/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120712.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 137
Headlines
ABM SECURITY: Judge Awarded $89.7MM in Rest Break Class Action
AGILYSYS INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
AMTRAK: Judge Approves $1.99-Million Class Action Settlement
BARCLAYS BANK: Sued in New York for Manipulating LIBOR Rates
BARCLAYS PLC: May Face Libor Rigging Class Action in Australia
CANADA: Swansea Point Flood Victims in British Columbia Mull Suit
CANADA: Cab Owners in Victoria Mull Class Action Over Licenses
CANYON COUNTY, ID: ACLU Agrees to Drop Jail Class Action
CHARLES MIDDLETON: Four Firefighters File Suit Over Promotions
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: October 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GLOBAL CASH: Sued Over Lack of Notices on ATM Surcharges
HANCOCK HOLDING: Whitney Merger-Related Suits Resolved
HANCOCK HOLDING: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "LaCour" Suit
INAMED CORP: 11th Cir. Bars Individual Suit Over Breast Implants
INDYMAC BANCORP: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Fed. Ct. Rejects Lee's Claims on Robo-Signing
MSLGROUP: Description of Class Certification Ruling Disputed
ONLINE TRAVEL COS: Morgan County May Benefit From Class Action
OPNEXT INC: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Oclaro Merger
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Dismiss UFCW's RICO Suit Pending
PATRICK COLLINS: Sued for Extorting File-Sharing Site Users
PENN STATION: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
PNC FINANCIAL: Nat'l. City Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
PNC FINANCIAL: Renewed Motion for Arbitration Still Pending
SCBT FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Resolve Peoples Merger-Related Suit
STRAUSS GROUP: Sued Over False Claims on Chocolate Puddings
TERM COMMODITIES: Sued for Manipulating Cotton Future Prices
* Litigation Funders Mull Class Action v. ABC Learning's Banks
*********
ABM SECURITY: Judge Awarded $89.7MM in Rest Break Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, July 6, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John S.
Wiley awarded $89.7 million in wages, interest and penalties to a
class of approximately 15,000 former and present security guards
in the case of Augustus v. ABM Security Services. The security
guards were denied off duty rest breaks in violation of California
law. ABM previously acknowledged that all of its security guards
are required to remain on call during their so-called breaks,
which the court found to be illegal. Judge Wiley ruled: "Put
simply, if you are on call, you are not on break. That has been
the law for many years."
ABM had previously obtained an exemption from the Department of
Labor Standards Enforcements which legally allowed the guards to
take on duty breaks, but when the exemption came up for renewal,
ABM made a business decision not to renew the exemption, and
instead decided to take their chances that the court would find
their conduct to be legal.
Lead Counsel for the class, Drew Pomerance and Michael Adreani of
Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP were obviously pleased
with the ruling.
Mr. Pomerance comments, "We fought hard for seven years and are
very grateful that the court agreed with what we have all along
believed the law to be. ABM's conduct is the poster-child for how
California businesses should not behave, and it's very satisfying
to see a court finally hold them accountable."
Adreani comments, "This is a message to employers to remain
diligent in complying with California's wage and hour laws. RPNA
will continue to advise our employer clients on the proper means
of conducting business in this State."
Drew Pomerance, Esq.: 818.992.9999, dep@rpnalaw.com
Michael Adreani, Esq.: 818.992.9999, mba@rpnalaw.com
Marlena Campbell, Media: 310.728.5722, m.campbell@netwood.net
Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP (RPNA) --
http://www.rpnalaw.com-- is a Los Angeles-based law firm
providing legal counsel and representation to the California
business community. Established in 1995, the firm offers a broad
range of legal services in all facets of civil litigation, with
its primary focus on litigation, legislation and policymaking
issues involving insurance and business related concerns.
AGILYSYS INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Agilysys stiffs its
"installation specialists" for overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Jones, et al. v. Agilysys, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-03516 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/09/Employ.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian D. Chase, Esq.
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
BISNAR CHASE
1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 752-2999
E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
- and -
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
J. Jason Hill, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 "C" Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101-5305
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
jhill@ckslaw.com
AMTRAK: Judge Approves $1.99-Million Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
federal judge in Philadelphia has approved a $1.99 million
settlement agreement in a nine-year-old class action case against
railroad giant Amtrak.
U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody's final approval follows a June
25 fairness hearing in the matter between Sharyn Stagi, Winifred
Ladd and those similarly situated against the National Railroad
Passenger Corp., better known as Amtrak.
The class initiated litigation against Amtrak back in October 2003
over allegations that company policy requires all union employees
to have one year of service in their current position before they
could be considered for promotion.
The claim was that the policy had a disparate impact on female
union employees, a violation of Title VII of the federal Civil
Rights Act.
The complaint had alleged that the employment policy prohibited
newly-hired union employees, including experienced managerial
employees such as the plaintiffs, who have moved into union
positions from management as a result of layoffs, from bidding for
management positions during the first calendar year that the
employee occupied such a position.
"This prohibition burdens female employees more than men, given
the fact they are more vulnerable to layoff and reassignment to
union positions, and thus has the effect of excluding a
disproportionate number of otherwise qualified female employees
from bidding for and filling management positions," the original
complaint read. "There is no business justification for
Defendant's policy."
Ms. Stagi, the original plaintiff who initiated the case, is a
Levittown, Pa. woman who was first hired by Amtrak back in 1973 as
a union employee, and who was later promoted to a non-union
management position until she was laid off in the spring of 2002.
Levittown is located just outside of Philadelphia.
In her July 3 order, Judge Brody, of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, also approved the awarding of $1,219,467.79 in
plaintiffs' attorney fees and $180,532.08 in litigation and
settlement administration expenses.
Each named plaintiff in the case will receive a settlement of
$50,000 for a total of $1,990,000 for the class.
The settlement is worth an estimated $2.5 million over the next
four years and the class is currently estimated to have about
5,383 members, the judicial memorandum states.
The settlement includes injunctive relief and means the
elimination of Amtrak's so-called "One Year Rule," which, the
order says, will also benefit future, unionized Amtrak employees.
The plaintiffs in the case were represented by the firms Sandals &
Associates and Kolman Ely, P.C.
The litigation took nine years to play out, with attorneys
devoting more than 3,000 hours to the case, according to the
judicial order.
"Such a large number of hours represents a substantial commitment
to this litigation and weighs in favor of approving the [counsel]
fee request," Judge Brody wrote. "The record of this litigation
also indicates that the time spent by class counsel was necessary
for the successful prosecution of this case considering both the
complexity involved and the defense mounted by Amtrak."
The settlement approval puts an end to the litigation, dismissing
the matter with prejudice.
BARCLAYS BANK: Sued in New York for Manipulating LIBOR Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that to no one's surprise,
Barclays Bank is lead defendant in a federal class action filed on
July 9 in New York, accusing it of manipulating LIBOR rates. Also
sued are Citibank, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and HSBC Bank,
among others.
BARCLAYS PLC: May Face Libor Rigging Class Action in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Murdoch, writing for The Australian, reports that a class
action against the embattled British bank Barclays over the Libor
rate-rigging scandal could be launched in Australia, covering
businesses and sophisticated investors.
