/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120612.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 115
Headlines
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $2.9MM Balance from Class Settlement
AFFYMETRIX INC: Completes Notes Repurchase as Part of Class Deal
ALLEGHANY CORP: Yet to File Merger-Related Suit Settlement
ALLERGAN INC: FLSA Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending in N.Y.
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Directors Suit to be Stayed Temporarily
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Unit Settles Overdraft Fees Suit for $13MM
AUSTRALIA: Cattle Ban Suit Seeks AUD200MM Compensation
AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Market Traders Mull Class Action Over Floods
CALIFORNIA INNOVATIONS: Recalls 880,000 Freezer Gel Packs
CARL ICAHN: Faces Suit Over Tender Offer to Control CVR
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Fraud Class Action
CRESCENT CITY: Group To File Class Action Over Toll Collections
EBAY: Class Action Certification Filing Scheduled for June 15
EDEN MEDICAL: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Suit Says
FLUSHING TOWNSHIP, MI: Sacked Police Officers File Class Action
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Class Settlement in Blackwell Case is Final
GULF RESOURCES: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Merchant Law Group Launches Mesh Class Action
LLOYDS TSB: Faces Class Action in California Over CC Loan Cap
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Cheyne-Related Class Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Renews Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit in N.Y.
MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Amended Suit Reconsideration Bid Rejected
NAT'L FOOTBALL: More Than 80 Concussion Suits Consolidated
NAUTILUS INC: Recalls 17T Bowflex Dumbbells Due to Injury Hazard
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Enters MOU with Lam Research Over Merger Suits
OHIO: Motion to Extend Prison Medical Care Suit Filed
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Pending in Texas Federal Court
RETIREMENT CORP: Faces Meal Break & Overtime Class Action
ROSS DRESS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
THE SOUTHERN CO: Hurricane Katrina Suit Dismissed, Appeal Filed
VIVUS INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
WALGREEN CO: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
*********
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $2.9MM Balance from Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., disclosed in
its May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, that it
had a total remaining balance in accrued expenses and accounts
payable of $2.9 million associated with the settlement of
a class action lawsuit in Washington.
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle
Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009
related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on
behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The
settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1,
2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material
purchased after December 31, 2007, that was manufactured before
October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced into the
manufacturing process.
At March 31, 2012, AERT had a total remaining balance in accrued
expenses of $2.9 million associated with the settlement of the
class action lawsuit. In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated
$2.9 million for resolving claims. In the first quarter of 2009,
the Company increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in
resolving claims under the settlement by $5.1 million. The
estimate was revised due to events that occurred and information
that became available after the second quarter of 2009 concerning
primarily the number of claims received. The deadline for
submitting new claims has now passed. The claim resolution
process will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT of $2.0
million until the claim resolution process is completed.
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. --
http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures, and markets
composite building materials that are used for exterior
applications in building and remodeling homes, and other
industrial or commercial building purposes. Its products are made
primarily from waste wood fiber and recycled polyethylene
plastics. The company manufactures various product lines, which
include commercial and residential decking planks and accessories,
such as balusters and handrails under the MoistureShield and
ChoiceDek brand names; exterior door components; exterior housing
trims under the MoistureShield brand name; deck tiles; and
recycled resin compounds. Its products are primarily used in
renovation and remodeling by consumers, homebuilders, and
contractors as an exterior green building alternative for decking,
railing, and trim products. The company was founded in 1988 and is
based in Springdale, Arkansas.
AFFYMETRIX INC: Completes Notes Repurchase as Part of Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affymetrix, Inc. in March completed the repurchase of more than
$90 million in principal amount of notes as part of its settlement
agreement resolving a stockholder complaint related to its
acquisition of eBioscience Holding Company, Inc., according to the
Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
On May 3, 2012, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated
Plan of Merger to acquire eBioscience Holding Company, Inc. for
approximately $315 million in cash, subject to certain
adjustments. The Merger Agreement amends and restates in its
entirety the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated November 29, 2011 entered into among the same
parties. The merger is subject to certain closing conditions,
including the receipt of financing for the merger. The Merger
Agreement contemplates that the Company will fund the transaction
with a senior secured financing of $75 million and the proceeds of
additional financing expected to be completed by prior to closing.
On December 29, 2011, the Company received notice that Tang
Capital Partners, LP, a holder of the Notes, had commenced class
action litigation against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint alleged a
variety of claims relating to the Company's announced proposed
acquisition of eBioscience Holding Company, Inc., including that
the acquisition would constitute a "Fundamental Change" under the
indenture governing the Notes. The complaint sought unspecified
damages, temporary and permanent injunctive relief against
completion of the eBioscience acquisition, and other remedies. On
January 21, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
the purported class action litigation. As part of the settlement,
the Company agreed that within two weeks, it would commence a
tender offer to repurchase the entire $95.5 million aggregate
principal amount of Notes currently outstanding at par plus
accrued interest. Tang Capital Partners, LP, which owned
approximately $78.3 million principal amount of the Notes, agreed
to tender all of its Notes into the offer. On March 5, 2012, the
Company completed the repurchase of $91.6 million in aggregate
principal amount of the Notes and paid to the holders of the Notes
aggregate consideration of $92.1 million, including accrued
interest.
Affymetrix, Inc. engages in the development, manufacture, sale,
and servicing of consumables and systems for genetic analysis in
the life sciences and clinical healthcare markets primarily in the
United States, Europe, Japan. The company provides integrated
GeneChip microarray platform, which includes disposable DNA probe
arrays (chips) consisting of nucleic acid sequences, certain
reagents for use with the probe arrays, a scanner and other
instruments used to process the probe arrays, and software to
analyze and manage genomic or genetic information obtained from
the probe arrays. It also offers GeneTitan, an instrument system
that runs genotyping and gene expression array plates; and
GeneAtlas, an instrument for low-to-medium throughput that
provides hybridization and array processing with microwell-based
labware, as well as a line of multiplex assays to serve the
discovery and the validation markets. The Company was founded in
1991 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
ALLEGHANY CORP: Yet to File Merger-Related Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement pursuant to the memorandum of understanding Alleghany
Corporation reached with plaintiffs of the Transatlantic merger-
related lawsuits has yet to be filed, according to the Company's
May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
On November 20, 2011, Alleghany entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with its wholly owned subsidiary, Shoreline Merger Sub,
LLC, and Transatlantic Holdings, inc. On the Acquisition Date,
Old Transatlantic was merged with and into Merger Sub, which was
renamed Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. and became a wholly owned
subsidiary of Alleghany. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Alleghany paid to the stockholders of Old Transatlantic
consideration of approximately $3.5 billion, consisting of cash
consideration of $816 million and stock consideration of 8,360,959
shares of Common Stock.
In connection with the merger, Alleghany, Merger Sub and
Transatlantic, among others, were named as defendants in three
putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed by Transatlantic
stockholders. Such lawsuits challenged the merger and alleged
that Alleghany, Merger Sub and Transatlantic aided and abetted an
alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Transatlantic's board of
directors in connection with the merger, among other allegations.
