/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120716.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 139 Headlines A123 SYSTEMS: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sued Over State-Subsidized Reinsurance AMBASSADORS GROUP: Gets Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement AMERICAN GREETINGS: Continues to Defend "Baker" & "Collier" Suits BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of "Finder's Fees" Class Action BARCLAYS PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in New York BNY MELLON: Settles "CompSource" Class Suit for $280 Million CARMAX INC: Appeal in Consolidated Suit vs. Units Remain Pending COMMODITY ADVISORS: Adelphia-Related Suit Deal Pending Appeal COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Class Certification Ruling COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Ruling on Claims Dismissal Bid COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Continues to Defend ARS-Related Suits COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Defends Repurchase Transactions Suits COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Two Discrimination Suits COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discovery in Securities Suit v. Citi Underway COOPER INDUSTRIES: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Ohio DAVITA INC: Appeal in Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Pending DIGI INT'L: Insurer Pays Portion in IPO Suit Settlement EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal From "Gaer" Suit Dismissal Withdrawn EXPERIAN: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Florida FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears FIRESTONE POLYMERS: Employees File Racial Bias Class Action GENERAL MILLS: YoPlus Yogurt-Related Suit Set for Trial in 2013 HCA HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in Tenn. HEARST CORP: Woman Files Class Action Over Alleged Defamation IDAHO: National Law Group Joins Mental Health Care Suit ILLINOIS: Ex-Judge Says Insurance Bill Unconstitutional INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit Remains Stayed INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Faces Class Suit Over PWR Product INTEGRATED SECURITY: Prelim. Discovery Started in "Aviles" Suit KADANT INC: Accrued Payment of Unit's Settlement Still at $2.5MM MALIBU MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Extortion Scheme NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Still Defends 3 Product Liability Suits NIKON INC: Recalls 201,200 SLR Camera Rechargeable Battery Packs PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Remains a Co-Conspirator in Class Suits RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California RITE AID: Discovery Proceeding in One of Store Managers' Suits RITE AID: Final Hearing on Wage and Hour Suits Deal on Oct. 24 SCRANTON, PA: Faces Class Action Over Salary Cuts STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Lunsford" Suit Settlement STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Martinez" Suit Settlement SUNPOWER CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit TICKETMASTER: Ontario Judge Approves Class Action Settlement TICKETMASTER: Proposed Class Action Settlement Challenged TROXEL CO: Recalls 105,400 Flexible Flyer Swing Sets VIBRAM INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on FiveFingers XL GROUP: Got N.J. Court's Nod on Antitrust Suit Settlement * LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Settles Price Fixing Case for $571MM ********* A123 SYSTEMS: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit against A123 Systems, Inc., according to the Company's July 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a party to securities class action and other litigations which may be costly to defend and the outcome of which is uncertain. On April 2, 2012, and April 12, 2012, respectively, complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by individuals, purportedly acting individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, against the company and the Company's CEO, David Vieau, CFO, David Prystash, and former Interim CFO, John Granara. The complaints followed the Company's disclosure in March 2012 of potentially defective prismatic cells used in battery packs and a replacement program for such cells. The complaints attempt to allege that certain of the Company's disclosures were inaccurate because the potentially defective cells and their replacement were not disclosed earlier. The complaints assert a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of that statute against the individuals. The complaints assert a purported class period from February 28, 2011, through March 23, 2012. On June 7, 2012, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff, Suk Cheung, and lead counsel for the asserted class, the law firm of Berman DeValerio. No substantive response to the complaints has been required at this time. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sued Over State-Subsidized Reinsurance ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate Insurance persuaded the Florida Legislature to pass a law allowing insurers to buy discounted reinsurance from the state, then had the brass to ask for a 42 percent rate hike, using "falsely skewed hurricane models . . . in a wrongful attempt to claim that [it] did not realize any savings," homeowners say in a class action. Lead plaintiffs David and Theresa Sapuppo claim that "following a number of hurricane events that occurred in 2004 and 2005 in Florida, the Allstate Companies, including the defendant [Allstate Floridian Insurance Company], and other insurance company interests used their marketing strategies and their sizeable legal and lobbying resources to lobby the Florida Legislature in 2007 to consider and pass a law known as 'House Bill 1-A.' "Among other things, House Bill 1-A allowed the Allstate Companies to purchase 're-insurance' from the State at a much lower price than it could be purchased in the private market. The State of Florida assumed risk for certain amounts of storm damage that previously had been assumed by the private marketplace. This risk assumption resulted in lower risk and a reduction in costs to defendant." According to the complaint in Leon County Court: "The Allstate Companies represented to the Legislature that House Bill 1-A would save the insurance companies a substantial amount of money, and that this savings would be passed on to Florida policyholders in the form of lower premiums. Thus, when enacting House Bill 1-A . . . the Legislature required the defendant to make a rate filing which reflected the savings or reduction in loss exposure to the insurer," so the savings could be passed on to consumers as quickly as possible. However, the class of policyholders claims that "despite the Allstate Companies recording rising profits . . . the defendant made a rate filing . . . to increase the premiums it charged plaintiff, in direct contradiction of the law and the representations the Allstate Companies made to the Florida legislature." The class claims: "The Florida Legislature and the Governor of Florida enacted the legislation to bolster Florida's economy by having the State of Florida assume billions of dollars of risk that otherwise would have been a cost of business paid by defendants and the insurance industry. In exchange, defendant and the insurance industry represented that they would pass the savings along to Florida policyholders in lower premiums, rather than increase their own profits and seek additional rate increases. "The named defendant knowingly used lobbyists, public relations firms and other personnel to have the legislation adopted that would allow them to obtain state-subsidized reinsurance, creating billions of dollars in risk for Florida, without lowering property and casualty insurance premiums for the plaintiff and those similarly situated to the extent and within the timeframe called for by the legislation." The complaint states: "The Allstate Companies made misrepresentations that induced their procurement of state- subsidized, low-cost reinsurance; "The Allstate Companies retained the benefit conferred upon them by the reinsurance cost savings and failed to timely pass along the savings resulting from their purchase of state-subsidized reinsurance to their ratepayers . . . in the form of lower premiums, despite being legally required to do so; "Upon information and belief, the Allstate Companies have attempted to avoid their obligations to reduce premiums by using inaccurate and misleading data, including falsely skewed hurricane models and unjustifiable hurricane risk loads, in a wrongful attempt to claim that they did not realize any savings to pass along to the people of Florida in the form of lower premiums." Most notably, "While most insurance companies timely submitted filings which reflected a decrease in premium rates following 'presumed factor' filings, the defendants submitted a filing which sought a 41.9 percent increase in rates. Only after being sued by the Office of Insurance Regulation did the defendant agree, more than a year later, to a further reduction of 5.4 percent in residential property insurance premiums for plaintiff and other similarly situated policyholders." The policyholders seek recovery of the 5.4 percent premium hike they paid before September 2008, and damages for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. A copy of the Complaint in Sapuppo, et ux. v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Company, Case No. 2012CA2059 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/11/HurricaneInsure.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esq. MOYLE LAW FIRM, P.A. The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 681-3828 E-mail: jmoyle@moylelaw.com AMBASSADORS GROUP: Gets Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington entered a final order on June 28, 2012, approving Ambassadors Group, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against Ambassadors Group, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (the "Court"). On April 14, 2011, an agreement was reached to settle the action following a mediation before a retired federal judge. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company's insurance carriers agreed to pay the settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete settlement of all claims, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any party in the action. Throughout the litigation, the Company and the individual defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations made against them. The Company agreed with the insurance carriers to settle the action because it was in the best interests of the Company to avoid the burdens, risk, uncertainties and expense that would be inherent in continued litigation. The settlement agreement, which includes a release for all defendants and other provisions common in such agreements, was preliminarily approved by the Court on September 6, 2011, and notice was provided to all class members. The Court held a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement, the plan of allocation, and the motion for the award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees on November 30, 2011, but delayed ruling on these matters pending submission of additional materials by the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff submitted the requested additional materials on December 30, 2011, January 17, 2012, and March 19, 2012. On June 28, 2012, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement and related matters. As the settlement is covered and was funded by the Company's insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations. Ambassadors Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: EPAX) -- http://www.ambassadorsgroup.com/-- is an education company located in Spokane, Washington. Ambassadors Group is the parent company of People to People Ambassador Programs, new subsidiary World Adventures Unlimited, Inc., and BookRags, an educational research Web site. The Company also oversees the Washington School of World Studies, an accredited travel study and distance learning school. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Continues to Defend "Baker" & "Collier" Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Greetings Corporation continues to defend itself from class action lawsuits filed in Ohio and Oklahoma, according to the Company's July 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 25, 2012. American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern District of Ohio on January 11, 2012, by Theresa Baker as the personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe (the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010, by Keith Collier as the personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the "Collier Litigation"). In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by using its employees' identities and personal information to benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of the former employees whose estates form the putative class. The plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney's fees. American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 30, 2012, which is pending with the court. In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as attorney's fees and costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20, 2012, American Greetings Corporation moved to transfer the Collier Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. On June 19, 2012, the magistrate issued his Report and Recommendation that American Greetings' Motion to Transfer the case to the Northern District of Ohio be granted. Class certification has not been decided in either of these cases. The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to defend the actions vigorously. The Company currently does not believe that the impact of the lawsuit, if any, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity or results of operations. BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of "Finder's Fees" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Goodman, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of America NA on July 9 asked a Maryland federal judge to dismiss a putative class action alleging it engaged in a collaborative scheme with Academy Mortgage LLC to charge unlawful "finder's fees" to borrowers in connection with their mortgage transactions. The lawsuit accuses the bank of violating Maryland's Finder's Fee Act, a 1979 law that makes it illegal for a mortgage broker that also acts as a mortgage lender to collect a finder's fee. BARCLAYS PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 10 filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the sponsored American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Barclays PLC between July 10, 2007 and June 27, 2012, inclusive, against Barclays, two subsidiaries and the Company's former Chairman and Chief Executive, alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5]. The case name is Vladimir Gusinsky, Trustee, for the Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Barclays PLC, et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-5329. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com During the Class Period, Barclays issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance, financial condition and internal operational controls. As a result of these materially false and misleading statements, the price of the Company's securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. As the truth of the Company's materially false and misleading statements entered the market, the Company's stock plummeted. The London Inter-Bank Offered Rate ("Libor") is a tool to measure risk within the banking system as a whole and it may be more surgically applied to test a particular bank's creditworthiness. When a bank lends to a customer (in this case another bank), it fixes the interest rate and other terms premised on an assessment of the borrower's ability to repay the loan. The greater the risk, the higher the rate the bank will charge to assume the risk. The opposite is true: the lower the credit risk, the lower the rate the bank will charge to take on the risk. The Complaint alleges that Defendants did not act fairly, transparently, and try in good faith to fix Libor rates at levels that accurately reflected the inherent and actual risk in the market place. Defendants, instead, admittedly participated in an illegal scheme to manipulate the Libor interest rates for the benefit of Barclays' traders and to make Barclays appear financially healthier than it was during the Class Period. The Complaint further alleges that apart from participating in an illegal scheme to manipulate Libor rates in a way that would allow Defendants and other bankers to exploit borrowers and make even more money, the Defendants made material misstatements to the Company's shareholders about the Company's purported compliance with their principles and operational risk management processes and repeatedly told shareholders that Barclays was a model corporate citizen even though at all relevant times it was flouting the law. On June 27, 2012, Barclays was found by US and UK regulators to have manipulated or "fixed" its Libor rate submissions. Barclays' top management essentially admitted to the Bank's malfeasance. In an open letter to the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, Defendant Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays, explained that the authorities had highlighted two issues: First, a number of individual traders had attempted to influence the bank's interest rate submissions in order to boost their own trading desk's profits -- operating purely for their own benefit; Diamond said this conduct was wholly inappropriate. Second, during the recent credit crisis, Barclays reduced its Libor submissions to protect the reputation of the bank from negative speculation, which arose as a result of Barclays' higher rate submissions in comparison to other banks -- i.e. the bank wanted to make itself look financially stronger relative to other banks in order to keep its borrowing costs down and market reputation up. These revelations caused the Company's ADRs initially to fall by 12%, from $12.33 per share to $10.84 per share on over 22 million shares traded and then an additional 5% on over 14 million shares traded. If you purchased Barclays ADRs during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by September 10, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities, multi- district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Robert B. Weintraub, Esq., Martin E. Restituyo, Esq., or Derek Behnke), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at http://www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Barclays. BNY MELLON: Settles "CompSource" Class Suit for $280 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation settled for $280 million the class action lawsuit initiated by CompSource Oklahoma, according to the Company's July 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 5, 2012, BNY Mellon, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon, affiliates of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (collectively "BNY Mellon") entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") related to a previously disclosed putative class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Oklahoma and initiated by CompSource Oklahoma concerning losses in connection with the investment of securities lending collateral in Sigma Finance Inc. ("Sigma"). The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, BNY Mellon will make a payment of $280 million for a full and complete release of all Sigma-related claims that were made or could have been brought against it or its affiliates by members of the alleged class (the "Class"). BNY Mellon may enter into additional settlements relating to losses in connection with Sigma investments incurred by securities lending clients not included in the Class or who opt out of the Settlement Agreement. The company recorded an after-tax charge in the second quarter of 2012 of approximately $210 million ($350 million pre-tax) primarily related to claims involving Sigma investments. This charge includes in part the expected payment of $280 million settling the Sigma-related class action. CARMAX INC: Appeal in Consolidated Suit vs. Units Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the consolidated class action lawsuit against CarMax, Inc.'s subsidiaries remain pending, according to the Company's July 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2012. On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Adelphia-Related Suit Deal Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Settlements of class action lawsuits under IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION are pending appeal, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which is indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the "Citigroup Parties"). The complaint alleged that the Citigroup Parties and numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank Holding Company Act, the Bankruptcy Code, and common law. It sought an unspecified amount of damages. In November 2003, a similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders Committee of Adelphia, asserting additional statutory and common law claims. In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with respect to the complaints of the two committees. Those motions were decided by the bankruptcy court, and were granted in part and denied in part. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the bankruptcy court's decision. The Adelphia Recovery Trust ("ART"), which replaced the committees as the plaintiff in the action, filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Adelphia Estate, consolidating the two prior complaints; motions to dismiss the amended complaint and answers were filed. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The ART's appeal to the Second Circuit from that partial dismissal is pending. Before the district court, the parties are briefing summary judgment. On September 22, 2010, the ART agreed in principle to settle its claims against numerous prepetition lenders and investment banks, including Citigroup, in the action entitled ADELPHIA RECOVERY TRUST v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., 05 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.). The agreement in principle is subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and court approval. In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September 1997 and October 2001. Three of the complaints also assert claims against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. All of the complaints allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the common law. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. In December 2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before the same judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2004, motions to dismiss the class and individual actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were filed. In May and July of 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss several claims, based on the running of applicable statute of limitations, asserted in the alleged class and individual actions being coordinated under IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. With the exception of one individual action that was dismissed with prejudice, the court granted the alleged class and individual plaintiffs leave to re-plead certain of those claims the court found to be time-barred. Without admitting any liability, CGM and numerous other financial institution defendants settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of $250 million, and the settlement was approved in November 2006. Two of the additional remaining individual complaints have been settled. Following settlements of the class action, which is pending appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain outstanding. The Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one has proper standing to sue. In September 2007, motions to dismiss in the other case were granted in part and denied in part. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Class Certification Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent are awaiting a court decision on a motion seeking class certification in the consolidated bond litigation against them, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. On September 30 and October 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup entities, certain current and former directors and officers of Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of Citigroup notes (including CGM) were named as defendants in two alleged class actions filed in New York state court but since removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising out of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008. On December 10, 2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed. On January 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On March 13, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 12, 2010, the district court issued an order and opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court's order, among other things, dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11 of that Act. A motion for partial reconsideration of the latter ruling is pending. On September 30, 2010, the district court entered a scheduling order in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. Fact discovery has commenced. On March 11, 2011, lead plaintiffs in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION filed a motion seeking class certification. Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the alleged class's alleged damages. Because of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this action or predict the timing of its eventual resolution. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Ruling on Claims Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent is awaiting a court decision on their motion to dismiss certain claims in a multidistrict litigation pending in New York, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Citigroup and CGM have been named as defendants in two alleged class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, but since transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of an alleged class of participants in Citigroup's Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan from November 2006 through January 2009. On June 7, 2011, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and subsequently entered judgment. On November 14, 2011, the district court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims on December 21, 2011. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Continues to Defend ARS-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent continues to defend class action lawsuits related to auction-rate securities, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup, CGM and their affiliates and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees, have been named as defendants in several individual and alleged class action lawsuits related to auction-rate securities ("ARS"). These have included, among others: (i) numerous lawsuits and arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its affiliates seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS; (ii) a consolidated alleged class action asserting claims for federal securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now pending on appeal; (iii) two alleged class actions asserting violations of Section I of the Sherman Act, which have been dismissed and are now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative action filed against certain Citigroup officers and directors, which has been dismissed. In addition, based on an investigation, report and recommendation from a committee of Citigroup's Board of Directors, the Board refused a shareholder demand that was made after dismissal of the derivative action. COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its affiliates, were named in alleged class actions alleging that certain present and former employees in California were entitled to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were entitled to reimbursement for employment related expenses incurred by them. The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class of California employees. Similar complaints have been subsequently filed against CGM on behalf of certain statewide or nationwide alleged classes in (i) the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii) the New Jersey Superior Court. Without admitting any liability, CGM reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98 million of various class actions asserting violations of state and federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions. Additional alleged class action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against various other Citigroup businesses. COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Defends Repurchase Transactions Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent are defending a consolidated class action lawsuit over certain repurchase transactions, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Beginning in March 2010, various regulators have made inquiries regarding the accounting treatment of certain repurchase transactions. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries. Additionally, beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions and other private civil lawsuits were filed in various courts against banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries. The actions, which assert various federal and state law claims relating to the setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York. The Partnership says additional lawsuits containing similar claims may be filed in the future. The Partnership, the General Partner and its principals, directors and executive officers are not a party to, nor are any of their assets subject to, any of the actions and proceedings. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Two Discrimination Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. continues to defend two class action lawsuits alleging claims of racial discrimination in mortgage lending, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Two alleged class actions have been filed alleging claims of racial discrimination in mortgage lending under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and/or the Civil Rights Act. The first action, PUELLO, ET AL. v. CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The second action, NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., ET AL., was filed against one of Citigroup's affiliates in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In each action, defendants' motions to dismiss have been denied. On September 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendant CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment and granted its motion to strike the jury demand. COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discovery in Securities Suit v. Citi Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fact discovery is underway in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Citigroup Inc., according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC. The commodity broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC. Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Citigroup has been named as a defendant in four alleged class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 19, 2008, these actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004, through January 15, 2009. On November 9, 2010, the district court issued an opinion and order dismissing all claims except those arising out of Citigroup's exposure to collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs") for the time period February 1, 2007, through April 18, 2008. Fact discovery is underway. Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the alleged class' alleged damages. During the alleged class period, as narrowed by the district court, the price of Citigroup's common stock declined from $54.73 at the beginning of the period to $25.11 at the end of the period. (These share prices represent Citigroup's common stock prices prior to its 1- for-10 reverse stock split, effective May 6, 2011.) COOPER INDUSTRIES: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP on July 10 disclosed that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on July 9, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons who hold common stock of Cooper Industries plc against Cooper Industries and its board of directors for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Cooper Industries by Eaton Corporation. The complaint arises out of a May 21, 2012 press release announcing that Cooper Industries had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Eaton, pursuant to which Cooper Industries shareholders would receive cash and shares valued at $72.00 for each share of Cooper Industries they own. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, filed a materially misleading Preliminary Proxy on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material in assisting Cooper Industries shareholders in making an informed decision about whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all Cooper Industries shareholders as of May 21, 2012. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Umeda LLP. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 10, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. of Robbins Umeda LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information form on our Web site or by e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member. Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com--- is a California-based law firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions, merger-related shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. DAVITA INC: Appeal in Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending against DaVita Inc. in the Superior Court of California. The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time. The lawsuit, as amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision. The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Any potential settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. DIGI INT'L: Insurer Pays Portion in IPO Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Digi International Inc. 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 its insurers paid its portion of a settlement resolving a consolidated shareholder lawsuit involving one of its subsidiary. On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial public offering (IPO) of Digi International's subsidiary, NetSilicon, Inc. and approximately 300 other public companies. Digi International acquired NetSilicon on February 13, 2002. The complaint named Digi International as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain of its officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's IPO, among numerous others, and asserted, among other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated federal securities laws because they contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers. We believed that the claims against the NetSilicon defendants were without merit and we defended the litigation vigorously. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002. On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness of the settlement. Five of those appeals were dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2010. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four of the remaining appeals. On January 10, 2012, the last remaining appeal was dismissed with prejudice, as a result of which the settlement became final, by its terms. In March 2012, the Company's insurers paid to the plaintiffs on its behalf the full amount of the settlement share allocated to it of $337,838. The Company has no financial liability under the terms of the settlement agreement. As a result, during the second fiscal quarter of 2012, the Company reversed its accrued liability of $300,000 and the related receivable of $50,000. These accruals represented the estimated settlement of $300,000 less its $250,000 deductible. Based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, Digi International Inc. -- http://www.dgii.com/-- engages in the provision of machine-to- machine networking products and solutions to connect, monitor, and control of local or remote physical assets by electronic means. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal From "Gaer" Suit Dismissal Withdrawn ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal challenging the dismissal of a securities class action complaint against Education Management Corporation was voluntarily withdrawn and thus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal with prejudice, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et. Al, was filed against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's initial public offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 29, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but on April 17, 2012, voluntarily withdrew their appeal. As a result, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order dismissing the appeal with prejudice on April 18, 2012. Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management Corporation -- http://www.edmc.com/-- provides post-secondary education in North America. The Company provides education through four education systems comprising The Art Institutes, Argosy University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University. It operates 105 schools in 32 states of the United States and Canada. EXPERIAN: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------- Experian, the national consumer credit data repository, and CoreLogic, Inc., the nation's largest credit report reseller, were named in a suit filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for alleged violations of the antitrust laws. The suit, filed by a Florida-based mortgage credit reporting agency, claims that Experian and CoreLogic sought to deny smaller credit agencies access to Experian's mortgage credit information for "tri-merged" mortgage credit reports. Banks and investors require tri-merged reports to extend credit for home mortgages. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. According to the suit, Experian and CoreLogic were partners in the Credco mortgage credit reporting business in early 2008 when Experian "agreed to eliminate up to 87% of CoreLogic's rivals" is exchange for CoreLogic's help to "maintain Experian's monopoly in mortgage credit information . . ." The suit claims that the number of qualified mortgage credit reporting agencies has declined nationwide from over 1,500 at the beginning of the century to fewer than 100 today. Jonathan Rubin of Washington, D.C.-based Rubin PLLC who represents the plaintiff said, "Independent credit reporting agencies like my client can no longer compete, not because they are not efficient, but because Experian and CoreLogic conspired to drive them out of the market. This is an astonishing violation of the antitrust laws." The plaintiff, Credit Bureau Services, Inc. of Oakland Park, Florida, has also asked the court to certify the case as a class action on behalf of "all mortgage credit report resellers separated from Experian" as a result of the violation. The case is Credit Bureau Services, Inc. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 12-cv-61360 (S. D. Fla., filed July 10, 2012). About Rubin PLLC Rubin PLLC -- http://www.RubinPLLC.com-- is a Washington, D.C.-- based antitrust and competition law firm founded in January 2011. FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's initial public offering ("IPO"). The deadline for Facebook shareholders to seek a lead plaintiff position in the lawsuit is July 23, 2012. Facebook investors who would like to learn more about their legal rights can contact Girard Gibbs at (866) 981- 4800 or visit our Web site: Girard Gibbs Facebook Lawsuit Investigation. The Facebook lawsuit charges the company, its officers and directors, and underwriters with violations of federal securities laws for false and misleading statements made in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Facebook failed to disclose to the investing public the material information that the company was experiencing, and anticipating, a significant drop in revenue due to an increase of users accessing Facebook through mobile devices. According to news reports, this lower revenue projection was selectively released by underwriter banks to only certain large investor clients and not included in the Registration Statement. Facebook debuted at a highly-anticipated initial public offering last week, selling 421 million shares for $38 per share. However, in the days following the IPO, the company's stock price dropped by nearly 18% to about $31, well below its initial offering price. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Facebook common stock traceable to the IPO and who have suffered substantial financial losses are encouraged to contact Girard Gibbs attorney Jonathan Levine by calling (866) 981-4800 or visiting our Web site: Girard Gibbs Facebook Legal Investigation (http://www.girardgibbs.com/case/105/facebook-securities- lawsuit/). Any member of the putative class may seek a lead plaintiff position through counsel of his or her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you would like to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must move the Court no later than July 23, 2012. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Girard Gibbs LLP's Web site: http://www.GirardGibbs.com Girard Gibbs LLP represents investors, employees, consumers and small businesses in cases involving consumer protection, personal injury, securities, antitrust, and employment laws. Contact: Girard Gibbs LLP Jonathan Levine, Esq. Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com FIRESTONE POLYMERS: Employees File Racial Bias Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that several Firestone Polymers employees have filed a lawsuit that claims that they were subjected to racial discrimination in the form of racial slurs and supervisors who promoted workers based on the color of their skin. Paul D. Brooks, Ellis E. Byrd, Jonathan E. Greenaway, Erick Guillory, Samuel W. Johnson, Wayne E. Johnson, Michael Spencer and Ricky Ruffin filed suit against Firestone Polymers, also known as Firestone and Bridgestone Americas Inc., on June 29 in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. The employees, who are black, claim that they were not promoted because of their skin color and, instead, the employer chose a less-qualified white person. The defendant is accused of ignoring their "superior experience and educational backgrounds and the exemplary work ability they had already exhibited during their employment with the company, in favor of untrained white men with no other knowledge and virtually no experience working in the new positions for the company." According to the lawsuit, the Orange County plant has a history of racism, including denying training opportunities and channeling Blacks into the manual and less desirable jobs than whites. The defendants are accused of racial discrimination in its employment practices of rates of pay, upgrading, promotion, and selection for training. The workers are seeking an award of economic and compensatory damages, exemplary damages, interest, and court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Beaumont attorney Craig J. Schexnaider. A jury trial is requested. Case No. 1:12-cv-00325 GENERAL MILLS: YoPlus Yogurt-Related Suit Set for Trial in 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit alleging that General Mills, Inc. made false and misleading claims about the digestive health benefits of its YoPlus yogurt product is scheduled to go to trial in fiscal 2013, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 27, 2012. The Company is a party to various pending or threatened legal actions in the ordinary course of its business. In the Company's opinion, there were no claims or litigation pending as of May 27, 2012, that were reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. These matters include a class action lawsuit filed on January 14, 2010, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging that the Company made false and misleading claims about the digestive health benefits of its YoPlus yogurt product. The YoPlus matter is scheduled to go to trial in fiscal 2013. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these allegations and will vigorously defend its position. As of May 27, 2012, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. HCA HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- HCA Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities class action complaint in Tennessee, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case seeks to include as a class all persons who acquired the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of directors. The action alleges deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement relating to: (1) accounting for its 2006 recapitalization and 2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such transactions; and (3) the Company's revenue growth rate. Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially the same defendants in addition to Ernst & Young, LLP were filed in the same federal court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively. All three of the cases have been consolidated, and the parties have agreed to initial scheduling matters. No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing. Founded in 1968, HCA Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides health care services in the United States. The Company owns, manages, or operates hospitals, freestanding surgery centers, diagnostic and imaging centers, radiation and oncology therapy centers, rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, and various other facilities. HEARST CORP: Woman Files Class Action Over Alleged Defamation ------------------------------------------------------------- Greenwichtime.com reports that a Greenwich woman has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing area news outlets of defamation for failing to remove from the Internet accounts that she was arrested on marijuana charges in 2010. Her attorneys say a state law allows her to testify the arrest never occurred. The lawsuit, filed June 18 at state Superior Court in Stamford, alleges Hearst Corp., News 12 and Main Street Connect, made "false and defamatory" statements as of Jan. 11, 2012, by not removing from the Internet statements that Lorraine Martin was charged with drug violations in August 2010. Hearst is the parent company of Greenwich Time and The Advocate. State law allows people who have had their criminal cases erased from court and police records after dismissals or acquittals to say under oath that the charge never occurred. The outcome of Ms. Martin's case is unclear since records of it have been wiped from online court records, and her attorneys, Mark Sherman and co- counsel Stephan Seeger, would not discuss some details of her case. "We maintain the erasure statute can wipe an arrest history clean," Mr. Sherman said. "We want accountability on the Internet and this lawsuit is our first step toward that goal." The attorneys want to include people in similar situations as a class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Margot Kaminsky, executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School in New Haven, said courts in the United States have favored free expression over privacy interests, even in cases involving rape victims. IDAHO: National Law Group Joins Mental Health Care Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a national group focused on children's legal issues is stepping up to represent roughly 18,000 poor and mentally ill Idaho children in a long-running federal lawsuit against state leaders. Attorneys with the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Youth Law are joining with Idaho lawyer Howard Belodoff in the class- action lawsuit known as the Jeff D. case. It's named after the little boy who first brought the lawsuit against Idaho in 1980, contending the state institutionalized mentally ill children instead of providing them with medical care. Jeff D. and the rest of the plaintiffs technically won the lawsuit three decades ago, with the court ordering Idaho to improve mental health care for indigent children. Still, both sides continue to fight over how that ruling should be carried out. It's no easy task: Over the years, the federal court has issued multiple consent decrees and even a 250-item "to do" list of steps the state must take to make it easier for children with severe emotional disturbances and other problems to get the care they need before they end up in juvenile detention. In 2007, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill decided that Idaho officials had "substantially complied" with the list, and he closed the case. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Winmill's decision last year, finding that setting a "to do" list wasn't enough. Instead, the appeals court said, the state must prove it is meeting the broader goals of the court's ruling, creating community-based care for mentally ill kids. The National Center for Youth Law has been involved in similar lawsuits in other states, said center attorney Leecia Welch, and has been able to reach settlements in class-action children's mental health cases in California and Washington. "Our goal all along is to try to provide access to services as quickly as possible," Mr. Welch said. ILLINOIS: Ex-Judge Says Insurance Bill Unconstitutional ------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that if a Sangamon County circuit judge agrees with him, Gordon Maag could find himself before the court he unsuccessfully sought election to in the nation's most expensive judicial race in history. Mr. Maag, a former Fifth District Appellate Court justice who lost his bid for the Illinois Supreme Court in 2004, filed a lawsuit late last month in Sangamon County Circuit Court challenging a new law that will start charging state retirees premiums for their health insurance. Gov. Patrick J. Quinn signed the measure, Senate Bill 1313, into law on June 21 and Mr. Maag filed his suit four days later. He wants the circuit court to deem the law unconstitutional, a ruling that would hand him an automatic and immediate appeal to the state high court. Mr. Maag also seeks class action status for his suit on behalf of all state retirees affected by the law, which took effect July 1. If approved, the class would include at least 80,000 members, according to Mr. Maag's suit. Under the new law, retired state employees, as well as former judges, lawmakers and university workers, will have to pay premiums for their state health insurance. These premium payments have not yet been set or approved, but will likely leave those with large state pensions paying more for health insurance than those with smaller pensions. Previously, retired judges were entitled to free health insurance after six years of service, according to Mr. Maag's suit. It also notes that retired lawmakers didn't have to pay premiums after four years, as well as employees who worked for the state for 20 years. Mr. Maag contends that the new law changes benefits for members of the state's pension and retirement systems in violation of the Illinois Constitution, a clause of which dubs membership in these systems as an "enforceable, contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired." This same argument was used during past legislative debates over proposals to change pension benefits for current employees. Based on those debates, lawmakers discussed changing future benefits for current employees, a move some believe would be legal as long as employees would be able to keep the benefits they already earned. Though the controversial issue garnered much debate in the past two legislative sessions, lawmakers have yet to come to an agreement on how to reform the pension systems in an attempt to reduce the state's pension obligation, which carries a multi- billion price tag. Mr. Maag's lawsuit names Gov. Quinn and Treasurer Dan Rutherford as defendants. Illinois Attorney General Lisa M. Madigan's office, which typically defends constitutional challenges against state laws, will likely represent Gov. Quinn and Mr. Rutherford in their official capacities as governor and treasurer. In his lawsuit, Mr. Maag asks the Sangamon County Circuit Court to enjoin enforcement of the new law, declare it unconstitutional and order the defendants to pay members of the proposed class the sums they were charged under the new law, "which is believed to be well in the excess of $50,000," as well as court costs and attorneys' fees. Mr. Maag's son, Peter Maag of the Maag Law Firm LLC in Wood River, submitted the suit on his father's behalf. According to the Sangamon County Circuit Court Web site, no hearing dates have been set and the case, 2012 L162, has been assigned to Circuit Judge John Schmidt. Mr. Maag joined the Illinois judiciary in 1989, when he was appointed to an associate judgeship in the Third Circuit. He was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Fifth District Appellate Court in 1992 and was elected to a 10-year term two years later. He has been out of the media spotlight since about 2007, when he dropped a $110 million defamation suit against a handful of business groups over campaign flyers and information used in the 2004 Supreme Court race that he lost to Republican Lloyd Karmeier. The two candidates put more than $9 million into their campaigns, giving it the distinction of being the most expensive judicial race of its kind in the nation's history. In that same election, Mr. Maag also lost his bid to stay on the appellate court. INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated") and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly- owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and iSatori (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated. Paul Jeffrey Grube brought a class action lawsuit against three companies, including iSatori, based on the defendants' alleged marketing, distribution, or sales of products purporting to contain human chorionic gonadotropin ("hCG") or a natural hCG alternative. This case is referred to as Colonel Paul Jeffrey Grube v. GNC, iSatori Technologies, LLC and HCG Platinum, LLC, Case No. 11-1005, filed August 4, 2011, in United States District Court, for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Grube claims that the defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of numerous state consumer protection laws, breached express warranties, and were unjustly enriched. iSatori has received a letter from GNC Corp., demanding iSatori indemnify GNC Corp. pursuant to a written agreement between iSatori and GNC Corp. In addition to possible breach of contract claims, failure to indemnify GNC Corp. could result in GNC Corp. discontinuing as a distributor of iSatori products. In 2011, distributions through GNC Corp. represented 25.8 % of iSatori's revenues. The action was stayed pending possible consolidation with other hCG litigation. Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome. The range of any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of the financial statements. No further updates were reported in Integrated's July 3, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Faces Class Suit Over PWR Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Security Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class action lawsuit over its pre-workout performance enhancer (PWR) product, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated") and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly- owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and iSatori (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated. iSatori has become aware of a class action lawsuit filed on April 30, 2012, in the Southern District of California alleging violations of the Federal False Advertising Act and violations of the Federal and Consumer Legal Remedies Act resulting from the issuance of a Food and Drug Administration warning letter regarding iSatori's PWR product and the DMAA contained in the formula. iSatori's counsel has been notified, but no formal action has been taken as iSatori has not been served. INTEGRATED SECURITY: Prelim. Discovery Started in "Aviles" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary evidentiary discovery has been initiated in the class action lawsuit commenced by Jerry Aviles against a subsidiary of Integrated Security Systems, Inc., according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated") and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly- owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and iSatori (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated. Jerry Aviles has brought a class action complaint against iSatori relating to its product ISA-TEST. The case is referred to as Jerry Aviles v. iSatori Technologies, LLC, Case No. CIV DS 1111487, filed October 4, 2011, in United Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino. Aviles alleges iSatori violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and engaged in unfair or deceptive business practice and false advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Preliminary evidentiary discovery has been initiated in this action. Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome. The range of any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. KADANT INC: Accrued Payment of Unit's Settlement Still at $2.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of March 31, 2012, Kadant Inc. has accrued $2.5 million for the payment of claims under a settlement of a class action lawsuit against one of its subsidiary, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The amount accrued has not increased as of last reported at year end 2011. In 2005, the Company's Kadant Composites LLC subsidiary (Composites LLC) sold substantially all of its assets to a third party. Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement, Composites LLC retained certain liabilities associated with the operation of the business prior to the sale, including the warranty obligations associated with products manufactured prior to the sale date. Composites LLC retained all of the cash proceeds received from the asset sale and continued to administer and pay warranty claims from the sale proceeds into the third quarter of 2007. On September 30, 2007, Composites LLC announced that it no longer had sufficient funds to honor warranty claims, was unable to pay or process warranty claims, and ceased doing business. All activity related to this business is classified in the results of the discontinued operation in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. On October 24, 2011, the Company, Composites LLC, and other co- defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites decking building products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in Connecticut state court. As of March 31, 2012, the Company has accrued $2,577,000 for the payment of claims under the settlement. If the actual claims submitted and approved under the settlement agreement exceed the amount of this reserve, the Company will reflect the amount of the additional claims in the results of the discontinued operation in future periods, up to a maximum of $5,000,000 as agreed in the settlement agreement. Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling industries. The company also manufactures granules made from papermaking byproducts. The company's operations consist of one operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems segment develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global papermaking and paper recycling industries. MALIBU MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Extortion Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ Iain Thomson, writing for The Register, reports that a Kentucky woman has started a class action suit against five pornography vendors after harassment over claims that she was downloading their content over BitTorrent. The suit, filed on behalf of Ms. Jennifer Barker, states that she started getting phone calls claiming that she had been named in a case regarding piracy of copyrighted content from Malibu Media, makers of Tori The Endless Orgasm and Tiffany Teenagers In Love. The caller offered to settle the case for a few thousand dollars, but if she refused this offer, she was warned, she could be taken to court and sued for $150,000, and would be publicly named for downloading the content. Ms. Barker informed the representative that she had never downloaded pornography from the Internet and didn't even know what BitTorrent was, but the calls continued, including to her work voicemail which could be accessed by her bosses. Her lawyer, Ken Henry, told The Register that he'd found many similar cases after researching the issue. "They have no intention of going to prosecution," Mr. Henry says. "In this case they used an arcane form of lawsuit in Florida known as a Bill of Discovery, which actually predates civil law on the subject -- it's a discovery lawsuit to seek only information." He pointed out that Malibu Media had been criticized by a federal judge in California last month for just such a case. In that ruling, Judge Otis Wright slammed the company for essentially running a racket to extort money from people over fear of being named in an embarrassing lawsuit. "The federal courts are not cogs in a plaintiff's copyright- enforcement business model," Judge Wright ruled. "The Court will not idly watch what is essentially an extortion scheme, for a case that plaintiff has no intention of bringing to trial." Malibu Media got Ms. Barker's details from a British firm called Intellectual Property Protection Ltd, which scanned IP addresses downloading illegal content. After ISPs had identified the users, the legal process of contacting those identified and extracting damages began. But Mr. Henry argues that IP spoofing and the possibility of downloaders using hijacked networks makes such data highly error-prone, and the courts agree. On behalf of his client, he's now filed charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which was originally introduced to combat organized crime but allows for civil cases. Action has also been taken over defamation of the client's character, causing intentional emotional distress, and misrepresenting the nature of the legal action. RICO's a tough one to prove in court in a case like this, but the case is not without precedent. The RIAA was sued using the RICO statutes by disabled single mother Tanya Andersen after she was accused of file sharing. The industry body backed down -- eventually paying over $100,000 to cover her legal fees. The class action status of the lawsuit means that anyone who has been affected by the issue can join the legal case, and under the RICO statutes they are entitled to triple damages. That said, Henry suggested that the case may kick off a larger debate into whether pornography is actually copyrightable. "I think there's a real question that this pornography they are saying was downloaded is even copyrightable," he said. "According to the constitution, copyright is to protect those works that benefit sciences and the useful arts, and there's nothing useful about pornography." This may be true, but history suggests that many people do find it handy. NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Still Defends 3 Product Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Newell Rubbermaid Inc. continues to defend three product liability class action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The Company is currently a party to two purported state class actions and one purported national Canadian class action. The cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards. The Company is vigorously defending all three actions. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing. Founded in 1903 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Newell Rubbermaid Inc. -- http://www.newellrubbermaid.com-- designs, manufactures, and markets consumer and commercial products. It operates in three segments: Home & Family, Office Products, and Tools, Hardware & Commercial Products. NIKON INC: Recalls 201,200 SLR Camera Rechargeable Battery Packs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Nikon Inc., of Melville, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 5,100 Nikon digital SLR camera battery packs in the United States of America, 1,100 packs in Canada and an additional 195,000 packs worldwide. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery packs can short circuit, causing them to overheat and melt, posing a burn hazard to consumers. Nikon has received seven reports of incidents outside of the U.S. and Canada of the recalled battery packs overheating. No incidents have been reported in the U.S. or Canada. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Nikon EN-EL 15 rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs with lot numbers E and F. The battery pack was sold with the Nikon digital SLR D800 and D7000 model cameras. The battery pack's model number "EN-EL15" and "7.0V 1900mAh 14Wh" are printed on the back of the battery pack. Only battery packs with an "E" or "F" in ninth character of the 14-digit lot number located on the back of the battery pack are included in this recall. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12219.html The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and China and sold at camera, office supply and mass merchandise stores, in catalogs and on various Web sites nationwide. They were sold with the digital SLR camera in Canada from February 2012 through March 2012 and in the U.S. from March 2012 through April 2012 for between $1,200 and $3,000. Consumers should stop using the recalled battery packs immediately, remove them from the camera and contact Nikon for a free replacement battery pack. For additional information, contact Nikon at (800) 645-6687 between 8:00 a.m. through 12:00 midnight Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.nikonusa.com/ PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Remains a Co-Conspirator in Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In November 2006, First Southwest Company (FSC), an indirect subsidiary of PlainsCapital Corporation, received subpoenas from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ) in connection with an investigation of possible antitrust and securities law violations, including bid-rigging, in the procurement of guaranteed investment contracts and other investment products for the reinvestment of bond proceeds by municipalities. The investigation is industry- wide and includes approximately 30 or more firms, including some of the largest U.S. investment firms. As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases filed in several different federal courts by various state and local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situated governmental entities. All claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were subsequently dismissed. However, the plaintiffs in these purported class actions have filed amended complaints against other entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named defendants. Additionally, as a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide practices, FSC has been named as a defendant in 20 individual lawsuits. These lawsuits have been brought by several California public entities and two New York non-profit corporations that do not seek to certify a class. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act. The New York plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the New York Donnelly Act. The allegations against FSC are very limited in scope. FSC has filed answers in each of the twenty lawsuits denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses. FSC intends to defend itself vigorously in these individual actions. The relief sought is unspecified monetary damages. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Dallas-based PlainsCapital Corporation -- http://plainscapital.com/-- is founded by Chairman and CEO Alan B. White, whose family of companies includes PlainsCapital Bank, PrimeLending and FirstSouthwest. It offers a diverse range of financial services. RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 2, 2012. The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating. These lawsuits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits. The Company's management believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims. RITE AID: Discovery Proceeding in One of Store Managers' Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in one of two class action lawsuits brought on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation's store managers, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 2, 2012. The Company has been named in two putative collective and class action lawsuits, including Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed in federal and state courts in New York and Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country outside of California. The lawsuits allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and under certain state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. The Court in Indergit, on April 2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery is proceeding. At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and not appropriate for collective or class action treatment and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. RITE AID: Final Hearing on Wage and Hour Suits Deal on Oct. 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- A final approval hearing on Rite Aid Corporation's global settlement of wage and hour class action lawsuits is scheduled for October 24, 2012, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 2, 2012. Since December 2008, the Company has been named in a series of fifteen (15) currently pending putative collective and class action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts around the country, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant store managers and co-managers working in the Company's stores at various locations outside California, including Craig et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") and Ibea et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to salaried assistant store managers and co-managers as purportedly required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and certain state statutes. The lawsuits also seek other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal claims for overtime pay. Notice was issued to over 7,500 current and former assistant store managers and co-managers offering them the opportunity to "opt in" to certain of the FLSA collective actions and about 1,250 have elected to participate in these lawsuits. The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the lawsuits and the allegation that the cases should be certified as class or collective actions. However, in light of the cost and uncertainty involved in these lawsuits, the Company negotiated an agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel on the key terms of a global settlement. Subsequent to the end of the first quarter, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel to resolve the series of lawsuits. The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court which was granted on June 18, 2012. Any final resolution of these matters will be subject to final court approval. A final approval hearing has been scheduled on October 24, 2012. During the period ended June 2, 2012, the Company recorded legal reserves of $20,900,000 related to the estimated settlement payments for these matters. SCRANTON, PA: Faces Class Action Over Salary Cuts ------------------------------------------------- Perry Chiaramonte, writing for FoxNews.com, reports that civil service workers in Scranton, Pa., still reeling from having their pay slashed en masse to the minimum wage, have filed a class action lawsuit against the beleaguered city and its mayor, who defied a judge's order not to cut salaries. The suit was filed by six Scranton police officers and firefighters in a Pennsylvania federal court on July 10, but it covers them and "all other persons similarly situated," saying that the collective action was against a violation from the Fair Labor Standards Act. "The law is clear. You cannot violate a workers contract," Thomas Jennings, an attorney who is representing three Scranton civil service unions, told FoxNews.com as he was preparing on July 9 to file multiple suits against the city and its Mayor Christopher Doherty. Mayor Doherty cut everyone's pay -- including his own -- on July 6 down to the state minimum of $7.25 per hour, saying the state's sixth-largest city is broke because the City Council blocked his proposed tax increase in a 2012 budget proposal. The salary cuts are the latest in a long-standing stalemate between the mayor and the City Council, with the town's employees stuck in the middle. "This is a case where our local politicians can't get it together," Mr. Jennings said. "It's not that they don't have the money. It's that he [Doherty] doesn't want to get the money needed." Mayor Doherty has not responded to numerous requests from FoxNews.com for comment. Also filed in federal court on July 10 was a lawsuit on behalf of 10 retired Scranton cops and firefighters out on disability leave who had their benefits reduced. A complaint petition was also filed in Lackawanna County Court arguing that Mayor Doherty had violated a judge's order barring the Mayor from cutting wages. The city of Scranton has battled budget woes for the past two decades, registering under the Distressed Municipalities Act, but the problems reached a boiling point after the City Council blocked Mayor Doherty's plan to raise taxes to cover a $16.8 million shortfall, opting instead to borrow money to cover the budget gap. "Scranton is infamous as being economically depressed," Anthony Figliola, vice president of Empire Government Strategies and former deputy supervisor for Brookhaven, N.Y., where he oversaw 500 employees and a $200 million budget, told FoxNews.com. "The mayor is calling them [city council] on their bluff, but at the expense of the taxpayers. There's a lot of things that could be done that they just aren't doing," Mayor Figliola said. STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Lunsford" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. continues to await court approval of a settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 25, 2011. In May 2011, Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, was served with an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside ("Harold F. Lunsford et al. v. Stater Bros. Markets") seeking individual and potential class action damages including associated penalties for Markets' alleged failure to provide meal periods, rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof and alleged failure to pay certain wages for terminated employees. On January 26, 2012, following a mediation, this case was settled subject to final court approval of the settlement and the full settlement amount has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2012. Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout Southern California. STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Martinez" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- On November 5, 2010, an action by Diego De Jesus Martinez was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets Markets, seeking individual and potential class action monetary damages for alleged discrepancies between the actual time worked by certain employees and the amounts recorded on Markets' time clock reports. On October 26, 2011, following a mediation, the Martinez Case was settled subject to final court approval of the settlement and the full settlement amount was recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2011. No further updates were reported in the Stater Bros.'s May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 25, 2012. Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout Southern California. SUNPOWER CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- SunPower Corporation continues to defend itself against remaining claims in a consolidated securities class action after a California court dismissed some of the other claims, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2012. Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through November 16, 2009. The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010. The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation announcement on November 16, 2009 regarding certain unsubstantiated accounting entries. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and 2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters. The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010. The court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011. An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011. The amended complaint added two former employees as defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 23, 2011. The motions to dismiss the amended complaint were heard by the court on August 11, 2011. On December 19, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims brought pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims brought against the two newly added former employees. The Company is currently unable to determine if the resolution of these matters will have an adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation -- http://www.sunpowercorp.com/ -- an integrated solar products and services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solar electric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale power plant customers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Utility and Power Plants, and Residential and Commercial. SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Gas & Power USA, SAS. TICKETMASTER: Ontario Judge Approves Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Adrian Humphreys, writing for National Post, reports that ticket resellers are colloquially called "scalpers" for profiting from the desperate, but in the case against Ticketmaster and its resale company, it is the lawyers getting the best seats in the house: An Ontario court has approved a class-action settlement giving each victim $36 per ticket and $1,258,632 to their lawyers. An Ontario Superior Court judge approved the settlement offer in a large class-action suit last week, including fees for the law firms pressing the case. The suit must still be approved by judges in Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba before the ticket agency pays the projected $5-million. "We have shut down the scalping aspect of their business," said Ward Branch, a Vancouver-based class-action specialist. "We want Ticketmaster to feel the sting" and send a warning to other ticket profiteers: "they'll be next." The settlement calls for the company to pay $36 for each of the 139,848 tickets bought through the company's resale wing, TicketsNow, in the four provinces where there are anti-scalping laws. The payout is expected to total $5,034,528 if every check is cashed. Lawyers at two firms specializing in class-action suits who worked on the case since 2009 will get 25% of each check, for a projected $1,258,632. "Fair and reasonable compensation must be sufficient to provide a real economic incentive to lawyers to take on a class proceeding and to do it well," said Justice Paul Perell in his ruling. "Counsel are entitled to a fair fee, which may include a premium for the risk undertaken and the result achieved, but the fees must not bring about a settlement that is in the interests of the lawyers but not in the best interests of the class members as a whole," he said. The plaintiffs told court they were satisfied with the arrangement. Mr. Branch defended the lawyers' cut, saying it is becoming a standard in class-action cases. "The adage that 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing really applies in class-action lawsuits," Mr. Branch said. "We agree to work for free and if we lose, we get nothing -- less than nothing because we would be out of pocket." An unusual clause in this settlement has the company proactively mailing checks to those who bought inflated resale tickets without having to fill out forms and file a claim. Mr. Branch hopes the simplified process is copied in future class- action suits. The money from any checks not cashed will be pooled and donated to charity. The settlement is scheduled to be heard soon in Alberta, followed by Quebec and finally, on Aug. 15, in Manitoba. "Then we want people to start looking in the mail for a check and let us know if it hasn't arrived," said Mr. Branch. The other claim in the suit -- complaints over service charges added by Ticketmaster in the primary ticket market -- continues in court. "Our argument there is, if the 'convenience fees' aren't anything to do with actual costs but just a way of charging more, then it is offside," said Mr. Branch. Wendy Matheson, a lawyer representing Ticketmaster, declined to comment on the settlement ruling. In 2008, Toronto consultant Henryk Krajewski tried to buy tickets online through Ticketmaster to a Smashing Pumpkins concert. The tickets had a face value of $66.50 each. The show was deemed sold out, and he was directed to the TicketsNow Web site where he paid $533.65, including service charges and shipping costs. He later learned TicketsNow is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ticketmaster and his distaste with the transaction prompted him to file a class-action suit against the companies in 2009. Days later, Edmonton draftsman Norman Brandsma also started an action against Ticketmaster after buying tickets to shows by David Byrne and Jay Leno. A third Ticketmaster suit, by Jeffrey Dunbrack, was also brought to court and all three were consolidated into one action. "While each of the actions is based on a different statute, the theory of the plaintiffs is the same; namely, the sale of primary and secondary market tickets to the plaintiffs and to the members of the proposed classes was contrary to the various statutes," said Judge Perell. The plaintiffs sought an injunction stopping the companies from resale markups and damages for unjust enrichment and conspiracy. In April 2011, the parties began settlement discussions. By January, an agreement was reached regarding the secondary market complaints over resale by TicketsNow. TICKETMASTER: Proposed Class Action Settlement Challenged --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Journal reports that some 80 objectors have raised concerns about a proposed class action settlement with Ticketmaster in which attorneys have asked for $16.5 million in fees and costs while consumers would get no cash and instead receive a discount code worth $1.50 off future purchases and a $5 discount code for UPS delivery fees -- both capped at 17 transactions. TROXEL CO: Recalls 105,400 Flexible Flyer Swing Sets ---------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with The Troxel Company, of Moscow, Tennessee, announced a voluntary recall of about 100,500 Flexible Flyer Swing Sets in the United States of America and 4,900 units in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The see saw seats can break away from the bolt fasteners during use, posing a fall hazard. The firm received 1,232 reports of see saw seats breaking resulting in thirteen injuries to young children that included bumps, bruises and lacerations. The Flexible Flyer swing sets come in 11 different models each with a see saw attachment along with swings, bars or a slide. The model number can be found on a sticker located underneath the center of the top bar of each swing set unit. Model numbers and names are: Model # Model Name ------- ---------- 41575 BIG ADVENTURE 41577 FUN FANTASTIC 41578 FUN FANTASTIC II 42003 BACKYARD FLYER 42013 BACKYARD FUN 42023 BACKYARD SWINGIN' FUN 42030 WINDSOR II 42124 FUN TIME 42126 FANTASTIC PLAYGROUND 42544 TRIPLE FUN 42560 TRIPLE FUN II Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12220.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold by Walmart, Toys R Us, Academy and at other specialty stores, and online retailers from December 2011 through May 2012 for between $130 and $280. Consumers should stop using the see saws immediately and contact Troxel to receive a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Troxel at (888) 770-7060 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web site at http://www.regcen.com/flexibleflyer/ VIBRAM INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on FiveFingers --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Vibram FiveFingers makes unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of its "barefoot" running shoes, which may actually increase the risk of injury, consumers say in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Ali Savafi sued Concord, Mass.-based Vibram Inc. and Vibram FiveFingers. Mr. Savafi says Vibram's claims that its shoes improve posture, prevent injury and promote spine alignment are false and deceptive. Vibram FiveFingers claims its "minimalist shoes," which cost $80 to $125, replicate the benefits of barefoot running. The shoes, contoured to fit the shape of the foot, fitting glovelike over the toes, are made with a thin Vibram patented sole. But the class says the shoes do not perform as advertised. "Unbeknownst to consumers, defendants' health benefit claims are false and deceptive because FiveFingers are not proven to provide any of the health benefits beyond what conventional running shoes provide," according to the 31-page federal complaint. No scientific evidence supports FiveFingers' advertising claims, and compared to other running shoes -- or actual barefoot running -- the company's products may increase the risk of injury, the class claims. "With conventional running shoes, the runner runs with a heel- strike manner. But with FiveFingers, a runner must run with a forefoot strike pattern," the complaint states. "This process, necessary with FiveFingers, can be long and painful, and can even lead to injuries." A University of Wisconsin study found that runners often have to change their gait when switching to FiveFingers running shoes, the class claims. It says that adapting to the shoes may involve an "injury-fraught regimen." "Defendants conveyed and continue to convey their deceptive claims about FiveFingers in a variety of ways that repeat and reinforce the deceptive message, including at the point of sale, with in- store displays, with packaging that typically includes booklets and hang tags, and on the Internet," the complaint states. It seeks a jury trial, restitution, an injunction and damages for unfair competition, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and breach of express warranty. Vibram did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A copy of the Complaint in Safavi v. Vibram USA Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-05900 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/11/FiveFingers.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. Nicole M. Duckett, Esq. MILBERG LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: nduckett@milberg.com - and - Janine L. Pollack, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: jpollack@milberg.com XL GROUP: Got N.J. Court's Nod on Antitrust Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- A New Jersey federal court approved in March 2012 a class settlement negotiated by subsidiaries of XL Group to resolve a brokerage antitrust litigation, and appeals have been filed challenging the court approval, XL Group disclosed in its May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action that was consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184, filed a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XLIT Ltd ("XL-Cayman"), collectively referred to as the "XL Defendants." In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance. The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. By Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice and, by Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in large part the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of certain Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against several defendants including the XL Defendants but remanded those claims to the District Court for further consideration of their adequacy. In light of its reversal and remand of certain of the federal claims, the Third Circuit also reversed the District Court's dismissal (based on the District Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction) of the state-law claims against all defendants. On October 1, 2010, the remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants, filed motions to dismiss the remanded federal claims and the state-law claims. The motions were fully briefed in November 2010. In May 2011, a majority of the remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants, executed a formal Settlement Agreement with the Class Action plaintiffs to settle the Class Action and dismiss all claims with prejudice. The settlement was approved by the District Court by Order dated March 30, 2012. The XL Defendants' portion of the defendants' aggregate settlement payment is $6.75 million. Certain objectors have filed appeals from the District Court's March 30, 2012 Order approving the settlement. XL Group plc -- http://www.xlgroup.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance coverages to industrial, commercial, and professional firms, as well as insurance companies and other enterprises worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: Insurance, Reinsurance, and Life Operations. * LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Settles Price Fixing Case for $571MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced on July 12, 2012, a $571 million multi-state settlement with three major technology corporations charged with illegally conspiring to boost prices for liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptops. As part of the agreement reached with AU Optronics Corporation, LG Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba Corporation, and affiliated entities of each corporation, New York State taxpayers are expected to receive upwards of $10 million through recovery for government purchases and penalties, in addition to restitution to compensate consumers affected by the scheme. The corporate defendants in the latest round of settlements agreed to pay $543.5 million to settle antitrust claims brought on behalf of consumers, government entities, and other public entities by a multistate group of eight Attorneys General and private class action attorneys. Separately, two of the defendants agreed to pay $27.5 million in fines and penalties to the States. The defendants also agreed to engage in antitrust compliance programs. Together with seven earlier settlements with other defendants reached by Attorney General Schneiderman in December 2011, total settlement payments will top $1.1 billion dollars. "This price-fixing scheme created an unlevel playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers paying artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics," said Attorney General Schneiderman. "Protecting the integrity of the marketplace is the only way to ensure the best outcome for New York's consumers. That is why my office will aggressively police anti-competitive practices and hold accountable corporations that violate the law." New York's complaint alleged that from 1999 to 2006 Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese manufacturers of thin film transistor ("TFT") LCD panels, together with their U.S. affiliates, engineered a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels, and sold into New York millions of TFT-LCD panels at prices fixed by the cartel. TFT-LCD screens are essential components of televisions, computer monitors, and laptop screens. Substantially all TFT-LCD products sold in New York during the conspiracy period were sold at high prices illegally fixed by the conspiracy. Following court approval of the settlements, at least $692 million will be available for partial refunds to compensate consumers residing in New York and 23 other States and the District of Columbia who purchased products containing TFT-LCD panels during the period beginning January 1, 1999 and continuing through December 31, 2006. Information on how consumers can claim partial refunds, once the Court has approved the settlements, as well as other information about the settlements and the court approval process, is available at http://www.lcdclass.com In addition to the consumer recoveries, defendants in the case will pay $8 million in penalties to New York State's treasury. New York State and other New York public entities that purchased the price-fixed products will receive at least $8 million in partial refunds. Other States and public entities will receive an additional $34 million in penalties, and an additional $24 million in partial refunds. These settlements conclude Attorney General Schneiderman's lawsuit against alleged LCD cartel participants. Attorney General Schneiderman expressed his gratitude to the New York State Office of General Services, New York's public procurement agency, for its important assistance in the case. The case was handled for New York by Assistant Attorneys General Richard L. Schwartz and Amy McFarlane of the Antitrust Bureau, with oversight by Bureau Chief Scott Hemphill and Executive Deputy Attorney General Karla G. Sanchez. ********* 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 * * *