/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120710.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 135
Headlines
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Class Action Notification Expert Sought
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Claims Dismissal Bids Under Advisement
AUSTRALIA: More Than 500 People Sue Over 2007 Equine Flu Outbreak
AUSTRALIAN BIGHT: Former Investors File Class Action
BATH PETALS: Recalls 2,800 Soy Candles Due to Fire & Cut Hazards
CASEY'S GENERAL: Awaits Approval of "Hot Fuel" Suits Settlement
CHINA: AIDS Victims in Henan Province Sue to Demand Compensation
CITY OF PHOENIX, AZ: Sued Over Reduced Retirement Benefits
CYTOSPORT INC: Judge Sets Hearing to Certify Consumer Class
DIAMOND PET: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Tainted Dog Food
DIAMOND PET: FDA Finds Numerous Health Violations
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bradley" Suit in Calif.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Steinfeld" TCPA-Violation Class Suit
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: MDL Settlement Got Final Approval in May
EXETER HOSPITAL: More Lawsuits Filed Over Hepatitis C Outbreak
FACEBOOK INC: IPO Raises Questions Over Investor Disclosure
GOOGLE: Korean Government May File Suit Over Privacy Policy
H&R BLOCK: Class Cert. Ruling Appeal in "Basile" Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Judgment in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Suits in Missouri Over Compliance Fees
H&R BLOCK: Final Hearing in "Williams" Suit Set for Sept.
H&R BLOCK: "Menezes" Suit Remains Pending in South Carolina
H&R BLOCK: Motion to Decertify Class in "Barrett" Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Says EquiCo Deal Payment Will Not Exceed Accrued Amt.
H&R BLOCK: Suits Over RAL and RAC Products Consolidated in Ill.
ISI NORTH: Recalls 162,700 Twist'n Sparkle Carbonation Bottles
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Lawyers Summoned to Court in Monopoly Case
MASSACHUSETTS COURT: Accused of Coercing Tenant to Pay Late Fees
MEDTRONIC INC: Awaits Court Approval of Minnesota Suit Settlement
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings Ongoing in Canadian Suit
MISSISSIPPI: Fails to Investigate Child Abuse Claims
NORTH COAST: Landowners' Suit May Be Expanded as Class Action
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
ORICA: Toxic Chemical Spill Impacts Property Values
SHELL BRASIL: Court Knocks Down Ruling on Compensation Fund
STANDARD MICROSYSTEMS: Settles Microchip Merger-Related Suits
*********
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Class Action Notification Expert Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has balked at giving $1.5 million to attorneys who fished a
$4 million settlement out of American Express, noting that
prospective class members have claimed just 1 percent of the fund.
The class action took issue with the inability to use American
Express gift cards in split-tender transactions, thereby
preventing cardholders from using the full value on the card. Any
leftover value would allegedly ultimately revert to American
Express in monthly service charges unless the cardholder paid a
$10 check issuance fee.
An American Express employee told the court that the company sold
70 million gift cards during the class period, and charged more
than $91 million in monthly fees to 14 million of these cards. An
additional 5 million cards were subject to fees after failed
transactions for insufficient funds.
U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall gave preliminary approval in
September 2011 to the creation of a $4 million settlement fund.
More than a million cardholders received notice of the settlement
by postcard, and a notice also appeared in a weekday edition of
USA Today.
Yet response to the notices was very low. By March 2012, the
settlement administrator received only 3,458 related telephone
calls, 2,514 pieces of mail and 17,528 unique Web site views.
Correspondingly, few benefits were requested. The administrator
disbursed only $41,510.35 by March, only slightly over 1 percent
of the $4 million available.
Given the extremely low response rate, Judge Gottschall refused
last week to grant the settlement final approval and ordered
appointment of an expert in class notification.
"Even granted that some of the 70 million cards were bought by
bulk purchasers, the proportion of benefits claimed to cards sold
is pitifully low," the decision states. "If the court were to
grant final approval to the settlement as the facts now stand,
almost 99 percent of the settlement fund reserved for class member
claims would go unused. Most class members would receive
precisely nothing in exchange for their surrender of 'any and all
claims . . . related to the marketing and sale of [American
Express] gift cards.'"
"Those few class members who have submitted requests for benefits
would receive a mere $41,510.35 in benefits in exchange for their
claims while the plaintiffs' attorneys would receive $1,525,000 in
fees. This disparity is troubling and ultimately unacceptable,"
Judge Gottschall added.
Notice by publication will always miss a number of class members,
but "the courts should not permit 'better than nothing' to become
the new benchmark," the judge wrote.
The judge also issued a warning: "The court does not believe it is
necessary at this point to follow the lead of courts that have
required corporate defendants to post a link to a settlement web
site on their home page. If the parties fail to come up with a
plan that can reach a meaningful proportion of class members, the
court will reconsider taking that step."
The class is represented by Phillip Bock, Robert Hatch, James
Smith, and Richard Doherty of Bock & Hatch.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order in Kaufman, et al. v.
American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-
01707 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/05/AmEx.pdf
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Claims Dismissal Bids Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss certain claims in a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit involving American Superconductor Corporation
remain under advisement, according to the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.
Between April 6, 2011, and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted claims
against the underwriters who participated in the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), as well as under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The complaint
alleges that during the relevant class period, the Company and its
officers omitted to state material facts and made materially false
and misleading statements relating to, among other things, the
Company's projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well
as its relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that
artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock price. The
complaint further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the
Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.
All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On December 16, 2011, the district court issued a
summary order declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims
against the Company and its officers, and taking under advisement
the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company
and its officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act
claims made against the underwriters. To date, the district court
has not issued an order regarding the Exchange Act claims against
the Company and its officers or the Securities Act claims against
the underwriters, so those matters remain under advisement.
If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates
and discloses the possible loss or range of loss. With respect to
this litigation matter, such an estimate cannot be made. There
are numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully
estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage of these
litigation matters, including that: the proceedings are in
relatively early stages, there are significant factual and legal
issues to be resolved, information obtained or rulings made during
the lawsuits could affect the methodology for calculation of
rescission and the related statutory interest rate. In addition,
with respect to claims where damages are the requested relief, no
amount of loss or damages has been specified. Therefore, the
Company is unable at this time to estimate possible losses. The
Company believes that these litigations are without merit, and it
intends to defend these actions vigorously.
AUSTRALIA: More Than 500 People Sue Over 2007 Equine Flu Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that more than 500 people
are launching a class action against the federal government over
the 2007 equine flu outbreak which devastated Australian horse
industries.
Lawyers for those affected by the outbreak say the government
failed to implement quarantine and biosecurity measures that would
have prevented the disease from infecting horses in Australia.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn announced on July 5 it would lodge a
class action in the Federal Court in NSW "within months".
Former Olympian horse rider Heath Ryan said he would be joining
the action, saying the outbreak had a critical impact on his
livelihood.
"It was a massive disruption to us and completely cut off all of
our income streams during that time," Mr. Ryan said in a
statement.
"I believe that the equine influenza outbreak affected the hopes
and chances of young Australians who wanted to participate in
overseas equestrian events too."
Lawyers claim the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
(AQIS) is accountable for the substantial losses suffered by horse
industries after the disease sidestepped Australian quarantine and
then halted horse movements across the eastern seaboard between
August 2007 and January 2008.
