 27,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On November 9, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
entitled Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al. The complaint
purports to allege claims arising under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on certain public statements by the Company
concerning, among other things, a clinical trial involving Coreg
CR and seeks the award of damages in an unspecified amount. By
Order dated February 11, 2008, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in the action. On March 27, 2008, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that continued to name
the Company and two previously named officers as defendants and
asserted the same claims based on the same events as alleged in
the initial complaint. On May 12, 2008, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied by Order
dated October 1, 2009. On April 29, 2010, the lead plaintiff
moved to withdraw and substitute another individual as lead
plaintiff and to amend the Case Management Order. On June 22,
2010, the lead plaintiff voluntarily agreed to dismiss the action
against one of the previously named officers. On September 20,
2010, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's withdraw and
substitution motion and the parties proceeded to engage in fact
discovery. On December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
motion to amend the complaint. The proposed second amended
complaint named the Company and the officer previously sued as
defendants and asserts the same claims as were alleged in the
prior pleading. The lead plaintiff, however, has substantially
revised his asserted basis for contending that the defendants
should be found liable for the statements at issue. The Company
is reviewing the proposed new pleading and may choose to oppose
the motion.
On March 6, 2012, the Court issued its opinion granting the lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification, which was originally
filed in October 2010 and opposed by the Company. The Company
says it intends to vigorously defend itself in the action.
FOCUS MEDIA: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in "Palny" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York appointed in March 2012 Xuechen Yang as lead plaintiff in the
class action lawsuit commenced against Focus Media Holding Limited
and subsidiaries (the "Group"), according to the Company's April
27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On December 12, 2011, Tom Palny filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Group and certain of the current or former
officers and directors. The complaint relates to certain
allegations made by the firm Muddy Waters about the Company is a
series of releases in November 2011, and alleges that the
Company's public filings, including the Company's 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009 and 2010 Form 20-Fs, the Form F-1 and Prospectus filed
in connection with the Company's November 2007 Follow-on Offering,
and third quarter 2011 earnings press release, contain material
misstatements and omissions. The complaint's allegations,
include, but are not limited to, alleged misrepresentations
relating to the Company's acquisition, write-down and divestiture
of certain assets (including, without limitation, Allyes
Information Technology Company Limited, Shanghai OOH Advertisement
Co., Ltd. and other PRC subsidiaries under Hua Kuang (collectively
referred to as "OOH"), and certain mobile handset companies), and
the size and composition of the Company's LCD display network.
On March 30, 2012, the Court appointed Xuechen Yang as lead
plaintiff. Defendants have not yet been served with the
complaint.
The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously against
these allegations as the Group believes they have meritorious
defenses to the alleged claims. However, there can be no
assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit and any
adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business or results of operations.
FOCUS MEDIA: Gets Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York gave final approval to Focus Media Holding Limited's
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit, according to
the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
On November 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc. filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Focus Media Holding Limited
and subsidiaries (the "Group") and the underwriters of the Group's
offering filed in November 2007.
On December 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Group, certain of the Group's
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Group's
offering filed in November 2007.
Both complaints allege that the Group's registration statement on
Form F-1 on November 1, 2007, as amended, and the related
prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact. The
Group has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends
to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. On March 29, 2010,
the court issued an opinion granting the Group's motion to
dismiss. On March 30, 2010, the court entered a judgment
dismissing the case. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
April 29, 2010, appealing the judgment granting the Company's
motion to dismiss. On September 26, 2011, the plaintiffs and the
Group entered into a settlement agreement, under which the Company
will contribute $2 million for settlement (the "Settlement
Agreement"). On December 16, 2011, the Settlement Agreement was
preliminarily approved by the court and the court scheduled a
settlement hearing for March 30, 2012. By order dated April 24,
2012, the Court gave final approval to the settlement.
GRANITE CITY, IL: Sued Over Vehicle Impoundment & Towing Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
the City of Granite City faces another class action lawsuit
involving vehicle impoundment and towing fees.
In a suit filed May 16 in Madison County Circuit Court, attorney
Thomas Maag claims his client's vehicle was impounded even though
it was not in use when an alleged criminal offense took place.
Lead plaintiff William L. Finazzo claims he lent his friend a
vehicle who drove it to and parked it at the Granite City Wal-Mart
on April 20. The friend was subsequently arrested inside the
store by Granite City police.
"That ultimately the friend of Finazzo was arrested by the Granite
City Police, at the Wal-Mart store, inside the Wal-Mart store, and
not in or near the vehicle," the complaint states.
"That the vehicle was not in use for any purpose whatsoever at the
time of the arrest, as it was simply lawfully parked.
