/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120723.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 144
Headlines
ACE HOME: Chinese Drywall Suit Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
BAYER PHARMA: Lawyers Urge Yaz-Affected Women to File Suit
CANADA: Court Certifies Doctors' Class Action vs. B.C. Gov't
CHATTANOOGA BILLIARD: Poker Players File Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles MBS Class Action for $698 Million
GRUNENTHAL: Settles Thalidomide Class Action in Australia
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Drug Recall
KOSMOS ENERGY: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action
LEHMAN BROTHERS: McCully, Mullen Seek Class Certification
META FINANCIAL: Awaits Results of June 29 Fairness Hearing
META FINANCIAL: Bank Continues to Defend Gift Cards Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
MGIC INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend C-BASS-related Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Parties in Discrimination Suit Ink MoU
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Chavez" Suit
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Continues to Defend Canada Class Suit
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Remains Sub Judice
MOSAIC CO: Considering Appeal Options in Potash Antitrust Suits
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: $1.8MM Insurance Coverage Remaining as of Mar.
PANLINE USA: Recalls 8,000 Alex Trampolines Due to Fall Hazard
PROVIDENCE, RI: City Faces Class Action Over Pension Cuts
RADIAN GROUP: Continues to Defend RESPA Class Action Suits
SAMUEL LAWRENCE: Recalls 2,500 Sleigh Beds Due to Fall Hazard
SCORES HOLDING: Settled "Diaz" Class Action Suit for $450,000
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Millennium-Related Suits vs. Unit
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Anwar" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
SUPERVALU: Shareholder Threatens Class Action Over Mismanagement
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits
THQ: Levi & Korsinsky Launches Class Action Over Failed uDraw
TRUMPF MEDICAL: Recalls 215 Units of Television Mounting System
UNITED RENTALS: Awaits Court Approval of "Israni" Suit Settlement
*********
ACE HOME: Chinese Drywall Suit Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman and Herman,
Herman & Katz on July 18 issued a statement regarding the Chinese
Drywall Class Action Settlement.
"A global Settlement has been reached in a class action litigation
involving all drywall imported to the U.S. from China," announced
Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel Russ Herman, of Herman, Herman & Katz.
The litigation claims that Chinese drywall causes property damage,
including damage to fixtures, electrical wiring, corrosion of
pipes, and damage to or destruction of air conditioners, HVAC
systems, refrigerators, and other appliances. Some people have
also claimed that they suffered bodily injury as a result of
exposure to Chinese drywall.
The companies being sued are distributors, suppliers, builders,
developers, and installers who were associated with Chinese
drywall. Some of these companies ("Participating Defendants") and
some of their insurance companies ("Participating Insurers") have
agreed to a Settlement. The Participating Defendants and
Participating Insurers deny they did anything wrong.
"This Settlement addresses a range of claims that people may have
about Chinese drywall -- whether they are homeowners, renters,
developers, homeowner associations, or others who have sustained
losses. And in combination with the resolution of other class
action lawsuits, it will ensure that people are compensated
through cash payments and/or removal and replacement of the
Chinese drywall that caused damage," said Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel
Arnold Levin of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.
Individuals and businesses are Class Members and likely included
in the Settlement if they have any claim for property damage or
personal injuries related to Chinese drywall that was installed
anywhere in the U.S., except for in Virginia. More information
about the type of damage caused by Chinese drywall, including
pictures of the included drywall and damage the lawsuit claims it
causes, can be found at the Settlement Web site,
http://www.ChineseDrywallClass.com
Currently, there is not a claims process for this Settlement. At a
later date, the Court will approve a plan to distribute benefits
to Class Members. At that time, Class Members may receive
payments for their damages or replacement of their drywall.
Some Class Members will have received a notice in the mail about
the Settlement, and do not have to do anything to stay in the
Class. For those who did not receive a notice in the mail, they
must register to receive future updates about the Settlement,
including when a claims process is available. Class Members can
register at http://www.ChineseDrywallClass.comby completing the
Online Registration Form, or by calling 1-877-418-8087.
Class Members have a choice of whether or not to stay in the
Class. If Class Members choose to stay in the Class, they will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and they
will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Defendants for
the issues involved in this lawsuit.
Class Members that do not wish to be included in the Settlement
can ask to be excluded from the Class. If they exclude
themselves, they will keep any rights to sue the Participating
Defendants for these claims, now or in the future, and will not be
bound by any orders or judgments of the Court. Class Members must
exclude themselves in writing by September 28, 2012.
More information regarding this lawsuit and Class Members' rights,
including how Class Members can exclude themselves, is available
at http://www.ChineseDrywallClass.comor by calling 1-877-418-
8087.
BAYER PHARMA: Lawyers Urge Yaz-Affected Women to File Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys at Pulaski & Middleman, LLC are actively
representing women affected by the adverse side effects of the
birth control drugs Yaz and Yasmin and the maker of the drugs,
Bayer Pharmaceuticals. Medical malpractice lawyers are committed
to protecting the legal rights of women who have been misinformed
of the risks of taking these drugs. The cutoff date for filing
has not yet been determined, but the current Class Action
Settlement will likely close within a year or less. Since the
timeframe is unclear, it is highly recommended that women take
action and file their suits now.
Bayer Pharmaceuticals recently indicated which types of cases it
would agree to settle as well as what the average amount would be.
More than 10,000 individuals have filed a Yaz lawsuit. The formal
class action lawsuit is known as Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation.
The most common lawsuits that have been filed are by women have
suffered stroke, Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVP) or Pulmonary Embolism
after taking Yaz. Recent studies have linked drospirenone, the
chemical present in the birth control drugs, to blood clots that
can cause these conditions to occur. The United States Food and
Drug Administration recently released a study, which followed more
than 825,000 women taking oral contraceptives and found that women
taking Yaz face up to a 74% increased risk of developing blood
clots, DVT and pulmonary embolism.
The law office of Pulaski & Middleman, LLC urges women who have
experienced these life-threatening injuries to contact an
experienced personal injury lawyer and investigate your rights
now. The window of time to claim your injury is small as it took
Bayer Pharmaceuticals 4 years to open up the settlements.
Contact the experienced Yaz attorneys at Pulaski & Middleman, LLC
today if you or a loved one has experienced the harmful effects of
the birth control drug. Contact toll free at 1-800-BAD-DRUG.
CANADA: Court Certifies Doctors' Class Action vs. B.C. Gov't
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2012, the Honourable Madam Justice Elaine Adair of the
British Columbia Supreme Court certified the lawsuit James Peter
Halvorson v. Medical Services Commission of British Columbia and
others, No. C985385, as a class action under the Class Proceedings
Act.
Dr. Halvorson, an emergency room physician from Duncan, B.C.
launched these proceedings against the Provincial Government in
October 1998 on behalf of himself and all other physicians
treating British Columbia residents. Dr. Halvorson seeks
compensation for medical services rendered to B.C. residents from
July 23, 1992 to April 30, 1996 for which the Provincial
Government has refused to pay.