Law firm Slater & Gordon believes there may be Australian
businesses that sought corporate loans between 2006 and now that
would have been priced by overseas lenders using the inflated
Libor rate.
Barclays has been fined $451 million in Britain and the US after
it admitted to rigging the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate),
one of the world's major interest rate benchmarks.
The scandal has claimed Barclays chairman Marcus Agius and chief
executive Bob Diamond, who quit the bank last week.
There have been suggestions that ANZ chief executive Mike Smith
could be in the running to replace Mr. Diamond.
Besides Barclays, some other international banks are being
investigated by regulators to determine whether they were involved
in the rate-rigging. The Libor is set daily by the British
Bankers Association, based on submissions from a panel of banks on
their own borrowing costs.
Barclays admitted that it had submitted artificially low rates so
it was not seen to be having trouble accessing funding markets.
Slater & Gordon commercial and project litigation lawyer Van
Moulis said it was inevitable that some Australian businesses and
sophisticated investors would have taken loans or bought financial
products priced off the distorted Libor.
"Barclays has admitted wrongdoing and there's a number of other
banks which are under investigation at the moment, so this is
likely to be an unfolding story," Mr. Moulis said.
"We are at the early stages of a potential class action . . . the
Libor rates apply to sophisticated financial instruments.
"The people most likely to be affected would be big to medium-
sized (entities) that have taken out corporate loans where the
interest rate is linked to Libor."
Mr. Moulis said investors who bought interest rate swaps, forward
rate swaps or participated in syndicated lending deals could have
been affected by the rigged rate.
A class action would initially target Barclays but could be
expanded to other banks found to have acted improperly.
The Bank of England has been drawn into the scandal, with claims
it was aware the banks were not submitting their true borrowing
costs.
The central bank's deputy governor, Paul Tucker, and Mr. Agius
were due to give evidence overnight at a London parliamentary
hearing into the Barclays scandal.
CANADA: Swansea Point Flood Victims in British Columbia Mull Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHBC News reports that Swansea Point residents still recovering
from a mudslide and flooding last month are considering launching
a class action lawsuit against the provincial government.
On June 23, debris plugged up a culvert and unleashed a torrent of
water on the neighborhood. The clean-up is now in its second week
and while some homes need extensive repairs, others have been
deemed unsafe.
But adding to the frustration of the clean-up is the fact that a
similar flash flood ripped through the area nearly 15 years ago.
In that instance, 92,000 cubic meters of debris crashed down on
the neighborhood. At the time, the B.C. government proposed the
construction of a bridge to allow water to flow through the area
more smoothly. The bridge never materialized and that has
residents fuming.
"Somebody has got to be held accountable for when things go wrong
and you know there are ways to fix them and it is not being done,"
said Swansea Point resident Glenn Statler.
"I think you can almost predict that this will happen if they
don't do something proper," said fellow Swansea Point resident Ben
Adama.
Residents say the province's failure to replace the culvert with a
bridge and catchment area contributed to the recent flood
problems.
Residents voted against the proposal back in 1997 since the
province wanted them to maintain the catchment area.
"That would have been the only one in the province that the local
residents were asked to pay for. So when it went to referendum,
the people in the community voted it down," said CSRD electoral
area E director Rhona Martin.
Ms. Martin intends to lobby the province to replace the culvert
this time around.
"It made perfect sense to put a bridge in. I still think that
they should put a bridge in," she said.
CHBC News contacted the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure but was told a representative was not available for
comment on July 6. Shuswap MLA George Abbott did not return calls
from CHBC News.
CANADA: Cab Owners in Victoria Mull Class Action Over Licenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Houston, writing for The Age, reports that the owners of
Victoria's 5,200 taxis will consider a class action legal
challenge against the Baillieu government if it adopts a
controversial recommendation by former ACCC chief Alan Fels to
slash the value of licenses.
Several owners have already sought legal advice over the plan to
issue new licenses for $100,000 over five years, which would
depreciate the value of existing licenses that cost about
$500,000, Victorian Taxi Association spokesman David Samuels said
at an industry rally on July 7.
"Our first priority is to work with the government, but people's
livelihoods are at stake and they obviously need to consider their
legal options."
More than 1,000 taxi owners and drivers met at Dallas Brooks
Centre on July 7 to consider their response to Professor Fels'
report, which includes 145 recommendations to reform the state's
ailing taxi industry.
CANYON COUNTY, ID: ACLU Agrees to Drop Jail Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Rodine, writing for Idaho Statesman, reports that Canyon
County Sheriff Chris Smith and Chief Deputy Gary Deulen continue
to deny all allegations in the class-action lawsuit but agreed to
several specific steps to address concerns voiced in the
complaint.
In return, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho agrees to
drop the lawsuit. Both sides signed the agreement, which must be
finalized by the signature of a federal judge.
"We are satisfied with the outcome on this," ACLU-Idaho Executive
Director Monica Hopkins said on July 6. "We're just waiting for
the judge to sign off."
"We commend the administrators for responding promptly to the
concerns, and we feel they've dealt appropriately with it,"
Ms. Hopkins said.
Messrs. Smith and Deulen could not be reached for comment on
July 6. Sam Laugheed, chief civil deputy prosecutor for Canyon
County, declined to comment until the judge signs the settlement.
As part of the settlement, the county will establish a zero-
tolerance policy against "actual or threatened retaliation against
prisoners." Protected activities under the policy include
submitting a grievance, contacting or attempting to contact an
attorney or advocate about the situation, complaining or alerting
officials about unsafe or unsanitary jail conditions and talking
with other prisoners about jail conditions.
The county also agrees to train all jail staff, including
administrators, about the policy and vows never to transfer an
inmate for submitting a grievance. Whenever an inmate is
transferred to another jail or a different living unit within the
Canyon jail, staff will notify that inmate of the reasons for the
transfer.
The ACLU, which previously sued Canyon County over conditions
caused by chronic jail overcrowding, filed the class-action suit
last November, alleging Mr. Deulen ordered that an inmate be
transferred to a different facility in retaliation for the inmate
filing numerous complaints and keeping in contact with the ACLU.
The suit also alleged that Messrs. Smith and Deulen "maintain a
policy and practice of retaliating against prisoners who file
grievances that allege unconstitutional conditions of
confinement."
In their formal response to the lawsuit, Messrs. Deulen and Smith
acknowledged the inmate's complaints and transfer but said the
action was not retaliatory. They also denied violating any
inmate's rights.
No money is called for in the settlement, although an agreement
has yet to be reached concerning the ACLU's attorney fees. The
county paid the civil rights organization $190,000 in 2009 to
cover lawyers' fees in the ACLU's previous Canyon jail lawsuit.
CHARLES MIDDLETON: Four Firefighters File Suit Over Promotions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Conn, writing for Savannahnow.com, reports that four
Savannah firefighters are suing Chief Charles Middleton and
seeking an injunction to keep promotions of some fellow
firefighters from becoming permanent.
The four allege that 13 fellow officers promoted to master
firefighter or captain did not meet the minimum education
requirements and that Mr. Middleton promoted them "based on
personal favoritism and bias."