"That the arrest of Plaintiff's friend that purportedly justified
the towing of the vehicle was not for any alleged offense which is
listed in Granite City Municipal Code . . ."
The suit claims that the city has an actual policy of towing
vehicles, incident to an arrest, even though the vehicle itself is
not in use at the time of the alleged offense.
Mr. Maag also claims the city was not entitled to keep impoundment
fees because it did not provide proper notice of an administrative
hearing that would determine whether the vehicle was properly
towed and impounded.
The proposed class action also names BAP Recovery LLC as a co-
defendant.
BAP is accused of unlawfully collecting three days of vehicle
storage fees -- at $25 per day for a total of $75 -- despite being
prohibited from charging a storage fee for the first 24 hours
Mr. Finazzo's vehicle was stored.
The company, which assessed a $185 towing fee -- also is accused
of charging substantially in excess of what other competing
companies in the open market charge.
Granite City was among four Madison County municipalities that
were sued last December over towing fees they imposed on drivers
ticketed for DUI or driving with a suspended or revoked license.
The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys Eric D. Holland and
Steven L. Groves of Holland, Groves, Schneller and Stolze in St.
Louis and Brian L. Polinske of Polinske and Associates in
Edwardsville, claim that the cities' administrative processing fee
is not a tow fee but merely a receipt and is not related to the
cost of towing, towing services or actual services provided.
The cities, which also include Edwardsville, Alton and
Collinsville, are seeking to dismiss the claims, saying that the
plaintiffs' fail to allege an exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Similar suits have been filed in St. Clair County
against the cities of O'Fallon and Fairview Heights.
Mr. Maag filed another proposed class action earlier this month
against Black Lane Auto Parts, claiming the company towed an East
Alton woman's vehicle without her consent.
His client, Tiffany Craycraft, claims Black Lane should not have
towed her vehicle and does not have authorization to tow vehicles
unless they have been abandoned on a toll highway or interstate
highway for more than two hours or have been abandoned on a
highway in an urban district for more than 10 hours, the complaint
says.
She claims her vehicle had just been left on a Caseyville roadway
for less than two hours when it was towed.
Finazzo: Madison County Circuit Court case number 11-L-696
Craycraft: Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-641.
GROUPON: Securities Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP reminds investors that only 11
days remain before the June 4, 2012, lead plaintiff deadline in a
securities class action filed against Groupon on behalf of
investors.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Groupon
stock between November 4, 2011, and March 30, 2012, and who have
suffered financial losses exceeding $100,000 are encouraged to
contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein by calling (510) 725-
3000. Investors may also contact the firm via e-mail at
GRPN@hbsslaw.com or by visiting http://www.hbsslaw.com/GRPN
Any member of the putative class may move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Hagens Berman's lawsuit, filed April 16, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleges that Groupon, certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters of Groupon's Initial Public Offering (IPO) violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements to investors. The complaint alleges that these
statements artificially inflated the price of Groupon's stock.
Hagens Berman's lawsuit also alleges that Groupon and its
underwriters failed to disclose negative trends in the company's
business and weakness in its internal financial controls, causing
its stock to trade at artificially high prices during the Class
Period.
Groupon went public in November 2011 at an initial price of $20.00
per share, rising as high as $27.78 during the Class Period.
On March 30, 2012, Groupon shocked the market with an announcement
that it would revise its fourth quarter, 2011 financial results.
The revision, the company said, would include a reduction in
revenue and an increase in operating expenses. Groupon also
noted, "In conjunction with the completion of the audit of
Groupon's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2011 by its independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, the Company
included a statement of a material weakness in its internal
controls over its financial statement close process in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2011."
Following the announcement, Groupon's stock declined sharply,
losing nearly 17 percent of its value on April 2, 2012, closing at
$15.27.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an
investor-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm represents whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.
HOME DEPOT: Employees' Overtime Class Action Split Up
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports
that a multi-state lawsuit against Home Depot for allegedly not
paying its workers overtime has been split up, meaning the two New
Hampshire plaintiffs will have to stand on their own against the
Atlanta-based corporation.
The original suit, filed in Connecticut June 14, 2011, alleged
that nearly 50 employees in six states were required to work
overtime without getting overtime pay. It was the aftermath of a
previous class action suit that failed in U.S. District Court in
New Jersey.
Many of these workers were known as "Merchandizing Assistant Store
Managers," the complaint said, but most of their duties consisted
of such jobs as packing and unpacking freight, setting products,
cleaning bathrooms, picking up garbage, returning shopping carts
and running registers, the complaint said.
The workers were required to work 55 hours a week, but many worked
more than that, the complaint said -- a violation of both state
and federal law.