Despite the concept of universality (100% of all residents of a
province) that is enshrined in the Canada Health Act and in B.C.'s
Medicare Protection Act, many residents of British Columbia were
not covered by the Medical Services Plan ("MSP") due to the non-
payment of their MSP premiums. The Provincial Government's
internal documents estimated that, at times, up to 363,000
eligible B.C. residents were not being insured by MSP for this
reason. British Columbia doctors nevertheless provided treatment
to these uninsured BC residents at considerable personal costs.
After learning of the decision to certify the lawsuit as a class
action, Dr. Halvorson said:
"The Provincial Government broke its own laws by placing this
burden on the backs of the physicians. It is simply unfair that
the Province has received money from the federal government to
cover these individuals and then has refused to pay the physicians
who treated them. We want to right that wrong with this lawsuit."
The decision of Madam Justice Adair marks a long class
certification process that started in 2000 before Madam Justice
Wendy Baker whose refusal to certify was overturned by the Court
of Appeal in 2003. Class certification is a procedural
requirement, which must be met before the matter can proceed to a
hearing on the merits. Dr. Halvorson will act as the Class
Representative Plaintiff for all class members. Dr. Halvorson
estimates that the total value of the claims may well be in excess
of $100,000,000. He stated:
"This decision is good for British Columbian Medicare. It is
another step towards making this Government recognize its
obligations under the Canada Health Act to all British Columbians
and their physicians."
A trial date has not yet been set.
For more information, contact Dr. Halvorson at 250-710-8813 or his
legal counsel, Arthur Grant at 604-609-6699 or visit the Web site
at http://www.gkn.caand click on the link for the MSP class
action update.
CHATTANOOGA BILLIARD: Poker Players File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Chatanoogan.com reports that some disgruntled poker players,
saying they were promised prizes in an annual poker tournament at
the Chattanooga Billiard Club, have filed suit after the
tournament was canceled.
The Chancery Court suit, which seeks status as a class action,
also named Phil Windham, CBC owner.
The suit says the free Texas Hold 'Em poker tournaments have been
going on for over two years on Monday nights at the CBC location
on Jordan Drive.
It says certain winners at the weekly tournaments qualified for
prizes at a monthly tournament, and monthly winners could be in
the annual tournament.
Michael Morelan, who has been conducting the tournaments, said he
was advised recently that the poker tournaments were being halted.
He said he inquired of Mr. Windham if that was true and an
assistant manager checked, then told him, "Phil (Windham) says no
Annual Tournament and that this is the last week."
Mr. Morelan said he then called Mr. Windam on his cell phone. He
said Mr. Windham stated: "This is the last week of poker. I am
not going to put out any more money for poker. It is my money and
I am going to keep it and there will be no annual tournament."
The suit, filed by attorney Hoyt Samples, says promises of
additional winnings at the annual tournament had been held out to
the poker players and that the CBC had benefitted from the players
buying food and drink.
It asks that damages be awarded to the plaintiffs.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles MBS Class Action for $698 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado at Bloomberg News report that
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. reached a class settlement with investors
in a $698 million mortgage-backed securities offering, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs told a federal judge in New York.
David Wales, who represents the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi, told U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in a
letter made public on July 17 that both sides had accepted a
settlement proposed by a mediator. Details of the agreement
weren't disclosed.
Mr. Wales said the parties will file papers by July 31 asking
Judge Baer to approve the settlement.
The Mississippi retirement fund sued in 2009, claiming New Century
Financial Corp. (CYFL), which originated the mortgages underlying
the securities, failed to adhere to its underwriting standards and
overstated the value of the collateral backing the loans. The
fund claimed Goldman Sachs didn't conduct proper due diligence
when it bought the loans in 2005.
Judge Baer in February granted a request by the Mississippi fund
to represent a class of more than 150 investors in the offering.
Michael DuVally, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, declined to comment on
the settlement.
The case is Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 09-cv-01110, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
GRUNENTHAL: Settles Thalidomide Class Action in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Gelineau, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an Australian woman leading a class action lawsuit has reached a
multimillion dollar settlement with the British distributor of an
anti-morning sickness drug that she says caused her birth defects,
her lawyer told a court on July 18.
Lynette Rowe, 50, of Melbourne, was born without arms or legs
after her mother took the drug thalidomide while pregnant.
Thalidomide was given to pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s as
a treatment for morning sickness, but was yanked from the market
in 1961 after it was linked to birth defects. It led to
deformities in thousands of babies across the world.
Ms. Rowe led the Australian class action against three parties:
German drugmaker Grunenthal, UK-based Distillers Company
(Biochemicals) Ltd. -- which sold the drug in Australia -- and
Diageo Scotland Ltd., the successor company to Distillers. The
lawsuit claims that Grunenthal should have known thalidomide was
linked to birth defects when it was on the market.
In Victoria state Supreme Court on July 18, Ms. Rowe's lawyer,
Peter Gordon, said his client had reached a settlement with Diageo
and Distillers. Grunenthal declined to settle.
Exact terms of the settlement were confidential, but Ms. Rowe's
lawyers said it was several million dollars. The lawsuit asked
for compensation for the victims' pain and suffering, lost wages
and future medical care.
"This is a great outcome for a wonderful family," Mr. Gordon said
in a statement. "The amount of the settlement will remain private
but I can say it is a multimillion dollar amount and will be
sufficient to provide a very good level of care for Lyn for the
rest of her life."
More than 100 others who are part of the class action will also
have their claims heard by Diageo, Mr. Gordon said. Ms. Rowe's
lawyers will ask for the trial against Diageo and the other
defendants to be delayed from October until August 2013 to allow
the company time to settle the pending claims, Mr. Gordon said.
Ms. Rowe smiled as she left the courthouse and said she was
pleased others harmed by thalidomide will now have the chance to
seek compensation from Diageo.
"It is great that my case will bring about good things for other
people too. It shows you don't need arms and legs to change the
world," Ms. Rowe said in a statement. "Like I always say: see the
person, not the disability."
Diageo and Grunenthal representatives did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.
Thalidomide lawsuits have been filed across the world over the
years, with many settled for millions of dollars. In 2010, the
British government officially apologized to people hurt by the
drug, after earlier agreeing to pay 20 million pounds ($31
million) to thalidomide's victims.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Drug Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson &
Johnson consumers who claim that they overpaid for products that
were later recalled cannot sue the company, a federal judge ruled.
The case represented 10 consolidated actions filed across the
country concerning over-the-counter products made at a plant in
Fort Washington, Pa., that were later recalled.
Consumers said the drugmaker's reputation led them to pay extra
for brand-name versions of over-the-counter children's medicine
like Tylenol (acetaminophen), Motrin (ibuprofen) and Benadryl
(diphenhydramine).
"That is one reason why the failure of defendants to timely tell
consumers the truth about the serious degradation of the quality
and condition of the subject products has caused harm to
consumers, who continued to pay inflated, premium prices for all
subject products -- not just those defendants chose to recall when
government scrutiny became too great to avoid public disclosure
any longer," according to the amended complaint against Johnson &
Johnson and its subsidiary, McNeil Consumer Healthcare.