The promotions were awarded July 12, 2011, and under the Civil
Service Act those who were given them will end their one-year
probationary status on July 5. The plaintiffs want the injunction
to keep those who they claim were wrongly awarded the positions
from being able to claim a vested right in the jobs.
Mr. Middleton, through department spokesman Mark Keller, responded
he was aware of the suit, which is under review by the city
attorney's office.
The city of Savannah also is a defendant. The city attorney's
office responded it offers no response on pending litigation.
The firefighters, identified as Simon Wilson, Milton Sikes, Jason
Bouchea and Ryan Stigall, are seeking class-action status. They
contend the class eligible for promotions numbers about 50
firefighters.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Atlanta law firm of Parks,
Chesin and Walbert. A call to their office seeking comment was
not returned Friday.
The suit alleges that fire administration and city personnel
either failed to verify the accuracy of candidates' educational
qualifications or ignored insufficient qualifications, which
amounts to a breach of the city's statutory obligation.
The four are seeking a permanent injunction to remove any
firefighters not qualified to hold their positions and to require
Mr. Middleton to name qualified replacements from the promotional
roster. They also are asking that every firefighter in the class
receive back wages from the date they should have been promoted.
Mr. Middleton has faced recent criticism for hiring and promotion
practices. In February, a group of black firefighters and members
of the National Action Network, a civil rights group backed by the
Rev. Al Sharpton, called on city leaders to investigate
Mr. Middleton. The city's own data shows that the number of black
firefighters has dwindled, dropping from 29 percent of the
department in 1995 to 18 percent in 2011.
The four who are suing are white.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: October 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven on July 9 issued a statement regarding the E*TRADE
Financial Corporation Securities Class Action.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LARRY FREUDENBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, against E*TRADE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, MITCHELL H. CAPLAN, ROBERT J. SIMMONS and DENNIS E.
WEBB, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 07 Civ. 8538 (JPO) (MHD)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of E*TRADE Financial Corporation between April 19,
2006 and November 9, 2007, both dates inclusive.
This Summary Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Court"),
dated June 12, 2012. The purpose of this Summary Notice is to
inform you of the proposed settlement of the above-entitled class
action ("Action") against defendants E*TRADE Financial Corporation
("E*TRADE"), Mitchell H. Caplan, Robert J. Simmons, and Dennis E.
Webb (collectively, "Defendants").
A Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Paul
Oetken, United States District Judge, at the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, at 3:00 p.m. on October 11, 2012 in order: (1) to determine
whether the Court should grant certification to the Settlement
Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3); (2) to
determine whether the Settlement consisting of $79,000,000 in cash
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class and the proposed Judgment entered; (3) to
determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds
of the Settlement is fair and reasonable, and should be approved
by the Court; (4) to determine whether the applications by
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed
one-third of the Settlement Amount and up to $750,000 in
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses should be approved; and
(5) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired E*TRADE securities between
April 19, 2006 and November 9, 2007 (both dates inclusive), and
are not otherwise excluded from the Settlement Class, you are a
Settlement Class Member. Settlement Class Members will be bound
by the final judgment of the Court. If you are a Settlement Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than October 31, 2012, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. If you are a Settlement Class Member and need an
additional Proof of Claim, copies may be obtained by telephoning
the Claims Administrator at 1-800-903-8296 or by downloading the
form on the internet at http://www.gcginc.com
If you do not wish to be included in the Settlement Class and you
do not wish to participate in the proposed Settlement, you may
request to be excluded, in the manner set forth in the full Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), no later than
September 10, 2012. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class, and you wish to object to the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of expenses, you may
submit a written objection. You also may, but are not required
to, appear at the Settlement Hearing. You must file and serve any
written objection, in the manner specifically set forth in the
Notice, no later than September 10, 2012. The procedures that
MUST be followed for Settlement Class Members to request exclusion
from the Settlement Class or to object to the Settlement, the Plan
of Allocation and/or application for attorneys' fees and/or
reimbursement of expenses are set forth in full in the Notice.
You are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice, which includes,
among other things, a description of: (1) the litigation in the
Action prior to the Settlement; (2) the terms of the proposed
Settlement; (3) the benefits of the Settlement to the Settlement
Class; (4) the Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the
Settlement; (5) the rights of Settlement Class Members; (6) the
release of claims against Defendants and their Related Parties;
(7) the application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses;
and (8) additional details concerning the Settlement Hearing,
excluding oneself from the Settlement Class and/or objecting to
the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the application for
attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of expenses.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
For additional information, you may contact the Claims
Administrator at the following address:
E*TRADE Securities Class Action
Claims Administrator
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
PO Box 9888
Dublin, OH 43017-5788
1-800-903-8296
Dated: June 12, 2012
J. Paul Oetken UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
GLOBAL CASH: Sued Over Lack of Notices on ATM Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for VegasInc, reports that even as questions
swirl about their validity, more lawsuits were filed on July 6
over Nevada casino ATMs that may have lacked notices about
surcharges.
Three lawsuits seeking class-action status were filed in U.S.
District Court against Las Vegas-based casino ATM operator Global
Cash Access Inc.
Each of the suits involved a different ATM at Planet Hollywood
hotel-casino on the Las Vegas Strip.
The suits were filed by attorneys Joseph Gutierrez in Las Vegas
and Mark Golovach in San Diego. The plaintiffs are Steve and
Sandra Klemetson and Damon Terrell, all of Riverside County,
Calif.
The suits say the plaintiffs used separate ATM machines at the
casino and were each charged a $4.99 surcharge for withdrawing
cash. They allege violations of the federal Electronic Fund
Transfer Act since, according to the plaintiffs, notices weren't
posted on the machines warning consumers of the surcharge.
The suits seek unspecified damages on behalf of the three proposed
classes of plaintiffs who used the three machines as well as costs
and attorney's fees.
The same attorneys filed two lawsuits on behalf of Steve Klemetson
in April against the Golden Nugget Laughlin and ATM operators
there targeting the same alleged violations involving two ATM
machines.
In those lawsuits, the Golden Nugget is fighting back and has
claimed Mr. Klemetson lacked standing to sue because it believes
the only reason he used its ATMs was to incite lawsuits.
"Plaintiff initiated the alleged ATM transaction with actual
knowledge that a fee would be charged and engaged in the
transaction for the non-consumer purpose of creating a class
action claim for statutory penalties and attorney's fees," said
May 24 court filings by attorney Kara Hendricks of the law firm
Greenberg Traurig LLP in Las Vegas, representing the Golden
Nugget.
Ms. Hendricks also argued Mr. Klemetson's suits are barred by his
"unclean hands" since he paid surcharges only after he was warned
of them by on-screen notices and pushed a button to voluntarily
proceed with the transactions.
A request for comment on these assertions was placed with
Mr. Klemetson's attorneys.
Global Cash Access, in the meantime, said in a statement on July 6
about the new lawsuits that it will be looking into them.
"At this time, we are reviewing the allegations in the complaints
and intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. We take our
compliance obligations very seriously, and we routinely survey our
ATMs to ensure that the appropriate physical labeling and notices
are affixed to the ATMs that we operate," the company said in a
statement.