Two of the plaintiffs -- Frank Morris and William T. Gover -- are
in New Hampshire, though the complaint doesn't specify which
stores they were working out of and when they worked there.
Home Depot has not responded to the specific allegations in the
case, but did move in January to break up it up, which the court
agreed to in April. The case, however, was only officially
transferred on May 21.
Unless the case is settled, it is far from over. The trial briefs
aren't due until September, and no date has been set for an actual
trial.
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Awaits Approval of "Fankhouser" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit captioned Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc.,
according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.
An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma, by certain royalty owners of natural
gas wells in Oklahoma and Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO
Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the
royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June
2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies
owed for additional time. XTO Energy removed the case to federal
district court in Oklahoma City. In April 2010, new counsel and
representative parties, Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to
intervene and prosecute the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v.
XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted on July 13, 2010. The
new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment. On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class.
Cross motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties and
ruled on by the court.
After consideration of the rulings by the court in March and April
of 2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and some benefiting the
plaintiffs, and with due regard to the vagaries of litigation and
their uncertain outcomes, the parties entered settlement
negotiations leading up to trial and reached a tentative
settlement of $37 million on April 23, 2012, which requires court
approval. The hearing for formal court approval was scheduled for
May 23, 2012. Assuming the court approves the settlement, a
fairness hearing will be scheduled at a later date. The trust
will bear its 80% interest in the settlement, or approximately
$29.6 million. This will adversely affect the net proceeds of the
trust from Oklahoma and Kansas and will result in costs exceeding
revenues on these properties. Based on recent revenue and expense
levels, it is expected that costs will exceed revenues for
approximately 18 months; however, changes in oil or natural gas
prices or expenses could cause the time period to increase or
decrease correspondingly. The net profits interest from Wyoming
is unaffected and payments will continue to be made from those
properties. The settlement is expected to decrease the amount of
net profits going forward for the Oklahoma and Kansas properties
due to changes in the way costs (such as gathering, compression
and fuel) associated with operating the properties will be
allocated, resulting in a net gain to the royalty interest owners.
This expected net upward revision for the royalty interest owners
will reduce applicable net profits to XTO Energy and,
correspondingly, to the trust.
Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Appeals Orders Granting Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc. appealed the orders certifying classes in the
class action lawsuits commenced by Wallace B. Roderick Revocable
Living Trust, et al. and Chieftain Royalty Company, according to
Hugoton Royalty Trust's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy Inc. styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et
al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County,
Kansas. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly
taken post-production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs
from wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The
plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, including
only Kansas and Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter.
After filing the motion to certify, but prior to the class
certification hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the
Oklahoma portion of the case so it could be transferred and
consolidated with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled
Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was
granted. The Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not
previously included in the Fankhouser matter. The case was
certified as a class action in March 2012. XTO Energy has filed
an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the
certification.
In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to
federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs
allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty
payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to
secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case
expressly excludes those claims and wells being prosecuted in the
Fankhouser case. The severed Roderick case claims related to the
Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain.
The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO
Energy has filed an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
concerning the certification.
Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the
lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture
entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as
grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.
IMAX CORP: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of IMAX Corporation's
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit will
be held on June 14, 2012, according to the Company's April 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006, and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On October 2, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock on the NASDAQ between
February 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S. Class"), alleges
primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements during
the class period regarding the Company's revenue recognition of
theater system installations, and failing to disclose material
information concerning the Company's revenue recognition
practices. The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant. On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order
appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plantiff and Abbey Spanier
Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plantiff's counsel. On November 2,
2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding
containing the terms and conditions of a settlement of this
action.
On January 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
a formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to
the class, which the Court preliminarily approved on February 1,
2012. Under the terms of the settlement, members of the U.S.
Class who do not opt out of the settlement will release defendants
from liability for all claims that were alleged in this action or
could have been alleged in this action or any other proceeding
(including the Canadian Action) relating to the purchase of IMAX
securities on the NASDAQ from February 27, 2003, and July 20,
2007, or the subject matter and facts relating to this action. As
part of the settlement and in exchange for the release, defendants
will pay $12.0 million to a settlement fund which amount will be
funded by the carriers of the Company's directors and officers
insurance policy and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. On March 26,
2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court and amended
formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to
the class, which the Court preliminarily approved on March 28,
2012. The settlement is subject to final court approval and the
Court will conduct a hearing on June 14, 2012 to determine whether
the settlement should be granted final approval.
IMAX CORP: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against IMAX Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of
Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006, and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0
million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs.