On January 30, 2012, Alleghany and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against
Alleghany, Merger Sub and Transatlantic, among others. Pursuant to
the terms of the proposed settlement, certain supplemental
disclosures were made related to the merger. The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Transatlantic's stockholders. In the event
that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the
court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), among other
claims. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Transatlantic or its
successor, which the defendants may oppose. Transatlantic or its
successor will pay, or cause to be paid, any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.
Based in New York, Alleghany Corporation, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the property and casualty, and surety
insurance business in the United States.
ALLERGAN INC: FLSA Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
alleging violations of labor laws, according to the Company's May
7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
In October 2011, Frederick Brace filed a collective and class
action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York alleging claims for
violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law, fraudulent misrepresentation and declaratory judgment.
These allegations concern the regulation of overtime pay for sales
representatives.
Allergan, Inc. -- http://www.allergan.com/-- operates as a multi-
specialty healthcare company primarily in the United States,
Europe Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company
discovers, develops, and commercializes specialty pharmaceutical,
biologics, medical device, and over-the-counter products for the
ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical
dermatological, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention,
urological, and other specialty markets worldwide. It operates in
two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices. The
Company was founded in 1948 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Directors Suit to be Stayed Temporarily
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a lawsuit against directors of Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. have agreed to a temporary stay of proceedings, according to
the Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.
On April 4, 2012, a derivative and putative class action titled
Duane Howell v. Paulo F. Costa et al. (Case No. 37-2012-00095130)
was filed by a putative stockholder in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego. The complaint
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's
current directors arising out of, among other things, alleged
responses by the directors to an alleged offer to acquire the
Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration
of breach of the directors' fiduciary duties, the establishment of
a committee of independent directors or third party to evaluate
strategic alternatives and potential offers for the Company, a
prohibition of the directors from entering into certain
contractual commitments that allegedly could harm the Company or
its stockholders and an invalidation of the Company's shareholder
rights plan. On May 1, 2012, the parties agreed to a temporary
stay in the action, subject to Court approval.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://amylin.com/-- a
biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery, development,
and commercialization of drug candidates for the treatment of
diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. The company was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Unit Settles Overdraft Fees Suit for $13MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Associated Banc-Corp has reached a tentative $13
million settlement to resolve a lawsuit captioned Harris v.
Associated Bank, N.A., relating to overdraft fees, according to
the Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.
A lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in April
2010. The suit alleges that the Bank unfairly assesses and
collects overdraft fees and seeks restitution of the overdraft
fees, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, and costs.
The lawsuit asserts claims for a multi-year period (as limited by
the applicable state's statute of limitations, generally 6 years)
and is styled as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
consumer banking customers of the Bank with the certification of
the class pending. In April 2010, a Multi District Judicial Panel
issued a conditional transfer order to consolidate this case into
the Multi District Litigation (MDL), In re: Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036 pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Bank is a member, along
with many other banking institutions, of the Fourth Tranche of
defendants in this case. An agreement in principle has been
reached with plaintiffs' counsel, which requires payment by the
Bank of $13 million for a full and complete release of all claims
brought against the Bank. A settlement agreement will be filed
with the court for preliminary approval upon negotiating a final
agreement. Although the Company cannot guarantee that the court
will approve the settlement, it is reasonably likely that the
settlement will be approved. By entering into such an agreement,
the Company has not admitted any liability with respect to the
lawsuit. The settlement is a result of the Company's evaluation
of the cost of fully litigating the matter and the time and
expense of resources needed to administer the litigation. The
settlement amount has been accrued for in the financial
statements.
Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin,
Associated Banc-Corp -- http://www.associatedbank.com-- a bank
holding company, offers various banking and financial services to
individuals and businesses primarily in Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Minnesota.
AUSTRALIA: Cattle Ban Suit Seeks AUD200MM Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
BigPond News reports that a lawyer running a class action over the
suspension of live cattle sales to Indonesia last year says those
associated with the industry deserve more than AUD200 million in
compensation.
A senior associate at Brisbane firm McCullough Robertson, Trent
Thorne, said it was not just producers who were hurt by the ban on
live cattle sales.
"You have got helicopter musterers, you have got feed suppliers,
trucking companies, export agencies," Mr. Thorne said.
"I am estimating that the losses will be north of AUD200 million."
The Australian government banned live cattle sales to Indonesia in
June last year after graphic footage of animal slaughter
techniques were broadcast.
The government lifted the ban a month later and later offered a
total of AUD30 million in compensation to those affected by the
sales ban.
Mr. Thorne said the compensation was woefully inadequate and each
person who successfully claimed was only allowed AUD5000, or up to
AUD20,000 if there were exceptional circumstances.
"Some stations, their fuel bill wouldn't be covered," he said.
He said smaller producers were still feeling the impact of last
year's ban, because the Indonesian government cut cattle import
permits, in what some commentators said was retaliation for
Australia's ban.
Mr. Thorne said the larger cattle companies had better breeding
stock and were more likely to secure sales with the limited number
of permits issued in Indonesia.
AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Market Traders Mull Class Action Over Floods
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Brisbane's market traders are seeking legal
advice about another potential lawsuit against the State
Government over last year's floods.
The fruit and vegetable markets at Rocklea were left with a AUD100
million dollar damage bill.
Traders have now engaged a legal firm to investigate if there is
enough evidence to support a class action over the mismanagement
of Wivenhoe Dam during the floods.
Market CEO Andrew Young says traders want the State Government to
take responsibility for what happened.
"The Government built the markets here -- they put us here --
they're responsible for a lot of the development of the site after
the 1974 floods," Mr. Young said.
"We like so many others in flood affected areas are evaluating our
options.
"What we've really just signalled is that if that material
indicates that there was significant extra damage caused and
there's prospects in a legal case then we would look at heading up
a lawsuit at that time."
Thousands of people have already signed up to a separate class
action being pursued by law firm Maurice Blackburn.
CALIFORNIA INNOVATIONS: Recalls 880,000 Freezer Gel Packs
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
California Innovations Inc., of Toronto, Canada, announced a
voluntary recall of about 880,000 Ice/Hot and Ice Gel Packs.
About 248,000 units associated with lunch boxes and 55,000
associated with food carriers were previously recalled in January
2012. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.
If the packs become damaged, they can leak gel that could contain
diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol, which can cause illness if
ingested in large amounts.
There have been no new reports of incidents or injuries.
The recalled products are Cryofreeze ice/hot packs and Arctic Zone
ice packs. The packs are gel-filled plastic pouches with either
transparent or opaque sealed wrappers. They are used to keep food
hot or cold. The gel packs were sold separately and with a
variety of lunch boxes, coolers and thermal carriers. Six gel
pack styles are being recalled:
-- Cryofreeze ice/hot packs in small and large styles. Both
have opaque blue wrappers with the words "Cryofreeze," "Ice
Pack/Hot Pack," "Non-toxic" and "Reusable" printed on the
front:
* The small gel pack is 6 inches wide and 5.5 inches high
* The large gel pack is 8.5 inches wide and 8 inches high
-- Cryofreeze Transparent Cell ice/hot packs in three styles.
Each has a transparent wrapper with the words "Cryofreeze,"
"Ice Pack/Hot Pack," "Non-toxic" and "Reusable" printed on
the front:
* One 3-cell pack has three connected rectangular-shaped
pouches of blue gel and is 7.85 inches wide and 5.5
inches high.