"The failure by the AQIS to have even basic measures in place to
prevent a major outbreak of the disease caused hundreds of
millions of dollars in lost revenue and job losses," Damian
Scattini of Maurice Blackburn said in a statement.
"This happened at the worst possible time of the year too, during
breeding season and in the lead-up to the spring racing carnival,
preventing the movement of horses across the country."
The class action will be open to eligible individuals and
businesses who suffered economic loss as a result of the outbreak.
AUSTRALIAN BIGHT: Former Investors File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Port Lincoln Times reports that former investors in Australian
Bight Abalone Management (ABAL) have filed a class action law suit
in the Victorian Supreme Court claiming the company's directors
misled investors on the number of expected abalone deaths at its
farm at Elliston.
A group of investors claim they poured over $40 million into the
business venture, but directors at the abalone company understated
the death rates of the abalone.
Former Labor party politician Nick Bolkus is one of the accused
directors in the law suit, along with former chief executive
Andrew Ferguson and directors Peter Woodhead, John McAuley,
Kenneth Bascomb and Sir Tipene O'Regan.
In the law suit, investors allege a product disclosure statement
(PDS) released by ABAL predicted a base abalone death rate of 15
per cent, but actual mortality rates recorded were about 92 per
cent.
The investors also allege the statement was misleading as algae
growth on the abalone cages was insufficient to support the growth
targets outlined by ABAL.
The group believes ABAL further misled investors in product
disclosure statements in 2007 and 2008 by continuing to provide
false abalone mortality rates and misleading information about the
overall strength of the company.
Australian Bight Abalone went into administration in 2009 before
being handed back to management in 2010.
BATH PETALS: Recalls 2,800 Soy Candles Due to Fire & Cut Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Bath Petals Inc., of Gardena, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,600 units of Soy Candles
in the United States of America and 1,200 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 candle can burn with a high flame, causing excessive heat.
This poses a fire hazard. The heat and flame can cause the glass
candle holder to shatter. This poses a laceration hazard.
The firm has received one report of a candle burning with a high
flame and shattering the glass holder. No injuries or property
damage were reported.
The candles are 7.5 oz. soy candles sold in four colors and
scents: Australian Eucalyptus, California Rose Garden, French
Alpine and Thai Lemongrass Ginger. "Bath petals" and the scent
name are printed on the glass candle holder. The following UPC
codes are on the bottom of the box: 6-10696-55269-3, 7-97734-
03754-8, 7-97734-03755-5 and 7-97734-03758-6.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12216.html
The recalled products were manufactured in the United State of
America and sold at TJ Maxx and Marshalls in the U.S. from
February 2012 through April 2012 and at Homesense, Winners and
Marshalls in Canada in April 2012 for about $10.
Consumers should stop using these candles immediately and contact
Bath Petals for a full refund. For additional information,
contact Bath Petals toll-free at (855) 772-7258 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.bathpetals.com/
CASEY'S GENERAL: Awaits Approval of "Hot Fuel" Suits Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits filed by gasoline consumers in
Kansas and Missouri, according to the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2012.
The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally
alleged that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has
misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing
to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at
temperatures above 60 degrees F. Fuel is measured at 60 degrees F
in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel
taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all sought
certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers
within those two states, and one of the complaints also sought
certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all
states. The actions generally sought recovery for alleged
violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising
practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.
These actions were among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of
defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline
products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
pending hot fuel cases (officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class
certification. Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially
completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.
In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant.
The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims. However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a
class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the
Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and
several other Defendants. With respect to claims for unjust
enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and
entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that,
at any time between January 1, 2001, and the present, purchased
motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60 degrees F,
in the state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or
controlled by one or more of the Defendants. As to claims for
violation of the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all
individuals, sole proprietors and family partnerships (excluding
employees or affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.
The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes. The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.
On April 6, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for Casey's
General Stores, Inc. informed the Court that they reached an
enforceable settlement agreement which, if approved by the Court,
will result in the settlement and dismissal of all claims against
Casey's in the multidistrict litigation, including the Kansas
cases. Based on this representation, the Court severed
plaintiffs' claims against Casey's General Stores, Inc. from the
claims against the remaining defendants, which are set for an
anticipated trial date in August of 2012. The settlement amount
for the Company was determined not to be material.
CHINA: AIDS Victims in Henan Province Sue to Demand Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fung Yat-yiu, writing for Radio Free Asia, reports that Chinese
activists organized a class action suit to address the claims of
thousands they say were infected through blood transfusions.
AIDS activists in China's central province of Henan are calling on
thousands of people infected with HIV via tainted blood
transfusions to file a class action lawsuit demanding compensation
from the authorities.
Sun Ya, an AIDS activist whose 12-year-old son is infected with
HIV, said on July 4 he estimated there were more than 100,000
people in his home province of Henan alone who had been similarly
affected by tainted blood.
"I am hoping that we can force the authorities to take the case by
approaching it as a class action suit," Mr. Sun said. "A decision
in such a case would give us a basis with which to negotiate
compensation much more easily with the government."
"If we each file separate complaints through different
departments, a lot of cases will get rejected," Mr. Sun said.
"And no one takes any notice of you if you petition at government
departments."
Mr. Sun's initiative, which has already attracted the support of
more than 100 HIV-infected people, comes after several years of
petitioning central government authorities in Beijing, to no
avail.
"We have all got the same aim, which is win greater compensation
for ourselves . . . for example, we want the authorities to
provide better quality medications and treatment methods, as well
as compensation," he said.
"So we are taking the initiative to try to achieve this."
Mr. Sun said seven lawyers had already offered to represent the
group on a pro bono basis, and that some of the group was using
China's popular microblogging services to recruit more people to
join the lawsuit.
"If we tried to have a meeting, the police would come along and
break it up," he said. "So we are using the microblogs to discuss
things first."
But he added, "They have been regarded as sensitive posts, and
deleted."
One of the first to join the attempted class action suit is a
Henan resident surnamed Gao, whose husband was infected with HIV
several years ago via a blood transfusion clinic and passed the
virus unknowingly to her.
Ms. Gao, whose husband died of AIDS five years ago, said she had
been petitioning with her son for years for compensation, but with
no response from officials.
"I took it to court, but the judge wanted me to produce more than
10 years' worth of receipts from the transfusion clinic, and they
are long gone," she said.
"We haven't had any compensation, to this day," Ms. Gao said.
"The transfusion clinics are run by the local government . . . and
they all try to evade responsibility."
Mr. Sun estimates that at least 100,000 people in Henan alone are
believed to have been infected with HIV during the blood-selling
schemes run by local governments, which bought blood donations
from impoverished rural residents, but also took a cut of the
proceeds.
Around 40,000 of them have now died of AIDS, leaving around 60,000
still living with HIV.
Retired gynecologist and former medical professor Gao Yaojie,
currently living in the United States, has hit out at official
Chinese AIDS statistics as "rubbish," saying the majority of
infections come from a network of thousands of blood-selling and
transfusion clinics across the country.
Ms. Gao, 85, fled China in 2009 in order to publish work relating
to the scandal of HIV-infected blood transfusions and the practice
of blood-selling in poverty-stricken rural areas.
Chinese health authorities said the number of people living with
HIV/AIDS stood at around 780,000 at the end of 2011, a figure
Ms. Gao said was closer to 10 million.