In an April 2010 report detailing its inspection of McNeil
facilities in Fort Washington, the Food and Drug Administration
identified manufacturing problems in testing, labeling, training
and record keeping.
That same month, McNeil recalled 126 million bottles of infant and
children's products, prompting a Congressional investigation.
Consumers who bought recalled drugs were offered coupons or cash
refunds, but those who filed suit said the coupons failed to fully
make up for their losses.
The refund applied only to the average retail price of products
and excluded sales tax, they said.
McNeil should also cover alleged costs connected to investigation
of the recall, including the disposal of the products, travel to
buy replacement products and medical treatments in the instance of
adverse reactions, according to the complaint.
Consumers claimed that McNeil's quality-control problems were
longstanding, purposefully concealed, and the result of oversight
cutbacks instituted by upper-management at Johnson & Johnson.
They said they didn't need to show that they actually received
defective products because they suffered losses when they paid
premium prices for products manufactured at a facility with
quality-control problems.
U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin rejected that argument on
July 13, dismissing the case with prejudice.
"No named plaintiff either has been refused a refund for a product
that was recalled or alleged that a nonrecalled product is
defective as to them," Judge McLaughlin wrote.
To establish that the drugs they purchased were defective, the
plaintiffs should have showed some sort of personal injury, and
not merely "rely upon the experiences of other individuals,"
according to the complaint.
"The fact that other persons suffered adverse effects, or that the
defendants recalled some products that were manufactured in the
same facility as the drugs they purchased, does not suffice to
establish injury in fact as to this group," the a 53-page opinion
states.
A copy of the Memorandum in In re: McNeil Consumer Healthcare, et
al., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2190 (E.D.
Pa.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/18/mcneilopinion.pdf
KOSMOS ENERGY: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 17 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Kosmos
Energy Ltd. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the initial
public offering on or about May 12, 2011 (the "IPO") through
November 10, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 11, 2012. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/kosmos/
Any member of the putative 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.
The complaint charges Kosmos, certain of its officers and/or
directors and the underwriters of its May 12, 2011 IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Kosmos is an oil and
gas exploration company that focuses its exploration efforts
almost entirely on the Jubilee oil field located in deep water off
the coast of the Republic of Ghana.
The complaint alleges that in 2007, Kosmos entered into
partnership with several other gas exploration companies to share
the costs of developing the Jubilee oil field. Kosmos and its
partners agreed to spend over $3.3 billion to develop the Jubilee
oil field, which was projected to produce 120,000 barrels of oil
per day ("BOPD") by the third quarter of 2011.
On or about April 25, 2011, Kosmos filed with the SEC the Form S-
1/A Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about May 12, 2011,
the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and 34,518,242 shares of
Kosmos common stock (including partial exercise of the over-
allotment) were sold to the public at $18.00 per share, thereby
raising more than $620 million.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement and
Prospectus were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement and
Prospectus misstated, at the time of the IPO, the progress the
Company had made in developing the Jubilee oil field. The
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus were
materially false because, at the time of the IPO, gross oil
production from the Jubilee field was not on track to reach its
design capacity of 120,000 BOPD by the third quarter of 2011.
Rather, several of the Jubilee oil wells were not producing as
expected due to design defects with the oil wells -- defects which
existed at the time of completion and pre-dated the IPO. These
design defects would cost Kosmos hundreds of millions of dollars
to remediate, and would keep the Jubilee oil wells from producing
as expected for several years. None of this was reported in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus.
Investors first began learning the truth about the Jubilee oil
field on July 5, 2011, when one of Kosmos's partners, Tullow Oil,
issued a press release announcing that production from the Jubilee
oil field was flowing at 80,000 BOPD, which was 40,000 barrels
below the anticipated 120,000 BOPD. Investors received more bad
news about the Jubilee oil wells in August 2011, when Tullow Oil
announced that production from the Jubilee oil field was flowing
and was projected to remain at the 82,000-84,000 BOPD range, not
the 120,000 BOPD range that Kosmos reported in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus. Then, on November 10, 2011, Kosmos
finally addressed the problems with the Jubilee oil wells in the
Company's third quarter 2011 earnings release. Kosmos stated
cryptically that it had "identified completion issues [that]
require one of the producing wells to be sidetracked, as well as
downhole remediation on certain other wells." In response to the
disclosure of the problems with the Jubilee oil wells, the price
of Kosmos stock fell approximately 25% from the IPO price of $18
per share to trade in the $13 per share range.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Kosmos common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO on or
about May 12, 2011 through November 10, 2011. The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation. The firm has nearly 200
lawyers in nine offices.
LEHMAN BROTHERS: McCully, Mullen Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCully and Michael Mullen have filed a motion to certify
a class of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s claimants.
The members of the putative class include those who have filed
claims against Lehman for deferred compensation, and who were
identified in the company's 313th and 319th omnibus objections.
The class is estimated to have more than 250 members.
"By certifying the class, the court will ensure that class
members receive due process notice of all bankruptcy
proceedings," said the claimants' lawyer, Richard Schager Jr.,
Esq., at Stamell & Schager LLP, in New York.
"Certification of the class claims would serve the efficient
judicial management of at least 250 pending claims," Mr. Schager
said in a court filing.
Lehman previously sought for the reclassification of those claims
as equity interests. The claims were filed by employees of the
company and affiliates on account of restricted stock units or
contingent stock awards.
The company said the ownership of those equity awards constitutes
an equity interest in the company but does not constitute a claim
against the bankruptcy estates.
The claimants objected to the proposed reclassification, saying
they were not awarded equity but that portions of their bonuses
or commissions were withheld to secure the performance of
services.
A court hearing is scheduled for August 23. Responses to the
proposed class certification are due by August 9.
About Lehman Brothers
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- http://www.lehman.com/-- was
the fourth largest investment bank in the United States. For
more than 150 years, Lehman Brothers has been a leader in the
global financial markets by serving the financial needs of
corporations, governmental units, institutional clients and
individuals worldwide.
Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Sept. 15, 2008
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 08-13555). Lehman's bankruptcy
petition disclosed US$639 billion in assets and US$613 billion in
debts, effectively making the firm's bankruptcy filing the
largest in U.S. history. Several other affiliates followed
thereafter.
Affiliates Merit LLC, LB Somerset LLC and LB Preferred Somerset
LLC sought for bankruptcy protection in December 2009.
The Debtors' bankruptcy cases are handled by Judge James M. Peck.
Harvey R. Miller, Esq., Richard P. Krasnow, Esq., Lori R. Fife,
Esq., Shai Y. Waisman, Esq., and Jacqueline Marcus, Esq., at
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, in New York, represent Lehman. Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions serves as claims and noticing agent.
Dennis F. Dunne, Esq., Evan Fleck, Esq., and Dennis O'Donnell,
Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in New York, serve
as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.
Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Capital, Inc., is the Committee's
investment banker.