* Another 3-cell pack has three connected square-shaped
pouches of blue gel and is 7.6 inches wide and 3 inches
high.
* The 2-cell pack has two connected square-shaped pouches
of blue gel and is 5 inches wide and 3 inches high.
-- Arctic Zone ice pack is 6.25 inches wide and 4 inches high
and has an opaque blue wrapper. The Arctic Zone logo and a
picture of an iceberg appear on the front of the wrapper.
The words "ICE," "Personal Ice Pack" and "Non-Toxic Leak
Proof Gel" are also printed on the front of the wrapper.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12195.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
merchandise and warehouse stores, other retailers, distributors
and on-line sellers nationwide between July 2007 and December 2008
in items that retailed between $5 and $28.
Consumers should immediately stop using the gel packs and dispose
of them according to federal, state and/or local regulations. It
is recommended that consumers contact their local waste disposal
authority for instructions. Consumers can contact California
Innovations to receive a $6 cash refund for large (8.5-inch x 8-
inch) Cryofreeze gel packs or a $5 cash refund for all other gel
packs. For additional information, call California Innovations at
(800) 722-2545 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, e-mail ci-recall@ca-innovations.com or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.californiainnovations.com/
CARL ICAHN: Faces Suit Over Tender Offer to Control CVR
-------------------------------------------------------
The City of Tamarac Firefighter Pension Trust Fund, and the City
of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, on Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly Situated
Shareholders of CVR Energy, Inc. v. Carl C. Icahn, Bob G.
Alexander, Sunghwan Cho, George W. Hebard III, Vincent J.
Intrieri, John J. Lipinski, Samuel Merksamer, Stephen Mongillo,
Daniel A. Ninivaggi, James M. Strock, Glenn R. Zander, and IEP
Energy LLC, Case No. 7597- (Del. Chancery Ct., June 5, 2012)
arises from the efforts of Mr. Icahn to "freeze out" minority
shareholders in CVR Energy on the cheap, through a "creeping
tender offer" for the company, in which he is majority owner.
After acquiring control of CVR through a tender offer, and
replacing CVR's Board of Directors, Mr. Icahn has now embarked on
a plan to acquire 90% of CVR's outstanding stock through public
purchases at depressed prices as a precursor to a short-form
merger that will eliminate any minority position in CVR without
providing minority stockholders the statutory protections to which
they are entitled as long as the minority stake in CVR exceeds
10%, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs accuse the CVR Board,
which is comprised entirely of Mr. Icahn's loyalists, of
facilitating his unlawful scheme.
Tamarac is a retirement fund for firefighters employed by the City
of Tamarac, Florida. Miami is a retirement fund for the general
employees and sanitation workers for the City of Miami, Florida.
Tamarac and Miami are stockholders of CVR. Non-party CVR operates
independent refining assets in Coffeyville, Kansas, and Wynnewood,
Oklahoma, with more than 185,000 barrels per day of processing
capacity, a marketing network for supplying high value
transportation fuels to customers through tanker trucks and
pipeline terminals, and a crude oil gathering system serving
Kansas, Oklahoma, western Missouri, southwestern Nebraska and
Texas.
Mr. Icahn, through his affiliates, beneficially owns approximately
80% of CVR's outstanding common stock. IEP Energy is affiliated
with Mr. Icahn and either directly or indirectly owns the shares
of common stock of CVR. IEP Energy is acting for Mr. Icahn by
purchasing and owning CVR shares. The other Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of CVR.
A copy of the Complaint in City of Tamarac Firefighter Pension
Trust Fund, et al. v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 7597 (Del.
Ch. Ct.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/07/Icahn.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
Michael Barry, Esq.
GRANT & EISNEHOFER, P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
mbarry@gelaw.com
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
JeremyF@blbglaw.com
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit asserting
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Chesapeake
Energy Corp. between and including April 30, 2009 and May 10,
2012. This Complaint extends the class period beyond the April
17, 2012 end date alleged in the initial class action complaint
filed against Chesapeake on April 26, 2012, styled as Dvora
Weinstein and Steven S. Weinstein v. Aubrey K. McClendon and
Chesapeake Energy Corp., Case No. Civ-12-465-W (W.D.Ok.). The
deadline for class members to move to serve as lead plaintiff is
June 25, 2012.
The Complaint alleges that Chesapeake's Chief Executive Officer,
Aubrey K. McClendon, obtained over a billion dollars of Company
assets pursuant to the Company's Founders Well Participation
Program ("FWPP") and borrowed over $1.5 billion dollars against
his well interests, presenting material risks to the Company that
were not disclosed.
In addition to Ms. McClendon, the Complaint names as defendants
other individuals -- members of the Company's Board of Directors
and Senior Executives -- who compounded the fraud by failing to
stop and concealing Ms. McClendon's improper activities.
Beginning April 18, 2012, Defendants' alleged fraud was revealed
to the market in a series of investigative reports published by
Reuters, the Wall Street Journal and other news media. On April
18, 2012, Reuters reported that Ms. McClendon had acquired a huge
stake in the Company's numerous oil and gas wells and had borrowed
as much as $1.1 billion, later reported to be $1.55 billion,
against his stake in the Company's wells. As a result of these
and other disclosures, the Company's stock plunged, dropping from
its April 17, 2012 close at $19.12 to close on May 11, 2012 at
$14.81.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may, no
later than June 25, 2012, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. However, your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive
class member.
Grant & Eisenhofer -- http://www.gelaw.com-- represents
institutional investors and shareholders internationally in
securities class actions, corporate governance actions and
derivative actions.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:
John C. Kairis, Esq.
Grant & Eisenhofer
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
E-mail: jkairis@gelaw.com
CRESCENT CITY: Group To File Class Action Over Toll Collections
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Rioux, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that a group
that opposes renewing Crescent City Connection tolls said it plans
to file a class-action lawsuit alleging the tolls are not a
legitimate user fee but rather "a discriminatory and
unconstitutional tax in disguise." Michael Teachworth, director
of StopTheTolls.org, said the suit will be filed in the coming
days and will seek an injunction to immediately halt toll
collections.
The tolls are set to expire Dec. 31, but the Legislature passed a
bill setting a Nov. 6 election for voters in Jefferson, Orleans
and Plaquemines parishes to decide whether to renew them.
Mr. Teachworth, who cast the dissenting vote in a Legislature-
created task force's 7-1 recommendation to renew the tolls,
disclosed the planned lawsuit in an e-mail urging Gov. Bobby
Jindal to veto the bill.
Mr. Teachworth said the toll, $1 for motorists paying cash and 40
cents for those with toll tags, constitutes a tax because most of
the $21 million generated each year is used to pay for services
unrelated to operating the bridge, including three Mississippi
River ferries that receive $9 million a year in bridge tolls. The
bill setting the toll referendum would prohibit toll revenue from
subsidizing the ferries, which would be privatized.
"We believe these tolls do not meet the definition of a user fee
-- as only 19 cents of every toll dollar collected is actually
spent on the bridge," Mr. Teachworth wrote, citing a figure from a
report by the Bureau of Governmental Research, which recommended
letting the tolls expire.