As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a potential loss
exposure at this time. For reasons released December 14, 2009,
the Court granted leave to the Plaintiffs to amend their statement
of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act
(Ontario) against the Company and certain individuals and granted
certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are
procedural decisions, and do not contain any conclusions binding
on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal merits of the
claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied. The Company
believes the allegations made against it in the statement of claim
are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter, although no
assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of
such proceedings. The Company's directors and officers insurance
policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages
awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits, exclusions and
deductibles.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
INDONESIA: Anti-Tobacco Advocates to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Rondonuwu and Matthew Bigg, writing for Reuters, report
that anti-tobacco advocates in Indonesia plan to file a class
action lawsuit this month using cases of child addicts in the hope
of forcing tougher regulations on a society where one in three
people smokes.
It is a rare attempt of its kind to constrain a tobacco industry
which looks to the world's fourth most populous country and its
growing appetite for cigarettes to replace dwindling sales
elsewhere.
The suit against tobacco companies and the Indonesian government
argues that feeble regulation has left children dangerously
exposed to the risks of smoking.
"There are . . . kids who have fallen victim to the impact of
cigarette companies and smoking. They are addicted. In the context
of people's rights, the society has been disadvantaged by the
tobacco industry," head of the National Commission for Child
Protection, Arist Merdeka Sirait, said.
Indonesia is something of a paradise for both smokers and tobacco
companies, with the world's fifth largest population of smokers.
It is a widely tolerated habit and one which even in this
relatively poor archipelago most can afford to feed.
And it is getting more popular as the economy grows. In 1995, one
in four Indonesians smoked. Fifteen years later it had risen to
one in three.
That in turn has tempted international tobacco firms to join the
hugely profitable home-grown ones such as Gudang Garam, P T Djarum
and Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna, which is now part of Philip Morris
International.
The government even gives tax incentives for the manufacture of
hand-rolled cigarettes because it provides such a major source of
employment in east Java where the local firms congregate.
Sampoerna said it had only seen reports of the planned lawsuit and
could not comment. Other producers also had no immediate comment.
A spokesman for the Federation of Indonesian Cigarette
Manufacturers said he had heard of the suit but declined comment
because it was not aimed at the federation.
"If a child is smoking is that the problem of the advertisement or
the parents?" spokesman Hasan Aoni said.
Ilham Hadi has become something of a poster child for the anti-
smoking campaign.
He began smoking aged four when his mother Nenah said she gave him
3,000 rupiah ($0.32) to buy snacks at school. He bought a
cigarette instead.
The addiction has since blackened his teeth, damaged his skin and,
his friends say, made the now nine-year old a useless soccer
player and slow, wheezy runner.
"He sometimes bangs on the window at 4 a.m. in the morning to buy
a cigarette," said Iin Indriyani, who runs a tiny store from the
front room of her home around 100 yards (meters) up a winding path
from the two-room house where Hadi's family lives.
"Whenever he wants a cigarette he looks like he is in a trance,"
she told Reuters, saying that he sometimes hit her and her
daughters to demand cigarettes.
Hadi smokes two packs a day, adding to the financial stress on his
parents given that his father earns only $5-6 per day as a laborer
and part-time motor bike taxi driver.
"If there is no money left at home, nothing to sell anymore, he
would go to the grocery shop, get money by helping park cars and
come back home with cigarettes, sometimes a pack, sometimes two
and expensive brands too," said his father Umar.
J.B. HUNT: Evaluates Calif. Sup. Ct. Decision in Similar Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is a defendant in certain
class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.
Further proceedings have been stayed in these matters pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in a case unrelated to the
Company's involving similar issues. On April 12, 2012, the
California Supreme Court issued its decision in this unrelated
case, which the Company is currently evaluating, J.B. Hunt said in
its April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits.
KT CORP: Trial in Suit Over 2G PCS Termination Began in January
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial began in January 2012 in the class action lawsuit arising
from the termination of KT Corporation's second generation
Personal Communications Service (or 2G PCS) services, according to
the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
As part of the Company's decision to apply for reallocation of the
20 MHz bandwidth in the 1.8 GHz spectrum, the Company applied to
the Korea Communications Commission to terminate its 2G PCS
services, and on November 23, 2011, the Korea Communications
Commission approved its plan. However, on November 30, 2011,
approximately 900 of the Company's 2G PCS service subscribers
filed a class-action lawsuit against the Korea Communications
Commission for its approval of the Company's plan, claiming that
the Company used improper means to reduce the 2G PCS subscribers
to comply with regulatory requirements before terminating the 2G
PSC services and that the Korea Communications Commission did not
consider such factor in approving the Company's plan. On December
6, 2011, the Seoul Administrative Court issued a preliminary
injunction, which temporarily suspended the Company's termination
of the 2G PCS services until the case went to trial. The Company
immediately appealed the decision and the Seoul High Court
overruled the preliminary injunction on December 26, 2011, and
reinstated the Korea Communications Commission's approval.