On Sept. 19, 2008, the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered an
order commencing liquidation of Lehman Brothers, Inc., pursuant
to the provisions of the Securities Investor Protection Act (Case
No. 08-CIV-8119 (GEL)). James W. Giddens has been appointed as
trustee for the SIPA liquidation of the business of LBI.
The Bankruptcy Court approved Barclays Bank Plc's purchase of
Lehman Brothers' North American investment banking and capital
markets operations and supporting infrastructure for US$1.75
billion. Nomura Holdings Inc., the largest brokerage house in
Japan, purchased LBHI's operations in Europe for US$2 plus the
retention of most of employees. Nomura also bought Lehman's
operations in the Asia Pacific for US$225 million.
Lehman emerged from bankruptcy protection on March 6, 2012, more
than three years after it filed the largest bankruptcy in U.S.
history. Lehman is set to make its first payment to creditors
under its $65 billion payout plan on April 17, 2012.
International Operations Collapse
Lehman Brothers International (Europe), the principal UK trading
company in the Lehman group, was placed into administration,
together with Lehman Brothers Ltd, LB Holdings PLC and LB UK RE
Holdings Ltd. Tony Lomas, Steven Pearson, Dan Schwarzmann and
Mike Jervis, partners at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, have been
appointed as joint administrators to Lehman Brothers
International (Europe) on Sept. 15, 2008. The joint
administrators have been appointed to wind down the business.
Lehman Brothers Japan Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Japan
Inc. filed for bankruptcy in the Tokyo District Court on
Sept. 16. Lehman Brothers Japan Inc. reported about JPY3.4
trillion (US$33 billion) in liabilities in its petition.
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Lehman Brothers
Bankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding
undertaken by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and other
insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings undertaken by its
affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-700)
META FINANCIAL: Awaits Results of June 29 Fairness Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., is awaiting results of the fairness
hearing held June 29, 2012, on a settlement entered in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed by former
stockholders, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
Two former stockholders filed separate purported class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws. The cases were
filed on October 22, 2010 and November 5, 2010 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock
between May 14, 2009 and October 15, 2010. On January 12, 2011,
Judge Mark W. Bennett appointed The Eden Partnership lead
plaintiff and on March 14, 2011 Eden Partnership filed its amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the named officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made between May 14, 2009 and
October 15, 2010 by the Company and its officers. Defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety but on July 18,
2011, the court denied the motion and ordered that discovery
proceed. The parties conducted a mediation on December 5, 2011 and
reached a tentative settlement of the matter. On March 8, 2012,
the court preliminarily approved the terms of the settlement,
directed that notice of the settlement be provided to all
prospective class members and set the case for a final fairness
hearing on June 29, 2012. If, after that hearing, the court
enters an order finally approving the settlement, the case will be
dismissed with prejudice. As of May 10, 2012, provided that the
amount of the tentative settlement is approved by the court, and
the amount of the settlement is paid by the Company's insurance as
expected by the Company, the Company does not expect to incur
losses in addition to the amounts that it has previously expensed
which would be material to its consolidated financial statements.
META FINANCIAL: Bank Continues to Defend Gift Cards Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc.'s bank subsidiary continues to defend a
class action lawsuit filed by a holder of gift cards issued by the
bank, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.
A class action complaint has been filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Nassau, titled Richard J.
Strauss, M.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. MetaBank, which complaint was served upon the Bank on
March 28, 2012. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was the
holder of two gift cards issued by the Bank. The complaint
further alleges that after the expiration date on the cards,
plaintiff's attempts to obtain replacement cards were unsuccessful
due to the Bank's refusal to issue replacement cards. The
Complaint contains several causes of action including breach of
contract and violation of New York state law. The Company denies
liability in these matters and intends to vigorously defend the
suit. An estimate of a range of possible loss cannot be made at
this early stage of the litigation.
MGIC INVESTMENT: RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Several class action lawsuits against MGIC Investment Corporation
relating to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of
mortgage lenders remain pending, according to the Company's May
10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
On or about December 9, 2011, seven mortgage insurers (including
MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was the named plaintiffs'
lender) were named as defendants in a complaint, alleged to be a
class action, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. Since then, as of April 19, 2012, six
similar cases have been filed naming various mortgage lenders and
mortgage insurers (including MGIC) as defendants. One of the six
cases has been voluntarily dismissed.
The complaints in all seven cases alleged various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act paying excessive premiums to the
lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that
captive. MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits. There can
be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA or that the outcome of any such litigation
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend C-BASS-related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its investment in C-
BASS, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.
Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.
In June 2009, Fulton County Employees' Retirement System, as lead
plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action complaint against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. The Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint was granted in February 2010. In March 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The amended
complaint alleged that the Company and two of its officers named
in the amended complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS (a former minority-owned, unconsolidated, joint venture
investment), including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for the Company's investment in C-BASS. In December 2010,
the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint was denied and
the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. In January 2011, the
plaintiffs appealed the February 2010 and December 2010 decisions
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On
April 12, 2012, the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissals by the
District Court. The plaintiffs are entitled to seek review of the
Appeals Court decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for relief
from that court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly
discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs
obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS.
The Company is opposing this motion and the matter is awaiting
decision by the District Court. The Company is unable to predict
the ultimate outcome of these consolidated cases or estimate the
Company's associated expenses or possible losses. Other lawsuits
alleging violations of the securities laws could be brought
against the Company.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Parties in Discrimination Suit Ink MoU
-------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation and the plaintiff in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging discrimination entered into a memorandum
of understanding, which would guide their subsequent settlement
negotiations, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
In July 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a civil
complaint against MGIC and two of its employees in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The
complaint sought redress for alleged housing discrimination. On
April 30, 2012, the parties agreed to the terms of a Consent Order
under which, among other things, MGIC, while denying any claim of
unlawful discrimination, agreed to pay (i) $511,250 into a
settlement fund for possible payments to 70 individuals covered by
the settlement (including the individual loan applicant on whose
behalf the DOJ filed its complaint), and (ii) $38,750 as a
separate civil penalty.
In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the same loan applicant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ complaint was filed. In this separate
lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated
against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex
and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage
insurance. In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion
to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing
Act claims. On April 30, 2012, the parties submitted to the
District Court a Memorandum of Understanding containing the terms
and conditions of a proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Under the
Memorandum of Understanding, MGIC would create a settlement fund
of $500,000 (in addition to the settlement fund created in the DOJ
lawsuit) to pay claims of certain members of the proposed class,
would pay the class representative an incentive fee of $7,500, and
would pay an as yet undetermined amount of attorneys' fees to
class counsel. Any monies remaining in the settlement fund
following the complete administration of the claims process in the
case would be returned to MGIC. The Memorandum of Understanding is
intended to guide the parties' subsequent good faith settlement
negotiations, but is not binding on the parties. In addition, any
definitive settlement agreement reached by the parties would
require final approval by the District Court. Based on the facts
known at this time, the Company does not foresee the ultimate
resolution of this case having a material adverse effect on the
Company.