This isn't the first time GCA has had to deal with a lawsuit over
the fee disclosure issue. In 2010, it or its insurers spent
$500,000 to settle a class-action suit filed by a patron at the
Meadows Casino in Pennsylvania. The company didn't admit
liability in that case.
And Terrell, one of the plaintiffs in the July 6 lawsuits, is also
a plaintiff in seven lawsuits filed last year in California --
including two against Global Cash Access. The GCA cases involve
separate ATMs at the Pechanga casino in Temecula, Calif.
One of his suits, not involving GCA, was against the Commerce
Casino in the Los Angeles area. Mr. Golovach represented Terrell
in all seven lawsuits.
The July 6 lawsuits are on top of 17 suits filed in federal court
in Las Vegas last October by a Los Angeles County man, Thomas
Chayra, alleging ATM fee disclosure violations at casinos and
other businesses around Southern Nevada.
Most of those suits are still being litigated. He's represented
by Las Vegas attorney Mark Henness.
The ATM industry, in the meantime, is hoping Congress will this
session pass a bill ending what the industry calls "frivolous" ATM
lawsuits.
In a statement last month, the House Financial Services Committee
said it had approved bipartisan legislation eliminating "a
redundant fee disclosure requirement."
"The current law, which requires a sticker or sign about
transaction fees to be attached to the ATM in addition to an on-
screen notice, has spawned lawsuits by enterprising plaintiffs and
vandals who remove the sticker or sign so they can then sue the
ATM operator for being in violation of the law," the committee
said, adding consumers would still be protected since they can
still decline to execute transactions involving surcharges by
following on-screen prompts.
HANCOCK HOLDING: Whitney Merger-Related Suits Resolved
------------------------------------------------------
Hancock Holding Company related in its May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that three complaints related to its
acquisition of Whitney Holding Corporation have been resolved and
dismissed.
Effective June 4, 2011, Hancock completed the acquisition of all
of the outstanding common stock of Whitney Holding Corporation, a
bank holding company based in New Orleans, Louisiana, in a stock
and cash transaction. Whitney common shareholders received 0.418
shares of Hancock common stock in exchange for each share of
Whitney stock, resulting in Hancock issuing 40,794,261 common
shares at a fair value of $1.3 billion. The Whitney TARP
preferred stock plus warrants of $307.7 million was purchased by
the Company as part of the merger transaction. In total, the
purchase price was approximately $1.6 billion based on the fair
value on the acquisition date of Hancock common stock exchanged
and the options to purchase Hancock common stock, and cash paid
for the TARP preferred stock and warrant.
In January 2011, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans of the State of
Louisiana captioned De LaPouyade v. Whitney Holding Corporation,
et al. The substantive allegations of the De LaPouyade lawsuit is
related to the merger between Whitney Holding Corporation and
Hancock Holding Company. Thereafter, in February 2011, a
complaint in intervention was filed by the Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System ("MPERS") in the De LaPouyade
case. Additionally, in February 2011, another putative
shareholder class action lawsuit related to the merger, Realistic
Partners v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In
April 2011, another putative shareholder class action lawsuit
related to the merger, Jane Doe v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00794-ILRL-JCW, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. All of
these proceedings have been settled and dismissed, Hancock related
in its latest Form 10-Q filing with the SEC.
On May 5, 2011, the parties in the Jane Doe action entered into a
stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of that action.
On May 17, 2011, the parties in the Realistic Partners action
entered into a stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal
of that action.
On April 11, 2012, the court in the De LaPouyade action entered an
order certifying the class, giving final approval to a settlement
agreed to between the parties, and dismissing the action with
prejudice. The financial terms of the settlement were not
material.
Hancock Holding Company -- http://www.hancockbank.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides financial and banking services
in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
The Company operates 300 banking and financial services offices
and 400 automated teller machines. It was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi.
HANCOCK HOLDING: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "LaCour" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Bank, a company acquired by Hancock Holding Company, is
awaiting preliminary court approval of a negotiated deal design to
resolve the putative class action captioned Angelique LaCour, et
al., v. Whitney Bank, according to Hancock's May 9, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.
The class action was filed by Ms. LaCour on August 22, 2011, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
Whitney Bank relating to the imposition of overdraft fees and non-
sufficient fund fees on demand deposit accounts. Plaintiff alleges
that Whitney's methodology for posting transactions to customer
accounts, which Plaintiff claims was designed to maximize the
generation of overdraft fees, is unfair and unconscionable.
Plaintiff further alleges that Whitney failed to provide its
customers with sufficient notice of those practices or an
opportunity to opt-out. Plaintiff's Complaint includes claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation
E. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, actual damages, injunctive
relief, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.
The class action lawsuit is subject to a pending settlement
agreement. A motion for preliminary approval of said settlement
was filed in federal court on April 12, 2012. The Company had
established a liability for the proposed settlement in the fourth
quarter of 2011.
Hancock Holding Company -- http://www.hancockbank.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides financial and banking services
in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
The Company operates 300 banking and financial services offices
and 400 automated teller machines. It was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi.
INAMED CORP: 11th Cir. Bars Individual Suit Over Breast Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling that barred an individual from pursuing a
2006 personal injury suit against Inamed Corporation and its
successor, Allergan, Inc., alleging injuries caused by defective
silicone breast implants. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the
U.S. District Court in Alabama that a 1999 class settlement
precluded Zuzanna Juris from prosecuting her individual case.
At one point in the 1990s, more than 15,000 lawsuits were pending
against Inamed across the country. In 1999, District Court Judge
Sam Pointer in Alabama approved a mandatory, limited fund class
settlement, which resolved tens of thousands of claims arising out
of injuries allegedly caused by defective silicone breast implants
manufactured by Inamed, and that ultimately saved the company from
bankruptcy. Each claimant received $725. Class counsel received
no fees out of the Inamed settlement fund. The Order was not
appealed.
In 2006, Ms. Juris filed an individual action in California state
court against Inamed and Allerga. The defendants contended that
Ms. Juris's lawsuit was barred because the 1999 class settlement
resolved her claims; Ms. Juris posited that she could avoid the
settlement's res judicata effect on due process grounds.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision indicates that throughout the
1990s, each audit letter prepared by Inamed's independent auditing
firm, Coopers & Lybrand, included a qualified opinion expressing
"substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern." For fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997, Inamed
reported pre-tax operating losses of $8.6 million, $6.0 million,
and $6.6 million, respectively. By the end of 1997, the company's
consolidated book value -- subtracting liabilities from assets --
was negative $10.9 million. Setting aside the $9.2 million
contingent liability booked in 1994 in anticipation of the
proposed global settlement, Inamed's book value was still negative
$1.7 million.
Inamed came close to filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision noted that, had Inamed elected to
pursue Chapter 7 bankruptcy at the end of 1997, the company's
saleable assets, discounted by the impairment likely to result
from a forced liquidation, would have totaled between $11.4
million and $20.4 million. From this sum, senior secured
noteholders would have been entitled to $19 million, leaving
unsecured creditors -- trade creditors, subordinated noteholders
and tort claimants -- with somewhere between $0 and $1.4 million.