Accordingly, the Company terminated its 2G PCS services in the
Seoul metropolitan area and began the termination process for the
rest of Korea on January 3, 2012.
On January 12, 2012, the 2G subscribers filed an appeal of the
Seoul High Court's decision with the Supreme Court of Korea, and
on February 1, 2012, the Supreme Court of Korea denied such
appeal. On January 17, 2012, trial for the original class-action
lawsuit filed by the 2G subscribers began in the Seoul
Administrative Court.
The outcome of the trial, and any effect it may have on the
Company, cannot be determined at this time. There can be no
assurance that the Company will not incur reputational damage from
terminating its 2G PCS services, or that further complaints and
other potential actions of its 2G PCS subscribers will not
adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of
operations.
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Suit Still Pending in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending in
Delaware, according to Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings'
April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
Three shareholder class actions, Silverberg v. Bologna, et al.,
Nannetti v. Bologna, and Locke v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc., et al.,
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
subsequently consolidated into one action, In re Orchid Cellmark
Shareholder Litig. The consolidated action challenges the Orchid
acquisition on grounds of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
and/or other violations of state law. On May 4, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the transaction. On
May 12, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied the motion for
preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs' motion for an expedited
appeal was subsequently denied on May 16, 2011. Since that time,
there has been no substantive activity in the Delaware litigation.
Three similar putative class action lawsuits filed against Orchid
in Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Mercer County
and another similar case filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey were voluntarily dismissed.
LABORATORY CORP: Defends Two Suits Pending in W.V. and Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is defending two class
action lawsuits pending in West Virginia and Florida, according to
the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
The Company is a defendant in two putative class actions related
to overtime pay. In September 2011, a putative class action,
Peggy Bryant v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging on behalf of
employees similarly situated that the Company violated the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state wage laws by failing
to pay overtime. The complaint seeks monetary damages, liquidated
damages equal to the alleged amount owed, costs, injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees. In December 2011, a putative class
action, Debra Rivera v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging on
behalf of employees similarly situated that the Company violated
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages equal to
the alleged amount owed, costs, and attorney's fees.
The Company says it intends to vigorously contest both cases.
LITHIA MOTORS: Still Awaits Okay of "McClintic" Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, a third party vendor assisted Lithia Motors, Inc.
in promoting a targeted "0% financing on used vehicles"
advertising campaign during a limited sale period. The marketing
included sending a "Short Message Service" communication to cell
phones (a "text message") of the Company's previous customers.
The message was sent to over 50,000 cell phones in 14 states. The
message indicated that the recipients could "Opt-Out" of receiving
any further messages by replying "STOP," but, due to a technical
error, some recipients who responded requesting to be unsubscribed
nonetheless may have received a follow-on message.
On or about April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive
and Declaratory Relief was filed against the Company (Kevin
McClintic vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of
the State of Washington for King County) alleging the text
messaging activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and
consumer protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each
violation, trebled, plus injunctive relief and attorney fees. The
lawsuit seeks class action designation for all similarly situated
entities and individuals. The lawsuit has been removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle.
On or about July 5, 2011, a complaint was filed alleging nearly
identical claims, also seeking class action designation (Dan
McLaren vs. Lithia Motors, Civil # 11-810, United States District
Court of Oregon, Portland Division). This case was stayed pending
the outcome of the McClintic matter by order of the court on or
about October 11, 2011. The class representative in the McLaren
case also attempted to intervene in the McClintic case. This
intervention motion was denied on October 19, 2011.
The Company participated in a mediation of the McClintic case and
have entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs,
which is subject to court approval. Under this settlement
agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $2.5 million, all
of which such amounts will be reimbursed by the vendor pursuant to
contractual indemnification. No assurances can be given that the
court will approve the settlement.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
LITHIA MOTORS: Still Defends Consolidated "Neese" Suit in Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Lithia Motors, Inc.
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI, and in April, 2007, a second case
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at
Anchorage. In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company,
through its Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that
purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging
customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation
fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to
disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used
vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for
sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the Company receives a
fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve"). The
lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or
three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and
attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action
certification. Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits,
the Company engaged in settlement discussions with the State of
Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the
first two enumerated practices. As a result of those discussions,
the Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court
approval and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the
proposed settlement. Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to
intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to
the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.
Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class for (i) the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the Plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes and (iii) arguing that since the
State's lawsuit against the Company's dealerships did not address
the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers
who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company. On June
14, 2011, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the
size of the class or classes.
The Company says it intends to defend the claims vigorously and
does not believe the novel "dealer reserve" claim has merit.
The ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with
certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
LKQ CORP: Recognized $8.3-Mil. Gain Due to Suppliers Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
LKQ Corporation disclosed in its April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, that it recognized a gain of $8.3 million
during this quarter in connection with its settlement with certain
defendants of its class action lawsuit.
The Company is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several aftermarket product suppliers. The Company's recovery is
expected to be approximately $16 million in the aggregate. In
January 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with
certain of the defendants, under which it recognized a gain of
$8.3 million, which was recorded in Cost of Goods Sold during the
three month period ended March 31, 2012. The Company will
recognize the gains from the settlements with the remaining
defendants when substantially all uncertainties regarding the
timing and the amount of the settlements are resolved and
realization is assured.
LORILLARD INC: Awaits Plaintiff's Filing of Certiorari Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. disclosed in its April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, that it is waiting for the plaintiff of an
antitrust lawsuit to file a petition for certiorari in connection
with the lawsuit's dismissal.
Lorillard Tobacco Company is a defendant in two Tobacco-Related
Antitrust Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in either
case. In 2000 and 2001, a number of cases were brought against
cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, alleging
that defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in
violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair business
practices statutes. Plaintiffs sought class certification on
behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly
from one or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers. All of
the cases have been either successfully defended or voluntarily
dismissed. The other case in this category was brought by a small
cigarette manufacturer against a number of states and the
cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, that signed
the Master Settlement Agreement with 46 states, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. It was alleged that certain provisions of the
Master Settlement Agreement violate the antitrust laws.
On February 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing the case.
As of April 23, 2012, the time period for plaintiff to file a
petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court had not
expired.
LORILLARD INC: Fee Application in "Scott" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Applications for attorneys' fees and expenses and for award to two
class representatives remain pending in the class action lawsuit
captioned Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., according
to Lorillard, Inc.'s April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
In one Class Action Case against Lorillard, Inc.'s principal
subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, Scott v. The American
Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), a Louisiana jury awarded damages
to the certified class in 2004. The jury's award was reduced on
two separate occasions in response to defendants' appeals, but
defendants exhausted their appeals and have paid the final
judgment. In August 2011, Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately
$69.7 million, or one-fourth of the award, to satisfy its portion
of the final judgment and the interest that accrued while appeals
were pending.
In 1997, Scott was certified a class action on behalf of certain
cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to
participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs
and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began
smoking prior to May 24, 1996, and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.
In the fourth quarter of 2007, Lorillard, Inc. recorded a pretax
provision of approximately $66 million for this matter which was
included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the
consolidated statements of income and was reclassified from other
liabilities to accrued liabilities in the second quarter of 2010
on the consolidated balance sheets.
Counsel for the certified class has filed a motion for attorneys'
fees, for costs and expenses, and for an award to the class
representatives. Plaintiffs' counsel contends they incurred
approximately $59.0 million in attorneys' fees, and further
contend that the value of those fees, given the age of the case,
is approximately $92.0 million. Plaintiffs' counsel request that
a multiplier as high as seven be applied to any award ordered by
the court. Plaintiffs' counsel ask the court to order defendants
to pay an award in excess of $300.0 million, but request in the
alternative that they be awarded, from the fund awarded to the
class, 33%-40% of the amount of that fund. In addition,
plaintiffs' counsel seeks approximately $13.4 million in costs and
expenses. Plaintiffs' counsel further request that the court
order a "substantial" award of an unspecified amount to the two
class representatives for their services.
As of April 23, 2012, the court had not ruled on plaintiffs'
counsels' applications. The defendants have filed an application
for review with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal,
challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to rule on the
motion for attorneys' fees.
LORILLARD INC: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for October 5
------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit captioned Brown v. The American Tobacco
Company, Inc., et al., is set for October 5, 2012, according to
Lorillard, Inc.'s April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
In a Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco Company,
Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior
Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the
California Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had
previously decertified a class and returned Brown to the trial
court for further activity. The class in Brown is composed of
residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants'
cigarettes between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were
exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California. The trial court has permitted plaintiffs to assert
claims based on the alleged misrepresentation, concealment and
fraudulent marketing of "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes.
In January 2012, defendants filed a motion for class
decertification. The court has scheduled argument of this motion
for May 2012. Trial is set for October 5, 2012. Lorillard, Inc.
is not a defendant in Brown.