"The rest of the toll money collected is used to pay for the same
services that are provided by the state of Louisiana to other
citizens who are not forced to pay tolls," Mr. Teachworth wrote.
"These services include police patrols on bridges, ferry services,
funding of DOTD operations, and bridge maintenance and
inspections."
Toll supporters, including numerous business and civic groups,
have said bridge upkeep would be curtailed if the cash-strapped
DOTD took over the span. They argue the iconic bridge is a vital
economic lifeline and symbol for the region that must be properly
maintained.
But many commuters have said the state should maintain and operate
the bridge with gas tax revenue as it does for all the other
Mississippi River spans.
"We want a court to decide if the tolls are fair, not
politicians," Mr. Teachworth said in an interview. "If we lose,
we're going to shut up and pay the tolls. If we win, West Bank
residents will finally be treated fairly like the rest of the
state."
EBAY: Class Action Certification Filing Scheduled for June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pymnts.com reports that this is a big month for the legal team at
eBay, as the true ramifications behind a two-year old case begin
to unfold.
The case was opened in April 2010, when Charlotte Smith, an online
retailer, sued eBay over its payment acceptance policies.
Basically, the plaintiff alleged that only letting buyers and
sellers transact through PayPal was unfair. Or, as it was stated
in the suit, "Defendant's actions constitute an unlawful tying
arrangement resulting in an impermissible restraint of trade, in
violation of federal law."
Recent actions have narrowed the scope of the case, from the
entire online payment market to only the online auction space.
That was the result of last week's decision by U.S. District Judge
James White. But according to Carl Schaerf, the big news is set
to hit the wires later this month.
Mr. Schaerf is a partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP,
and chair of the firm's Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice
Group. He says there are two big words that could change the
course of this case dramatically: class certification.
The plaintiffs appear to have been positioning this case as a
class action suit from the outset, particularly with hiring
Detroit's Macuga Liddle & Dubin PC, which specializes in class
action. But by Mr. Schaerf's assessment, the plaintiffs have not
yet received the certification required to transform this case
into a class action suit officially. That possibility, says
Mr. Schaerf, is what "puts the fear into eBay," because it would
immediately make potential settlement or damages a much more
expensive proposition.
We'll know more later this month, Mr. Schaerf says: the
certification filing is scheduled for June 15, with an
accompanying conference scheduled for June 22. For now,
Mr. Schaerf estimates that eBay probably doesn't know what it
wants to do, because it's not clear that the plaintiffs will be
given class certification.
But either way, as we said before: it's a big month for eBay.
EDEN MEDICAL: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erika L. Loud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eden Medical Center, a California business entity, and
Does One through Ten, Case No. 3:12-cv-02936 (N.D. Calif., June 6,
2012) asserts claims against EMC for violations of the California
Labor Code, violations of the relevant Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order found in the California Code of Regulations,
violations of the California Business and Professions Code, and
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The action is brought on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals who, at any time since June 1, 2008, were or have been
employed by EMC. Ms. Loud alleges that EMC's policy of around-
the-clock service, coupled with a failure to employ an adequate
number of trained individuals, regularly results in EMC employees
being unable to take their required breaks.
Ms. Loud is a resident of the county of Oakland, California. She
has worked at EMC's facility in Castro Valley, California, since
August 22, 2011, as a Nursing Assistant.
EMC owns and operates a full-service medical center, with campuses
in Castro Valley and San Leandro, California. The Plaintiff does
not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
David Zelenski, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90038
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
dzelensfci@harrisandruble.com
FLUSHING TOWNSHIP, MI: Sacked Police Officers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Acosta, writing for MLive, reports that laid-off township
police officers claim in a federal lawsuit that their connection
with recall attempts on officials cost them their jobs, while
disputing claims they pointed guns at each other after receiving
pink slips.
Five former officers -- Mark Bolin, Louis Cook, Brian Farlin,
James Hough and Andrew Owens -- have filed the class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking more than $75,000.
They claim Flushing Township, former Police Chief Dale Stevenson,
Supervisor Terry Peck, Treasurer Bill Noecker and trustees Mark
Purkey, Scott Minaudo and Michael Gardner violated their First
Amendment rights and defamed their character.
The suit claims after board members voted to disband the police
department, Mr. Peck told Montrose Township officials that
officers pulled guns on each other, and that he placed officers on
immediate administrative leave because, "he feared for the safety
of his family and himself due to potential retaliatory acts by the
officers."
Township attorney Steve Schultz said the township just received
the lawsuit last week.
"We can't define the specific course of action the township will
take other than to vigorously defend against the claims."
Pages of allegations in the lawsuit date back to 2008, claiming
township officials contracted with the Genesee County Sheriff's
Department in March because of police officers' affiliation and
support of two recall efforts, including one headed by resident
Jared Staley.
One recall was against Messrs. Noecker, Purkey, Gardner and
Minaudo in 2009 and a second against Messrs. Noecker and Gardner
in 2011 was based on petitions filed by Mr. Staley.
The officers claim Mr. Hough was putting out recall signs in
November 2009, when he was confronted by Messrs. Noecker, Gardner,
Minaudo and Purkey, who surrounded his car and said he did not
have permission to put signs in residents' yards.
Following Mr. Peck's election in March 2010, he allegedly told
Bolin officers should not have picked a political side in the
original recall while Mr. Gardner allegedly advised the officers
he intended to "bust up the union" after which the police
department became subject to unwarranted layoffs, the suit claims.
Mr. Gardner denied both claims on June 6, stating "None of that is
correct." He said the change in police service was based on
budget concerns.
"That decision was based solely on financial reasons to save the
township money," he said, noting the change would put the township
"on a sound financial track to provide the police protection and
pay off the unfunded (pension) liability."
During a March 2011 conversation between Mr. Cook, a township
police union official at the time, and Mr. Stevenson, allegations
claim the former police chief told Mr. Cook, "Your association
with someone who is actively trying to unseat two members of the
board is political nonsense and is killing us."
According to the suit, Mr. Peck told officers Cook and Bolin the
reason no new contract had been issued to the department was
because of their involvement in the recall efforts, while
allegedly stating to Bolin on Feb. 6 "the entire police department
would suffer the consequences of their votes on the recall."
Three days later, township board members voted to dissolve the
department, with the exception of Stevenson and the school
resource officer, and placed the officers on immediate
administrative leave.
Mr. Farlin, who previously filed three unsuccessful grievances
over his dismissal in May 2011, also claims that Stevenson defamed
him by telling people Mr. Farlin was an alcoholic and possible
drug user.
Mr. Schultz said an injunction sought by Mr. Farlin, accusing Mr.
Stevenson of a similar allegation, was dismissed in May 2011 in
Genesee Circuit Court.
"In that particular case, the court dismissed the request for
injunctive relief and dismissed the entire case a couple days
later before the township even had to do anything," said Mr.
Schultz, who declined to comment on any factor that would play in
the new lawsuit.
Norbert Leonard, attorney for the plaintiffs, could not be reached
for comment.
Mr. Schultz said the lawsuit "is wholly without merit" and no laws
have been broken by township officials.
"There has been no violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment
rights and there has been no defamation of the plaintiffs," he
said.
The timing of the lawsuit is curious following months of service
by the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Gardner said, and is "intended to
try and throw mud during the primary election."