At best, the tort claimants would have been left to compete for
$1.4 million against trade creditors, with rights to payment
valued at $12.5 million, and subordinated noteholders, with rights
to payment valued at $10 million.
Inamed's senior secured noteholders agreed to advance funds to
Inamed on the condition that the settlement would be mandatory and
not exceeding $31.5 million. The senior creditors had no
obligation to contribute funds. The Class Plaintiffs' counsel
ultimately accepted the comparative benefit of the $31.5 million
limited fund, obtained by Inamed from the senior secured
noteholders, as the only available resolution.
For fiscal year 1998, Inamed's net sales increased by 24%. It
reported a net income in 1998, compared to a substantial net loss
in 1997. However, Inamed's book value in 1998 was still negative
$15,625,000, and it remained a debt-ridden company. By 1999,
Inamed began reporting a much improved operating income, openly
attributing its profitability to settling the breast implant
litigation and an aggressive cost-reduction program. On Sept. 1,
1999, Inamed purchased Collagen Aesthetics, Inc., for roughly $159
million, the funding for which was provided by substantial
borrowing. Nevertheless, even after undergoing a public offering
to raise proceeds to pay the debt incurred in the purchase,
Inamed's financial viability remained precarious.
On March 23, 2006, Allergan purchased substantially all of
Inamed's outstanding common stock, as well as its wholly owned
subsidiary, McGhan Medical Corporation.
The case is ZUZANNA JURIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INAMED
CORPORATION, McGHAN MEDICAL CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellees,
No. 10-12665 (11th Cir.). A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's
July 6, 2012 decision is available at http://is.gd/096pZCfrom
Leagle.com.
INDYMAC BANCORP: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that some leaders of the failed
IndyMac Bancorp have agreed to settle a shareholder class-action
lawsuit for $6.5 million.
The lawsuit names former IndyMac CEO Michael W. Perry and Chief
Financial Officer Scott Keys as defendants.
IndyMac collapsed in July 2008, and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. took over the Pasadena, Calif.-based mortgage lender.
IndyMac was one of the largest mortgage originators in the United
States, and its collapse marked one of the biggest bank failures
in U.S. history.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit represent shareholders who bought the
mortgage lender's stock from March 1, 2007 to May 12, 2008. The
lawsuit accused the defendants of making statements that concealed
the true extent of IndyMac's deteriorating capital and liquidity
as well as its growing exposure to regulatory action, among other
claims.
The payment will be made in exchange for a dismissal of the claims
against the defendant, according to federal court papers filed
last week.
The proposed settlement represents "a reasonable resolution" for
the case and eliminates the chance that shareholders may recover
nothing, according to a shareholders' motion for preliminary
approval filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Fed. Ct. Rejects Lee's Claims on Robo-Signing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge J. Michael Seabright for the District of Hawaii
granted in part and denied in part Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action over
alleged illegal property foreclosures.
The class action is captioned JUANITA FAYE PUALANI LEE,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; COUNTRYWIDE BANK,
FSB; and DOES 1-10, Civil No. 10-00687 JMS/BMK (D. Hawaii). Under
the lawsuit, the Plaintiff complained that MERS had no authority
to foreclose on her home property.
The Plaintiff entered into a mortgage loan transaction in 2007
with Aegis Wholesale Corporation for $728,000 to purchase her home
property. MERS acted solely as nominee for Aegis successors.
MERS, in December 2008, asserted the Plaintiff was in default of
her mortgage; filed an intention notice to foreclose the property;
and set up an auction. Countrywide won the auction with a
$495,000 bid. In its lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that MERS's
rights as nominee under the mortgage terminated when Aegis filed
for bankruptcy also in 2007.
Judge Seabright noted that the Plaintiff has apparently accepted
in court documents submitted that Aegis transferred the mortgage
loan to Countrywide before it declared for bankruptcy. The judge
also notes that the allegations that MERS used "robo-signers" to
falsely sign and notarize loan documents are wholly speculative.
To this end, Judge Seabright granted MERS's plea to dismiss
Plaintiff's claim on Aegis bankruptcy and based on robo-signing,
without leave to amend. The Court also dismissed the Plaintiff's
claim for MERS's violation of Section 667-5 of the Hawaii Revised
Statutes, saying that Section 667-5 does not create any
requirement limiting when, after public sale, the mortgagee can
demand payment of the balance of the bid price.
The Court however denied MERS's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
claim for failure to properly notify Plaintiff of the default
before seeking foreclosure.
Judge Seabright further opined that Plaintiff is not entitled to
an accounting. "If she is able to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, she may seek such information through discovery."
The Court gives the Plaintiff authority to file a second amended
complaint, if she wants to, no later than July 16, 2012.
A copy of the Hawaii District Court's June 27, 2012 order is
available at http://is.gd/pQikr3from Leagle.com.
Juanita Lee is represented by Frederick J. Arensmeyer, Esq. --
farensmeyer@dubiniaw.net -- and Gary Victor Dubin, Esq. --
gdubin@dubinlaw.net -- of Dubin Law Offices.
MERS is represented by Stephanie E.W. Thompson, Esq. --
sthompson@starnlaw.com -- of Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher and
Robert M. Brochin, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP --
rbrochin@morganlewis.com , PRO HAC VICE.
Countrywide Bank is represented by Patricia J. McHenry, Esq. --
pmchenry@cades.com -- of Cades Schutte.
MSLGROUP: Description of Class Certification Ruling Disputed
------------------------------------------------------------
On MSLGroup's Web site, the Company claims that U.S. District
Court Judge Andrew L. Carter's June 29, 2012 order granting
conditional certification to the Company's women VPs and SVPs "was
a procedural ruling only and not unexpected" and that the Court
had "made no decision as to whether the case may proceed as a
class action." But in a statement issued on July 6, 2012, Janette
Wipper -- jwipper@swhlegal.com -- a partner at Sanford Wittels &
Heisler, LLP, the plaintiffs' lead counsel, strongly contested
MSL's characterization of Judge Carter's certification decision.
"MSLGroup's assertion on its Web site that the decision was
'expected' and simply 'procedural' differs from its lawyer's
statements in Court," said Ms. Wipper.
MSLGroup and Publicis Groupe consistently argued in their briefs
that plaintiffs could not obtain conditional certification and
that it would be 'unprecedented' for Judge Carter to order such
relief. The very first line of the papers MSLGroup submitted to
the Court on March 19, 2012, claims: 'Plaintiffs ask this Court to
make an unprecedented ruling . . . .' The papers go on to state
that 'federal courts have conditionally certified fewer than ten
[Equal Pay Act] cases in nearly 50 years . . . .' They certainly
conveyed to the Court that ordering certification would be an
unexpected result with a significant impact on the lawsuit."
"Furthermore," noted Ms. Wipper, "MSLGroup hired an MIT-educated
expert in hopes of refuting Plaintiffs' statistical evidence in
support of conditional certification." In his written opinion,
Judge Carter decided that plaintiffs had provided "sufficient
information that because of a common pay scale, [plaintiffs] were
paid lower than the wages paid to men for the performance of
substantially equal work." The Judge relied on the findings of
plaintiffs' statistical expert, Dr. Janice Madden, that female VPs
and SVPs at Publicis Groupe were paid 8.5% to 11.2% less annually
than male VPs and SVPs. The judge also stated he was ordering
notice of conditional certification to be sent to over a hundred
of the Company's current and former female Vice Presidents and
Senior Vice Presidents, so that they could join the class.