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Chavez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation is awaiting a court approval of a
settlement entered in a class action lawsuit filed by Christopher
Chavez, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.
In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky(R) beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled
wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior
Court action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "District Court") under the Class
Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or transfer.
On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2009,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth
Circuit") filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the
District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a
preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an
order certifying the class, ruled that there was no preemption by
federal law, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The
class that the District Court certified initially consists of all
persons who purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or
brand in the United States at any time between May 16, 2002 and
June 30, 2006. On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved
the form of the class notice and its distribution plan; and set an
opt-out date of December 10, 2010. On January 27, 2012, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement on terms acceptable to
the Company. On February 23, 2012, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement. A
final approval hearing was scheduled for May 11, 2012. If
approved, the Company does not believe that the settlement will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position
or results of operations.
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Continues to Defend Canada Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit pending in Canadian Court, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its former
Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and
labeled Monster Energy(R) products in Canada by not including
sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-
indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the
consumption of the energy drink products. The plaintiff's claims
against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and
making misleading/false representations in violation of the
Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the
Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario). The plaintiff claims
general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of
C$20 million, together with punitive damages of C$5 million, plus
legal costs and interest. The plaintiff's certification motion
materials have not yet been filed. The Company believes that any
such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations. In
accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion. The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC filing.
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Remains Sub Judice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation's request to dismiss an amended
consolidated class action complaint remains sub judice, according
to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.
On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a second
federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen
Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court.
On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the
"Consolidated Class Action Complaint"). The Consolidated Class
Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9,
2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period"). It named as
defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and
Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the
Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements
with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its sales of "Allied" energy
drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the
basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged
that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of
2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
sought an unspecified amount of damages.
On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act. On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.
On August 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the
"Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects
to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class
Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations set forth in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and makes certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer
names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. The Amended Class Action
Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010. At a hearing on defendants' motion
to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on May 12,
2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling that would
grant the motion to dismiss as to certain of plaintiff's claims,
but would deny the motion to dismiss with regard to the majority
of plaintiff's claims. The District Court has not, however,
issued a final ruling. The District Court held an additional
hearing on the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2011, and has received
supplemental submissions from the parties. Defendants' motion to
dismiss remains sub judice.
The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible
litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be
estimated. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be
determined with certainty, the Company believes that the
allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint are without
merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.
MOSAIC CO: Considering Appeal Options in Potash Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its July 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended May 31, 2012, that it is considering its appeal related
options in connection with affirmation of an order denying its
motion to dismiss claims in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On September 11, 2008, separate complaints (together, the
"September 11, 2008 Cases") were filed in the United States
District Courts for the District of Minnesota (the "Minn-Chem
Case") and the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gage's
Fertilizer Case"), on October 2, 2008, another complaint (the
"October 2, 2008 Case") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on November 10,
2008, and November 12, 2008, two additional complaints (together,
the "November 2008 Cases" and collectively with the September 11,
2008 Cases and the October 2, 2008 Case, the "Direct Purchaser
Cases") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Northern Illinois District
Court") by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft
Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature
Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, respectively, against The Mosaic
Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated
defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout
the United States. On November 13, 2008, the plaintiffs in the
cases in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint
against the defendants, and on December 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem
Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case. On April
3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases. The
amended consolidated complaint added Thomasville Feed and Seed,
Inc. as a named plaintiff, and was filed on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased
potash in the United States directly from the defendants during
the period July 1, 2003, through the date of the amended
consolidated complaint ("Class Period"). The amended consolidated
complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the
defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand;
allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold;
coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and
fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The
plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive
relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including
treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also
seek costs of lawsuit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.
On September 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
by Gordon Tillman (the "Tillman Case"); Feyh Farm Co. and William
H. Coaker Jr. (the "Feyh Farm Case"); and Kevin Gillespie (the
"Gillespie Case;" the Tillman Case and the Feyh Farm Case together
with the Gillespie case being collectively referred to as the
"Indirect Purchaser Cases;" and the Direct Purchaser Cases
together with the Indirect Purchaser Cases being collectively
referred to as the "Potash Antitrust Cases"). The defendants in
the Indirect Purchaser Cases are generally the same as those in
the Direct Purchaser Cases. On November 13, 2008, the initial
plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an
additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action
complaint. On April 3, 2009, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases. The factual allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint are substantially identical to the
summarized cases with respect to the Direct Purchaser Cases. The
amended consolidated complaint in the Indirect Purchaser Cases was
filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of
all persons who indirectly purchased potash products for end use
during the Class Period in the United States, any of 20 specified
states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Indirect Purchaser States," any of 22 specified
states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated
complaint as "Unjust Enrichment States." The plaintiffs generally
sought injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of
damages, including treble damages for violations of the antitrust
laws of the Indirect Purchaser States where allowed by law,
arising from defendants' alleged continuing agreement,
understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint
of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair
competition laws of the Indirect Purchaser States and the consumer
protection and unfair competition laws of the Consumer Fraud
States, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits, for
unjust enrichment under the common law of the Unjust Enrichment
States, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or
full consideration where permitted by applicable state law. The
plaintiffs also seek costs of lawsuit and reasonable attorneys'
fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
On June 15, 2009, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Potash Antitrust Cases.
On November 3, 2009, the court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the complaints in the Indirect Purchaser Cases except (a)
for plaintiffs residing in Michigan and Kansas, claims for alleged
violations of the antitrust or unfair competition laws of Michigan
and Kansas, respectively, and (b) for plaintiffs residing in Iowa,
claims for alleged unjust enrichment under Iowa common law. The
court denied the Company's and the other defendants' other motions
to dismiss the Potash Antitrust Cases, including the defendants'
motions to dismiss the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
for failure to plead evidentiary facts which, if true, would state
a claim for relief under that section. The court, however, stated
that it recognized that the facts of the Potash Antitrust Cases
present a difficult question under the pleading standards
enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court for claims under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and that it would consider, if requested by the
defendants, certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal. On
January 13, 2010, at the request of the defendants, the court
issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the issues of
(i) whether an international antitrust complaint states a
plausible cause of action where it alleges parallel market
behavior and opportunities to conspire; and (ii) whether a
defendant that sold product in the United States with a price that
was allegedly artificially inflated through anti-competitive
activity involving foreign markets, engaged in 'conduct involving
import trade or import commerce' under applicable law. On
September 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") vacated the district
court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims. On December 2, 2011,
the Seventh Circuit vacated its September 23, 2011 order and on
June 27, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order of the
Northern Illinois District Court to deny the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. The decision is not a ruling on
the merits of the case. Barring a stay, the Seventh Circuit's
decision allows this matter to proceed to discovery in the
Northern Illinois District Court. The Company says it is
considering its appeal related options.
The Company believes that the allegations in the Potash Antitrust
Cases are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against
them. At this stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation, estimate the potential
amount or range of loss or determine whether it will have a
material effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or capital resources.