"It's really frustrating township time and resources are going to
fight these lawsuits," he said. "We plan on defending them
vigorously."
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Class Settlement in Blackwell Case is Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement resolving a class action against Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold, Inc. and its subsidiary, Blackwell Zinc Company,
Inc., is deemed final as no appeals were filed on the appeal
deadline, according to the Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.
On April 14, 2008, a purported class action was filed against
Freeport-McMoRan and several of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries, including Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc., entitled
Coffey, et al., v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., et al.,
Kay County, Oklahoma District Court, Case No. CJ-2008-68. The
suit alleges that the operations of BZC's zinc smelter in
Blackwell, Oklahoma, from 1918 to 1974 resulted in contamination
of soils and groundwater in Blackwell. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and injunctive relief and punitive
damages on behalf of current property owners as of December 19,
2011, for alleged environmental contamination and other damages to
real property. On December 19, 2011, the parties submitted a
proposed class settlement to the court for approval, and the court
entered a preliminary approval order.
On March 22, 2012, the court approved a settlement with the
plaintiffs, which was filed and entered on March 26, 2012, to
resolve the pending class action in Blackwell, Oklahoma. A number
of potential class members opted out of the settlement, and a
smaller number formally objected to the settlement terms. Because
no objector filed an appeal by the April 25, 2012 deadline, the
settlement is now final.
Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold
Inc. -- http://www.fcx.com/-- engages in the exploration, mining,
and production of mineral resources. The Company primarily
explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, cobalt hydroxide, silver,
and other metals, such as rhenium and magnetite.
GULF RESOURCES: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Resources, Inc. continues to await a California federal court
order on its motion to dismiss a securities class action complaint
commenced by Lewy, according to the Company's May 7, 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 (Ming Yang,
Xiaobin Liu, and Min Li, collectively, the Individual Defendants)
have been named as defendants in a putative securities class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
That action, which is now captioned Lewy, et al. v. Gulf
Resources, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-3722 ODW (MRWx), was filed on
April 29, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class
of all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's common stock
between March 16, 2009 and April 26, 2011 inclusive, filed an
amended complaint on September 12, 2011. Lead plaintiffs assert
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The amended complaint
alleges the defendants made false or misleading statements in the
Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years ended December
31, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and in interim quarterly reports by,
among other things, overstating revenue and net income and failing
to disclose material related party transactions and certain facts
about the CEO's prior employment at another company. The amended
complaint also asserts claims against the Individual Defendants
for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount. On November 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. On December 30, 2011, lead
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. The Company filed a reply in further
support of its motion to dismiss on February 6, 2012. In response
to the Company's reply in further support of its motion to
dismiss, lead plaintiffs filed an objection on February 17, 2012,
to certain documents filed by the Company in support of its motion
to dismiss. The Company opposed the objection on February 22,
2012, to which lead plaintiffs replied in further support of their
objection on February 23, 2012. The Court has not yet ruled on
the motion to dismiss nor the objections raised by lead
plaintiffs. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the
lawsuit. The Company currently cannot estimate the amount or
range of possible losses from this litigation.
The Company relates that the legal costs incurred for the three-
month period ended March 31, 2012 in connection with the above
legal case amounted to $411,289, which was included in the income
statements as general and administrative expenses.
Gulf Resources, Inc. -- http://www.gulfresourcesinc.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and trades bromine
and crude salt products in the People's Republic of China. It is
based in Shouguang City, the People's Republic of China.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Merchant Law Group Launches Mesh Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group announced on June 6 expanding class action
litigation regarding Transvaginal Mesh Products. Merchant Law
Group has launched national class action litigation before the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the B.C. Supreme Court on
behalf of all Canadian women who have been victimized by
Transvaginal Mesh implants manufactured by the Johnson & Johnson
Defendants.
The four products being discontinued are produced by Johnson &
Johnson and Ethicon and will be discontinued within the next three
to nine months:
* Gynemesh M and Gynecare TVT Secur System
* Gynecare Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair System
* Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System
* Gynecare Prolift + M Pelvic Floor Repair System
These Johnson & Johnson Mesh products were marketed to correct
Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Health
Canada first licensed the products for sale and use in Canada on
August 19, 1998. Complications arising from the mesh implants
include but are not limited to: erosion in the vagina and urethra,
pain, infection, perforations, including perforations in the bowel
and bladder, pain during sexual intercourse, injuries to adjacent
organs and blood vessels. Health Canada and the FDA have recently
warned of these conditions. Health Canada has stated that
treatment for these symptoms may involve surgical intervention
including complete mesh removal. In some cases, multiple surgical
procedures to remove the mesh are necessary.
"Merchant Law Group investigated these issues of alleged danger
and wrongdoing to women and launched litigation on May 4, 2012,"
said Tony Merchant. "Safety in medical products ought to be the
predominant aim of Health Canada and medical providers," Mr.
Merchant said. "Legal proceedings have been issued in Ontario and
British Columbia and lawsuits will be commenced across Canada as
more women contact our offices, which they may do by calling 1-
888-567-7777 or by providing their information on
www.merchantlaw.com."
A copy of the Ontario claim can be viewed at
http://www.merchantlaw.com/johnson.pdf
Merchant Law Group LLP, a leading Canadian class action firm, has
offices in 12 cities across Canada, from Montreal to Victoria.
Anyone who believes they may be eligible to participate in this
class action should provide their contact information online at
http://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/vaginalmesh.phpor call
our law firm at 1-888-567-7777 for further information.
For further information:
Media may contact Tony Merchant, Q.C., at 306-539-7777 or 306-227-
2222
LLOYDS TSB: Faces Class Action in California Over CC Loan Cap
-------------------------------------------------------------
David T. Osmena and Patricia Hogan-Osmena, husband and wife, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lloyds TSB Bank,
PLC, a bank organized and existing under the laws of the United
Kingdom, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 5:12-cv-02937 (N.D.
Calif., June 6, 2012) is brought on behalf of all persons and
entities, who (1) entered into a Convertible Currency Loan ("CC
Loan") agreement with Lloyds, containing a provision which set
forth a maximum principal sum for the loan, the "Principal Cap
Provision," and (2) the Defendant has accounted for the loan in an
amount in excess of the Principal Cap Provision.
According to the complaint, Lloyds TSB Bank promised it would cap
principal due on its Convertible Currency Loans at 120 percent of
its "cost of funds," but ignored the cap when interest and
exchange rates made the principal exceed 120 percent of the
original loan.
The Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, violations of California state
law and common law for the Defendant's wrongful conduct of
disregarding the Principal Cap Provision, thereby, breaching the
written contract and causing considerable damage to all members of
the class.
The Osmenas are residents of Redondo Beach, California.
Lloyds is a bank organized and existing under the laws of the
United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the city-state of Hong
Kong. The Defendant is engaged in the business of originating and
selling the CC Loans.
A copy of the Complaint in Osmena, et ux. v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-02937 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/07/LloydsCA.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter J. Bezek, Esq.
Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
Justin P. Karczag, Esq.
FOLEY, BEZEK, BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
15 W. Carillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
E-mail: pbezek@foleybezek.com
rcurtis@foleybezek.com
jkarczag@foleybezek.com
- and -
Andrew P. Owen, Esq.
THE TRIAL LAW FIRM PC
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 347-0290
E-mail: aowen@oslaw.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Cheyne-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit related to securities issued by Cheyne Finance,
according to the Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi
Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and
is pending in the Southern District of New York. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading
because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks
associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed
securities held by the Cheyne SIV. On September 2, 2009, the
court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for
plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July
20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their
aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company,
and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on
August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted
plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10,
2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend
their Complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company.
The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company
moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On
January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with
respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. There
are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to
approximately $983 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.
Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged
investments and are seeking, among other things, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.
Based on currently available information, the Company believes
that the defendants could incur a loss up to the amount of
plaintiffs' claimed compensatory damages, once specified, related
to their alleged purchase of approximately $983 million of
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV plus pre- and post-judgment
interest, fees and costs.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing.
Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments - Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.
MORGAN STANLEY: Renews Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley has renewed its motion to dismiss a consolidated
purported class action proceeding in New York alleging Employee
Retiree Income Security Act claims, according to the Company's May
7, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee
stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties,
including certain present and former directors and officers, under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In
February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single
proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation.
The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's
subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes
allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal
controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common
stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with
its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately
disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest
and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss
the complaint in In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation.
Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments - Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.
MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Amended Suit Reconsideration Bid Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley disclosed in its May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012, that a New York federal court has denied the
Company's motion for a reconsideration of the court's denial-in-
part of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed
in relation the Company's offerings of mortgage pass through
certificates in 2006.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration
statements and offering documents related to the offerings of
approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in
2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information
concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these
securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with
an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the
lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff,
together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended
complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and
others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates
issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential
mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading
information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed
these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary
damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the
court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' request to file another
amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved
for reconsideration of a portion of the court's decision partially
denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring
claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates
issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss
the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011.
On April 24, 2012, the court presiding in In re Morgan Stanley
Pass-Through Certificate Litigation denied defendants' motion for
reconsideration of its denial-in-part of defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several
putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the
syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage
pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related
entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-
related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among
other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for the offerings at issue contained material
misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the
issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks
and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential
losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors
including, among other things, the financial condition of the
entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass
through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the
offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of
co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or
their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some
of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates)
that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into
receivership.
Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments - Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: More Than 80 Concussion Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a concussion-related lawsuit
bringing together scores of cases has been filed in federal court,
accusing the National Football League of hiding information that
linked football-related head trauma to permanent brain injuries.
Lawyers for former players say more than 80 pending lawsuits are
consolidated in the "master complaint" filed on May 31 in
Philadelphia.
Plaintiffs hope to hold the NFL responsible for the care of
players suffering from dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other
neurological conditions. Other former players remain
asymptomatic, but worry about the future and want medical
monitoring.
The league did not immediately respond to news that the single,
mega-lawsuit would be filed but has denied similar accusations in
the past.
The suit accuses the NFL of "mythologizing" and glorifying
violence through the media, including its NFL Films division.
"The NFL, like the sport of boxing, was aware of the health risks
associated with repetitive blows producing sub-concussive and
concussive results and the fact that some members of the NFL
player population were at significant risk of developing long-term
brain damage and cognitive decline as a result," the complaint
charges.
"Despite its knowledge and controlling role in governing player
conduct on and off the field, the NFL turned a blind eye to the
risk and failed to warn and/or impose safety regulations governing
this well-recognized health and safety problem."
Mary Ann Easterling will remain a plaintiff despite the April
suicide of her husband, former Atlanta Falcons safety Roy
Easterling, who had been a named plaintiff in a suit filed last
year.
Mr. Easterling, 62, suffered from undiagnosed dementia for many
years that left him angry and volatile, his widow said. He acted
out of character, behaving oddly at family parties and making
risky business decisions that eventually cost them their home.
They were married 36 years and had one daughter. She believes the
NFL has no idea what families go through.
"I wish I could sit down with (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) and
share with him the pain. It's not just the spouses, it's the
kids, too," Mrs. Easterling, 59, told The Associated Press from
her home in Richmond, Va. "Kids don't understand why Dad is angry
all the time."
Roy Easterling played for the Falcons from 1972 to 1979, helping
to lead the team's "Gritz Blitz" defense in 1977 that set the NFL
record for fewest points allowed in a season. He never earned
more than $75,000 from the sport, his widow said. After his
football career, he started a financial services company, but had
to abandon the career in about 1990, plagued by insomnia and
depression, she said.
"I think the thing that was so discouraging was just the denial by
the NFL," Mary Ann Easterling said. "His sentiment toward the end
was that if he had a choice to do it all over again, he wouldn't
(play). . . . He was realizing how fast he was going downhill."
The list of notable former players connected to concussion
lawsuits is extensive and includes the family of Dave Duerson, who
shot himself last year. Ex-quarterback Jim McMahon, Mr. Duerson's
teammate on Super Bowl-winning 1985 Chicago Bears, has been a
plaintiff.
The cases are being consolidated for pretrial issues and discovery
before Senior U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody in Philadelphia.
The players accuse the NFL of negligence and intentional
misconduct in its response to the headaches, dizziness and
dementia that former players have reported, even after forming the
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee to study the issue in 1994.
"After voluntarily assuming a duty to investigate, study, and
truthfully report to the public and NFL players, including the
Plaintiffs, the medical risks associated with MTBI in football,
the NFL instead produced industry-funded, biased, and falsified
research that falsely claimed that concussive and sub-concussive
head impacts in football do not present serious, life-altering
risks," the complaint says.
The problem of concussions in the NFL has moved steadily into the
litigation phase for about a year.
According to an AP review of 81 lawsuits filed through May 25, the
plaintiffs include 2,138 players who say the NFL did not do enough
to inform them about the dangers of head injuries. The total
number of plaintiffs in those cases is 3,356, which includes
players, spouses and other relatives or representatives.
Some of the plaintiffs are named in more than one complaint, but
the AP count does not include duplicated names in the total.
"We want to see them take care of the players," Mary Ann
Easterling said.
This legal action is the latest in a long string of lawsuits filed
against the league over its handling of concussions. In one filed
this past May, Washington Redskins Hall of Famer Art Monk is the
lead plaintiff of 60 former players who say the league didn't
properly protect them from head injuries.
The suit also comes on the heels of the most recent death of a
former player. On May 2, former San Diego Chargers linebacker
Junior Seau shot and killed himself. Mr. Seau, 43, had his brain
donated to be researched. Former Chicago Bears Super Bowl
champion Dave Duerson, who killed himself in a manner similar to
Mr. Seau in 2011, also donated his brain.
Both Messrs. Seau and Duerson shot themselves in the chest, and in
a note, Mr. Duerson said he did so to preserve his brain for
doctors to examine.
Several former NFL players have been diagnosed with a condition
called chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a condition which
accelerates the degeneration of the brain due to repeated trauma
and injury. According to ESPN, at least six former NFL players
who died before turning 50 were diagnosed with CTE.