Ms. Gao warned last year that there are currently more than 10,000
blood-selling stations across China, in all regions of the
country, and that only around 10 percent of HIV infections are
transmitted through sex.
She said she had visited Hunan, Hubei, Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangdong,
Guangxi, and Sichuan provinces before she left China, as part of
her research into the blood-selling industry.
Known as the "Number One AIDS activist in China," Ms. Gao began
her work to combat the epidemic in 1996 when she was already 69.
In 2001, Ms. Gao was awarded the Jonathan Mann Award for Health
and Human Rights, and in 2003 she was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay
Award for Public Service in Manila, Philippines.
Ms. Gao fled Henan in 2009 after police cut off her telephone
service, citing fears she would be harassed, physically harmed, or
otherwise prevented from continuing her work.
CITY OF PHOENIX, AZ: Sued Over Reduced Retirement Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse New Service reports that AFSCME claims in a federal
class action that Phoenix illegally reduced city employees'
retirement benefits.
A copy of the Complaint in Piccioli, et al. v. City of Phoenix, et
al., Case No. CV2012-010330 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/05/AzLabor.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Susan Martin, Esq.
Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
- and -
Michael Napier, Esq.
NAPIER, ABDO, COURY & BAILLIE, P.C.
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Suite 135
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 248-9107
E-mail: mike@napierlawfirm.com
CYTOSPORT INC: Judge Sets Hearing to Certify Consumer Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has set a hearing to certify a class of consumers allegedly
duped into buying Cytosport's line of Muscle Milk products.
Lead plaintiff Claire Delacruz filed a second amended complaint
after U.S. District Judge Cynthia Wilken directed her in April to
amend the defects in her false advertising and misrepresentation
complaint against Cytosport.
Judge Wilken barred Ms. Delacruz from contradicting any of the
allegations from her first complaint and from adding any other
causes of action.
The second amended complaint took aim at Cytosport's "protein
nutrition shake" and its claims that "Muscle Milk is an ideal
blend of protein, healthy fats, good carbohydrates and 20 vitamins
and minerals to provide sustained energy, spur lean muscle growth
and help provide recovery from tough days and tougher workouts."
Ms. Delacruz says the label issues are compounded by false
statements on the company's website, which touts "healthy
sustained energy" and "healthy fats." The Web site also allegedly
promotes MuscleMilk bars by saying that "there's no question
[consumers are] getting a nutritious snack."
Other changes to the new complaint include a challenge to "the use
of the healthy-sounding 'Muscle Milk'" name. Ms. Delacruz also
says the false and misleading nutrient content claims are illegal,
and she parses the Cytosport's use of the terms "healthy fats" and
"good carbohydrates," claiming that the fats are actually
saturated fats and the carbohydrates are from simple sugar
fructose, which leads to an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes.
Citing Food and Drug Administration regulations, Ms. Delacruz now
calls Cytosport's claims false and misleading. She says that
California law adopted the requirements of federal food-labeling
regulations.
Judge Wilken declined to order judicial estoppel last week after
concluding that none of Ms. Delacruz's allegations exceed the
limits she set in April.
"Rather, the allegations respond to the court's ruling that
certain words and phrases failed to support a claim for fraud or
negligent misrepresentation because they were difficult to define
and not clearly false," Judge Wilken wrote. "The FDA regulations
may lend objective criteria by which to determine whether certain
words and phrases used on the labels are misleading. Moreover,
the new allegations do not impose on Defendant any unfair
detriment."
"Plaintiff cannot be faulted for adding these allegations in light
of the court's ruling that her allegations as to the falsity of
the product labeling were inadequate. Judicial estoppel is
unwarranted," Judge Wilken added.
The judge also rejected Cytosport's argument that federal law pre-
empts Ms. Delacruz's references to FDA regulations, noting that a
provision of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act "authorizes
states to establish laws that are 'identical to' federal labeling
requirements."
Judge Wilken said that the latest complaint better addresses the
difficult-to-define healthy products.
"Plaintiff now provides objective standards, such as the
requirements identified by the FDA, which could evidence that
certain contents in a product are not healthful," Judge Wilken
wrote. "A representation that a product is 'healthy' could
reasonably lead a consumer to believe that certain unhealthy
contents are absent from the product. For the purpose of this
motion to dismiss, the 'Healthy, Sustained Energy' statement on
the RTD [Ready-to-Drink] labels is a cognizable
misrepresentation."
This time around, Ms. Delacruz has also tied her claims to
reliance on Cytosport's allegedly misleading website and televised
advertisements, the decision states.
Cytosport cannot dismiss or stay the case on basis of primary
jurisdiction, Judge Wilken added, denying its insistence that the
California law claims require scientific or technical FDA
expertise.
The judge did find, however, that the misrepresentation claims
regarding "good carbohydrates" and "0g Trans Fat" are not
actionable. Judge Wilken also dismissed a claim that Cytosport's
long-standing advertising campaign misled the public.
Ms. Delacruz can fight for class certification at the next case
management conference on Nov. 8.
A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint in Delacruz
v. Cytosport, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-03532 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/05/cytosport.pdf
DIAMOND PET: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Tainted Dog Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a man claims in a federal
class action that his dogs got salmonella poisoning because
Diamond Pet Foods and Amazon.com failed to warn him Diamond's
Taste of the Wild brand dog food had been recalled, and he bought
it on Amazon.
A copy of the Complaint in Cohen v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc. d/b/a
Diamond Pet Foods, et al., Case No. 12-cv-03299 (E.D.N.Y.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/05/Salmonella.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
Orin Kurtz, Esq.
ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
212 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 889-3700
E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com
okurtz@abbeyspanier.com
- and -
Jeffrey Marcus, Esq.
260 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 949-2202
E-mail: jeffm271@aol.com
DIAMOND PET: FDA Finds Numerous Health Violations
-------------------------------------------------
James Andrews, writing for Food Safety News, reports that the
results of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspection into a
Diamond Pet Foods production plant may benefit the trio of
lawsuits filed against the Missouri pet food manufacturer tied to
a Salmonella outbreak and recall earlier this year.
That inspection, conducted six days after the first of Diamond's
eight recalls, found numerous health violations, including
failures to clean and maintain equipment and a lack of contaminant
screenings on raw ingredients. The evidence does not bode well
for Diamond as the company faces three separate lawsuits from
human victims and pet owners in the U.S. and Canada, according
Benjamin England, a 17-year FDA veteran and founder of
FDAImports.com, a food industry consulting firm.
On his blog, Mr. England highlighted Diamond's situation as a
cautionary tale for other food manufacturers. If Diamond had
operated in compliance with FDA rules, Mr. England said, they
would appear much less culpable and could use the favorable
inspection to bolster their legal cases and public image.
Instead, it's being used against them. The lawsuits specifically
cite the inspection report as evidence of Diamond's negligence and
breach of warranty.
"It looks to me as though there's a relationship between the
violations at the facility and the adverse situations the company
is facing now," Mr. England told Food Safety News. "You can't
predict when an outbreak or recall might happen, but you can
eliminate a lot of risk through compliance."
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
multiple brands of Diamond pet food have sickened at least 20
Americans and two Canadians with Salmonella Infantis since March.
The agency says it's impossible to determine the number of dogs
sickened, as so few pets are ever tested for gastrointestinal
bacteria.
