/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 129 Headlines ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls 45,000 Kawasaki Cordless Drills BEN HILL COUNTY, GA: Defendants' Family Members Sue Court BIG CAT: Recalls 170 Catbike Musashi Bicycles Due to Crash Risk CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ontario Court Revives Overtime Class Action CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Collection Violations CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over False "Naturally Raised" Animals Ad CHULA VISTA, CA: Sued Over Illegal Mobile Phone Users Tax DAINA SHIPPING: Two Legal Firms Mull Class Action EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Accused of Maximizing Overdraft Fees FANNIE MAE: Winnebago County Joins Transfer Tax Class Action FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Two Missouri Suits FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Celexa & Lexapro MDL FOREST LABORATORIES: "Martinez" Suit Remains Stayed in New York FOREST LABORATORIES: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Suits INTUIT INC: Defends Suits Over TurboTax Tax Preparation Software JAMAICA PUBLIC: Energy Minister Lawyers Defend Exclusive License JUICY COUTURE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California KOREA: Lawyers Mull Class Action Against Lawmakers LEGG MASON: Defends Suits Over Violations of Securities Laws MERCK & CO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over False Vaccine Data MOTRICITY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit NORTH COAST: Faces Class Action Over Gas Lease PLANTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Bluetooth Headset Suit PNC BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $90 Million PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Judge Grants Class Action Certification REDDY ICE: Bankruptcy Court Approves Class Suits' Settlements SAMUEL LAWRENCE: Recalls 19,650 Sleigh Beds Due to Fall Hazard ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Med. Equipment Suit STORM FINANCIAL: September 10 Trial Set for Class Action SYNGENTA: Judge Approves Request to Pay Settlement Administrator WET SEAL: Appeal From Denial of Class Standing Remains Pending WET SEAL: Appeals in California Employees' Suit Remain Pending WET SEAL: California Court Granted Bid to Compel Arbitration ********* ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls 45,000 Kawasaki Cordless Drills ------------------------------------------------------- About 45,000 Kawasaki cordless drills were voluntarily recalled by manufacturer, Wuxi Xinju Electric Tools Co., Ltd. of Wuxi, China, and importer, Alltrade Tools LLC, of Long Beach, California, 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 trigger switches can short and generate excessive heat posing a burn hazard. Alltrade Tools has received 33 reports of incidents, including one minor burn injury. This recall involves Kawasaki Cordless Drills, model 691761, sold in green and black color combination, with a 19.2v battery pack and certain serial numbers. "Alltrade Tools LLC" and "Made in China" are printed in white lettering on the left side of the drills. The drill's model and serial numbers are located on a label on the right side of the drill. The recalled drills have the following serial numbers: Kawasaki Cordless Drill Serial Numbers -------------------------------------- From 11030 30201 to 11030 33656 From 11040 00001 to 11040 17120 From 11060 00001 to 11060 07340 From 11070 00001 to 11070 05984 From 11070 16801 to 11070 20640 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12740.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Costco stores nationwide from May 2011 through February 2012 for about $50. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drills and register at http://www.alltrade2.fox-international.com/to receive a free drill, including shipping. Alltrade Tools is directly contacting consumers who purchased the recalled drills. Consumers should not return the drills to the store where purchased. For more information, contact Alltrade Tools toll-free at (800) 727- 7420 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday Pacific Time, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.alltrade2.fox- international.com/ BEN HILL COUNTY, GA: Defendants' Family Members Sue Court --------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a Georgia circuit court and two county sheriffs prohibit family members of criminal defendants from entering court unless their family members plead guilty, according to a federal class action. Four named plaintiffs sued the Cordele Judicial Circuit's Chief Superior Court Judge John Pridgen, two other judges in the circuit, and Ben Hill County Sheriff Bobby McLemore and Crisp County Sheriff Donnie Haralson. One plaintiff, the Rev. James Davis III, who counsels defendants in these courts, says he was involved in a previous lawsuit against the same courts and sheriffs, and that "he joins this lawsuit because violations continue to occur." Lead plaintiff Beverly Fuqua and two others seek to represent the class, including the general public and family members and loved ones of criminal defendants appearing in the Ben Hill and Crisp County Superior Courts of the Cordele Judicial Circuit. "Crisp County deputy told one family member she could not watch arraignments unless her loved one entered a guilty plea; if he pleaded not guilty, she would not be able to enter," the complaint states. "The general public -- citizens with no relative involved in court proceedings such as Reverend Davis who seeks to minister and comfort members of his congregation -- are generally completely barred from attending and observing the proceedings." According to the complaint: "Plaintiff Beverly Fuqua is a resident of Fitzgerald, Georgia, located in Ben Hill County. Plaintiff Fuqua attempted to attend her son's court appearances in the Ben Hill County Law Enforcement Center courtroom on three occasions -- January 23, 2012, in February 2012, and March 29, 2012. Each time, a bailiff told her she was not allowed in the courtroom and that she would have to wait outside until her son's case was called. Each time she waited at least two hours in the outside lobby, unable to watch any hearings, because her son entered a not guilty plea. "Plaintiff Joyce Scales is a resident of Lithonia, Georgia, located in DeKalb County. On March 15, 2011, plaintiff Scales and her sister drove over two hours to see her incarcerated nephew, who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, appear for arraignments in the Crisp County Jail courtroom. Given her nephew's mental health needs, Ms. Scales wanted to be present at his arraignment to both show support and ensure he was treated fairly. When she and her sister asked to enter the jail courtroom, however, a deputy told them they would have to wait in the lobby. According to the deputy, plaintiff Scales and her sister would not be allowed in if their nephew did not plead guilty. Over the course of two hours, Ms. Scales and her sister peeked through the courtroom door whenever it opened to get a glimpse of their nephew. After hours of waiting, a deputy told Ms. Scales that her nephew entered a not guilty plea; as a result, the deputy barred Ms. Scales and her sister from entering the courtroom." The class claims the courts and sheriffs are violating the Constitution: "Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who attempt to watch Superior Court guilty plea proceedings, sentencings, arraignments, calendar calls, bond hearings, and other criminal proceedings in the Ben Hill and Crisp County jail courtrooms are routinely met by sheriff's deputies who close public hearings for a host of reasons -- none of which are legally sufficient." The class claims the defendants slam the courtroom doors though neither the district attorneys' office nor any defendants ask that the proceedings be closed, and despite a previous lawsuit from a local college on behalf of a student who was denied access to the court. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damage for constitutional violations. Ben Hill and Crisp counties are in south central Georgia. A copy of the Complaint in Fuqua, et al. v. Pridgen, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00093 (M.D. Ga.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/GaCourts.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Bright, Esq. Gerald Weber, Esq. Atteeyah Hollie, Esq. SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 E-mail: sbright@schr.org gweber@schr.org ahollie@schr.org BIG CAT: Recalls 170 Catbike Musashi Bicycles Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Big Cat Human Powered Vehicles LLC, of Winter Garden, Florida, announced a voluntary recall of about 170 units of Catbike Musashi recumbent bicycles. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bicycle frame can crack, which can cause the rider to lose control and crash. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves model year 2010 Catbike Musashi recumbent bicycles. The bicycles were sold in the following colors: black, white, silver, yellow, orange, red, lime green, pink, blue, candy purple, candy red, candy green, candy blue and sparkle orange. "Musashi" is printed on the frame and "Catbike" is printed on the seat, frame and headrest. Serial numbers CBM0002 to CBM0170 are included in this recall. The serial number can be found underneath the main frame where the seat bottom is located. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12207.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at Catbike authorized dealers nationwide from February 2010 through December 2010 for about $2,350. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle and contact a Catbike dealer for a free frame replacement. For additional information, please contact Big Cat Human Powered Vehicles toll-free at (866) 276-2281 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.catrike.com/ CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ontario Court Revives Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Ontario's highest court has revived a five-year battle waged by teller Dara Fresco against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce over whether her employer illegally denied her and her co-workers across the country C$600-million in overtime pay. In three key rulings issued on June 26, the Ontario Court of Appeal laid down new ground rules for class-action lawsuits against employers over unpaid overtime. While the U.S. has seen a wave of such claims, legal observers say that despite these latest rulings, they do not expect a deluge of new cases here. The appeal court overturned lower court rulings that denied Ms. Fresco's case the "certification" required for it to proceed as a class action on behalf of 30,000 CIBC employees. The appeal court rejected a previous decision that there was no evidence of a "systemic policy or practice of unpaid overtime at CIBC." Despite being the representative plaintiff at the centre of the high-stakes fight, Ms. Fresco is still employed by the bank. The court made the move as it upheld the certification of a similar class-action lawsuit filed by Cindy Fulawka, a personal banker who worked for the Bank of Nova Scotia in Saskatchewan for 20 years. Her lawsuit alleges that 10,000 Scotiabank employees were denied overtime and demands C$350-million. She filed her case, with the same lawyers, after hearing about Ms. Fresco's case. But the three-judge panel overturned the certification of a case filed by Canadian National Railway Co. employee Michael McCracken over unpaid overtime. This case differed from the lawsuits against the banks, as it alleged that Mr. McCracken and other CN "front-line supervisors" had been "misclassified" as managers and denied overtime. The appeal court ruled this could only be determined individually, by assessing each employees' duties, denying the lawsuit class- action status. A CN spokesman declined to comment on the case. In the cases against the banks, the plaintiffs alleged their employers expected employees to work late but that their overtime policies, such as requirements to secure approval before working extra hours, made it difficult for employees to get paid. They also alleged the banks had poor record-keeping systems for overtime. None of the allegations have been proven. The rulings on June 26 allow the two cases to go ahead to trial as class actions. The banks in both cases have denied the allegations. It was unclear whether the banks would seek leave to appeal the decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada. In an e-mail, Scotiabank spokesman Andrew Chornenky said the bank was disappointed with the decision and was considering its next move. "We are reviewing this decision and are keeping all options on the table," he said. "Scotiabank is committed to treating its employees fairly, equitably and with respect and all our human resources policies, including overtime policies, reflect these principles." In all three cases, a team of lawyers led by Louis Sokolov of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and David O'Connor of Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP, represented the plaintiffs. "These decisions take into account the practical reality of workplaces and the fact that employees may be quite reluctant to make individual claims against their employers," Mr. O'Connor said, calling on June 26 "a very good day for employees and access to justice." Mr. Sokolov said the rulings open the door for other groups of employees to seek back pay. But he did not expect a rash of new cases, noting that only a few have been filed since these two. He said many banks and other large employers, prompted by these class actions, reviewed their policies to ensure employees entitled to overtime are now getting paid. "Employers took a good hard look in the mirror, and looked at their processes," he said. CIBC did not respond to requests for comment on June 26. CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Collection Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One Bank and its debt collector send grieving families a "glossy brochure purporting to educate the recipient about the probate process," to trick family members into calling the collector about debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy, a widow claims in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Toni Nieto sued Phillips & Cohen Associates, a collection agency based in Westampton, N.J., and Capital One Bank. Ms. Nieto claims she received three letters addressed to "The Estate of Trinidad Nieto" -- her late husband -- less than 3 weeks after he died. The alleged debts had been discharged in bankruptcy and Capital One knew it, according to the complaint. Then three more letters came with the glossy brochures, Ms. Nieto says. She claims the letters "are form letters, generated by computer, and with the information specific to the recipient inserted by the computer." The complaint continues: "The envelope that carried each copy of Exhibit B [the second set of three letters] also included a glossy brochure purporting to educate the recipient about the probate process. In actuality, the brochure is intended to deceive a decedent's family members to voluntarily contact Phillips about debts that the family members do not owe. A copy of the brochure is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. "Each letter in Exhibit B stated: 'This collection agency is licensed by the Division of Banking, P.O. Box 7876, Madison, Wisconsin 53707.' "Upon information and belief, Phillips is not licensed by the Office of the Administrator of the Division of Banking, or any other Wisconsin governmental agency. "The alleged debts that Phillips were attempting to collect had been discharged in plaintiff's and her husband's chapter 7 bankruptcy. Plaintiff and her husband received a discharge on October 15, 2010." The complaint adds: "Capital One knew that the alleged debts Capital One attempted to collect from plaintiff had been discharged in bankruptcy. "Phillips and Capital One attempted to use plaintiff's husband's death to contact plaintiff and dupe her into paying these discharged debts. "It is the regular practice of Phillips and Capital One to attempt to use a family member's death to contact the decedent's relatives and dupe them into paying debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy." They do this to "capitalize on the death in the family," the widow says in her complaint. Ms. Nieto notes that bankruptcy proceedings are public record. "There are banking and collection industry tools and software that will identify debtors who have filed a bankruptcy and discharged balances," the complaint states. Ms. Nieto seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages for the class, for federal and state credit, consumer and collection violations, and for using "a communication which simulates legal or judicial process or which gives the appearance of being authorized, issued or approved by a government, governmental agency or attorney-at-law when it is not." A copy of the Complaint in Nieto v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. (E.D. Wis.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/CapOne.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. David J. Syrios, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com dsyrios@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over False "Naturally Raised" Animals Ad --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Chipotle Mexican Grill falsely claims that its beef and chicken come from "naturally raised animals," a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-05543 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/Chipotle.