NAUTILUS INC: Recalls 17T Bowflex Dumbbells Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nautilus Inc. of Vancouver, Washington, announced a voluntary
recall of about 17,000 units of Bowflex(R) SelectTech(R) 1090
Dumbbells. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The weight selector dial on the units can fail, causing weight
plates to fall when the dumbbell is lifted from its cradle, posing
an injury hazard.
Nautilus Inc. has received 16 reports of the weight selector dial
failing, including three reports of injuries to the user's foot or
leg.
These black steel dumbbells are sold in pairs and can have a
weight capacity of 10 to 90 pounds. The word 'BOWFLEX' is written
in grey along the top of each handle. A selector dial on each end
of the cradle lists weights in red, starting at 10 and increasing
in increments of five. The red Bowflex logo is at the center of
the dial. This recall involves units with a date-of-manufacture
code in the serial number in the range of 1111 through 1136. The
date code is the four-digit code following the letters "MAG" in
the serial number. The serial number is on a white label on the
bottom of the cradle. Lift the dumbbell from the cradle with all
weights attached before turning over the base. Dumbbells with a
black dot on the inside portion of the weight selector dial are
not affected by this recall. Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12194.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores, Nautilus.com and other online retailers
from May 2011 through August 2011 for about $600.
Consumers should stop using the recalled dumbbells immediately and
contact Nautilus for a free repair kit. For additional
information, contact Nautilus Inc. toll-free at (800) 416-7271
between 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bowflex.com/
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Enters MOU with Lam Research Over Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novellus Systems reached a memorandum of understanding with Lam
Research last month to resolve lawsuits related to the merger
agreement of the two parties, according to the Company's May 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
On December 14, 2011, Novellus entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Lam Research Corporation and BLMS Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Lam Research (Merger subsidiary), pursuant to
which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain
conditions, the Merger subsidiary will merge with and into
Novellus. Novellus will be the surviving entity in the Merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Lam Research. Upon completion of the
Merger, each share of Novellus's common stock will be converted
into 1.125 shares of Lam Research common stock.
Completion of the Merger is subject to certain customary
conditions. The companies anticipate the Merger, which has been
unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both Lam
Research and Novellus, to close in the second calendar quarter of
2012.
On December 15, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara (State
Court), by Marla Skroch, an alleged Novellus shareholder who seeks
to represent a class comprised of Novellus shareholders. The
complaint in the action (the Skroch complaint), names as
defendants Novellus, the members of Novellus' Board of Directors,
and Lam Research. The Skroch complaint alleges that the director
defendants breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to Novellus'
shareholders by entering into the Merger Agreement; that Lam
Research and Novellus aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty; and that if the transaction is allowed to proceed,
the shareholders will suffer damages because their shares will be
acquired for less than their actual value. The plaintiff seeks an
order in the State Court certifying the action as a class action;
rescinding the transaction and/or preliminarily enjoining the
defendants from consummating the transaction, and/or awarding
attorneys' fees and costs.
On December 19, 2011 a second purported class action was filed in
the State Court by Michael Resing, an alleged Novellus
shareholder, who seeks to represent the same purported class. The
complaint in the action (the Resing complaint) names as defendants
the members of Novellus' Board of Directors, Novellus, Lam
Research and the Merger subsidiary. The allegations contained in
the Resing complaint are largely similar to the allegations
contained in the Skroch complaint, except that the Resing
complaint also alleges that BLMS aided and abetted alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the director defendants. The
plaintiff seeks similar relief to that sought by the Skroch
complaint.
On December 20, 2011 and December 28, 2011, two additional
purported class action lawsuits were filed by the State Court by
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (LMPERS)
and Nanette Ramsay, alleged Novellus shareholders that seek to
represent the same purported class. The complaints in these
actions names as defendants the same parties named in the Resing
complaint. The allegations and relief sought in these complaints
are largely similar to the allegations and relief sought in each
of the preceding complaints, except that the LMPERS complaint
alleges that Novellus breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to
Novellus' shareholders, rather than aiding and abetting the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Both the LMPERS complaint and
the Ramsay complaint also seek damages.
Attorneys for the parties in the four actions filed in the State
Court have agreed, and the State Court has ordered, that these
actions be consolidated into one action titled In re Novellus
Systems, Inc. litigation (the State Action). On February 10,
2012, the Superior Court appointed LMPERS as lead plaintiff.
On January 5, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court (Federal Court) by Sunil Nagpal, an
alleged Novellus shareholder, who seeks to represent the same
purported class (the Nagpal action). The complaint in the Nagpal
action names as defendants the same parties as the complaints in
the Resing, LMPERS, and Ramsay actions, as well as one former
Novellus director, and the allegations and relief sought in this
complaint are largely similar to the allegations and relief sought
in each of the preceding complaints. On February 17, 2012,
counsel for Mr. Nagpal filed a separate purported class action in
Federal Court (the Tessitore action), asserting the same claims as
the Nagpal Action and adding a claim that the individual
defendants and Novellus violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 14a-9 (the Nagpal action and the Tessitore action are
collectively referred to as the "Federal Actions").
On May 4, 2012, Novellus, Lam Research, and the Merger subsidiary
entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to settle both
the State Action and the Federal Actions. Pursuant to the MOU,
Novellus, Lam Research, and the Merger subsidiary agreed to
resolve disputed legal claims and to make certain additional
disclosures regarding the proposed Merger of the Merger subsidiary
and Novellus, as set forth in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on May 4, 2012.
The MOU is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and
conditions, including court approval, and will include an
agreement by the plaintiffs in each of the State and Federal
Actions, on behalf of a class of Novellus shareholders, to provide
a release of claims of Novellus shareholders against Novellus, Lam
Research, the Merger subsidiary, and their respective officers and
directors. In addition, the parties have agreed that, prior to
the completion of the Merger, Novellus will not be responsible for
the payment of any amounts in connection with the settlement.
Novellus Systems, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
primarily a supplier of semiconductor manufacturing equipment used
in the fabrication of integrated circuits.
OHIO: Motion to Extend Prison Medical Care Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
Laura A. Bischoff, writing for Columbus Bureau, reports that the
Cincinnati-based Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed a motion in
U.S. District Court on June 6 to extend a class-action lawsuit
over the quality of prison medical care for 50,000 inmates,
signaling that the long-standing fight may not be finished.
The suit, originally filed in 2003, alleged that Ohio's inmate
health care failed to meet the minimum standards. A settlement
agreement reached in 2005 led the state to hire 310 more medical
staff and ramp up spending by about $28 million a year, according
to the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, a bipartisan
legislative agency that keeps tabs on prison issues.
The Ohio Justice and Policy Center says the problem has not been
fixed. Inadequate staffing means inmates don't get essential
medications or receive timely care for serious conditions, the
center said.
Ohio's prison system spends $210 million to $223 million a year on
medical care, including $28 million for prescription medications.
As in the private sector, health care costs have exploded in the
prison system over the last decade. In 2010, Ohio's health care
spending averaged $4,371 per inmate, up 85 percent from the $2,365
per inmate cost in 2001.
The steady climb in Ohio's prison medical costs is attributable to
health care inflation, an aging inmate population and the federal
class-action lawsuit.
The settlement deal between the state and the Ohio Justice and
Policy Center was set to expire in November 2010, but the center
and state prison officials mutually agreed to extend it to June 22
to give Ohio time to shift from contract doctors and nurses to
hiring state workers to provide those medical services. Court
monitoring over dental services ended a year ago.