LORILLARD INC: Motions to Dismiss Kansas Suit Granted in March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motions to dismiss an antitrust class action lawsuit
initiated in Kansas were granted in March 2012, according to
Lorillard, Inc.'s April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
Approximately 30 antitrust lawsuits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on
behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state courts
against cigarette manufacturers. The lawsuits all alleged that
the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices
of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit
indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under
price fixing or consumer fraud statutes. More than 20 states
permit such lawsuits. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in all
but one of these indirect purchaser cases. Lorillard, Inc. was
not named as a defendant in any of these cases. Four indirect
purchaser lawsuits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan,
thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states. The actions
in all other states, except for Kansas, were either voluntarily
dismissed or dismissed by the courts.
In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified
a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002. In July 2006, the
Court issued an order confirming that fact discovery was closed,
with the exception of privilege issues that the Court determined,
based on a Special Master's report, justified further fact
discovery. In October 2007, the Court denied all of the
defendants' privilege claims, and the Kansas Supreme Court
thereafter denied a petition seeking to overturn that ruling. All
of the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the Kansas lawsuit, which motions were granted in
full on March 23, 2012, by the District Court of Seward County.
As of April 23, 2012, the time period for plaintiffs to file an
appeal from the dismissal had not expired.
LORILLARD INC: Loews-related Product Liability Lawsuits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
For periods presented in the Annual Report on Form 10-K prior to
June 10, 2008, Lorillard, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Loews Corporation, a publicly traded company listed on the New
York Stock Exchange. The Company's results of operations and
financial condition were included as a separate reporting segment
in Loews's financial statements and filings with the SEC.
Beginning in 2002 and through June 10, 2008, Loews had also issued
a separate class of its common stock, referred to as the "Carolina
Group Stock," to track the economic performance of Loews's 100%
interest in Lorillard, Inc. and certain liabilities, costs and
expenses of Loews and Lorillard arising out of or related to
tobacco or tobacco-related businesses. On June 10, 2008, the
Company began operating as an independent, publicly traded company
pursuant to its separation from Loews (the "Separation").
In connection with the Separation, Lorillard entered into a
separation agreement with Loews (the "Separation Agreement") and
agreed to indemnify Loews and its officers, directors, employees
and agents against all costs and expenses arising out of third
party claims (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees,
interest, penalties and costs of investigation or preparation for
defense), judgments, fines, losses, claims, damages, liabilities,
taxes, demands, assessments and amounts paid in settlement based
on, arising out of or resulting from, among other things, Loews's
ownership of or the operation of Lorillard and its assets and
properties, and its operation or conduct of its businesses at any
time prior to or following the Separation (including with respect
to any product liability claims).
Loews is a defendant in two pending product liability cases, both
of which are purported Class Action Cases. Lorillard Tobacco
Company also is a defendant in both of the product liability cases
in which Loews is involved. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement,
Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews for the amount of any
losses and any legal or other fees with respect to such cases.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
M/I HOMES: Seven Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims in Drywall Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Seven of nine homeowners named as plaintiffs in omnibus class
action complaints over defective drywall have dismissed their
claims against M/I Homes, Inc., according to the Company's April
27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties (the "Initial
Action"). The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging
property. The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and
sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and
attorney's fees. The Company filed a responsive pleading on or
about April 30, 2009. The Initial Action was consolidated with
other similar actions not involving the Company and transferred to
the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re:
Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation"). In
connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and nine other homeowners were named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company), including one homeowner named as a
plaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010
against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").
As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.
The Company has entered into agreements with several of the
homeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company
agreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs made
to the homes of other homeowners. As a result of these
agreements, the Initial Action has been resolved and dismissed,
and seven of the nine other homeowners named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints have dismissed their claims
against the Company. One of the two remaining plaintiffs has also
filed a complaint in Florida state court asserting essentially the
same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as asserted
in the MDL Omnibus Action.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
claims of the remaining plaintiffs. Given the inherent
uncertainties in this litigation, as of March 31, 2012, no accrual
has been recorded because the Company cannot make a determination
as to the probability of a loss resulting from this matter or
estimate the range of possible loss, if any. There can be no
assurance that the ultimate resolution of the MDL Omnibus Actions,
or any other actions or claims relating to defective drywall that
may be asserted in the future, will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and cash flows.
M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries
are builders of single-family homes. The Company was
incorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commenced
homebuilding activities in 1976. Since that time, the Company has
delivered over 78,000 homes.
MASON COS: Stoneberry Recalls 200 Kitchen Table and Chair Sets
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 200 kitchen table sets were voluntarily recalled by
importer, Vantage Sales, Inc., of Lake Zurich, Illinois, and
distributor, Mason Companies, Inc., of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The chairs can collapse during normal use, causing a fall hazard.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves three-piece oak table and chair sets. The
table is square-shaped with four straight, rectangular legs. The
chairs have a white padded cushion seat and a slatted backrest.