Based in Plymouth, Minnesota, The Mosaic Company --
http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer and marketer of
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company's
Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production
facilities in Florida, which produce concentrated phosphate crop
nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and
processing plants in Louisiana, which produce concentrated
phosphate crop nutrients. The Company's Potash business segment
owns and operates potash mines and production facilities in Canada
and the U.S., which produce potash-based crop nutrients, animal
feed ingredients and industrial products. Potash sales include
domestic and international sales.
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: $1.8MM Insurance Coverage Remaining as of Mar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc., related in its May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012, that as of March 31, 2012,
approximately $1.8 million remains available under the Company's
director and officer insurance policies.
From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of MRV's current and
former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California were consolidated. Claims were
asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in the
complaints were based on facts disclosed in the Company's press
release of June 5, 2008, which stated that MRV's financial
statements could not be relied on due to its historical stock
option practices and related accounting. The complaints sought to
recover from the defendants unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, to require MRV to undertake reforms to corporate
governance and internal control procedures, to obtain an
accounting of stock option grants found to be improper, to impose
a constructive trust over stock options and proceeds derived
therefrom, to disgorge from any of the defendants who received
allegedly improper stock options the profits obtained therefrom,
to rescind improperly priced options, and to recover costs of
suit, including legal and other professional fees and other
equitable relief. In November 2010, the judge overseeing the
securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a
stipulated $10 million settlement agreement, which was covered by
the Company's director and officer insurance policies.
Motions to dismiss the defendants were heard in the second half of
2010 in both the federal and California state derivative lawsuits,
and certain defendants and claims were dismissed. Discovery
continues in these matters. The Company and plaintiffs in the
federal and state derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but
have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these claims.
To date, a majority of the costs related to the Company's and
defendants' defense of these actions have been paid by the
Company's insurance carriers under its director and officer
insurance policies, including the securities class action
settlement. However, if litigation continues and the insurance
coverage amounts are depleted, the Company may be asked to advance
funds to cover its indemnification obligations for its current and
past directors and officers who are defendants in this matter, and
will continue to incur its own legal expenses. Any such future
obligations are not determinable at this time. As of March 31,
2012, approximately $1.8 million in coverage remains available
under the Company's policies.
PANLINE USA: Recalls 8,000 Alex Trampolines Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Panline USA Inc., Northvale, New Jersey, announced a voluntary
recall of about 8,000 units of Alex(R) Model 786X Little Jumpers
Trampoline. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The handlebar can break, causing a fall hazard.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
The product is a small, toddler-sized trampoline with a yellow and
blue colored handlebar over the top of the trampoline for toddlers
to hold on to while jumping. The trampoline has a blue mat and
orange pads with different colored circles printed onto the pads,
yellow legs and blue feet. A white label is sewn into the
underside of the orange pads which has "786X Little Jumpers
Trampoline" printed above the bar code. This recall involves
trampolines with the codes 21011-P0003070, 21011-P0003246, 25511-
P0003071, 27811-P0003372, 29811-P0003373 and 34211-P0003375. This
code is printed underneath the barcode. Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12226.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
independent specialty toy and retail stores from January through
March 2012 for about $100.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact
the firm for instructions on receiving a replacement trampoline.
For additional information, contact the firm at (800) 666-2539
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.alextoys.com/safety/
PROVIDENCE, RI: City Faces Class Action Over Pension Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Ted Nesi, writing for WPRI.com, reports that Providence's retired
police officers and firefighters filed suit against the city on
July 12 over their pensions -- and Mayor Angel Taveras is elated.
The class action suit filed by the Providence Retired Police and
Firefighter Association asks Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-
Carter to throw out pension reductions approved in April by the
City Council because they violate federal and state law.
At first glance, it sounds a lot like the lawsuit filed last month
by state retirees against similar changes made by the General
Assembly in November. But unlike state officials, Providence's
leaders are welcoming their suit.
"The difference is, this is a friendly lawsuit," Mayor Taveras
spokesman David Ortiz told WPRI.com. "These are the legal
procedural steps that are needed to finalize the tentative
settlement."
Mayor Taveras and the retirees reached a landmark deal on May 30
that will scale back pensions in the future, freeze cost-of-living
adjustments now and restructure health benefits to stabilize
Providence's finances and improve the health of the city pension
fund.
The tentative agreement would allow the city to cap all pensions,
suspend cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for 11 years and
eliminate 5% and 6% compounded COLAs for good while also moving
retirees to Medicare, saving an estimated $18.5 million in 2012-13
alone.
Last month, the retirees voted overwhelmingly to approve the deal.
The lawsuit filed on July 12 and confirmed by a court spokesman
asks Judge Taft-Carter to certify the retirees as a class,
allowing them file a class-action suit.
By certifying the retirees as a class, Judge Taft-Carter can
consolidate the pension suit with another suit challenging
Medicare changes and, thus, move toward formal approval of the
settlement. Retirees will be notified of their inclusion in the
class and be given the option of opting out.
According to Mr. Ortiz, the next step is for the city's police and
fire unions to vote on the tentative settlement; if the active
workers approve it, they too will file friendly lawsuits. Judge
Taft-Carter could finalize the settlement by the fall.
While the retirees' lawyer, Joseph Penza, filed the new lawsuit to
move the settlement process forward, he still included a full
legal argument challenging the original unilateral pension changes
approved in April by the City Council, prior to the deal.
"The city had other less drastic measures available to it to
achieve a balanced budget and increase pension funding . . . such
as seeking restoration of state aid and reduction of mandated
spending in addition to a number of other proposals from the
General Assembly," Mr. Penza wrote in the legal complaint.
Mr. Penza was not available for comment on July 16.
RADIAN GROUP: Continues to Defend RESPA Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. continues to defend itself from several putative
class action lawsuits alleging violations of Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, according to the Company's May 10, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
On December 9, 2011, an action titled Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. (the "Samp case"), was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The defendants are
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its affiliates (collectively,
"JPMorgan"), and several mortgage insurers, including Radian
Guaranty. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of borrowers
whose loans supposedly were referred to mortgage insurers by
JPMorgan in exchange for reinsurance agreements between the
mortgage insurers and JPMorgan's captive reinsurer. Plaintiffs
assert violations of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act of
1974 ("RESPA"). Radian Guaranty and some of the other mortgage
insurer defendants have moved to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of
standing because they did not insure any of the plaintiffs' loans.
The court has entered a partial stay of the case pending the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in another case under
RESPA titled First Financial Corp. v. Edwards (the "Edwards
case"), to which Radian Guaranty is not a party. The court has
agreed to consider the motion to dismiss filed by Radian Guaranty
and other defendants notwithstanding the stay pending the decision
in the Edwards case.
Each of the cases below is a putative class action (with facts
substantially similar to the facts of the Samp case) in which
Radian Guaranty has been named as a defendant:
* On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA
titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. In this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan
of one of the plaintiffs. Radian Guaranty intends to move to
dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. However, the action
has been stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case.