According to Steven Wittels -- swittels@swhlegal.com -- counsel
for the plaintiffs and the class, MSL's erroneous description of
Judge Carter's decision is no accident: "MSL is downplaying Judge
Carter's extremely important ruling in an attempt to chill
participation in the lawsuit from women whose rights to equal pay
and equal job treatment have been violated." The plaintiffs and
the class are represented by Janette Wipper, Steven Wittels, Siham
Nurhussein, and Deepika Bains -- dbains@swhlegal.com -- of Sanford
Wittels & Heisler, LLP. In 2010, Sanford Wittels & Heisler
settled the nation's largest gender discrimination class action,
after winning a $253 million verdict from a federal jury in New
York.
About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP Sanford Wittels & Heisler is
a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San
Francisco that specializes in employment discrimination, wage and
hour, qui tam and consumer actions and complex corporate class
action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in
major class action cases in the United States. The firm also
represents individual clients in employment, employment
discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public
accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and personal
injury matters.
ONLINE TRAVEL COS: Morgan County May Benefit From Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Prochaska, writing for Morgan County Citizen, reports that
Morgan County may benefit from a class action lawsuit between
numerous Georgia cities and counties and several online travel
companies, such as Orbitz, Hotels.com, Priceline and Expedia.
The City of Rome, Hart County and the City of Cartersville filed
suit in November of 2005 against online hotel reservation
companies, claiming said companies should be taxed on rates they
charge their customers instead of solely on the discounted rates
they pay local hotels.
"You reserve a room, you pay, let's say, $100. They charge you
the local hotel/motel tax on that $100, but Hotels.com isn't
paying $100 for that hotel room," explained Morgan County Attorney
Christian Henry. "It's only paying a discounted rate to the
hotels. So that discounted rate might be $50. The hotel/motel
tax on $50 isn't what they charge to the consumer. So they pocket
the difference in what they're actually paying in hotel/motel tax
. . ."
Morgan County had the choice to remain a plaintiff member and
submit information regarding its hotel excise tax ordinance,
remain a plaintiff member and object to the settlement or exclude
itself from the class list of local government entities.
The Board of Commissioners agreed to take part in the lawsuit
several weeks ago.
A partial settlement would provide cash payments for hotel excise
taxes to the class members from May 16, 2011 (with interest at 7
percent until paid) and going forward. A final approval hearing
is scheduled for August 16, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. at the Federal
Courthouse in Rome, Ga.
At that time, The Court will decide how much to pay Class Council
if it approves the settlement.
Mr. Henry said the county is not responsible for legal fees and
that the county can only benefit from the lawsuit, though it's
speculative how much.
OPNEXT INC: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Oclaro Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Opnext, Inc. has reached an understanding to settle the previously
disclosed class action lawsuit in California captioned Martin
Zilberberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12623460 (and the cases
consolidated with the Zilberberg action, other than the Wright
action, which was voluntarily dismissed on July 5, 2012) and the
previously disclosed class action lawsuit in Delaware captioned In
re Opnext, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7400-VCL,
respectively (collectively, the "Merger Litigation"). The Merger
Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of March 26, 2012, by and among Oclaro, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Oclaro, and Opnext.
The Company agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The other defendants and
all named plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation are parties to the
settlement, which provides, among other things, that the parties
will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides
for the conditional certification of the Zilberberg Action as a
non opt-out class action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure 382 and California Rule of Court 3.769 on behalf of a
class consisting of all record and beneficial owners of Opnext
common stock during the period beginning on March 26, 2012,
through the date of the consummation of the proposed merger,
including any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, and the release of all asserted
claims. The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the California court.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the California and
Delaware courts will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. The settlement will not
affect the merger consideration to be received by Opnext
stockholders or the timing of the special meeting of Opnext
stockholders scheduled for July 17, 2012.
Additionally, as part of the settlement, Opnext has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Dismiss UFCW's RICO Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceuticals Companies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative
federal class action brought by the United Food and Commercial
Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund (UFCW)
under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act is pending, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.
The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the
United States Office of Personnel Management (the USOPM) have
issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan,
Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative
demands, to the Company. The demands generally request documents
and information pertaining to allegations that certain of the
Company's sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to
substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine
tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets
for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some
state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage
form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. The
Company said it has provided documents in response to these
subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. The
aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands
culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on
behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza.
The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States
intervened in the action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate
complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of
the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of
Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising
under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud,
and unjust enrichment. The Company intends to vigorously defend
these lawsuits.
The Company has also been named a defendant in a putative federal
class action brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers
Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund (UFCW) under the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
alleging the same general conduct as set forth in the preceding
paragraph. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
brought by UFCW on March 26, 2012. It intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. operates primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., in two business
segments. Its generic products division, Par Pharmaceutical,
develops (including through third party development arrangements
and product acquisitions), manufactures and distributes generic
pharmaceuticals in the United States. Its branded products
division, Strativa Pharmaceuticals, manufactures and distributes
branded pharmaceuticals in the United States.
PATRICK COLLINS: Sued for Extorting File-Sharing Site Users
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that pornography
distributors have "a new business model": threatening to sue
Internet users for illegally downloading -- whether they have or
not -- using the threat of embarrassment to shake them down for
thousands of dollars, a class action claims in Federal Court.
Named plaintiff Jennifer Barker sued four California-based
companies: Patrick Collins Inc., Malibu Media, K-Beech, and Third
Degree Films, and London-based Raw Films. She claims the porn
distributors have "a new business model" which uses the court
system to "extort" money from users of file-sharing sites who have
never downloaded their videos.
"These entities, various pornography purveyors, have filed suit in
numerous venues seeking to extort money from individuals they
claim have downloaded pornography from the Internet," the
complaint states. "The pornography purveyors utilize a technique
known as trolling, whereby individuals hired by the various
pornography purveyors search for Internet protocol (IP) addresses
associated with the use of file sharing software such as
BitTorrent. Once the IP addresses have been harvested, the
various pornography purveyors file suit naming defendants as John
Doe. They then seek to have mass subpoenas issued for the
Internet providers associated with the harvested IP addresses in
order to obtain the name and address of the owner of the IP
address on the date it was harvested. Recently, the pornography
purveyors have begun using the court system of the state of
Florida to file true bill of discovery lawsuits in which they seek
only to extract the names and addresses of individuals associated
with the various IP addresses.
"Once they obtain contact information, the pornography purveyors
begin to shake down these individuals by telephone. The tactics
of the pornography purveyors clearly indicate that they are not
convinced that the individuals they accuse of downloading
pornography from the Internet have actually done so. This is true
because they often shake the individuals down for $1,000 - $5,000.
The pornography purveyors know that this amount of money is less
than the cost of defense would be if suit were filed. They also
know that individuals such as the plaintiff in this matter are
embarrassed to have their names associated with pornography, and
therefore, are susceptible to being shaken down. In fact, if the
individuals could be proven to have downloaded the pornography
unlawfully from the Internet, the pornography purveyors could
collect civil statutory damages of $150,000 for a willful
infringement such as they allege, yet they settle for $1,000 -
$5,000.
"In effect, the pornography purveyors have developed a new
business model using the court system to extort money from
individuals who are merely identified by IP address and with no
proof whatsoever that they downloaded copyrighted materials from
the Internet. By extorting settlements of $1,000 - $5,000 the
pornography purveyors have developed a model whereby they can
unlawfully gain more money than they can by selling access to
their pornographic videos."
Ms. Barker, of Louisville, claims a representative of the porn
distributors called her in May, accusing her of illegally
downloading videos from a porn site.
She says the representative falsely claimed that Ms. Barker was a
defendant in a lawsuit pending in Dade County, Fla., though she
had not received a subpoena for her IP address.
Ms. Barker says the defendants asked her to pay a settlement or
"she would be identified publicly as having downloaded pornography
and would be subject to hundreds of thousands of dollars as a
judgment if the suit went forward because there were multiple
downloads."
Ms. Barker says she was not familiar with file-sharing software
and had never downloaded any pornography from the Internet.
Ms. Barker says she refused to pay, but many other people who
received similar phone calls chose to settle, though they had
never downloaded porn from the defendants' Web sites.
Ms. Barker claims to represent more than 200,000 people who were
pressured into "settling" lawsuits filed by porn distributors who
alleged copyright infringement.
She claims the porn distributors used "improper litigation
tactics" by hiring an entity to "negotiate settlements" on their
behalf, even though their lawsuits did not seek any damages, but
merely sought access to contact information associated with
certain IP addresses.
"The pornography industry has begun a campaign to shake down users
of file sharing technology such as BitTorrent as well as
individuals who have never used any file sharing technology," the
complaint states. "Often these targets of the pornography
industry have had their IP address 'spoofed,' a process whereby an
IP address is forged and made to appear to be an IP address other
than the actual IP address of the person using the Internet.
Others have been the victims of a compromised home network that
has been used by others unbeknownst to the owner of the network.
Furthermore, even if the IP address has been correctly identified,
the mere fact of ownership of the IP address does not in any way
indicate that the owner participated in an unlawful download of
copyrighted material."
Ms. Barker seeks class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages for RICO violations, fraud, defamation, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment.
Defendants K-Beech and Third Degree are based in Chatsworth,
Calif., which CBS News called the "epicenter" of the U.S.
pornography industry. Patrick Collins is based in Canoga Park,
and Malibu Media in Malibu, according to the complaint.
A copy of the Complaint in Barker v. Patrick Collins, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12cv00372 (W.D. Ky.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/09/NoPorn.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Henry, Esq.
HENRY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
331 Townepark Circle, Suite 200
Louisville, KY 40243
Telephone: (502) 245-9100
PENN STATION: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Penn Station restaurants and
Heartland Payments Systems "damaged tens of thousands of people"
by allowing their credit card information to be stolen, a customer
claims in a class action in Cuyahoga County Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Fielder v. Penn Station, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-786489 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga Cty.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/09/IDTheft.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Michael R. Rudick, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
mrudick@dworkenlaw.com
PNC FINANCIAL: Nat'l. City Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio federal court entered final approval to a settlement
resolving a securities lawsuit filed against National City
Corporation, a company The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
acquired, according to PNC's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
In January 2008, a lawsuit (In re National City Corporation
Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation (MDL No. 2003, Case No:
1:08-nc-70004-SO) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against National City and certain
officers and directors of National City. As amended, the lawsuit
was brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of National
City's stock during the period April 30, 2007 to April 21, 2008
and also on behalf of everyone who acquired National City stock
pursuant to a registration statement filed in connection with its
acquisition of MAF Bancorp in 2007. The amended complaint alleged
violations of federal securities laws regarding public statements
and disclosures relating to, among other things, the nature,
quality, performance, and risks of National City's non-prime,
residential construction, and National Home Equity portfolios, its
loan loss reserves, its financial condition, and related allegedly
false and misleading financial statements. In the amended
complaint, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees. In August 2011, the parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of
the lawsuit for $168 million and in November, filed formal
settlement papers with the district court. In March 2012, the
court granted final approval of the settlement. The expected
financial impact of the settlement has been fully accrued.
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
operates as a diversified financial services company in the United
States and internationally. The Company's segments are Retail
Banking, Asset Management Group, Residential Mortgage Banking,
Non-Strategic Assets Portfolio, and BlackRock. The Company was
founded in 1922 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
PNC FINANCIAL: Renewed Motion for Arbitration Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Florida federal court has yet to rule on a renewed motion to
compel arbitration filed by the PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc.'s recently acquired bank in an overdraft lawsuit, according
to PNC's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
On March 2, 2012, PNC acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding
common stock of RBC Bank (USA), the US retail banking subsidiary
of Royal Bank of Canada. As part of the acquisition, PNC also
purchased a credit card portfolio from RBC Bank (Georgia),
National Association. PNC paid $3.6 billion in cash as the
consideration for the acquisition of both RBC Bank (USA) and the
credit card portfolio, subject to certain post-closing adjustments
that are considered normal course of business. The transaction
added approximately $18.1 billion in deposits, $14.5 billion of
loans and $1.1 billion of goodwill and intangible assets to PNC's
Consolidated Balance Sheet. RBC Bank (USA), based in Raleigh,
North Carolina, operated more than 400 branches in North Carolina,
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia and South Carolina.
As a result of the acquisition of RBC Bank (USA), PNC is subject
to two additional pending lawsuits brought as class actions
relating to the manner in which overdraft fees were charged on ATM
and debit transactions to customers and related matters. Together
with other similar lawsuits pending against PNC Bank, National
City Bank and other banks, these lawsuits have been consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (the "MDL Court") under the caption
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case
No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). One of these cases (Dasher v. RBC Bank
(10-cv-22190-JLK)) was filed in July 2010 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The other case (Avery
v. RBC Bank (Case No. 1-cv-329)) was originally filed in North
Carolina state court in July 2010 and was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina before
being transferred to the MDL Court. An amended complaint was
filed in Avery in August 2010.
The customer agreements with the RBC Bank (USA) plaintiffs contain
arbitration provisions. RBC Bank (USA)'s original motion in
Dasher to compel arbitration under these provisions was denied by
the MDL Court. This denial was appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While this appeal was pending,
the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, following which the court of appeals
vacated the MDL Court's denial of the arbitration motion and
remanded to the MDL Court for further consideration in light of
the Concepcion decision. RBC Bank (USA) has renewed its motion to
compel arbitration, now covering both Dasher and Avery. This
motion is still pending.
The complaints in these cases generally make the same allegations
as made in the other cases against PNC Bank and National City Bank
pending in the MDL Court, as described in "Prior Disclosed Legal
Proceedings," except that the state consumer protection statutory
claims relate to the North Carolina statute and the Avery
complaint does not make claims for breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing or for conversion. These cases seek to
certify multi-state classes of customers for the common law claims
described in Prior Disclosure (covering all states in which RBC
Bank (USA) had retail branch operations during the class period),
and subclasses of RBC Bank (USA) customers with accounts in North
Carolina branches, with the subclass being asserted for purposes
of claims under that state's consumer protection statute. No
class periods are stated in either of the complaints, other than
for the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary by state
and claim.
In their complaints, the plaintiffs in Dasher and Avery seek
substantially similar relief to that described in Prior Disclosure
with respect to the other cases pending in the MDL Court.
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
operates as a diversified financial services company in the United
States and internationally. The Company's segments are Retail
Banking, Asset Management Group, Residential Mortgage Banking,
Non-Strategic Assets Portfolio, and BlackRock. The Company was
founded in 1922 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
SCBT FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Resolve Peoples Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCBT Financial Corporation has reached a memorandum of
understanding to resolve a class action complaint relating to its
merger agreement with Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., according to
SBCT's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter March 31, 2012.
On April 24, 2012, SBCT completed the previously announced merger
with Peoples Bancorporation, Inc. (Peoples), of Easley, South
Carolina, the bank holding company for The Peoples National Bank
(PNB), Bank of Anderson (BOA), and Seneca National Bank (SNB).
On January 18, 2012, two purported shareholders of Peoples filed a
class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the
Thirteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of
Pickens, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v. Peoples
Bancorporation, Inc., Case No. 2012-CP-39-0064. The Complaint
names as defendants Peoples, the current members of Peoples' board
of directors, and SCBT. The Complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders of Peoples common stock and seeks a
declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action.
The Complaint alleges that Peoples' directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in
connection with the pending merger between SCBT and Peoples, and
also alleges that SCBT aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the completion of the merger, an accounting to
determine damages sustained by the putative class, and costs
including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. SCBT believes
that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and
that the proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on
the financial condition or operations of SCBT.
On April 17, 2012, SCBT entered into a memorandum of understanding
with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the
settlement of the Complaint. Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT,
Peoples, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to
settle the Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims
relating to the Merger, subject to approval by the Court. If the
Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the
MOU, SCBT and Peoples have made available additional information
to Peoples shareholders in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed
April 18, 2012 and should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. In
return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Lawsuit
with prejudice and to withdraw all motions filed in connection
with the Lawsuit. If the MOU is finally approved by the Court, it
is anticipated that the MOU will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosures
made in connection therewith.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve
the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.
Headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, SCBT Financial
Corporation -- http://www.scbtonline.com-- operates as the
holding company for SCBT, N.A. that provides retail and commercial
banking services in the Carolinas. Its deposit products include
checking accounts; savings and time deposits; and certificates of
deposit, as well as interest-bearing transaction accounts,
including NOW, HSA, IOLTA, and market rate checking accounts. The
company also offers loans for businesses, agriculture, real
estate, personal use, home improvement, and automobiles, as well
as provides credit cards, letters of credit, and home equity lines
of credit. The Company was formerly known as First National
Corporation and changed its name to SCBT Financial Corporation in
February 2004. It was founded in 1933.
STRAUSS GROUP: Sued Over False Claims on Chocolate Puddings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ela Levy-Weinrib, writing for Globes, reports that a lawsuit filed
with the Haifa District Court last week claims that Strauss Group
Ltd. chocolate puddings do not actually contain chocolate. The
claimant has asked the court to recognize the suit as a NIS228
million class-action suit.
The claimant alleges that Strauss is misleading customers by
claiming that its Golan Chocolate pudding, Golan Bitter Chocolate
pudding, and Strauss Chocolate pudding contain chocolate, when in
practice they do not contain chocolate ingredients as defined by
the chocolate standard.
"Emphasis on the chocolate ingredient in the accepted name (of the
product), when the chocolate ingredient appearing in the product
name is essential for characterizing the product and has a
substantial effect on the public's perception of the food . . . is
materially misleading and crude trampling of the provisions of the
law by Strauss," states the motion for a class-action suit.
The claimant contends that he bought Strauss' chocolate puddings
in 2005-12 in the belief that they were a unique chocolate product
by the company that were different from its other chocolate
puddings, where Strauss clearly and openly gives in a prominent
place on the labels the full name of the product, which are
"chocolate tasting". He contends that he believed that the
products were different from the products of competing companies,
which stated on the labels that the products were "chocolate
tasting".
He adds, "The consumer seeing and reading the product name on the
package in big white letters, thinks that this is a unique
product, a chocolate product . . . Strauss is falsely presenting
to the public the products as chocolate products by concealing and
blurring the fact that these are not chocolate products pursuant
to the law and the chocolate standard."
TERM COMMODITIES: Sued for Manipulating Cotton Future Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed
in New York claims these defendants tried to manipulate prices on
cotton futures: Term Commodities Inc., Allenberg Cotton Co., Louis
Dreyfus Commodities, and Joseph Nicosia.
* Litigation Funders Mull Class Action v. ABC Learning's Banks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Evans, writing for BusinessDay, reports that the corporate
regulator has refused to say if it will take action against Eddy
Groves after charges against the founder of failed child care
operator ABC Learning were dropped last week.
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the
charge against Mr. Groves of "aiding an alleged dishonest use of
position by fellow ABC Learning director Martin Kemp".
Litigation funders on July 8 vowed to press ahead with a class
action against ABC Learning's banks despite the surprise move to
drop charges.
IMF Australia boss John Walker expressed "surprise" and
"disappointment" at the development, with a thinly veiled swipe at
the corporate regulator.
"It is at least surprising that the regulator hasn't any public
investigation or charges against Eddy Groves at present,"
Mr. Walker, told BusinessDay.
ABC Learning collapsed in 2008 owing creditors $1.6 billion,
forcing the sale of 1,200 childcare centers. Taxpayers
contributed $22 million when the government was forced to prop up
centers that were threatened with collapse.
A spokesman for ASIC would not comment on July 8 on whether any
action was afoot against Mr. Groves, amid suggestions he may now
be in the clear.
"On Wednesday, July 4, 2012, the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions entered a no bill in the Queensland District Court in
relation to the prosecution of Edmund Groves following the recent
not guilty verdict in the trial of former fellow director of ABC
Learning Limited, Martin Kemp," the ASIC spokesman said. "ASIC's
investigations into the collapse of ABC Learning Limited are
continuing."
Mr. Walker said a decision to drop charges would not affect the
class action against ABC's lenders.
"The liquidator funded by IMF is taking action against the banks
to get back some of the money they took back under the charges and
it remains to be seen whether the regulator will take proceedings
against Eddy Groves for at least continuous disclosure breaches.
As I understand it there's no publicly known investigation or
charges against Eddy Groves.
"Unfortunately there's just no private interest in taking
proceedings in continuous disclosure breaches because of the fact
that only secured creditors are currently going to get any money,"
Mr. Walker said. "Unsecured creditors, unless our proceedings are
successful, won't get anything.
"In those circumstances where there is a reasonable basis for
concerns about continuous disclosure and there is no private
enforcement then the public has a greater interest in the relevant
regulator taking appropriate action."
*********
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 * * *