Both the table and the wooden parts of the chairs are a light pine
color. The set has the style number 404285 however this number
does not appear anywhere on the set. A picture of the recalled
products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12736.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
the Stoneberry catalog and Web site from January 2012 and March
2012 for about $160. Stoneberry is owned by Mason Companies.
Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Stoneberry for instructions on returning the product for a full
refund. For more information, contact Stoneberry at (800) 704-
5480 between 6:00 a.m. and midnight Central Time Monday through
Friday, or visit Stoneberry's Web site at
http://www.stoneberry.com/. Stoneberry is contacting its
customers directly.
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Unit Faces "Miller" Class Suit in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class action
lawsuit commenced by Gaylord L. Miller in Michigan, according to
the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.
A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by
Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against a
subsidiary of the Company, Extruded Metals, Inc., in March 2012
under nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence theories. It is
brought on behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan,
whose property rights have allegedly been interfered with by
fallout and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable
to Extruded Metals' operations. Plaintiffs allege that they have
suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their
properties. They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief. The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to
determine the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Mueller Industries, Inc. manufactures copper tube and fittings;
brass and copper alloy rod, bar and shapes; aluminum and brass
forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic fittings
and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; and fabricated
tubular products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the
United States and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.
Mueller's business is importantly linked to (1) the construction
of new homes; (2) the improvement and reconditioning of existing
homes and structures; and (3) the commercial construction market
which includes office buildings, factories, hotels, hospitals,
etc.
MYLAN INC: All Claims in Suits vs. Unit Now Settled & Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All claims in the class action lawsuits against a subsidiary of
Mylan Inc. have been settled and dismissed, according to the
Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
Mylan Specialty L.P., formerly known as Dey Pharma, L.P., was
named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers
and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty has reached a settlement
of these class actions, which has been approved by the court and
all claims have been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was
filed under seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of
America against Dey in August 1997. In August 2006, the
Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was
unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Dey was
jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged
overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and
equitable relief. Dey completed a settlement of this action in
December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Dey
falsely reported certain price information concerning certain
drugs marketed by Dey, that Dey caused false claims to be made to
Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Dey caused Medicaid and
Medicare to make overpayments on those claims.
Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan
is fully indemnified for these claims and Merck KGaA is entitled
to any income tax benefit the Company realizes for any deductions
of amounts paid for such pricing litigation. Under the indemnity,
Merck KGaA is responsible for all settlement and legal costs, and,
as such, these settlements had no impact on the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. At March 31,
2012, the Company has accrued approximately $69.2 million in other
current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the
remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck
KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty's known claims with
respect to this pricing litigation have been settled.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Texas Lawyer Files Class Action Over Concussions
----------------------------------------------------------------
WTVR reports that a Texas lawyer has filed a class action lawsuit
against the National Football League saying it ignored and tried
to hide the dangers of concussions for decades.
The players are asking for compensation for head-trauma they
suffered while playing in the league.
Richmond native and ex-NFL player Ray Easterling committed suicide
in April.
His wife says football head injuries led to his taking his own
life.
Mr. Easterling's death is just one in a string of suicides by ex-
NFL players suffering from brain disease that may have been caused
by concussions.
Fourteen players including lead plantiff hall of fame running back
Eric Dickerson, are named in the suit.
SELECT BRANDS: Recalls 4,069 Kitchen Selectives(R) Blenders
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Select Brands Inc., of Lenexa, Kansas, and manufacturer,
Select Brands, of Lenexa, Kansas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 4,069 units of Kitchen Selectives(R) 6-Speed Blender.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
While in operation, the plastic pitcher can separate from the
blade assembly, leaving the blade assembly in the base and
exposing the rotating blades. This poses a laceration hazard to
consumers.
Select Brands has received no reports of incidents or injuries
involving Kitchen Selectives(R) 6-speed blenders.
The recalled products are Kitchen Selectives(R) 6-Speed Blenders,
model BL-15. The model number is located on the bottom of the
base. The blender consists of a six-inch tall, white electrical
base with five, white speed-selector buttons labeled 1 through 5,
one gray button labeled "Pulse/Off" and the logo "Kitchen
Selectives(R)" in black letters on the front; a clear plastic
pitcher with a handle with U.S. and metric volume measurement
markings; a white plastic lid with a removable clear plastic lid
stopper; and a white plastic blade assembly with two angled,
stainless steel blades. Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12187.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Midwest retail stores Pamida and Sutherlands from June 2009 to
April 2012 for about $20.
Consumers should immediately stop using the blenders and return
them to the retailer where purchased to receive a full refund.
For additional information, contact Select Brands Customer Service
at (866) 663-4500 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time
Monday through Friday, or visit Select Brands Web site at
http://www.selectbrands.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 * * *