Diamond initiated its first recall on April 6 after routine
testing by the Michigan Department of Agriculture discovered the
contaminated kibble in a bag of dog food pulled from a store
shelf.
Class action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. and Canada
against Diamond and retailer Costco on behalf of pet owners who
have had pets die or experience severe illness after eating
Diamond's product. Another lawsuit in the U.S. has been filed on
behalf of a New Jersey couple whose infant fell ill with the
outbreak strain.
The FDA inspection report will only help those plaintiffs win
higher settlements, Mr. England argued. But more than that, it
might tip attorneys off to search for prior inspection reports
that could dig up further evidence of violations and negligence.
The law firm leading the U.S. class action suit on behalf of pet
owners, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, secured a $24 million
settlement last year in a class action suit against Menu Foods
after a 2007 recall of Melamine-tainted dog food. The firm came
under some criticism after Kathy Forcier -- one of more than
24,000 plaintiffs in that case -- revealed that she had received a
settlement check for $58.76, while the firm retained $7.4 million
in contingency fees.
However the lawsuits progress, Mr. England said he would be
"shocked if Diamond didn't settle on all fronts."
After the fallout from the outbreak and recalls, Mr. England said
that Diamond must resort to "damage control" -- making it clear to
customers that plant management has been revised and the product's
quality improved.
For everyone else, he sees it as another reminder of the
importance of FDA compliance:
"Don't make the mistake of thinking this happens to the other
guy," Mr. England wrote on his blog. "It happens to whom it
happens to, and it could be your company. One unfortunate event
can bring the entire weight of the federal government to bear upon
your door."
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bradley" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a cardmember in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Walter Bradley, et
al. v. Discover Financial Services). The plaintiff alleges that
the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to
represent, on their cellular telephones without their express
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of
$500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). The
Company says it will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiff.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2012.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Steinfeld" TCPA-Violation Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services is facing a class action lawsuit in
California alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the Company's June 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2012.
On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Andrew Steinfeld, et al. v.
Discover Financial Services, et al.). The plaintiff alleges that
the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to
represent, on their cellular telephones without their express
consent in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations). The Company will seek to vigorously defend
against all claims asserted by the plaintiff.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: MDL Settlement Got Final Approval in May
------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services' settlement of a multidistrict
litigation relating to its payment protection product received
final approval on May 10, 2012, according to the Company's
June 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2012.
There are eight class action cases pending in relation to the sale
of the Company's payment protection product. The cases were filed
(all in United States District Courts) on: July 8, 2010, in the
Northern District of California (Walker, et al. v. DFS, Inc. and
Discover Bank; subsequently transferred to the Northern District
of Illinois); July 16, 2010, in the Central District of California
(Conroy v. Discover Financial Services and Discover Bank); October
22, 2010, in the District of South Carolina (Alexander v. Discover
Financial Services, Inc.; DFS Services LLC; Discover Bank; and
Morgan Stanley); November 5, 2010, in the Northern District of
Illinois (Callahan v. Discover Financial Services, Inc. and
Discover Bank); December 17, 2010, in the Western District of
Tennessee (Sack v. DFS Services LLC; Discover Financial Services,
Inc.; and Discover Bank); January 14, 2011, in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Boyce v. DFS Services LLC; Discover
Financial Services Inc.; Discover Bank);
February 15, 2011, in the Southern District of Florida (Triplett
v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC,
Discover Bank and Morgan Stanley); and March 7, 2011, in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Carter v. Discover Financial
Services, Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC, Discover Bank, Morgan
Stanley et al.).
All of the cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to a multi-district
litigation order issued by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in February 2011. These class actions challenge the
Company's marketing practices with respect to its payment
protection product to cardmembers under various state laws and the
Truth in Lending Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary remedies
including unspecified damages and restitution, attorneys' fees and
costs, and various forms of injunctive relief including an order
rescinding the payment protection product enrollments of all class
members. In June 2011, the Company and class counsel entered into
a preliminary global settlement of all of the pending class
actions. On November 9, 2011, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. The settlement encompasses Discover
Bank's sale and administration of Discover Payment Protection,
Identity Theft Protection, Wallet Protection and Credit Score
Tracker. The settlement received final approval from the court on
May 10, 2012.
EXETER HOSPITAL: More Lawsuits Filed Over Hepatitis C Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Haddadin, writing Fosters.com, reports that as the number of
hepatitis C cases linked with Exeter Hospital continued to rise
last week, so too did the number of lawsuits filed against the
facility.
Close to 60 former patients had filed suit against the hospital at
of the beginning of July. That number includes a minimum of 47
patients who have signed on to a class-action lawsuit, as well as
12 others who have each filed individual lawsuits.
Some of the most recent litigation filed against the hospital came
from Manchester medical malpractice attorney Mark Abramson, of the
law firm Abramson Brown & Dugan.
Dugan is now representing a total of 10 clients, including four
who were named in lawsuits filed between the end of June and
Monday, July 2.
Portsmouth attorney Michael Rainboth --
mrainboth@nhtrialattorneys.com -- also announced last week that he
has filed suit on behalf of a second client affected by the Exeter
Hospital hepatitis C outbreak.
Mr. Rainboth, of the firm Coughlin, Rainboth, Murphy & Lown, is
representing a 61-year-old Newmarket woman and a 59-year-old man.
He claims both contracted the liver disease amid the outbreak.
So far, 26 Exeter Hospital patients and one employee have been
diagnosed with identical cases of hepatitis C. The hospital's
cardiac catheterization laboratory stands as the only known
connection between them.
In June, state health officials announced they suspect the
outbreak was caused by a hospital employee who stole and injected
hospital drugs, then infected patients with contaminated needles
or syringes.
The scenario, referred to as "drug diversion," has led to
hepatitis outbreaks in at least three hospitals across the country
since 2001, according to information collected by the Centers for
Disease Control.
Both the New Hampshire attorney general and the U.S. Attorney's
Office have announced they are investigating the situation at the
hospital to determine whether a criminal act occurred.
Not all of those who have filed litigation tested positive for the
virus. Some people named in the class action lawsuit are awaiting
test results, or have tested negative, but are still seeking
damages for being caught up in the health scare.
The class action lawsuit against Exeter Hospital was filed last
month in Rockingham County Superior Court by Concord attorney
Peter McGrath.
In a June 20 interview, Mr. McGrath said 47 people had signed on
to the suit, including six who tested positive in the hepatitis C
outbreak. Mr. McGrath said approximately 20 more were awaiting
test results, while the remainder had tested negative.
The four new plaintiffs represented by Abramson include an 82-
year-old Exeter father and husband, a 67-year-old father from
Kingston, a 52-year-old married man with children from Raymond and
a 46-year-old married father from Newmarket, according to copies
of their lawsuits against the hospital, which were provided to
Foster's Daily Democrat.
In an e-mail earlier last week, Mr. Abramson indicated all 10
clients have tested positive for the virus.
Exeter Hospital has declined to comment on all pending litigation
and the federal and state investigations.
FACEBOOK INC: IPO Raises Questions Over Investor Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gray Ritter & Graham, PC on July 5 disclosed that the highly
anticipated initial public offering (IPO) of social media giant
Facebook has raised serious questions about the information
offered to investors prior to the initial securities offering.
Investors have filed a class action suit against Facebook, Morgan
Stanley and other underwriting banks. Two Congressional
committees have also requested briefings to evaluate whether the
underwriters, the professionals who help a company with the
requirements of the IPO, misled retail investors about Facebook's
revenue projections.
The Securities Act and the Facebook IPO
The crux of the controversy is whether key information about
Facebook's revenue was provided to only a limited number of top
executive investors during invitation-only "road show" question
and answer discussions, rather than retail investors, despite the
obligation under the Securities Act to provide the revenue
information to all investors. Lawyers who filed the class action
allege that information about Facebook's decreasing revenue due to
dwindling personal computer use was only provided to a limited
number of potential investors.
Some analysts critical of the handling of Facebook's IPO argue
that road show events are inherently flawed because the
information discussed between Facebook executives and
institutional investors is not released to the public. Critics of
the road show discussions believe that these Q&A sessions should
be taped and aired publicly on the Internet or, at a minimum,
retail investors should be allowed time to have their questions
about a company's revenue answered in a pre-IPO setting. If
information about Facebook's decreasing revenue stream was not
widely distributed to all potential investors, there may be a
claim for a Securities Act violation.
Two separate committees in Congress are also evaluating Facebook
and the controversy surrounding the IPO. The Senate Banking
Committee has started an inquiry to evaluate Facebook's IPO,
during which experts discussed the road show events and the
alleged Securities Act violations. House Financial Services
Committee members also requested briefings about the IPO.
Facebook and Morgan Stanley, however, argue that the revised
revenue projections were widely distributed to all banking
institutions and retail investors on May 9, in advance of the
May 18 IPO. A Facebook spokesperson stated that the class action
suit is without merit and said Facebook will vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.
How to Protect Yourself as an Investor
The Securities Exchange Commission regulates IPOs and the
Securities Act gives the SEC power to regulate stocks and sellers
of securities. The Securities Act includes provisions that allow
investors to file a legal action directly against stock
underwriters or a company if information material to the sale of
securities was withheld from investors or was misleading to
investors.
A consumer who wishes to invest in securities should always review
the following information, which is required for all companies
offering to sell securities on either the NASDAQ or New York Stock
Exchange:
- Prospectus: This document describes the financial picture of a
company or corporation and is often distributed to investors by
the underwriters or brokerage firms working on the initial
securities offering.
- Registration form: The Securities Exchange Commission has the
authority to determine the type of information required in the
form, but typically it includes past business sales, past revenue,
future projections and risks of the business.
Being an informed investor is, in many ways, the responsibility of
the individual seeking to invest his or her funds; at times,
however, the company or the underwriters may mislead or fail to
disclose critical information that is required under the
Securities Act. If you believe that you have been harmed by a
violation of the Securities Act, it is important to contact a
knowledgeable Missouri consumer fraud lawyer.
GOOGLE: Korean Government May File Suit Over Privacy Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cho Mu-hyun, writing for Korea Times, reports that the government
is preparing to take additional legal action against Google to
force the firm to improve its privacy policy, an agency
responsible for privacy protection said on July 5.
The Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) told The
Korea Times that it would file further complaints against the
Korean subsidiary of the search engine giant, unless it complies
with a request that the privacy agency sees has "illegal aspects
and a strong possibility of misappropriation."
The agency can impose a fine on Google amounting to 1 percent of
its annual proceeds or seek criminal charges.
Google's new privacy policy took effect in March which combined
users' personal information stored across 60 of its services to
create one profile.
"We requested Google to revise the policy last month," said Kim
Young-mun, director of PIPC's policy review division.
Mr. Kim says Google's Korean office has asked the commission to
wait for a reply from headquarters but has not made any changes to
the policy.
"There are three key revisions we have suggested. The first is
the unclear objective of unifying the information. The policy
states that the objective of the unifying will be used to protect
Google and its users, which can also mean the company's business
partners."
He stressed that the ambiguous definition is likely to be
interpreted by different parties to fit their own agendas.
"The second is the approval process. The current, service
combination allows Google to store all information from separate
services with one approval alone. In Korean law, each service
requires separate approval.
"The third is the storage time of the data. Users have a right to
have their information deleted if they decide to end their
subscription to a service, which Google doesn't allow in its
policy."
The California-based company has added more notifications on its
privacy policy to its Korean Web site in April, adding an
additional information menu for those residing in Korea, following
the recommendation of the Korea Communications Commission (KCC).
"The added notice on the Korean webpage is much appreciated.
However, what the PIPC is demanding concerns the main body of the
actual policy and its clauses and not notifications. We are
requesting the company change the law itself," said Mr. Kim.
"We recognize that Google's delay in complying is to a certain
extent valid and not unusual for a global firm and its offices in
different countries. But if they continue to delay meeting our
request, further action by our organization will be initiated and
we are discussing the matter."
Google Korea's head of corporate communications Lois Kim said that
the firm has fully amended its policy according to KCC demands.
"We have been cooperating fully with the KCC and PIPC. We are
working closely with them to address their questions about our
business." She declined to comment on whether there will be
further changes reflecting the PIPC's recommendation on the actual
policy clauses.
The PIPC stated that possible further steps could include
administrative and criminal actions but the most likely outcome in
the long term if Google continues its stance will be a fine up to
one percent of its annual revenue.
The European Union has protested the strongest amid the global
anger over the unified policy and is investigating the search
engine giant. One legal expert contacted by The Korea Times, who
declined to be named, said due to the similarity between the legal
system here and there, the Korean government agency has similar
authority to investigate Google, and should do so more actively.
Kim Kyung-hwan, a lawyer specializing in the area at law firm
Minwho, stated that Google has not fully complied with the KCC's
recommendations and its policies are a vital threat to consumers'
personal information here.
"The KCC's recommendations did not address the actual policy but
rather the process and has a minimal effect on the actual security
of information," the lawyer said via e-mail. "Furthermore, Google
only executed part of the recommendation. Compared to Korean
policies on Web portals, (Google's policy) is vastly lacking."
The lawyer lamented that current Korean laws concerning
telecommunications networks and private information protection are
too weak in supervising the use of personal information for
profiling or combining services for one profile, like those of
Google.
Mr. Kim says domestic consumers can file a class action against
the American firm, as Korean International law on private
information protection overrides Google's user approval articles
that state that Californian law will be applied if disputes over
services arise.
"Korean law allows compensation, forbidding or halting services,
but the combining of services for profiling itself causes no
direct damage for now so they will be able to request that the
combining be forbidden or halted here.
"However, in the United States, plaintiffs are requesting
compensation for misusing cookie information saved on their
computers. If combined service profiles cause damage in the
future, Korean consumers can file for a lawsuit much like this
example."
As Google's policy has highlighted the issue of rising global
concerns over protection of personal information, the lawyer said
that there was need of "safe harbor programs" in Korea with other
countries. The program, practiced between the United States,
Switzerland and the European Union, acts to mitigate differences
between private information laws in different countries.
H&R BLOCK: Class Cert. Ruling Appeal in "Basile" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. has been named in a putative class action styled
Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993. The plaintiffs allege inadequate
disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL)
product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection
statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. A Pennsylvania
class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in
December 2003. An appellate court subsequently reversed the
decertification decision. The Company is appealing the reversal.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2012.
The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there
can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Judgment in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiary, Sand Canyon Corporation, previously
known as Option One Mortgage Corporation (collectively with its
subsidiaries, SCC) ceased originating mortgage loans in December
2007 and, in April 2008, sold its servicing assets and
discontinued its remaining operations. Mortgage loans purchased
by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) from SCC represent 59% of total loans
held for investment at April 30, 2012. H&R says these loans have
experienced higher delinquency rates than other loans in HRB
Bank's portfolio, and may expose HRB Bank to greater risk of
credit loss.
On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450
CJC). Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud,
intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful
withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection
with not paying severance benefits to employees when their
employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of
Option One. Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of
approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in
addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims. On
September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal,
which remains pending.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2012.
The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency
related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Suits in Missouri Over Compliance Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits in Missouri
related to compliance fees, according to the Company's June 26,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 30, 2012.
On April 16, 2012, and April 19, 2012, putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in Missouri state and
federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged
to retail tax clients beginning in the 2011 tax season. These
cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Case #
1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
(Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK). Taken together, the plaintiffs seek
to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who were charged a
compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of state consumer
laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Company
has not concluded that a loss related to these lawsuits is
probable nor has it accrued a liability related to either of these
lawsuits. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases vigorously,
but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or
their impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.
H&R BLOCK: Final Hearing in "Williams" Suit Set for Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is scheduled to occur in September 2012
in the wage and hour class action lawsuit captioned Alice Williams
v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, according to the Company's June 26,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 30, 2012.
The Company has been named in several wage and hour class action
lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, Case No. RG08366506 (Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging
improper classification and failure to compensate for all hours
worked and to provide meal periods to office managers in
California); Arabella Lemus, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC,
et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251 (United States District Court,
Northern District of California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging
failure to timely pay compensation to tax professionals in
California); Delana Ugas, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et
al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central
District of California, filed July 13, 2009) (alleging failure to
compensate tax professionals in California for all hours worked
and to provide meal periods); and Barbara Petroski, et al. v. H&R
Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075
(United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed
January 25, 2010) (alleging failure to compensate tax
professionals nationwide for off-season training).
A class was certified in the Lemus case in December 2010
(consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned
offices in California from 2007 to 2010), in the Williams case in
March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-
owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011), and in the Ugas
case in August 2011 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in
company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011). In
Petroski, a conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals
nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not
compensated for certain training courses occurring on or after
April 15, 2007). Two classes were also certified under state laws
in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who
worked in company-owned offices in those states).
The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek
actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in
addition to statutory penalties under state and federal law, which
could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class
members who worked in California. A portion of the Company's loss
contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of
loss that the Company considers probable and estimable. The
amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances
and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is
difficult to predict. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the
cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome
of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows,
individually or in the aggregate.
To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation,
the Company reached agreements to settle the Lemus and Williams
cases in January and February 2012, respectively, subject to
approval by the courts in California in which the cases are
pending. In Lemus, the settlement would require a maximum payment
of $35 million, although the actual cost of the settlement would
depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members.
The federal court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on February 10, 2012. A final approval hearing occurred on May
18, 2012. The parties are awaiting the court's ruling. In
Williams, the settlement would require a maximum payment of $7.5
million, although the actual cost of the settlement would depend
on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 7,
2012. A final approval hearing is scheduled to occur in September
2012.
The Company says it has recorded a liability for its estimate of
the expected loss with respect to these settlements. If for any
reason these settlements are not approved, the Company says it
will continue to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome or its impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.
H&R BLOCK: "Menezes" Suit Remains Pending in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit commenced by Brian Menezes against a former subsidiary
of H&R Block, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's
June 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2012.
In November 2011, the Company sold RSM McGladrey, Inc. (RSM) to
McGladrey & Pullen LLP (M&P) for net cash proceeds of $523.1
million. The Company also sold RSM EquiCo, Inc.'s subsidiary,
McGladrey Capital Markets LLC (MCM). As of April 30, 2012, the
results of operations of these businesses are presented as
discontinued operations in the consolidated financial statements.
On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets, LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville
County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P.
Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant,
International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components
International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM
EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group
Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim against
MCM. Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil
conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against
MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the
Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI)
in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group,
Inc. and SCI. Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8,
2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim
against all defendants. Plaintiffs' other claims remain pending.
The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency
related to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.
H&R BLOCK: Motion to Decertify Class in "Barrett" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiary, Sand Canyon Corporation, previously
known as Option One Mortgage Corporation (collectively with its
subsidiaries, SCC) ceased originating mortgage loans in December
2007 and, in April 2008, sold its servicing assets and
discontinued its remaining operations. Mortgage loans purchased
by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) from SCC represent 59% of total loans
held for investment at April 30, 2012. H&R says these loans have
experienced higher delinquency rates than other loans in HRB
Bank's portfolio, and may expose HRB Bank to greater risk of
credit loss.
On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-
10157-RWZ). Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating
to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair
Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory
and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages.
The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of
personal jurisdiction. In March 2011, the court issued an order
certifying a class, which defendants sought to appeal. On August
24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the
appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider its
certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the United
States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter. SCC has filed a
motion to decertify the class, which remains pending.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2012.
The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is
related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that it considers
probable and estimable. The Company believes SCC has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to defend the
case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome
or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.
H&R BLOCK: Says EquiCo Deal Payment Will Not Exceed Accrued Amt.
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its June 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 30, 2012, that the amount it expects to pay in the future
with respect to the settlement of a class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary will not exceed the amount it previously accrued.
The Company's subsidiary, RSM EquiCo, Inc. (EquiCo), its parent
and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a
class action filed on July 11, 2006, and styled Do Right's Plant
Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. (the "RSM Parties"),
Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange
County. The complaint contains allegations relating to business
valuation services provided by EquiCo, including allegations of
fraud, conversion and unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees. On March 17, 2009, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all
claims. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with
litigation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case
for a maximum payment of $41.5 million, although the actual cost
of the settlement will depend on the number of valid claims
submitted by class members. The California Superior Court granted
final approval of the settlement on October 20, 2011. The Company
says it previously recorded a liability for its estimate of the
expected loss. The Company adds that the amounts it paid during
its third quarter, and it expects to pay in the future, do not
exceed the amount it previously accrued.
H&R BLOCK: Suits Over RAL and RAC Products Consolidated in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits over H&R Block, Inc.'s RAL and RAC products
have been consolidated in Illinois, according to the Company's
June 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2012.
A series of class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011,
concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally
allege the Company engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent
acts in violation of various state consumer protection laws by
facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures, and by offering RACs
without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege
violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes
expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the
District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the
present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of
profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. These cases were
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan
Litigation (MDL No. 2373).
The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of
these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
ISI NORTH: Recalls 162,700 Twist'n Sparkle Carbonation Bottles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
iSi North America Inc., of Fairfield New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 162,700 units of Twist'n Sparkle Home
Beverage Carbonation System plastic bottles. Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The plastic bottles can explode under pressure, expelling plastic
parts, resulting in an injury hazard to anyone nearby.
The firm is aware of nine incidents involving exploding plastic
bottles including three in which consumers received cuts to
various parts of their upper body.
The products are plastic bottles used as a part of the iSi Twist'n
Sparkle Beverage Carbonation System. The recalled bottles were
sold in the Starter Set model number 1005 with one reusable bottle
and the Bottle Set model number 1006 with two reusable bottles.