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 E-mail: ss@aiwazian.com CHULA VISTA, CA: Sued Over Illegal Mobile Phone Users Tax --------------------------------------------------------- Doug Sherwin, writing for San Diego Source, reports that Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP and Capretz & Associates filed a motion to certify a class of mobile phone users seeking refunds for allegedly unlawful telephone users taxes collected by the city of Chula Vista. The proposed class action seeks to refund money collected from mobile phone users by Chula Vista. The case is set to go to trial Jan. 18, and seeks millions of dollars in restitution for allegedly illegal telephone users taxes levied by the city. DAINA SHIPPING: Two Legal Firms Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Carly Gibbs, writing for Bay of Plenty Times, reports that two legal firms are preparing a class action lawsuit that is expected to be the country's biggest environmental claim. North South Environmental Law in Auckland, assisted by Holland Beckett Lawyers (HOBEC) in Tauranga, has identified 150 claimants affected by the Rena grounding -- and expects to add more in coming weeks. The claimants, all business owners, will become part of a joint lawsuit to bring proceedings against Greece-based Rena owner Daina Shipping Co. The class action is understood to be the biggest negligence-based environmental claim in New Zealand, only outdone in size by class actions against finance and investment companies. Legal representatives for Daina Shipping Co could not be contacted for comment. Robert Makgill, an expert in law of the sea and co-director of North South Environmental Law, was approached by a number of Bay of Plenty businesses after Rena hit Astrolabe Reef on October 5, 2011. Mr. Makgill told the Bay of Plenty Times that as his list of affected clients grew, he engaged local Tauranga firm HOBEC two months ago, to help with proceedings by being the "face" of the claim and helping assess claims against Daina Shipping Co. HOBEC has now launched an advertising campaign in the Bay of Plenty Times to notify affected businesses of the pending court action. "This story is not about the lawyers," Mr. Makgill said. "It's not about the experts. It's about the businesses. There's so many stories that people need to hear about. A lot of the claims are very strong and I think there's a good chance of success." Mr. Makgill is also preparing two separate claims against Daina Shipping Co for two iwi, one of which is Ngati Awa, the recognized statutory iwi for Motiti Island. The class action had so far resulted in 150 businesses being assessed and many others were waiting to see whether they had a claim or not. Legal costs to businesses were still being worked through, but Mr. Makgill said there was a view to keeping costs at zero or minimal. "This is very much a public interest issue and something needed to be done," he said. "It's an action that represents the community." Proceedings would not be lodged until HOBEC was satisfied all businesses that had lost money because of Rena had had an opportunity to take part. "Don't be put off by thinking your claim is too small," HOBEC solicitor Jeremy Sparrow said. "Together the claims add up." Mount Maunganui businessman Nevan Lancaster was the "genesis" for getting a large numbers of businesses to support class action when he featured in the Bay of Plenty Times in March. Mr. Lancaster runs kayak business Mount Cats and Yaks at Pilot Bay and said he was out of pocket $5000. Papamoa Beach Top 10 Holiday Resort manager Rebecca Crosby said the business suffered significantly between October and April last year. The Rena grounding resulted in takings being down 30 per cent between October and December. Labour Weekend was the business' worst Labour Weekend on record in years. Prior to October, takings had been up for the first time in three years, since the recession hit, she said. "In the past 25 years since my parents have had the business, we've had (plenty of) cyclonic summers and income has not faltered." Rena resulted in January takings at the holiday resort being down by 18 per cent and February. March and April were down too. May was the first month the park did the same takings as the year before. This coming summer would be a test, Ms. Crosby said. Tauranga crayfish operator and claimant Robert Mattock was forced to shift his business to Whakatane for six weeks after the Rena grounding and stop all exports of crayfish recovered from the exclusion zone. Ten months on his business continues to suffer because boating exclusion zones, although condensed, remain in place. He predicted they could still be there for another year to two years, and continue to affect the number of crayfish pots he and his crew of three were able to put down. Mr. Mattock, who had operated his business in the Bay for 35 years, would not disclose how much money he had lost but said it was "significant". He has had to engage his accountant to prove lost earnings and said it made sense to put together a joint claim because of legal costs. "If we didn't do it joint, I don't think we'd stand much of a chance because of the sheer cost of getting it to court." Mr. Mattock said it was incredibly frustrating that while Rena's insurers were paying for the clean-up and recovery, businesses were having to go through legal proceedings to recover their losses. EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Accused of Maximizing Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Irene Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v. Educational Employees Credit Union, Cleo Bauer- Papagni, Rick Browning, Dean Clark, Elizabeth Dooley, Paul Hokokian, Carol Munshower, Frank Powell, David Roberts and Derek Scharton, Case No. 5:12-cv-03272 (N.D. Calif., June 25, 2012) is brought on behalf of consumers, who were subject to the alleged deceptive re-ordering practice implemented by the Defendant and its Board of Directors. The Plaintiff alleges that this deceptive practice involves the systematic manipulation and re-ordering of electronic debit transaction from the highest dollar amount to the lowest dollar amount. Ms. Ramirez contends that the sole purpose of this practice is to deplete the customer's available funds as quickly as possible so as to maximize the amount of overdraft fees collected by the Defendant. Ms. Ramirez is a resident of the state of California. EECU is one of the country's largest credit unions. EECU is a full service financial institution with approximately 200,000 members worldwide. The Individual Defendants are members of the Board of Directors of EECU. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fernando F. Chavez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ 1530 The Alameda, Suite 301 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 971-3113 Facsimile: (408) 971-0107 E-mail: fchavez@chavez-deleon.com - and - Mitchell G. Allen, Esq. JACOBY & MEYERS 1929 3rd Avenue North, Suite 600 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (800) 411-4529 E-mail: Mitch.Allen@JacobyMeyers.com - and - Robert J. Camp, Esq. THE COCHRAN FIRM - BIRMINGHAM, LLC 1929 3rd Avenue North, Suite 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-1115 Facsimile: (205) 244-1171 E-mail: rcamp@cochranfirm.com FANNIE MAE: Winnebago County Joins Transfer Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Meghan Dwyer, writing for WIFR, reports that Winnebago County Recorder Nancy McPherson says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owe Winnebago County $26,000 in unpaid real estate transfer taxes. The county joined in a class action lawsuit filed June 21, 2012 in federal court in Rockford seeking to compel Fannie and Freddie to pay local counties overdue taxes. Real estate transfer taxes in Illinois are supposed to be paid when a property transfer is recorded. For every $500 a property is worth, a tax of 50 cents must be paid. In Winnebago County, since 2006, Freddie and Fannie have not paid these taxes on many foreclosed properties they have purchased. The mortgage giants claim they don't have to pay the tax because they are exempt as a governmental entity. On June 22, the Federal Housing Finance Authority filed a federal lawsuit on Fannie and Freddie's behalf in Chicago, asking a court to rule on whether they are exempt. The class action lawsuit filed Jun 21 alleges Fannie and Freddie failed to pay the transfer tax to Kane, Whiteside, Will, Winnebago, Dekalb, and Kendall counties. The class action represents all 102 Illinois counties, if they eventually choose to join in the litigation. Ms. McPherson says $26,000 is not "chump change," and the county wants its money. She says the county sent Fannie and Freddie a letter in early spring trying to resolve the matter, but the companies didn't respond. A group of county recorders noticed the taxes weren't being paid after an informal meeting back in December 2011. Lawyers for Dekalb County have taken the lead in the litigation. FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First American Commercial Bancorp, Inc., d/b/a First American Bank, Case No. 2012-CH-23326 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 25, 2012) accuses First American of breach of contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to First American's misleading, deceptive and fraudulent practices related to overdraft fees, and sustained damages resulting from the Defendant's conduct. Ms. Smith is a citizen of the state of Illinois. She maintained a First American checking account. First American is an Illinois-chartered, privately held, full- service bank with nearly 50 Chicago area locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq. SIPRUT PC 122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 588-1440 Facsimile: (312) 878-1342 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com avold@siprut.com FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Two Missouri Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Forest Laboratories, Inc. continues to defend two class action lawsuits pending in Missouri, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. Forest Laboratories, Inc. (FLI) and/or its subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI), are named as defendants in two similar actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, arising from nearly identical allegations as those contained in the federal actions in Massachusetts. The first action, filed on July 22, 2009, under the caption "Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use. Only FPI, which is headquartered in Missouri, is named as a defendant. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. Discovery is currently ongoing. The second action, filed on November 6, 2009, under the caption "St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against both of these actions. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Celexa & Lexapro MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation pending in Massachusetts, according to Forest Laboratories, Inc.'s May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. Forest Laboratories, Inc. (FLI) and its subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI), are defendants in three federal actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa or Lexapro for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation." These actions, two of which are purported nationwide class actions, and one of which is a purported California-wide class action, allege that FLI and FPI marketed Celexa and/or Lexapro for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro. The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and state common laws. Discovery currently is ongoing. FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against these cases. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. FOREST LABORATORIES: "Martinez" Suit Remains Stayed in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit commenced by Elmaria Martinez remains stayed in New York court, Forest Laboratories, Inc. disclosed in its May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. On August 11, 2010, the Company was named as a defendant (along with its subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI)), in an action brought by Elmaria Martinez, a Company Sales Representative, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption Elmaria Martinez v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. The action is a putative class and collective action brought on behalf of all current and former sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the United States over the past three years and all current and former sales representatives employed anywhere in the State of New York over the past six years. The action alleges that the Company failed to pay its sales representatives overtime pay as purportedly required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. The Company believes there is no merit to Plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter. On November 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order granting certiorari in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (the GSK action), a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held, among other things, that the FLSA's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives. On December 12, 2011, the Martinez action was stayed until the Supreme Court issues its decision in the GSK action. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. FOREST LABORATORIES: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Forest Laboratories, Inc. disclosed in its May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012, that it remains a defendant in actions filed in various federal district courts alleging certain violations of the federal anti-trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products. In each case, the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products. The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both individually and, with respect to certain claims, as a class action) and seek injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered these actions coordinated (and, with respect to those actions brought as class actions, consolidated) in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption "In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation." On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated federal class action (which proceeded to trial beginning in September 1998), including Forest, were granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded their case. In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial judge held that no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence as to individual defendants paltry or non-existent." The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the granting of the directed verdict in the federal class case in the Company's favor. Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed verdict in the Company's favor, Forest has secured the voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases were included in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the dismissal of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in various state courts. The Company remains a defendant, together with other manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases included in the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. While no discovery or other significant proceedings with respect to the Company has been taken to date in respect of such claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be required to actively defend such claims or to pay substantial amounts to dispose of such claims. However, by way of a decision dated January 25, 2007, the judge handling the Robinson-Patman Act cases for certain of a smaller group of designated defendants whose claims are being litigated on a test basis, granted summary judgment to those designated defendants against a group of designated plaintiffs due to those plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate any antitrust injury. Subsequently, the Court also granted the designated defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the designated plaintiffs' effort to obtain injunctive relief. The litigation is continuing with discovery regarding the claims of other plaintiffs. At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. INTUIT INC: Defends Suits Over TurboTax Tax Preparation Software ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intuit Inc. is defending two class action lawsuits arising from its TurboTax income tax preparation software, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. On January 13, 2012, two putative class actions were filed against Intuit Inc. in connection with its TurboTax income tax preparation software: Smith v. Intuit Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) and Quildon v. Intuit Inc. (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County). The plaintiffs in both cases assert that the fees charged for the refund processing service offered within TurboTax are "refund anticipation loans" and the disclosures about those fees do not comply with California and federal laws. The Smith case was brought in federal court on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon case was brought in state court on behalf of a proposed California class and subclasses. Otherwise the two complaints are substantively identical. In each case the plaintiffs seek monetary relief (including restitution, statutory damages, treble damages, and interest) in an unspecified amount, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On February 22, 2012, Intuit removed the Quildon case to federal court. On March 16, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the Quildon case to state court. On March 19, 2012, Intuit filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in both cases. On May 25, 2012, the federal court remanded the Quildon case to state court and denied as moot the motion to dismiss that case. A hearing on Intuit's motion to dismiss the Smith case was scheduled for June 1, 2012. The Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these actions and intends to defend vigorously against them. The Company believes that liabilities associated with these cases, while possible, are not probable, and therefore, it has not recorded any accrual for them as of April 30, 2012. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. JAMAICA PUBLIC: Energy Minister Lawyers Defend Exclusive License ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Henry, writing for Jamaica Observer, reports that the class- action lawsuit challenging the all-island license granted to the Jamaica Public Service (JPS), which commenced in the Supreme Court on June 26, saw lawyers for the energy minister defending the decision to issue the exclusive license. Attorney Althea Jarrett from the Attorney General Chambers argued before Justice Bryan Sykes that the minister did not contravene the Electric Lighting Act -- as is being contended by the claimants -- when he issued the license to the JPS. In fact, Ms. Jarrett told the court that there was nothing in the legislation that prevented the minister from exercising his discretion in issuing the license for JPS, as a sole provider, to supply electricity throughout the island and that the minister acted in the best interest of the public in doing so. "The minister wasn't acting unreasonably in granting the license," Ms. Jarrett submitted. "He was of the view that he was acting in the best interest of the public." The license was issued in 2001 and renewed in 2007. Claimants Dennis Meadows, Betty Ann Blaine and Cyrus Rousseau of the group Citizens United for the Reduction of Electricity (CURE) are challenging the legality of the license, claiming that section 3 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1890 stipulates that electricity is to be provided by several different entities and in specified areas. On June 26, attorney Hugh Wildman, who appears for the claimants, argued in court that the minister, in granting the exclusive all- island license, acted in contravention of the Act and at the same time fettered his powers to offer any other perspective player from entering the energy market for the next 20 years. The claimants are asking the court to declare that the license issued was null and void. Mr. Meadows, Ms. Blaine and Mr. Cyrus are also contending that the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) had recommended that the minister grant the license. On June 26, Mr. Wildman also argued that the recommendation was illegal and asked the court for a declaration to that effect. A ruling in favor of the claimants could result in a reduction in the areas over which the JPS can provide electricity and open up the way for other players to join the energy sector. In this regard, Mr. Wildman argued that the court should not take the ramifications into consideration in arriving at a decision. The three claimants, who were in court on June 26, were prompted to bring the challenge in light of the high electricity rates being charged by the light and power company. The court is expected to hear from attorneys for JPS and the OUR. JUICY COUTURE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Juicy Couture stiffs workers for overtime and makes them work off the clock, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. KOREA: Lawyers Mull Class Action Against Lawmakers -------------------------------------------------- Arirang reports that those who make laws in Korea might be facing a legal challenge from those who practice law. The Korean Bar Association announced on June 26 that they plan to file a class action lawsuit against all lawmakers at the National Assembly for not working, and to make them return their paychecks. The assembly was supposed to hold its first plenary session earlier this month and have appointed members to parliamentary committees by now but the ruling and opposition parties have not been able to narrow their differences on various issues, including when to hold the first plenary session. The association says it is unfair that politicians are getting paid even though they haven't done any real work. LEGG MASON: Defends Suits Over Violations of Securities Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ Legg Mason, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. Legg Mason has been the subject of customer complaints and has also been named as a defendant in various legal actions arising primarily from securities brokerage, asset management and investment banking activities, including certain class actions, which primarily allege violations of securities laws and seek unspecified damages, which could be substantial. In the normal course of its business, Legg Mason has also received subpoenas and is currently involved in governmental and self-regulatory agency inquiries, investigations and, from time to time, proceedings involving asset management activities. In accordance with guidance for accounting for contingencies, Legg Mason has established provisions for estimated losses from pending complaints, legal actions, investigations and proceedings when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of loss can be made. In a transaction with Citigroup in December 2005, Legg Mason transferred to Citigroup the subsidiaries that constituted its Private Client/Capital Markets ("PC/CM") businesses, thus, transferring the entities that would have primary liability for most of the customer complaint, litigation and regulatory liabilities and proceedings arising from those businesses. However, as part of that transaction, Legg Mason agreed to indemnify Citigroup for most customer complaint, litigation and regulatory liabilities of Legg Mason's former PC/CM businesses that result from pre-closing events. While the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be currently determined based on current information, after consultation with legal counsel, management believes that any accrual or range of reasonably possible losses as of March 31, 2012, and 2011 is not material. Similarly, although Citigroup transferred to Legg Mason the entities that would be primarily liable for most customer complaint, litigation and regulatory liabilities and proceedings of the Citigroup Asset Management ("CAM") business, Citigroup has agreed to indemnify Legg Mason for most customer complaint, litigation and regulatory liabilities of the CAM business that result from pre-closing events. The Company says the ultimate resolution of other matters cannot be currently determined. In the opinion of management and after consultation with legal counsel, due to the preliminary nature of certain of these matters, Legg Mason is currently unable to estimate the amount or range of potential losses from these matters, and Legg Mason's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected during a period in which a matter is ultimately resolved. In addition, the ultimate costs of litigation-related charges can vary significantly from period-to-period, depending on factors such as market conditions, the size and volume of customer complaints and claims, including class action lawsuits, and recoveries from indemnification, contribution or insurance reimbursement. MERCK & CO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over False Vaccine Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal antitrust class action. Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care sued Merck on June 25, the week after the unsealing of a False Claims Act complaint two relators filed in 2010. Those relators, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, were Merck virologists who claim in their unsealed complaint that they "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings." Mr. Krahling and Ms. Wlochowski claimed Merck's scheme caused the United States to pay "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization." "As the largest single purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchases), the United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck's fraud," according to the 2010 False Claims Act complaint. "But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. And while this is a disease that, according to the Centers for Disease Control ('CDC'), was supposed to be eradicated by now, the failure in Merck's vaccine has allowed this disease to linger, with significant outbreaks continuing to occur." The United States told a federal judge in April that it did not want to intervene in the False Claims case, but reserved the right to do so later. Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim "deterred and excluded competing manufacturers," who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product, Chatom says in its complaint. Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly, according to the complaint. That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths, including "manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results," to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result. Starting in the late 1990s, Merck set out on its sham testing program with the objective of "report[ing] efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy," the complaint states. Chatom says Merck initially called its testing program Protocol 007. Under Protocol 007, Merck did not test the vaccine's ability to protect children against a "wild-type" mumps virus, which is "the type of real-life virus against which vaccines are generally tested," the complaint states. Instead, Chatom says, Merck tested children's blood using its own attenuated strain of the virus. "This was the same mumps strain with which the children were vaccinated," the complaint states. That "subverted" the purpose of the testing regime, "which was to measure the vaccine's ability to provide protection against a disease-causing mumps virus that a child would actually face in real life. The end result of this deviation . . . was that Merck's test overstated the vaccine's effectiveness," Chatom claims. Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life . . . virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint. Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred "with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management." And as Merck's vaccine is the only game in town, the vaccine's "significantly degraded" quality means "there has remained a significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks," Chatom says in its complaint. It claims that the degraded quality of the Merck vaccine played a role in a 2006 mumps outbreak in the Midwest, and in another outbreak in 2009. Those outbreaks caused the Centers for Disease Control to push back its target date for eradicating the disease from 2010 to no earlier than 2020, the complaint states. "But no amount of extra time or dosages will be enough to eliminate the disease when the vaccine does not work as represented in the labeling," the complaint states. "It will merely allow Merck to continue to misrepresent the vaccine's efficacy and thereby maintain its exclusive hold on the relevant market with an inadequate vaccine." Merck spokesman Ron Rogers told Courthouse News in a statement that the False Claims lawsuit "is completely without merit," and that Chatom's lawsuit is merely derivative of that case. "Merck has presented information that demonstrated to the United States Department of Justice that these allegations are factually false, and after the Department conducted its own two-year investigation, it decided not to pursue this lawsuit," Mr. Rogers said. In addition, he said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "previously examined the issues raised in the lawsuit, and they were resolved to the agency's satisfaction." Chatom seeks to represent the class of all those who bought Merck's mumps vaccine from Jan. 1, 1999 to today. It seeks damages for monopolization under the Sherman Act, violation of state consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. A copy of the Complaint in Chatom Primary Care, P.C. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03555 (E.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/Mumps.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Golomb, Esq. Steven Resnick, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. Christopher McDonald, Esq. Kellier Lerner, Esq. Elizabeth Friedmn, Esq. LUBATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: hsalzman@labaton.com bspersky@labaton.com cmcdonald@labaton.com klerner@labaton.com efriedman@labaton.com - and - Stephen Dampier, Esq. DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 55 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com - and - R. Edward Massey, Jr., Esq. CLAY, MASSEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 509 Church Street Mobile, AL 36602 MOTRICITY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity, Inc. between June 18, 2010, and August 9, 2011, or in the Company's initial public offering. The defendants in the case are Motricity, certain of its current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in the Company's IPO, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleges violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by all defendants and under Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of the Company's former and current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission. A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011, to November 14, 2011. On February 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class actions. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. NORTH COAST: Faces Class Action Over Gas Lease ---------------------------------------------- Dan Pompili, writing for Tribune Chronicle, reports that a couple on Perkins Greenville Road has filed a class-action lawsuit in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court attempting to void an oil and gas lease they signed with North Coast Energy of Youngstown. The filing shows that Kenneth and Martha Cole will represent the interests of the entire class, which they say consists of more than 40 separate parties with identical claims against North Coast. The Coles claim that they signed a lease with North Coast in 2006 for a period of "greater than three years" in order for the company to develop the gas and oil resources under their property. They say that development has not happened. North Coast has since sold the mineral rights to EnerVest Operating LLC of Cleveland, a subsidiary of EnerVest in Houston. That transaction took place in 2009. The Coles allege in the suit that the contract was notarized by Gale J. Burn, a notary public, but that Ms. Burn was never at the Coles' home when the lease was executed, nor did she ever witness their signatures. Nor was Ms. Burn present to witness their signatures for a memorandum regarding the lease. The lease and memorandum were executed by Steven Eakin on behalf of North Coast. A declaration of pooling and utilization also was signed by the Coles and allegedly notarized by Marie E. Meredith, whom the suit says also was never present nor ever witnessed the Coles' signatures to the document. The Coles say the documents were all notarized after they applied their signatures, and that Mr. Eakin and Ms. Burn had a practice of illegally notarizing documents. The filing says the Coles' suit represents all Ohio property owners who executed leases with North Coast and whose leases were executed by Mr. Eakin and Ms. Burn on behalf of North Coast, notarized by Ms. Burn and are now owned completely or in part by EnerVest. The lawsuit questions whether Mr. Eakin, Ms. Burn or others legally notarized the leases, whether Ms. Burn had a practice of notarizing leases without witnessing signatures and whether such leases are enforceable under Ohio law. No working phone number could be found for North Coast. Vice president and chief administrative officer for EnerVest, Ron Whitmire, said his company cannot comment on pending litigation. John and Leslie Murray and Michael Stewart of Murray and Murray law firm in Sandusky and Andrew Suhar of Suhar and Macejko law firm of Youngstown are representing the plaintiffs. None of those attorneys could be reached for immediate comment on June 26. PLANTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Bluetooth Headset Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plantronics, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging its Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced hearing loss, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. Six class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company alleging that its Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced hearing loss. Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on November 14, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 20, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on February 8, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on January 10, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Bruce Schiller, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 10, 2006, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. The complaints state that they do not seek damages for personal injury to any individual. These complaints seek various remedies, including injunctive relief requiring the Company to include certain additional warnings with the Company's Bluetooth headsets and to redesign the headsets to limit the volume produced, or, alternatively, to provide the user with the ability to determine the level of sound emitted from the headset. Plaintiffs also seek unspecified general, special, and punitive damages, as well as restitution. The federal cases have been consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles before Judge Fischer. The California State Court case was dismissed by the plaintiffs. The parties agreed in principle to settle their claims. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles signed an order approving the final settlement of the lawsuit entitled In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation brought against Plantronics, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and GN Netcom, Inc. alleging that the three companies failed to adequately warn consumers of the potential for long term noise induced hearing loss if they used Bluetooth headsets. The companies contested the claims of the lawsuit but settled the lawsuit on a nationwide basis for an amount which the Company believes is less than the cost of litigating and winning the lawsuit. On September 25, 2009, the Court signed a judgment in the case resolving all matters except the issue of outstanding attorneys' fees, which will be split among the three defendants. On October 22, 2009, the Court issued an order setting the class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs and the incentive award at the maximum amounts agreed to by the parties in their settlement. The objectors to the settlement appealed the judgment issued by the District Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) on August 19, 2011, issued a decision vacating and remanding the case to the District Court. On remand, the District Court is instructed to properly exercise its discretion in accordance with the principles set forth in the decision by the Ninth Circuit. In re-examining this case, the District Court may re-affirm its prior approval of the settlement, disapprove the settlement or approve a modified settlement. The District Court must properly analyze the conduct of the parties and their counsel in accordance with the instructions of the Ninth Circuit. The District Court established a schedule to accomplish this analysis and to re-issue its decision and judgment. The Company says it will continue to defend its interests throughout this process and the remainder of the case. The Company believes that any loss related to these proceedings would not be material and have adequately reserved for these costs in the consolidated financial statements. PNC BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $90 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ PNC Bank has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a class action lawsuit which accused the bank of improperly manipulating its customers' debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues. The lawsuit, part of multidistrict litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami. The lawsuit claims that PNC Bank's internal computer system re- sequenced the actual order of its customers' debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, PNC Bank's practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized. "This is an outstanding recovery. We are extremely pleased to have achieved this result for PNC's customers who were adversely affected by this anti-consumer practice," said Robert C. Gilbert -- rcg@grossmanroth.com Mr. Gilbert expects the settlement with PNC Bank to be presented to the Court for preliminary approval later this summer. As Plaintiffs' Coordinating Counsel, Mr. Gilbert oversees and manages all of the cases in this multidistrict litigation proceeding together with Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel Aaron S. Podhurst and Bruce S. Rogow. PNC Bank is not the first bank involved in this multidistrict litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citizens Bank and TD Bank have been announced in recent months. In addition to Mr. Gilbert, the principal lawyers involved in the PNC Bank case are David M. Buckner -- dbu@grossmanroth.com -- Seth E. Miles -- sem@grossmanroth.com -- of Grossman Roth in Miami, and Adam Webb and Matt Klase of Webb Klase & Lemond in Atlanta. Grossman Roth, P.A. was founded in Miami in 1988 and also maintains offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Sarasota and Key West. The firm concentrates its practice in the areas of class actions and complex commercial litigation, catastrophic personal injury, products liability, aviation, professional malpractice and other cases involving significant economic or physical damages. PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Judge Grants Class Action Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Johnson, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports that a federal judge in Tennessee has granted class-action certification to a lawsuit against Psychiatric Solutions related to stockholder inquiries about abuse occurring at facilities across the country. In its original 2009 complaint, Garden City Employees Retirement System was seeking class-action status, charging that Psychiatric Solutions executives misled stockholders when it came to disclosing information about violence at one of Illinois' largest psychiatric hospitals, owned by Psychiatric Solutions. Only those who bought stock between February 2008 and February 2009 are eligible to join the class. Psychiatric Solutions, previously based in Franklin, was purchased by Universal Health Services in 2010 for $3.1 billion. Former Psychiatric Solutions executives Joey Jacobs, Brent Turner and Jack Polson are each individually named in the original complaint. The trio sought to appeal the class-action status in April but was denied that chance last month. The documents outlining their defense are filed under seal. Todd David -- todd.david@alston.com -- a partner with Alston & Bird in Atlanta, said the judge's decision was procedural in nature. "We think that when the district court has full record before it on the merits, the case should be dismissed. We are very comfortable with PSI's disclosure on the issues presented in the case," he said. REDDY ICE: Bankruptcy Court Approves Class Suits' Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s settlement agreements of class action lawsuits against it were approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 19, 2012, Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. announced that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") confirmed the first amended joint plan of reorganization (the "Plan") of the Company and its direct subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation (together with the Company, the "Debtors") under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. All voting classes of creditors voted in favor of the Plan, with over 80% in amount and over 90% in number of the Debtors' first and second lien noteholders and 100% of the Company's senior discount noteholders voting in favor of the Plan. In connection with the Plan, the Debtors entered into, and the Bankruptcy Court approved, settlement agreements in respect of certain outstanding litigation matters including (i) the putative direct purchaser class action claims, (ii) the putative indirect purchaser class action claims and (iii) the putative securities class action claims. SAMUEL LAWRENCE: Recalls 19,650 Sleigh Beds Due to Fall Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with importer, Samuel Lawrence Furniture, of High Point, North Carolina, and manufacturer, Poh Huat Furniture Ind., of Malaysia, announced a voluntary recall of about 18,400 units of King- and Queen-Size Bordeaux Collection Bed Frames in the United States of America and 1,250 units in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hardware holding the headboard and footboard can loosen or detach, posing a fall hazard. The firm has received one report of a Florida man who injured his foot when the bed's footboard detached. This recall includes Bordeaux Collection king- and queen-size sleigh beds with wooden headboards and footboards in a cherry finish. Each bed also has two matching wooden side rails. "Bordeaux" and the model number are printed on a white label on the back of the headboard and footboard. Model numbers for the recalled beds are 8070-252 and 8070-253 for the queen-size and 8070-272 and 8070-273 for the king-size. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12208.html The recalled products were manufactured in Malaysia and sold at furniture stores nationwide from August 2009 to April 2012 for between $400 and $500. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled beds and contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture to obtain a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture toll-free at (866) 572-9889 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Web site at http://www.slf-co.com/ ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Med. Equipment Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Post reports that defendant St. Jude Medical has won a class action lawsuit over allegedly defective medical equipment. The more than 200-page trial judgment landed on June 26. Apart from the defendant's win, one of the more interesting parts of the case has been the issue of waiver of tort. And the result is a resounding . . . to be continued. In the absence of liability, there was no need for Madam Justice Joan Lax to address the issue of damages. Therein lies the great question of waiver of tort: Should class members who have suffered no economic loss be entitled to economic recovery? In her judgment, she has produced some very interesting comment on the issue. She notes that there are policy arguments both for and against the recognition of the doctrine in Canadian tort law, and this discussion will interest anyone arguing either for or against the doctrine in the future. Because the matter involves such important philosophical and policy considerations, she notes that there will be debate on whether the recognition of the waiver of tort doctrine should be recognized by the court or by the legislature. Then she offers this: "On the basis of my experience, the answer to this and the other questions surrounding the waiver of tort doctrine is not dependent on a trial with a full factual record and may require no evidence at all." So for those hoping to have the matter decided once and for all, the ending is something of a cliff-hanger. Yet if Judge Lax is correct, maybe we won't have to wait very long for the next installment in the drama, for it could just as likely be an interlocutory motion as a big case before the Court of Appeal. STORM FINANCIAL: September 10 Trial Set for Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Rae Wilson, writing for Fraser Coast Chronicle, reports that the class action against banks involved in the Storm Financial debacle is still "chugging along" as a September trial date draws closer. Lawyer Stewart Levitt, from Sydney-based firm Levitt Robinson which is leading the class action against two of the three banks, said the interlocutory hearing in the Federal Court on June 27 was another step toward the September 10 trial. Levitt Robinson has piggy-backed an ASIC case accusing the Commonwealth and Macquarie banks of supporting Storm's unregistered managed investment scheme. "The parties were supposed to agree on the common issues in the proceedings and there's some arguments about whether ASIC's pleadings should be partially struck out or leave granted to amend them," he said. Hundreds of people -- many of whom attended the June 27 hearing as they loyally do each time the matter goes to court -- lost many millions of dollars when Storm Financial collapsed in 2008. SYNGENTA: Judge Approves Request to Pay Settlement Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that U.S. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert has ordered the escrow agent of the settlement fund in the Syngenta case to pay a Minnesota company about $25,000. Judge Gilbert's directive came in an order issued late last week and in response to a motion filed by the City of Greenville, the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG over the weed killer atrazine. The Syngenta defendants agreed to settle the case for $105 million late last month. The city on June 19 asked Judge Gilbert to issue an order directing $25,687.64 from the case's settlement fund to BMC Group Class Action Services, a Minnesota company that has been helping in the implementation of the settlement. The company sent an invoice to the city earlier this month for costs associated with the professional services it provided in April and May as the settlement administrator. According to the invoice, that amount includes about $14,400 for designing settlement notices and creating a settlement Web site and online form, as well as $11,287.64 for costs associated with publishing notice of the parties' agreement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, expenses incurred by the settlement administrator must be paid from the fund within 30 days of invoice. It also provides nearly $35 million in fees to St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery, who brought the case on behalf of the city in 2006, and co-counsel Scott Summy of Baron & Budd in Dallas. Objectors to the settlement of fees or expenses to class counsel have until Aug. 27 to file a statement with the court. A settlement fairness hearing has been scheduled to take place on Oct. 22 in Benton before Judge Gilbert. It appears that there is at least one pending motion in the case. Judge Gilbert earlier this month sent two motions to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier, who has been handling preliminary matters in the case, for disposition. Both motions deal with documents filed in 2010. The Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) and Prairie River Network, both of which intervened in the case in July 2011, asked Judge Gilbert to unseal them as a matter of public access. The Syngenta defendants, however, filed a motion seeking the continued confidentiality of the documents they contend deal with the operations of Syngenta AG, a Swiss holding company that does not manufacture or sell atrazine. Although Judge Gilbert directed these motions to Frazier, he denied as moot the interveners' motion for a status conference and ruling on the sealed documents. It appears from Judge Gilbert's order, however, that the Syngenta defendant's motion requesting the documents' confidentiality remains pending. The proposed settlement stems from a 2010 lawsuit Mr. Tillery filed in federal court on behalf of the city of Greenville and other water providers in six Midwestern states. Six years earlier, he filed six separate class actions against manufacturers of atrazine, which is a commonly used herbicide in agriculture. The plaintiffs contend atrazine ran off farm fields and into their water supplies, forcing them to pay for the testing and monitoring of their supplies and the installation of filter systems. If Judge Gilbert approves the proposed settlement, about 2,000 water districts will be eligible to make a claim for a fixed payment of $5,000 and a share of the remaining balance after legal fees and costs. WET SEAL: Appeal From Denial of Class Standing Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending, according to The Wet Seal, Inc.'s May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004, through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs have appealed. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of April 28, 2012. The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items. As of February 27, 2010, the company operated a total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores. The Company's products can also be purchased online at http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/ WET SEAL: Appeals in California Employees' Suit Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeals from the denial of motions for class certification and to amend complaint remain pending according to The Wet Seal, Inc.'s May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 22, 2003, through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. On December 17, 2010, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed both orders. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of April 28, 2012. The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items. As of February 27, 2010, the company operated a total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores. The Company's products can also be purchased online at http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/ WET SEAL: California Court Granted Bid to Compel Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ A California court granted in April 2012 The Wet Seal, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit pending in Los Angeles, California, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed in California during the time period from October 27, 2007, through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On April 2, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration and to enforce the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued as of April 28, 2012. The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items. As of February 27, 2010, the company operated a total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores. The Company's products can also be purchased online at http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.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 * * *