* On March 12, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Lucas E. McCarn v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Radian Guaranty has moved to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of
standing because it did not insure the plaintiff's loan. This
action has also been stayed pending a decision in the Edwards
case. As in the Samp case, the court has agreed to consider Radian
Guaranty's motion to dismiss notwithstanding the stay pending the
decision in the Edwards case. On May 25, 2012, Judge Lawrence J.
O'Neill granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
* On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss this
lawsuit for lack of standing because it did not insure the
plaintiff's loan.
* On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss this
lawsuit for lack of standing because it did not insure any of the
plaintiffs' loans.
* On April 19, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Rulison v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., et al was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss this lawsuit for
lack of standing because it did not insure the plaintiff's loan.
SAMUEL LAWRENCE: Recalls 2,500 Sleigh Beds Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Samuel Lawrence Furniture, of High
Point, North Carolina, and manufacturer, Poh Huat Furniture Ind.,
of Malaysia, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,400 units of
Full- and Twin-Size Bordeaux Collection Bed Frames in the United
States of America and 100 units in Canada. In June, the firm
recalled about 18,400 King- and Queen-size beds in the United
States and 1,250 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The hardware holding the headboard and footboard can loosen or
detach, posing a fall hazard.
The firm has received more than 100 reports of headboards or
footboards detaching, including one report of a Florida man who
injured his foot when a footboard detached.
This recall includes Bordeaux Collection full- and twin-size
sleigh beds with wooden headboards and footboards in a cherry
finish. Each bed also has two matching wooden side rails.
"Bordeaux" and a model number are printed on a white label on the
back of the headboard and footboard. Model numbers for the
recalled beds are 8070-242 and 8070-243 for the full-size and
8070-232 and 8070-233 for the twin-size. A picture of the
recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12227.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Malaysia and sold at
furniture stores nationwide from August 2009 to April 2012 for
between $300 and $400.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled beds and
contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture to obtain a free repair kit.
For additional information, contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture
toll-free at (888) 572-9889 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Web
site at http://www.slf-co.com/
SCORES HOLDING: Settled "Diaz" Class Action Suit for $450,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. settled for $450,000 the class action
lawsuit commenced by Siri Diaz, according to the Company's July
17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.
On October 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the Company and other defendants,
including Richard Goldring and Elliot Osher, alleging violations
of federal and state wage/hour laws (Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores
Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores
West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side,
Case No. 07 Civ. 8718 (Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), Judge Richard M. Berman)). On November 6, 2007,
plaintiffs served an amended purported class action and collective
action complaint, naming dancers and servers as additional
plaintiffs and alleging the same violations of federal and state
wage/hour laws. On or about February 21, 2008, plaintiffs served
a second amended complaint adding two additional party defendants,
but limiting the action to persons employed in the New York
Scores' clubs. The amended complaint alleged that the Company and
the other defendants were "an integrated enterprise" and that the
Company jointly employed the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the
defendants to liability for the alleged wage/hour violations. On
behalf of the Company and the other defendants the Company filed a
motion to dismiss that portion of the Complaint that asserted
State law class action allegations; the Company also moved to
dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs for failure to
appear for depositions. At the same time plaintiffs moved for
conditional certification under the federal law for a class of the
servers, bartenders and dancers; the Company opposed that motion.
On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision, denying the motion
to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a class of
servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers who have
worked at Scores East since October 2004. On May 29, 2008, the
Company filed an answer to plaintiff's' second amended complaint.
On or about September 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third
amended complaint adding in two individual defendants who are
alleged to be employers under the state and federal wage claims.
The Company disputes that it is a proper defendant in this action
and it disputes that it violated the federal and state labor laws,
and further disputes that the dancers are "employees" subject to
the federal and state wage and hour laws. The Company has
recorded a $450,000 estimate to settle this lawsuit, as the legal
fees defending the Company's position during the year have
amounted to approximately $80,000.
On September 26, 2011, the Company, Goldring and Osher
(collectively the "Defendants") and the Plaintiffs entered into a
Court approved Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the
"Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which Defendants agreed to
make a settlement payment of $450,000 to resolve and settle awards
to Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.
Additionally, Defendants agreed to pay the employer portion of
payroll taxes on approximately $300,000 in distributions, and to
pay the costs of administering the distribution of settlement
payments (estimated at between $4,000 and $8,000).
In a separate settlement payment agreement among the Company,
Goldring and Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the
Defendants' obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay
$64,500 of Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated
attorney. In consideration for the Company's payment of these
obligations, Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to
pay the Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum
on the unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments
of $11,964 per month. To secure his obligations under this
agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of
his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009, in
the principal amount of $2,400,000.00 made by a third party to
Goldring (the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest
in the Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations
under this settlement payment agreement are paid in full. The
$64,500 paid to Goldring's and Osher's attorney was advanced by
Robert Gans, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and majority
stockholder. The Company intends to repay that amount to Mr.
Gans.
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Millennium-Related Suits vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of SS&C Technologies Holdings Inc. continues to
defend lawsuits related to Millennium Funds, according to the
Company's July 17, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
On May 31, 2012, SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. through its
indirect wholly owned subsidiary, SS&C Technologies Holdings
Europe S.a.r.l. ("Bidco"), declared its offer to acquire all of
the outstanding share capital of GlobeOp Financial Services S.A.
wholly unconditional and gained control of GlobeOp and its
subsidiaries (the "Group"), replaced certain members of the board
of directors of GlobeOp and subsequently acquired all of the
outstanding share capital of GlobeOp pursuant to the terms of its
offer of GBP4.85 per outstanding share (the "Acquisition").
GlobeOp became a subsidiary of Bidco and its shares no longer
trade on the London Stock Exchange.
Several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in
various jurisdictions or threatened naming the Group as a
defendant in respect of claims arising out of valuation agent
services performed by the Group related to the Millennium Global
Emerging Credit Fund L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging Fund Ltd.
(the "Millennium Funds"), including an arbitration proceeding in
the United Kingdom on behalf of the Millennium Funds' investment
manager with a yet-to-be-determined claimed amount, a threatened
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom involving the
liquidator on behalf of the Millennium Funds in an amount yet-to-
be-determined, and a putative class action in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in
the Millennium Funds asserting claims of $844 million, which is
alleged to be the full amount of assets under management by the
Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation. These actions
arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances described in
the criminal and civil complaints filed by the U.S. Department of
Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively,
against the portfolio manager of the Millennium Funds' investment
manager. The Group has concluded that any obligation in these
matters is remote.
GlobeOp believes that the Group has strong defenses to the
Millennium Actions, and it is vigorously contesting these matters.
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Anwar" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merits discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit involving
a subsidiary of SS&C Technologies Holdings Inc., according to the
Company's July 17, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
On May 31, 2012, SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. through its
indirect wholly owned subsidiary, SS&C Technologies Holdings
Europe S.a.r.l. ("Bidco"), declared its offer to acquire all of
the outstanding share capital of GlobeOp Financial Services S.A.
wholly unconditional and gained control of GlobeOp and its
subsidiaries (the "Group"), replaced certain members of the board
of directors of GlobeOp and subsequently acquired all of the
outstanding share capital of GlobeOp pursuant to the terms of its
offer of GBP4.85 per outstanding share (the "Acquisition").