The model numbers are printed on the bottom of the box. The
recalled plastic bottles are available in one size and two colors
of caps/bottoms, white or gray. A picture of the recalled
products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12217.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Austria and Hungary,
and sold at Williams-Sonoma, QVC and other national retailers and
websites from June 2010 to March 2012 for approximately $50 for
the Starter Set and $30 for the Bottle Set.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
either contact iSi or the place of purchase for instructions on
returning the product for a refund or store credit. For products
purchased online, contact the online retailers for instructions on
how to ship the returns and receive a refund or credit. Note that
the US Postal Service does not accept CO2 gas chargers for
shipment by mail. For additional information, contact iSi at
(800) 645-3595 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.twistnsparkle.com/
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Lawyers Summoned to Court in Monopoly Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Gayle, writing for The Gleaner, reports that receiving
evidence of a near 100-year-old ruling declaring monopolies
illegal under legislation identical to Jamaica's Electric Lighting
Act, Supreme Court judge Bryan Sykes summoned attorneys
representing the parties in a class-action suit against the
Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) to return to court on July 5
to make further submissions.
The lawyers were summoned after attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who
is representing the claimants, submitted to the judge on July 3 a
1913 case from the House of Lords in England which deals with
exclusive license under the Electric Lighting Act.
Judge Sykes had reserved his decision after hearing legal
arguments in the matter.
Mr. Wildman had argued that the then energy minister did not have
the power to grant the license.
Commenting on the case which he submitted, Mr. Wildman told The
Gleaner on July 4 that the Electric Lighting Act was enacted in
England in 1882 and Jamaica inherited the act in 1890.
"It is the identical legislation and by 1913, the House of Lords
had to interpret the legislation and they came down clearly on the
side that the legislation does not permit a monopoly and were
emphatic that a monopoly status cannot be accommodated under the
legislation," Mr. Wildman said.
Mr. Wildman further explained that the legislation was designed to
encourage competition and the judges said in the 1913 case that it
was for the benefit of the consumers and public at large to have
competition.
Mr. Wildman argued in the Supreme Court that the then minister of
energy breached the Electric Lighting Act when he granted the
exclusive license to JPS in 2001. Mr. Wildman has described the
license as illegal.
Mr. Wildman submitted that the Office of Utilities Regulation
(OUR), in recommending the license, breached its own act, which
states that there must be competition.
The claimants, Dennis Meadows, Betty Ann Blaine and Cyrus
Rousseau, are seeking a declaration that the 20-year-old exclusive
license granted on March 30, 2001, and amended in 2007 on the
recommendation of the OUR is illegal, null and void and of no
effect.
The claimants want the court to declare that the JPS is currently
operating without a license.
The respondents, the attorney general, the OUR and the JPS and
their lawyers, have asked the court not to grant the declaration.
Queen's Counsel Michael Hylton, who represents the JPS, has argued
that Section 3 of the Electric Lighting Act (which is the section
that empowers the minister to grant the license) "does not
stipulate a requirement that there must be more than one
"undertaker". In fact, it does not use the plural at all.
MASSACHUSETTS COURT: Accused of Coercing Tenant to Pay Late Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Mlaver, On Behalf of Himself and All Similarly Situated
Individuals v. Massachusetts Court Apartments, LLC, 300
Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20001; Massachusetts Court
Apartments, LLC, LLC, Address unknown; Riverstone Residential
Group, LLC, 1201 Elm Street, Ste. 1600, Dallas, Texas 75270;
Riverstone Residential NE, LLC, 1201 Elm Street, Ste. 1600,
Dallas, Texas 75270; and Riverstone Residential NE, LLC, LLC,
Address unknown, Case No. 2012-CA-005485 (D.C. Super. Ct.
July 5, 2012), is brought on behalf those who paid fees for late
payment of rent to the Defendants.
The Defendants charge late fees based on a percentage of the
monthly rent, which fees are illegal penalty clauses because they
are not calculated based on a reasonable estimation of anticipated
or actual harm caused by a breach of contract, Mr. Mlaver
contends. He tells the Court that the Defendants coerced him into
paying illegal late fees under threat of eviction and legal
action.
Mr. Mlaver is a resident of the District of Columbia. The group
of similarly situated persons Mr. Mlaver wishes to represent have
paid a late fee in excess of $30 to the Defendants in the three
years after July 3, 2009.
Massachusetts Court Apartments LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, owns the building known as Mass Court located at 300
Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC. Massachusetts Court
Apartments, LLC, LLC, registered as a domestic DC sole
proprietorship, is involved in the management or operations of
Mass Court. Riverstone Residential Group, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, operates as a real estate management company in
the District of Columbia. Riverstone Group manages Mass Court.
Riverstone Residential NE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, operates as a real estate management company in DC and
was involved in the management of Massachusetts Court. Riverstone
Residential NE LLC, LLC, registered as a DC sole proprietorship,
was involved in the management of Mass Court.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Hornal
TALOS LAW
705 4th St., NW #403
Washington, DC 20001
MEDTRONIC INC: Awaits Court Approval of Minnesota Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed by the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association, according to the Company's June 26, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 27, 2012.
On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE bone
graft product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price
during the period. On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated putative class action complaint expanding the class.
The Court certified the class on December 12, 2011.
On March 30, 2012, the Company announced that the parties agreed
to a class-wide settlement, pending notification to class members
and subject to final court approval.
The Company says it has recorded an expense of $90 million related
to probable and reasonably estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in
connection with this settlement.
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings Ongoing in Canadian Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 15, 2007, Medtronic, Inc. voluntarily suspended
worldwide distribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family of
defibrillation leads. Approximately 4,000 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads were filed against the Company, including
approximately 47 putative class action lawsuits, reflecting a
total of approximately 9,000 individual personal injury cases.
The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle over
14,000 filed and unfiled claims. The Company recorded an expense
of $221 million related to probable and reasonably estimated
damages under U.S. GAAP in connection with such settlement in
fiscal year 2011, and paid out the funds in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2012.
In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On October 20, 2009,
that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class
certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial
proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense
related to damages in connection with that matter because any
potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable
under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter.
No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 27, 2012.
MISSISSIPPI: Fails to Investigate Child Abuse Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for ClarionLedger.com, reports that
Mississippi is failing to investigate most child abuse complaints
from children in its care within the required 24 hours or complete
most investigations within 30 days, a new report shows.
That is one of the findings released by the independent monitor
appointed by a federal court to oversee the state's progress in
meeting requirements of a 2008 settlement. The settlement stemmed
from a class-action lawsuit filed by a child's advocacy group in
2004 regarding the state's care of children.
The state has made some progress, but not enough, said court-
appointed monitor Grace Lopes of Washington, D.C.
"As this report documents, there is a substantial gap between the
settlement agreement's ultimate requirements and defendants'
performance levels established by the case record review,"
Ms. Lopes said.
"The case record review revealed deficiencies in fundamental
aspects of case practice, including the assessment process,
service planning and delivery, permanency planning and
investigative practices.
"These deficiencies impact the safety and well being of the
children in defendants' custody."
According to a progress report released last week, chronic under-
staffing and an inadequate data management system continue to
hamper efforts to ensure the basic safety of foster children.
Mark Smith, deputy director of the Mississippi Department of Human
Services, said the state is working diligently to satisfy the
agreement.
"It just takes a lot of money and a lot of time to get it done,"
Mr. Smith said.
Statistics collected from Jan. 1, 2009, through March 31, 2011,
show that less than 60 percent of reports of child abuse were
investigated within the required 24 hours or completed within 30
days.
Requirements also stipulate that if a child remains in the same
home after the launch of an abuse investigation, a caseworker must
visit the child twice a month for three months after the
conclusion of the investigation. The report shows that fewer than
60 percent of caseworkers made these visits.
In 2004, New York-based Children's Rights, a national children
advocacy group, filed the class-action lawsuit against the state
over how it cares for youths in its custody.
NORTH COAST: Landowners' Suit May Be Expanded as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Foster, writing for Farm and Dairy, reports that a lawsuit
filed by a Kinsman, Ohio, couple against North Coast Energy and
Enervest Operating LLC could be expanded as class action on behalf
of at least 40 other landowners.
Kenneth and Martha Cole, of Kinsman, filed the lawsuit in Trumbull
County Common Pleas Court June 18.
According to the lawsuit, the Coles claim they signed the lease
and a pooling unit document in their home July 25, 2006, in front
of the North Coast Energy representative, but a notary was not
present. The lease was to be for at least three years.
The documents were filed in the courthouse, but each document
included a different notary's stamp and name. The Coles claim
they signed the lease, but it was not notarized in front of them,
and are also accusing two notary publics of unlawfully notarizing
the oil and gas leases.
Then the lease was sold in September 2009 to Enervest Energy
Institutional Fund.
Since signing the lease, there has been no drilling for oil or gas
on their farm.
The Coles are asking the judge for a declaratory judgment and
declare the lease unenforceable since it was not notarized in
front of them.
They are also asking for other leases signed by these companies
and similarly notarized be declared unenforceable. In addition,
they are seeking court costs and attorney fees.
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's June 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30,
2012.
On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding
the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These
actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities
Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 27, 2010, and November 6,
2011, seeking unspecified damages.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations. The Company is currently unable to predict the
outcome of this complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.
ORICA: Toxic Chemical Spill Impacts Property Values
---------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Newcastle real estate agents are calling the
property market at Stockton a 'train wreck' in the wake of last
year's toxic chemical spills at the neighboring Orica plant.
Last August, the Stockton community was outraged to learn a plume
of hexavalent chromium had wafted over the homes and raised
concerns that house values would plummet.
Many residents considered a class action against Orica to seek
compensation for the likely impact on property values.
The class action didn't eventuate, but Newcastle real estate agent
Tiron Manning says there has definitely been a big drop in
interest from buyers.
"We're looking at probably about half the number of sales in that
suburb than what there has been," he said.
"I think the lowest number prior to that was in 2005 when the
market was pretty terrible anyway.
"Also on the rate of inquiry, we're just not getting people
calling or e-mailing about properties over there.
Mr. Manning says the time it takes to sell an averaged priced home
at Stockton has blown out to 257 days.
"Typically the summer months are quite strong for sale in Stockton
because there's an influx of tourists.
"But through those summer months there were next to no sales,
probably only about 3 sales in total in Stockton.
"It's also the lowest (priced) stock that's moving over there."
SHELL BRASIL: Court Knocks Down Ruling on Compensation Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston.com reports that Brazil's top labor court has knocked down
a judge's order that Shell Brasil SA and BASF SA deposit $382
million into a fund for workers allegedly contaminated at a
chemicals plant.
An e-mailed statement from the court on July 4 says its lead judge
ruled a day earlier in favor of an appeal against immediate
payment. A class-action lawsuit seeking compensation from the
companies remains before the labor court.
A federal judge in late June ordered the subsidiaries of Royal
Dutch Shell PLC and BASF SE to pay into the fund now. Prosecutors
sought the order, saying the cash should be immediately available
in case workers win the overall lawsuit.
STANDARD MICROSYSTEMS: Settles Microchip Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Microsystems Corporation entered into an agreement,
subject to court approval, to settle class action lawsuits arising
from its merger with a Microchip Technology Incorporated
subsidiary, according to the Company's June 26, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On June 22, 2012, Standard Microsystems Corporation (the "Company"
or "SMSC") and Microchip Technology Incorporated ("Microchip")
received notice of clearance from the Korea Fair Trade Commission,
the relevant antitrust authority in Korea with respect to the
transaction proposed in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of May 1, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Microchip, a
Delaware corporation, Microchip Technology Management Co., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microchip
("Merger Sub"), and the Company, pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into SMSC, with SMSC surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Microchip (the "Merger"). The parties previously
received antitrust clearance in the United States on May 18, 2012,
and in Germany on June 12, 2012. The parties await the receipt of
additional antitrust clearances in China and Turkey.
On June 25, 2012, the Company and Microchip entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in certain class
action lawsuits filed on behalf of SMSC's stockholders regarding
the settlement of those class action lawsuits that were filed
following the announcement of the Merger Agreement.
Four putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the Merger Agreement, two in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and two in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Each
of the lawsuits was filed against the Company, its directors,
Microchip and Merger Sub, on behalf of the Company's public
stockholders. On May 23, 2012, the Delaware lawsuits were
consolidated under the caption In re Standard Microsystems
Corporation Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 7522-VCP). On
May 30, 2012, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
submitted a letter requesting that the action be stayed in favor
of the New York litigation. The plaintiffs in the two New York
actions filed motions for consolidation, appointment as lead
plaintiff, approval of selection of lead counsel, and expedited
proceedings and discovery, and on June 1, 2012, the two New York
actions were consolidated under the caption In re Standard
Microsystems Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No.
14752/2012. On June 6, 2012, the court in the consolidated New
York action issued a written decision in which it directed counsel
for the two plaintiffs to work cooperatively regarding all pre-
trial procedures and settlement negotiations and to coordinate all
work assignments, activities and appearances in such a manner as
to facilitate the orderly and efficient prosecution of the
consolidated action by avoiding duplicative effort.
On June 25, 2012, counsel for the parties in all four actions
(collectively, the "Litigation") reached an agreement in principle
under which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the
Litigation. The Company and the members of its Board, together
with Microchip and Merger Sub, are referred to herein as the
"Defendants." The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among
other things, final approval of the proposed settlement by the
court in the Litigation. The settling parties agreed that the
Company will provide certain supplemental disclosures to the
Definitive Proxy Statement, which are set forth in the Company's
Current Report on Form 8-K. In exchange for these additional
disclosures, the parties to the Litigation will use their best
efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the court in the New
York consolidated action a stipulation of settlement and such
other documents as may be necessary and appropriate to obtain the
approval by the court of such stipulation and dismissal with
prejudice. The settlement also provides that the Defendants will
be released by the plaintiffs from all claims arising out of the
Merger and the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
The settlement, including the payment by the Company of attorneys'
fees, is also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger
becoming effective under applicable law. In the event that the
stipulation of settlement is not approved and such conditions are
not satisfied, the Defendants will continue to vigorously defend
the Litigation.
The settlement provides that the Defendants deny that they engaged
in any wrongdoing, committed any violation of law or acted
improperly in any way, and believe that they acted properly at all
times and that the Litigation has no merit, but wish to settle the
Litigation in order to eliminate the distraction of further
litigation.
*********
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 * * *