The state Department of Rehabilitation and Correction noted that
other allegations made by the center will be addressed through the
court process.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Pending in Texas Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 24, 21012, The Mazzola Law Firm, PLLC, of Beaumont,
Texas, filed a class action lawsuit in Hunt County, Texas against
Polaris Industries, Inc., on behalf of Point, Texas resident, Jeff
Smith, and all others in Texas who purchased a 2009, 2010 or 2011
Polaris Ranger XP or Ranger Crew UTV (Cause No. 78083). On
May 21, 2012, the matter was removed to federal court based on
diversity jurisdiction, and is now in the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division.
Among the causes of action in the lawsuit are the allegations that
the engines in the Class Rangers are inadequately insulated and
lack proper engine cooling; and that the faulty exhaust systems
preclude their use during the summertime and on warm days.
The lawsuit contains further allegations that Polaris expended
approximately $142.4 million, $111.1 million and $137 million in
sales and marketing activities in 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and that such marketing was aimed at selling the
Class Rangers as UTVs with car-like comfort, with a heavy emphasis
on the vehicles' ergonomics, space and especially its use in all
temperatures and climates.
In the marketing process, the Complaint states, Polaris made
express statements about the Class Rangers that they can be
operated year round at warmer temperatures and in desert climates.
The Complaint goes on to allege that despite such express
statements, the Class Rangers are simply inoperable in hotter
temperatures due to the excessive heat in the seating areas.
Additional information can be found at
http://www.mazzolalawfirm.com/Practice-Areas/Defective-Polaris-
Ranger-Utility-Terrain-Vehicles.shtml or may be obtained by
calling The Mazzola Law Firm, PLLC at 866-497-2039.
The case is styled Smith v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Civil Action
No.3:12-cv-01594-B. Plaintiff is represented by Brian N. Mazzola
from The Mazzola Law Firm, PLLC and Brian Strange and Gretchen
Carpenter of Strange & Carpenter, LLP out of Los Angeles,
California. The Mazzola Law Firm, PLLC and Strange & Carpenter,
LLP are currently handling additional cases against Polaris,
Industries, Inc., based on similar allegations, in other states
across the nation.
RETIREMENT CORP: Faces Meal Break & Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Retirement Corporation of
America Partners, The Carlyle Group et al. made certified nursing
assistants work through meal breaks, making them work off the
clock and cheating them of overtime, workers claim in a federal
class action.
A copy of the Complaint in Boateng v. Retirement Corporation of
America Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01959 (N.D. Ga.),
is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/07/Overtime.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
3525 Piedmont Road
7 Piedmont Center
3rd Floor Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 254-0842
E-mail: aw@andrewweinerlaw.com
- and -
C. Andrew Head, Esq.
FRIED & BONDER, LLC
White Provision, Ste. 305
1170 Howell Mill Rd., NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 995-8808
E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com
ROSS DRESS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ross Dress for Less makes
employees work off the clock and cheats them of overtime, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.
THE SOUTHERN CO: Hurricane Katrina Suit Dismissed, Appeal Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Mississippi federal court has dismissed an amended class action
complaint against The Southern Company arising from Hurricane
Katrina and an appeal has been lodged by plaintiffs challenging
the dismissal order, according to the Company's May 7, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residents
seeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries caused
by Hurricane Katrina. In 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to include Southern Company and many other electric
utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climate
change, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed the case. On appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
in favor of the defendants. On May 27, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
an amended version of their class action complaint, arguing that
the earlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under
Mississippi law the plaintiffs have a right to re-file. The
amended complaint was also filed against numerous chemical, coal,
oil, and utility companies, including Alabama Power, Georgia
Power, Gulf Power, and Southern Power. On March 20, 2012, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 16, 2012,
the plaintiffs appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. Each Southern Company entity named in the
lawsuit believes that these claims are without merit. While each
Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes the
likelihood of loss is remote based on existing case law, it is not
possible to predict with certainty whether any Southern Company
entity named in the lawsuit will incur any liability in connection
with this matter. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.
Atlanta-based The Southern Company --
http://www.southerncompany.com/-- is an energy company serving
the Southeast. A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern
Company businesses include electric utilities in four states and a
growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics
and wireless communications.
VIVUS INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss an
amended securities class action complaint, according to the
Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
The Company and two of its officers are defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., Case
No. CV10-4957 PJH, pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California. The action, filed in November 2010,
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,
for Qnexa as a treatment for obesity. In his Amended Class Action
Complaint filed April 4, 2011, the plaintiff alleged generally
that the defendants misled investors regarding the prospects for
Qnexa's NDA approval, and the drug's efficacy and safety. On June
3, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard
by the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton on October 12, 2011. At the
hearing, Judge Hamilton ruled from the bench and granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Judge
Hamilton also issued an order on October 13, 2011, which confirmed
her ruling at the hearing. On November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed
his Second Amended Class Action Complaint, again generally
alleging that the defendants misled investors regarding the
prospects for Qnexa's NDA approval, and Qnexa's efficacy and
safety. On November 23, 2011, Judge Hamilton granted a
stipulation and order requiring defendants' motion to dismiss to
be filed on or before December 30, 2011, plaintiffs opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss to be filed on or before February
22, 2012 and defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to be
filed on or before March 30, 2012. The hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss was held on April 18, 2012. Pending the outcome
of defendants' motion to dismiss, discovery will continue to be
stayed.
VIVUS, Inc. -- http://www.vivus.com/-- a biopharmaceutical
company, is developing therapies to address obesity, sleep apnea,
diabetes, and male sexual health. Its lead investigational
product, Qnexa, has completed Phase 3 clinical trials for the
treatment of obesity. Qnexa is also in Phase 2 clinical
development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obstructive
sleep apnea. The Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered
in Mountain View, California.
WALGREEN CO: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2012, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class
action lawsuit against Walgreen Co. alleging that the pharmacy
chain violated California labor laws by routinely requiring its
employees to undergo off-the-clock security inspections for which
they were not compensated. Hodach, et al. v. Walgreen Co., Case
No. 34-2012-00123954, is currently pending in the Sacramento
County Superior Court of California.
The suit alleges that Walgreens requires their employees "to clock
out of their time keeping system and proceed to the front of the
store in order to wait for and submit to a loss prevention
inspection or 'bag check' by a member of [Walgreens'] management
team." Furthermore, the wage and hour class action Complaint also
asserts these security checks often added 10 minutes or more to
employees' workdays for which they received no compensation for.
Founding partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal strongly suggests, "these inspections are clearly done
for the benefit of the employer, and that the time it takes to
complete them is therefore compensable," he added, "employers who
fail to pay for time worked during these loss prevention
inspections are failing to pay all wages due to their employees,
including overtime wages."
If you are a current or former employee of Walgreens, you may
request to be included in the proposed class action suit. Please
contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik by calling (866) 771-
7099.
Norman Blumenthal is the founding and managing partner of
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. The California wage and hour
attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have extensive
experience in employment litigation, and specifically, class
actions involving both California overtime laws and federal labor
violations.
*********
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 * * *