GlobeOp became a subsidiary of Bidco and its shares no longer
trade on the London Stock Exchange.
The Group was named as a defendant in an action (the "Anwar
Action") pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as a putative class action against
multiple defendants, relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and
Greenwich Sentry Partners L.P. (the "FG Funds") and the FG Funds'
losses as a result of their investments managed by Bernard Madoff.
The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the Group and
negligence in the performance of its duties. Motions to dismiss
have been filed by all parties to the action, including on behalf
of GlobeOp. The judge dismissed one allegation regarding gross
negligence against GlobeOp but denied the remainder of the motion
to dismiss. The Group has filed a motion to deny class
certification and the ruling on that motion has not yet been
rendered. Merits discovery among the plaintiffs, GlobeOp and the
co-defendants is ongoing. The Group believes it has complied with
the terms of its service agreements with the FG Funds and that it
does not have any fiduciary obligations relating to the FG Funds
or its investors.
GlobeOp believes that the Group has strong defenses to the action
and it is vigorously contesting the matter.
SUPERVALU: Shareholder Threatens Class Action Over Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supermarket News reports that a shareholder at the Supervalu
annual meeting on July 17 threatened to file a class-action
lawsuit against the company for mismanagement.
The shareholder, who said he owned 45,000 shares, criticized Craig
Herkert, chairman and chief executive officer, for taking a
$950,000 bonus at the same time the company is eliminating the
dividend and asked if he would agree to cut his salary to $1 per
year for the next two years "to show us your commitment." When
Mr. Herkert said he would not make that commitment, the
shareholder said the company should expect the class-action suit.
In his remarks to shareholders, Mr. Herkert repeated comments he
made to analysts last week that Supervalu intends to complete the
rollout of its fair-price-plus-promotions program at Jewel-Osco by
Labor Day, "and the results there should help us with our next
market, which we will announce very soon."
He said the company expects to have all markets operating with the
fair-price program within the next 18 months.
Supervalu disclosed a week ago it was launching a strategic review
of the company that could include asset sales.
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------Texas
Industries, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits arising from
exposure to chrome 6, according to the Company's July 17, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended May 31, 2012.
In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant. The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The lawsuit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.
Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.
Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs
who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the lawsuits, and the Company's subsidiaries operating in
Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs. Most
of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as
defendants. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits
plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving
approximately 2,000 plaintiffs.
Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the Company's
subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations,
causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the
Company's Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the
Crestmore plant. The lawsuits involve approximately 300
individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and the Company's
subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from
these lawsuits. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits
plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving
approximately 250 plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the
lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose
jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations
around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels
above 1.0 ng/m3.
The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from
lawsuit to lawsuit. Following dismissal of certain causes of
action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the
remaining causes of action typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business
practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs
generally request, among other things, general and punitive
damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and
medical monitoring costs. As of July 17, 2012, none of the
plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any
specific amount or range of damages. Some of the lawsuits include
additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant
located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or
former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants.
The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits
but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from
them. The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits
may be filed against it alleging damages due to injuries to
persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.
THQ: Levi & Korsinsky Launches Class Action Over Failed uDraw
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Lien, writing for The Verge, reports that Law firm Levi and
Korsinsky announced that it is commencing a class action lawsuit
against THQ over the failure of the uDraw tablet, and is currently
inviting THQ shareholders to take part.
The class action lawsuit, which would be of no-cost and no-
obligation to shareholders, is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased THQ stock between May 3, 2011 and February 3, 2012.
The Information Request Form states:
"The complaint alleges that THQ and certain of its executive
officers issued false or misleading statements concerning the
Company. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's uDraw
GameTablet for Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3 was not
being purchased by owners of those gaming systems; (b) because
demand for uDraw was below internal expectations, the Company
would have to take back, or provide price protection, on hundreds
of thousands of units that it had sold; and (c) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company and its prospects."
This is not the first time a class action lawsuit has been brought
against THQ over the failure of the uDraw tablet. Last month,
shareholders rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP claimed THQ misled its
shareholders by misrepresenting or withholding sales information
regarding the uDraw tablet. Georgia law firm Holzer Holzer and
Fistel LLC also investigated THQ over claims they made about the
uDraw peripheral.
uDraw for the Wii shipped 1.7 million units during THQ's fiscal
year 2011. The tablet has since been discontinued.
TRUMPF MEDICAL: Recalls 215 Units of Television Mounting System
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 215 units of Ondal AC2000 (PDI) Television Mounting System
distributed to five hospitals were voluntarily recalled by
importers, Ondal Medical Systems of America Inc., of Sandston,
Virginia, and TRUMPF Medical Systems Inc., of Charleston, South
Carolina, and distributor, TRUMPF Medical Systems Inc., of
Charleston, South Carolina, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The arm joints on the television mounting system do not have a
washer at the top joint which can result in excessive wear of the
stop pins on the arm. This can allow the arm system and items
connected to the arm to fall and injure the user or bystanders.
The firm received one report of a mounting system falling while
being positioned. No injuries have been reported.
The mounting systems were sold for use in hospital Intensive Care
Units. The units are off-white and have multiple joints between
the ceiling mount and the TV mount at the end of the arm system.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12742.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold by
TRUMPF Medical Systems Inc. nationwide From January 2005 through
December 2011 for about $2,100.
Secure the unit to prevent movement and contact TRUMPF Medical
Systems for information on receiving a repair kit that includes
the missing washers. For additional information, contact TRUMPF
Medical Systems Inc. toll-free at (888) 474-9359 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or e-mail
Lindsey.ronnenberg@us.trumpf.com
UNITED RENTALS: Awaits Court Approval of "Israni" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement
reached in April of a class action lawsuit arising from its
subsidiary's merger with RSC Holdings Inc., according to the
Company's July 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
On December 28, 2011, a complaint was filed in Arizona Superior
Court, captioned Israni v. RSC Holdings Inc., CV20 11-020579, on
behalf of a putative class of RSC's stockholders against RSC, each
member of the RSC board, certain of RSC's officers, and the
Company challenging the merger. In an amended complaint, filed
February 24, 2012, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
directors and officers of RSC breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly agreeing to sell RSC at an unfair and inadequate price
and by allegedly failing to take steps to maximize the sale price
of RSC. The complaint also alleges that RSC and the Company aided
and abetted in the directors' and officers' breach of their
fiduciary duties, and that the defendants' public disclosures
concerning the merger have been inaccurate or incomplete.
On April 19, 2012, without agreeing that any of the claims have
merit, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action, pursuant to which RSC and the Company agreed to make
certain additional public disclosures regarding the merger and to
pay certain attorneys' fees, if any, awarded by the court. The
settlement is contingent upon, among other things, execution of
definitive documentation and court approval.
The Company continues to deny any liability with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the litigation.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *