/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120821.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 165
Headlines
AIR COMFORT: Recalls 870 Ceiling Fans Due to Injury Hazard
ALBA RENTALS: Sued for Violating Landlord and Tenant Ordinance
ALGO CENTRE: Class Action Lawyer Seeks Participation in Inquiry
AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks Dismissal of Price-Fixing Class Action
BABYLICIOUS PRODUCTS: Recalls 300 Cloth Crib Fringes
CALIFORNIA: Environmental Group Files Chromium 6 Suit
CANADA: Residential School Students File Class Action
CARLYLE CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 119T Machetes Due to Laceration Hazard
HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Text Ads Class Action for $47 Mil.
HORIZON LINES: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Alaska
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Response in Consolidated Suit Due Nov. 5
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Final OK of Budeprion Suit Deal Appealed
MARTHA STEWART: Awaits Court OK of Fees in "Hutt" Suit Settlement
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Jessamine County Mulls Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Shareholders Filed Consolidated Complaint in June
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss in "Price I" Suit
OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss in "Price II" Suit
ON-COR FROZEN: Recalls 605 Lbs. of Frozen Boneless Patties
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Southey" Securities Suit
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
PBTEEN: Recalls 390 Bunk Beds Due to Risk of Injury
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge to Hear Class Action Arguments This Week
PIPER JAFFRAY: Defends Antitrust Class Action Suits in New York
REAL MEX: Recalls 77,688 Lbs. of Grilled Chicken Salad Kits
SAGE RUTTY: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Class Action
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal Bid Granted in 2011 Power Outage Suit
SMART BALANCE: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Spreadable Butters
SMART BALANCE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
SMART BALANCE: Faces Suit Over Butter & Canola Oil Blend Labels
SMART BALANCE: Appeal From Calif. Suit Settlement Order Pending
SPRINT: Railroad Rights Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Bennett" Suit
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Still Defends Suits Alleging Commercial Claims
SUNCORP: IMF Australia Mulls Suit vs. Four More Banks Over Fees
SUNRISE SENIOR: "Purnell" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Class Action v. FBI Over Operation Flex Dismissed
WADDELL & REED: Continues to Defend "Taylor" Suit in California
WESTERN UNION: Reaches Deal to Resolve Colorado Class Suits
WILLIAMS COS: Suits Over Published Gas Price Indices Pending
WILLIAMS COS: Trial in "West" Suit Scheduled for April 2013
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Payment Distributed to "Downes" Class Members
WORLD CLASS: Recalls 25 Heated Mats for Pets Due to Fire Hazard
*********
AIR COMFORT: Recalls 870 Ceiling Fans Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Air Comfort Products, a division of Emerson Electric Co., of St.
Louis, Missouri, announced a voluntary recall of about 870 Emerson
Corsair Ceiling Fans. Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The ceiling fan's hanger bracket can spread apart due to heat from
the motor and/or out-of-balance operation, causing the fan to fall
from the ceiling. This poses a risk of injury to bystanders.
Emerson is aware of three reports of these Corsair fans falling
from the ceiling. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves Emerson "Corsair" model ceiling fans with two
blades and 44- or 52-inch blade spans. The fans were sold in two
finishes, oil-rubbed bronze and antique pewter. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12249.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at fan
and lighting stores nationwide and various Web sites, including
http://www.emersonfans.com/and http://www.amazon.com/,from
January 2009 through June 2012 for between $450 and $530.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceiling fans
and contact Emerson Air Comfort Products to schedule a free
repair. For additional information, contact Emerson Air Comfort
Products toll-free at (866) 994-8759 between 8:00 a.m. through
4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.emersonfans.com/
ALBA RENTALS: Sued for Violating Landlord and Tenant Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Breen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alba Rentals, LLC, Case No. 2012-CH-30768 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., August 10, 2012) is brought to secure redress
against Alba for violations of the City of Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.
The Plaintiff alleges that Alba violated the CRLTO by (i) failing
to disclose the name and address of the financial institution into
which she and the class' security deposits were deposited, and
(ii) failing to provide tenants with the city-mandated CRLTO
security deposit summary that included the current year's and
prior two years' interest rates for tenant's security deposits.
Ms. Breen is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. She is a tenant of
Alba.
Alba, an Illinois limited liability company, is in the business of
leasing and managing residential apartments in Chicago, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
JS LAW
22 W Washington Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 756-1330
ALGO CENTRE: Class Action Lawyer Seeks Participation in Inquiry
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the lawyer leading the class action case for
those injured in Elliot Lake's Algo Centre Mall collapse says he
is seeking participation in the public inquiry that is slated to
begin in January.
Douglas Elliot said the commission needs to hear how hundreds of
people have been affected by the collapse -- including people like
Mary Hiley who, until a recent thunderstorm in Elliot Lake, didn't
realize how the sound of falling concrete haunts her.
"Every time [the thunder] banged, I jumped," Ms. Hiley said.
"That was the sound that you could keep hearing from the mall . .
. [but] the mall was much worse."
Ms. Hiley was on the second floor in the Algo Centre Mall when
concrete slabs came crashing down killing Lucie Aylwin and Dolores
Perrizolo and injuring 20 others. She said she was just on her
way to get groceries, but didn't make it.
She said she's amazed that she survived, but now she's living with
the psychological impact.
Mr. Elliot said Ms. Hiley's story echoes many other similar tales.
"One young man . . . witnessed one of the people being killed, Mr.
Elliot said. "He's psychologically traumatized. We don't know if
he'll ever recover from that."
Mr. Elliot said he will apply to participate in the public inquiry
to present his clients' testimonies.
The public hearings are expected to last two months.
In July, a class action law suit was filed on behalf of hundreds
of people against the City of Elliot Lake, the owner of the mall,
and the engineering firm that worked on the mall. In September,
the Province and two engineers involved with MR Wright engineering
firm from Sault Ste. Marie will be added.
AT&T MOBILITY: Seeks Dismissal of Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Django Gold, writing for Law360, reports that wireless companies
alleged to have conspired with AT&T Mobility LLC, Verizon Wireless
LLC, Sprint Nextel Corp. and others to fix prices on text messages
asked a New York federal court on Aug. 14 to toss the claims
against them, saying their accusers hadn't presented evidence
supporting the antitrust class action.
A group of nine "aggregators" that serve as middlemen in the
sending of short message service texts argued that a group of
three messaging service companies has failed to allege the
aggregators' participation in an antitrust conspiracy.
BABYLICIOUS PRODUCTS: Recalls 300 Cloth Crib Fringes
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Babylicious Products Inc., of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,
announced a voluntary recall of about 300 Crib Fringes. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The narrow fabric strip connecting individual fabric triangles
presents a strangulation hazard to young children.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
The product is a narrow fabric strip connecting several individual
fabric triangles. It is designed to be attached to the side rail
of a crib or along window valences or curtain rods. The product
was sold in a variety of colors and patterns and with two fringes
in each package. Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12250.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
and at specialty children's product retailers from January 2006
through May 2012 for about $24.
Consumers should immediately remove the recalled product from
cribs, window valence or curtain rods and contact Babylicious to
receive a refund. Consumers will be refunded $12 for each
recalled fringe returned. For additional information, contact
Babylicious at (855) 684-8399 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.babylicious.ca/recall/
CALIFORNIA: Environmental Group Files Chromium 6 Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Katie Lucia, writing for Desert Dispatch, reports that
environmental groups filed a lawsuit on Aug. 14 against the
California Department of Public Health for failing to establish a
safe drinking water standard for chromium 6 -- the cancer-causing
chemical at the heart of the Hinkley residents' class action suit
over groundwater contamination.
Though groundwater in Hinkley contains more than 100 times the
amount of chromium 6 considered safe by the state, the water is
considered legal in the absence of a primary drinking water
standard.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental
Working Group claim the department is eight years late in setting
the standard for chromium 6, also called hexavalent chromium, and
has made no progress toward the goal.
The lawsuit claims the delay is unjustified and seeks a court
order setting a faster time line.
"The main point is that California legislation required by Jan. 1,
2004 for the Department of Public Health to set a health standard
for hexavalent chromium -- that was over eight years ago," said
Nicholas Morales, attorney for the NRDC.
Former Hinkley resident John Runkle called it "absolutely
atrocious" that the state hasn't yet set a health standard for
chromium 6. The groundwater on his former property had as much as
4.5 parts per billion of the toxic metal, which is why they didn't
drink the water, he said, but instead had water hauled to the
property.
Studies show that chromium 6 can cause cancer in people and has
been found to cause damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph
nodes and liver of animals.
The chemical comes chiefly from industrial pollution -- it's used
for production of stainless steel, textile dyes, wood
preservation, leather tanning and as an anti-corrosive -- but also
occurs naturally.
The chromium 6 contamination in Hinkley began in the 1950s when
Pacific Gas and Electric used chromium 6 in cooling tower water in
order to prevent rusting in its compressor station in Hinkley.
The water was released into unlined ponds at the site, where it
slowly seeped into the groundwater. PG&E has been ordered by the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board to stop the spread
of the chemical and reduce it to background levels.
Results of state water quality testing conducted between 2000 and
2011 throughout California showed that about a third of the 7,000
drinking water sources tested had chromium 6 levels at or above
that limit.
The highest concentrations were reported in Southern California,
including in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Santa Barbara
counties.
Department of Public Health spokesman Ken August said there is no
typical time line for how long it takes to develop a standard.
The agency is currently preparing a cost-benefit analysis, he
said, and will take another two to three years to establish the
standard.
CANADA: Residential School Students File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
James Keller, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
aboriginals who have been denied compensation for their time at
Canada's notorious residential schools because they continued to
live at home filed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 15, arguing
they, too, were scarred by a system designed to eradicate their
language and culture.
The Tk'emlups te Secwepemc Indian Band in British Columbia's
Interior and the Sechelt Indian Band on the province's central
coast filed a statement of claim in Federal Court in a case they
hope grows to include aboriginals from across the country.
The federal government reached a settlement to compensate
residential school students in 2006, two years before Prime
Minister Stephen Harper's historic apology in Parliament. But an
automatic payment to former residential school students --
described as a common experience payment -- only applied to those
who lived at the schools.
Students who attended the schools during the day and returned home
at night, a group referred to as "day scholars," aren't eligible
for those payments, which provide C$10,000 for the first year
spent living at a residential school and C$3,000 for each
subsequent year.
The class-action lawsuit argues day scholars should also be
compensated for the cultural and psychological damage wrought by
the schools.
"Many members of Canada's aboriginal communities were excluded
from the agreement, not because they did not attend residential
schools and suffer cultural, linguistic and social damage, but
simply because they did not reside at residential schools," says
the statement of claim.
"The exclusion of the (day scholars) reflects Canada's continued
failure."
The residential schools settlement also provides for payments for
specific, individual allegations of abuse by former residential
students. Day scholars who suffered such abuse are eligible for
those payments, each determined on a case-by-case basis.
The class-action suit seeks compensation for day scholars, their
descendants and the two bands. It does not specify how much
compensation they are seeking.
Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said
aboriginal groups have been advocating for years that day scholars
be given common experience payments to compensate them for their
time at residential schools, but Ottawa has refused.
"It was a government assertion that they didn't suffer the same as
residential school survivors," Mr. Atleo told reporters at a news
conference announcing the lawsuit on Aug. 15.
"Whether day scholar or a resident, students received similar
sorts of abuses and deep trauma."
Currently, the new lawsuit is limited to day scholars who attended
one of two residential schools: the Kamloops Indian Residential
School and the Sechelt Indian Residential School. The two bands
involved in the lawsuit estimate there are currently 300 living
former day scholars in their communities.
However, Mr. Atleo said the goal is to see the lawsuit eventually
expand to include anyone in Canada who attended a residential
school as a day scholar. He said several First Nations groups
have already expressed interest, namely in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba.
"We can see very strongly that this will grow," he said.
"This is really the initiation of this effort . . . as day
scholars in all regions of the country begin to express to their
leaders the need to join with First Nations."
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs could not be reached for
comment.
Another group excluded from the settlement launched a class-action
lawsuit in 2009. That lawsuit involves students who attended day
schools, which were separate from residential schools and did not
have any students living on site.
Like day scholars, day school students weren't eligible for common
experience payments under the residential schools settlement, but
could make claims for specific allegations of abuse.
A report posted to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' Web site
indicates that, as of May of this year, 98 per cent of an
estimated 80,000 common experience payments have been paid out.
The federal government established residential schools in the
1870s, eventually turning them over to various churches.
Native children were taken from their homes and put into schools
where they were harshly punished and sometimes beaten for speaking
their languages. The schools also produced horrifying stories of
physical and sexual abuse at the hands of staff.
The last residential school closed in 1996.
The prime minister apologized for the legacy of the residential
schools in 2008, acknowledging in Parliament that the schools were
designed to "kill the Indian in the child."
The government also set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission
that will open this week and is to travel the country to hear
stories about the impact of the schools.
CARLYLE CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a purported class action lawsuit
brought by investors that claimed an investment group had engaged
in fraud, stating they had been well warned of the risks involved.
Investors had bought shares offered by Guernsey-based Carlyle
Capital Corp. Ltd., whose sole business was buying residential
mortgage-backed securities on margin, according to the Aug. 13
opinion in E.L. Phelps et al. v. John Crumpton Stomber. CCC has
been in liquidation since 2008, according to the ruling. Mr.
Stomber was CCC's president, CEO and chief investment officer.
A total of $600 million was raised through private placements in
late 2006 and early 2007, according to the ruling.
The shares "were made available only to a restricted group of
sophisticated wealth investors; the shares were marketed with
ominous warnings . . . and the very risks that were disclosed
materialized when conditions in the real estate market and global
economy deteriorated in 2008," said the ruling by Judge Amy Berman
Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Jackson said the focus of the plaintiffs' complaint was that
while the offering memorandum "disclosed that liquidity issues
that would threaten the company could occur, it omitted
information that would have alerted investors to the fact that
those events were already occurring."
However, said the judge, the plaintiffs had failed "to state a
claim up on which relief can be granted."
The ruling said: "Essentially, this complaint is an attack on how
CCC was managed, and ultimately, it questions the wisdom behind
the adoption of its business model in the first place. But
chiding CCC with the benefit of hindsight for its failure to
resist the stampede to purchase mortgage-backed securities is not
the same thing as alleging fraud, particularly given the stringent
standards of the" Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. The action "lacks the defining element of fraud: a
falsehood," said the judge in dismissing the complaint.
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 119T Machetes Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Gerber Legendary Blades, of Portland, Oregon,
announced a voluntary recall of about 119,000 Gerber(R) Bear
Grylls Parang Machetes. Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
A weakness in the area where the handle meets the blade can cause
the handle or the blade to break during use, posing a laceration
hazard.
The firm received 24 reports of breakages, including one report of
a laceration injury in Canada, which did not involve stitches.
The recalled product is a curved blade machete with an overall
length of 19.5 inches and a blade length of 13.5 inches. The
handle is a dark gray textured rubber grip with wrist lanyard,
orange trim and a stylized "BG" on it. The blade is marked with
the "GERBER(R)" trademark and a stylized Bear Grylls trademark.
The machete comes in a black nylon sheath with orange and gray
trim. The machetes were sold separately or as one of the products
in Gerber's Apocalypse Survival Kit. The model numbers are on the
package. Model numbers are: 31-000698, which has "Survival
Series" printed on the package; and 31-001507, which was sold only
at Walmart. Model number 30-0006010 is for the Apocalypse
Survival Kit, which includes a Parang machete among other items in
a foldable black cloth case with "GERBER" printed in orange on the
inside right. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12248.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores nationwide and online from January 2011
through June 2012 for about $43 for the individual Parang machetes
and $349 for the Apocalypse Survival Kits.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Parang
machetes and contact Gerber Legendary Blades to receive a free
replacement. For additional information, contact Gerber Legendary
Blades toll-free at (877) 314-9130 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.gerbergear.com/
HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Text Ads Class Action for $47 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Heartland
Automotive Services, a franchisee of Jiffy Lube, has agreed to pay
$47 million to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing it of
spamming millions of consumers with text ads for discounts.
If approved by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Miller in the
Southern District of California, the deal would resolve
allegations that the company's text ad campaign violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That law requires companies to
obtain users' express consent before sending them text ads.
Companies that fail to do so are liable for $500 per violation.
Earlier this year, Mr. Miller rejected Heartland's argument that
the TCPA unconstitutionally limits the company's free speech
rights.
The litigation dates to last year, when several consumers sued
Heartland -- as well as the marketing company TextMarks -- for
sending unsolicited text messages advertising a "1 time offer" for
45% off an oil change. The messages were sent to 2.3 million
consumers in April of 2011, according to court papers.
The proposed settlement calls for Heartland to offer consumers
discounts of around $17 for any Jiffy Lube service. The deal also
requires Heartland and TextMarks to agree to an injunction banning
them from sending text ads unless recipients consent in writing.
The lawyers who sued Heartland and TextMarks will receive around
$4,750,000 to cover attorneys' fees and court costs.
The consumers' lawyers argue in court papers filed this month that
the eight-figure deal should be approved -- although it calls for
Heartland to pay less than $500 per consumer. "TextMarks was
financially unable to contribute to any meaningful settlement
relief and Heartland's financial condition was such that the
creation of a cash settlement fund sufficient to mail each person
a check approaching the $500 statutory damage amount was
impossible," the lawyers say.
Seattle-based cyberlaw expert Venkat Balasubramani says the
relatively large $47 million settlement reflects the fact that the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act is "very plaintiff
friendly."
He adds that SMS ads are a "high risk" proposition, given the
possibility that ads will be sent to consumers who haven't
consented. "It's doable with a clear opt-in, but companies seem
to screw it up," he says. "If these big companies can't do it
right, there's some disconnect going on."
HORIZON LINES: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Alaska
--------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit pending in Alaska, according to the Company's
August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2012.
On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business. On February 23, 2011, the Company
entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ and on
March 22, 2011, the Court entered judgment accepting the Company's
plea agreement and imposed a fine of $45.0 million payable over
five years without interest. The Company recorded a charge of
$30.0 million during the year ended December 26, 2010, which
represented the present value of the $45.0 million fine in
installment payments. On April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the
fine from $45.0 million to $15.0 million payable over five years
without interest. As a result, during the six months ended
June 26, 2011, the Company recorded a reversal of $19.2 million of
the charge originally recorded during December 26, 2010.
Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, thirty-
two class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of ocean
shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated
into a single multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the
District of Puerto Rico. On June 11, 2009, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiff class
representatives in the Puerto Rico MDL. Under the settlement
agreement, the Company paid $20.0 million and agreed to provide a
base-rate freeze to class members who elect such freeze in lieu of
a cash payment.
One class action lawsuit relating to ocean shipping services in
the Alaska tradelane is pending in the District of Alaska. The
Company and the class plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Alaska
litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against
the purported class action lawsuit in Alaska.
The Company received an administrative subpoena from the
Department of Defense ("DOD") for documents relating to an
investigation involving fuel surcharges that freight forwarders
may have improperly charged to the DOD. The Company is
cooperating with the government with respect to this matter.
Horizon Lines, Inc. is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company. The Company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
The Company also provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and trades on the OTCQB Marketplace
under symbol HRZL.
IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS: Response in Consolidated Suit Due Nov. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc.'s response to the third amended
complaint in a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in New
York must be filed on or before November 5, 2012, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1,
2012.
In November 2006, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company, certain then
current and former directors and officers, as well as the lead
underwriters for the Company's initial and secondary public
offerings. The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended
complaint was filed on April 24, 2007. The amended complaint
sought unspecified damages for certain alleged misrepresentations
and omissions made by the Company in connection with both its
initial public offering in September 2005 and its follow-on
offering in March 2006. On June 25, 2007, the Company filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 10, 2008,
the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On
March 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and
on June 12, 2008, the District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration. On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of
its motion for reconsideration to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals). On
September 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the amended complaint, but vacated its
judgment on the motion for reconsideration and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings. On June 11, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in the
District Court, and on November 23, 2010, the District Court
denied the motion. On January 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the Court of Appeals.
On May 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs' appeal,
finding that their proposed amended complaint succeeded in stating
a claim. The case was remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings, and on June 19, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Third
Amended Class Action Complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation between
the parties, the defendants' response to the Third Amended
Complaint is to be filed on or before November 5, 2012.
The Company says it cannot predict the likely outcome of the
litigation, and an adverse result could have a material effect on
its financial statements.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Final OK of Budeprion Suit Deal Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
An objector appealed the final approval of Impax Laboratories,
Inc.'s settlement of the Budeprion XL Litigation, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
In June 2009, the Company was named a co-defendant in class action
lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif.
Superior Crt. L.A. County). Subsequently, additional class action
lawsuits were filed in Louisiana (Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus. Ltd, et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish,
LA.)), North Carolina (Weber v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd.,
et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C. Superior Crt., Hanover County)),
Pennsylvania (Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.)), Florida (Henchenski and Vogel v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-
29SPC (M.D. Fla.)), Texas (Anderson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.)), Oklahoma
(Brown et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-
cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK)), Ohio (Latvala et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH)),
Alabama (Jordan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No.
CV09-709 (Ala. Cir. Crt. Baldwin County)), and Washington (Leighty
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-01640 (W. D.
Wa.)). All of the complaints involve Budeprion XL, a generic
version of Wellbutrin XL(R) that is manufactured by the Company
and marketed by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations
of Teva, Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression,
and more likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin
XL. The actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion
XL and assert claims such as unfair competition, unfair trade
practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law. Each
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of the
cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as any
applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages
for personal injury. The state court cases were removed to
federal court, and a petition for multidistrict litigation to
consolidate the cases in federal court was granted. These cases
and any subsequently filed cases will be heard under the
consolidated action entitled In re: Budeprion XL Marketing Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2107, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to certify that
order for interlocutory appeal, both of which were denied.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the Company
filed an opposition to that motion. The class certification
hearing was held on May 17, 2011. In September 2011, the Company
filed a summary judgment motion on the grounds of plaintiffs'
claims are preempted under federal law based on the United States
Supreme Court decision in PLIVA v. Mensing. On January 6, 2012,
the Company and co-defendant Teva entered into a classwide
settlement agreement for all the actions included in the
multidistrict litigation. Pursuant to that settlement, the
Company has agreed to take certain actions related to the subject
product, to pay for class notice and settlement administration,
and to reimburse any attorney's fees or costs awarded by the Court
to plaintiffs' up to a capped amount. The Company has accrued
estimated costs related to the settlement of this matter as of
March 31, 2012. The settlement was finally approved by the Court
on July 2, 2012. A third party objector to the settlement filed a
notice of appeal on July 25, 2012.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- a
specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and marketing of bioequivalent pharmaceutical
products. It markets and sells its generic pharmaceutical
prescription drug products in the continental United States and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The company has a strategic
alliance agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. The
Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Hayward,
California.
MARTHA STEWART: Awaits Court OK of Fees in "Hutt" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is awaiting court approval
of plaintiff's attorneys' fees in its settlement of a class action
lawsuit titled Hutt v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. et
al., according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.
On May 15, 2012, the Company settled the class action lawsuit,
titled Hutt v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. et al. Under
the terms of the settlement, the Company supplemented the
disclosures made in the proxy statement for its 2012 annual
meeting of stockholders and provided limited confirmatory
discovery to the plaintiff. In addition, the Company has agreed
to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees, the amount of
which has not been determined and is subject to Court approval.
The Company does not anticipate that the payment of attorneys'
fees will have a material adverse impact on its financial position
or results of operations.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Jessamine County Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin S. Rossi, writing for The Jessamine Journal, reports that
Jessamine County is mulling over signing onto a possible class-
action lawsuit against the organization known as Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), which could possibly
recoup thousands of dollars of fees owed.
The county was approached by attorney Sandra Spurgeon of Spurgeon
& Tinker, PSC, which, along with The Bolog firm, currently
represents 14 counties in Kentucky that are suing MERS, including
Boyd, Franklin, Pike and several other counties.
The basis of the litigation is an effort to seek compensation for
lost mortgage assignment fees allegedly withheld because of the
actions of MERS over the past several years.
MERS is a private third party that buys and sell mortgages between
banks.
According to the lawsuit, MERS would buy and sell the same
mortgage between as many as three banks. Every time a mortgage is
bought or sold, there is an assignment fee owed to county clerk's
office where the mortgage originated.
The cost of the required assignment fee per mortgage transaction
is $12 per three-or-more pages, which may not be a lot, but with
hundreds or thousands of mortgage transactions, per year, it can
add up.
Buying and selling mortgages through several banks is a common
practice and not illegal -- it's the unpaid assignment fees to the
counties for those transactions that the lawsuit stipulates
damaged Kentucky counties.
The lawsuit also alleges that it was these business practices by
MERS that was a major cause for the economic and housing crash in
later part of the past decade.
County Attorney Brian Goettl said that he plans to make a
recommendation to join the lawsuit to the Jessamine County Fiscal
Court during its next regular meeting on Aug. 14.
Mr. Goettl said the plaintiffs wish to turn the lawsuit into a
class action that encompasses all 120 Kentucky counties.
An estimate of what Jessamine County could recoup in the lawsuit
if it is successful is difficult to calculate at this time,
Mr. Goettl said.
The suit seeks a total of $5 million, 25 percent of which would be
retained by the litigating firms.
Jessamine County has "nothing to lose" by joining the lawsuit
since there will be no cost and they will not be required pursue
the litigation itself, Mr. Goettl said.
The only other requirement is that county clerk Eva McDaniel's
office make its records available to the litigating firms and
waive the department's usual printing fees.
Ms. McDaniel said she is more than happy to waive the cost and go
after MERS since it is technically her office that lost the most
by not getting the mortgage assignment fees.
Currently the lawsuit is pending in the Eastern District of
Kentucky, as more and more counties are expected to join.
Kentucky is not the only state to sue MERS. Michigan, Florida,
California and Texas have also sued in an effort to recoup losses
from MERS mortgage buying and selling business practices.
NETFLIX INC: Shareholders Filed Consolidated Complaint in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs filed in June 2012 a consolidated class action
complaint in the lawsuit brought by Netflix, Inc. shareholders,
according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.
On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012, respectively,
alleging substantially similar claims. These lawsuits have been
consolidated and the Court has selected lead plaintiffs. Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 26, 2012. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between October 20, 2010, and
October 24, 2011. The complaint alleges among other things, that
the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business practices and violated accounting
rules concerning segment reporting, which led to artificially
inflated stock prices. Management has determined a potential loss
is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge,
management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss
or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Aug. 16 disclosed that the
United States District Court Southern District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of
NextWave Wireless, Inc.:
SANDRA LIFSCHITZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEXTWAVE WIRELESS INC., ALLEN SALMASI,
GEORGE C. ALEX and FRANK A. CASSOU, Defendants.
ALEX BENJAMIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEXTWAVE WIRELESS INC., ALLEN SALMASI,
GEORGE C. ALEX and FRANK A. CASSOU, Defendants.
CASE NO. 08cv1697-AJB(WMc) (consol. w/ 3:08-CV-01934 AJB (WMc))
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF NEXTWAVE WIRELESS, INC. COMMON STOCK
BETWEEN NOVEMBER 14, 2006 AND AUGUST 7, 2008, INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the action has
been conditionally certified as a class action and that a
settlement for $1,400,000 has been proposed. A hearing will be
held before the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States
District Judge on November 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 12 of
the United States Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San Diego,
California 92101, to determine whether:
The Class should be finally certified for settlement purposes;
The proposed settlement of the Action for $1,400,000, plus
interest, is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved
by the Court;
An Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing all
claims in the Action against the Defendants and dismissing the
Action with prejudice, and without costs;
The Plan of Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund should be
approved; and
To award attorneys' fees and expenses requested by Lead Counsel on
behalf of Plaintiffs' Counsel.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND. You may obtain copies of the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and
Application for Attorneys' Fees and a Proof of Claim form, by
either contacting the Claims Administrator at 1-866-274-4004, or
by accessing the Web site at
http://www.nextwavelitigationsettlement.comon the Internet.
To participate in the settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
no later than December 10, 2012 to the Claims Administrator at
NextWave Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services,
P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063. If
you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class,
you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court.
To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a Request for
Exclusion in the manner detailed in the Notice postmarked no later
than October 19, 2012. If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the
settlement but you nevertheless will be bound by the Order and
Final Judgment of the Court. To object to the proposed
Settlement, Plan of Distribution, or award of attorneys? fees and
reimbursement of expenses, you must submit a written objection in
the manner detailed in the Notice to the Court, Lead Counsel, and
Defendants? Counsel no later than October 19, 2012.
Further information about the settlement may be obtained by
contacting Strategic Claims Services, the Claims Administrator,
toll-free at 1-866-274-4004, via e-mail at
info@strategicclaims.net or by visiting the Web site at
http://www.nextwavelitigationsettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: Deborah R. Gross,
Esquire, Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., 100 Penn Square East,
Suite 450, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone (215) 561-
3600 or E-mail debbie@bernardmgross.com
DATED: JULY 25, 2012
By Order of the Court
OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss in "Price I" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
dismiss its subsidiaries from the class action lawsuit commenced
by Will Price, et al., according to the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy were
served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands. The lawsuit is captioned Will Price, et al. v.
El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price I). On April 10, 2003, the
court entered an order denying class certification. On May 12,
2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc.,
Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of
themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a motion
seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court
granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In its amended petition,
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and Enogex Inc. were
omitted from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary
entities remained as defendants. The plaintiffs' amended petition
seeks class certification and alleges that 60 defendants,
including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly
measured the volume of natural gas. The amended petition asserts
theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and
unjust enrichment. In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.
On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing. On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and OGE Energy Resources
LLC, wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC (subsequent to
June 30, 2012, the legal name has been changed to Enogex Energy
Resources LLC) filed motions for summary judgment.
On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy. In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims. On
February 7, 2012, Enogex LLC and OER filed an application in the
Kansas Court of Appeals seeking appeal of the trial court's denial
of their motions for summary judgment. On February 23, 2012, the
Kansas Court of Appeals denied this application. On March 23,
2012, Enogex LLC and OER filed an application with the Kansas
Supreme Court seeking appeal of the Kansas Court of Appeals'
decision. On July 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss Enogex LLC and OER from the action.
At this time, based on currently available information, OGE Energy
does not believe it is reasonably possible that it will incur a
material loss related to these proceedings and, therefore, OGE
Energy does not believe the outcome will have a material impact on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss in "Price II" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
dismiss its subsidiaries from the class action lawsuit captioned
Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price II),
according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.
On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (same as those in the amended
petition in the lawsuit captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price I)) filed a new class action
petition in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, naming
the same defendants and asserting substantially identical legal
and/or equitable theories as in the amended petition of the Price
I case. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and Enogex Inc.
were not named in this case, but two of OGE Energy's other
subsidiary entities were named in this case. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants mismeasured the British thermal unit
content of natural gas obtained from or measured for the
plaintiffs. In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.
On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a
rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On
March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing. On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and OGE Energy Resources
LLC, wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC (subsequent to
June 30, 2012, the legal name has been changed to Enogex Energy
Resources LLC) filed motions for summary judgment.
On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for
summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs'
claims regarding civil conspiracy. In an order dated January 23,
2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform
discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary
judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims. On
February 7, 2012, Enogex LLC and OER filed an application in the
Kansas Court of Appeals seeking appeal of the trial court's denial
of their motions for summary judgment. On February 23, 2012, the
Kansas Court of Appeals denied this application. On March 23,
2012, Enogex LLC and OER filed an application with the Kansas
Supreme Court seeking appeal of the Kansas Court of Appeals'
decision. On July 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss Enogex LLC and OER from the action.
At this time, based on currently available information, OGE Energy
does not believe it is reasonably possible that it will incur a
material loss related to these proceedings and, therefore, OGE
Energy does not believe the outcome will have a material impact on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
ON-COR FROZEN: Recalls 605 Lbs. of Frozen Boneless Patties
----------------------------------------------------------
On-Cor Frozen Foods, a Geneva, Illinois establishment, is
recalling approximately 605 pounds of frozen boneless rib-shaped
patties with barbecue sauce because they may have been mispackaged
and labeled as Salisbury steak products, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products subject to recall include:
* 28-oz. packages of "On-Cor Gravy & 6 Salisbury Steaks made
with chicken, pork and beef, Family Size" with the number
"EST. 1044G" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
The products, which were produced on July 9, 2012, have a product
UPC number of "070575040091" and the following code date located
on the right end panel: "BEST BY Jul 09 2013, 1912 11:__ EST
1044G." The products were distributed to retail establishments in
Iowa. A picture of the label of the recalled products is
available at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/RNR_058_2012/index.asp
The problem was discovered as a result of complaints reported to
the Company by consumers and may have occurred because of
incorrect cartons being interspersed during the packaging process.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and to ensure
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.
Media with questions about the recall should contact the company's
Plant Manager, Barney Baillie, at (630) 402-2301. Consumers with
questions about the recall should contact the company's Customer
Service Manager, Julie Hooghkirk at (630) 692-2241.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative that allows you to ask food safety-related
questions 24 hours a day. Visit Ask Karen at AskKaren.gov or call
USDA's Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-
6854). Recorded messages are available 24 hours a day and the
Hotline is staffed with food safety experts, Monday through Friday
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Ask Karen is available as an app for your iPad, iPhone, or Android
mobile device, so you can take her with you to the grocery store,
to the barbecue grill, or wherever you may have food safety
questions. Go to m.AskKaren.gov on your mobile device's browser,
or download the app for free from the Android app store.
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Southey" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit filed by Charles Southey in Texas, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
On December 2, 2011, Charles Southey filed a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company and its executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising
out of allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts
made by the Company regarding the development and regulatory
status of REMOXY(R) (oxycodone) Extended-Release Capsules CII
during the purported class period, February 3, 2011, through June
23, 2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are being
sought, but no amounts are specified.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
As with any litigation proceeding, the Company says it cannot
predict with certainty the eventual outcome of any outstanding
legal actions. Because of the number of shareholders involved,
plaintiffs in class action lawsuits may claim enormous monetary
damages even if the alleged claim is small on a per-shareholder
basis. The Company has incurred expenses in connection with the
defense of this lawsuit, and it may have to pay damages or
settlement costs in connection with any resolution thereof. Any
such expenses, damages or settlement costs may be substantial.
Although the Company has insurance coverage against which it may
claim recovery against some of these expenses and costs, the
amount of coverage may not be adequate to cover the full amount or
certain expenses and costs may be outside the scope the policies
it maintains. In the event of an adverse outcome or outcomes, the
Company's business could be materially harmed from depletion of
cash resources, negative impact on the Company's reputation, or
restrictions or changes to its governance or other processes that
may result from any final disposition of the lawsuit. Moreover,
responding to and defending pending litigation significantly
diverts management's attention from the Company's operations.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 15 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who held
shares of the common stock of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
as of August 2, 2012, against TPG Capital, L.P., Sky Growth
Holding Corporation, and Sky Growth Acquisition Corporation, and
Par Pharma and its Board of Directors for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed sale of Par Pharma to TPG, pursuant
to which Par Pharma shareholders will receive $50.00 in cash for
each share of common stock they own.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Aug. 15. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mark S. Reich of
Robbins Geller at 631/367-7100, or via e-mail at
mreich@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/parpharma/
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 Par Pharma and its Board and TPG with
violations of the 1934 Act. Par Pharma is a U.S.-based specialty
pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets
high-barrier-to-entry generic drugs and niche, innovative
proprietary pharmaceuticals.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material
information in a proxy statement filed with the SEC and publicly
disseminated in connection with the proposed sale of Par Pharma to
TPG. According to the complaint, the proxy statement was
materially false and misleading because it made numerous material
omissions about the process leading up to the agreement between
Par Pharma and TPG and the work performed by Par Pharma's
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, which was retained
by Par Pharma to evaluate the fairness of TPG's offer.
PBTEEN: Recalls 390 Bunk Beds Due to Risk of Injury
---------------------------------------------------
About 390 Beadboard Bunk Beds were voluntarily recalled by PBteen,
a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco, California,
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 front upper horizontal panel on the bunk beds can crack or
break, posing a risk of injury to the consumer.
PBteen has received 13 reports of panels that have cracked or
broken. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves wooden bunk beds with beadboard paneling.
The upper bunk, accessible by a four-step ladder, is designed for
a twin mattress and the lower bunk for a full-size mattress. The
bunk beds were sold in white, chestnut, dark espresso and honey,
and have storage cubbies below the lower bunk. The product number
is listed on the purchase receipt. A label on each of the bunk
bed's parts lists that part's SKU number. SKU numbers included in
the recall are:
SKU Description
---------------- ----------------------------------------
Product
----------------
9878901 Beadboard Bunk Bed Twin/Full: Sun Valley
White
Part
-------
9848672 Beadboard Bunk Rails: Sun Valley White
9848748 Beadboard Bunk Lower Headboard/Footboard:
Sun Valley White
9848839 Beadboard Bunk Upper Headboard/Footboard:
Sun Valley White
9848987 Beadboard Bunk Ladder/Slats: Sun Valley
White
9849050 Beadboard Bunk Storage Box: Sun Valley White
Product
----------------
9878976 Beadboard Bunk Bed Twin/Full: Sun Valley
Honey
Part
-------
9848664 Beadboard Bunk Rails: Sun Valley Honey
9848722 Beadboard Bunk Lower Headboard/Footboard:
Sun Valley Honey
9848797 Beadboard Bunk Upper Headboard/Footboard:
Sun Valley Honey
9848920 Beadboard Bunk Ladder/Slats: Sun Valley
Honey
9849043 Beadboard Bunk Storage Box: Sun Valley Honey
Product
----------------
5765458 Beadboard Bunk Bed Twin/Full: Dark Espresso
Part
-------
4179412 Beadboard Bunk Bed Upper
Headboard/Footboard:Twin/Full:Dark Espresso
4185377 Beadboard Bunk Bed
Ladder/Slats:Twin/Full:Dark Espresso
4185286 Beadboard Bunk Bed Rails:Twin/Full:Dark
Espresso
4189411 Beadboard Bunk Bed Storage
Box:Twin/Full:Dark Espresso
4190393 Beadboard Bunk Bed Lower
Headboard/Footboard:Twin/Full:Dark Espresso
Product
----------------
5766084 Beadboard Bunk Bed Twin/Full Chestnut
Part
-------
4179388 Beadboard Bunk Bed Upper
Headboard/Footboard:Twin/Full:Chestnut
4185336 Beadboard Bunk Bed
Ladder/Slats:Twin/Full:Chestnut
4185278 Beadboard Bunk Bed Rails:Twin/Full:Chestnut
4189387 Beadboard Bunk Bed Storage
Box:Twin/Full:Chestnut
4190567 Beadboard Bunk Bed Lower
Headboard/Footboard:Twin/Full:Chestnut
Product
----------------
5766266 Beadboard Bunk Bed Twin/Full White
Part
-------
4179362 Beadboard Bunk Bed Upper
Headboard/Footboard:Twin/Full:White
4185393 Beadboard Bunk Bed
Ladder/Slats:Twin/Full:White
4185294 Beadboard Bunk Bed Rails:Twin/Full:White
4189403 Beadboard Bunk Bed Storage
Box:Twin/Full:White
4190542 Beadboard Bunk Bed Lower
Headboard/Footboard:Twin/Full:White
A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12744.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
PBteen.com and through the PBteen catalog nationwide from January
2008 to April 2009 for the Sun Valley white and Sun Valley honey
models, and October 2011 to February 2012 for the dark espresso,
chestnut and white models. The bunk beds were sold for between
$1,700 and $2,000.
Consumers should immediately stop using the upper bunk and contact
PBteen. Consumers with the recalled bunk bed will receive a free,
in-home installation of a replacement panel. For more
information, contact PBteen toll-free at (855) 217-5223 between
7:00 a.m. and midnight Eastern Time daily. PBteen is contacting
known purchasers directly.
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge to Hear Class Action Arguments This Week
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis , writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth will hear
arguments this week over a petition seeking relief from the
Illinois Supreme Court's dismissal of a $10.1 billion verdict in
the class action lawsuit brought against Philip Morris in 2000.
Set for 9:00 a.m. today, Aug. 21, the hearing will mark St. Louis
attorney Stephen Tillery's latest attempt to reignite the consumer
fraud case over "light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" cigarette
labeling that has been smoldering in the state's court system for
more than a decade.
The issues currently before Judge Ruth deal with whether the
majority of the high court relied on "factually inaccurate"
information to reach its 4-2 ruling that overturned the verdict
and if post-Price statements made by the FTC, as well as a 2008
U.S. Supreme Court opinion, constitute "newly-discovered evidence"
that warrants relief.
In the plaintiffs' 2008 petition, Mr. Tillery contends that
Justice Rita Garman, who wrote the majority opinion for the court,
relied on testimony of a Philip Morris expert witness that he
claims proved to be false a few years later.
During the 2003 bench trial before now-retired Circuit Judge
Nicholas Byron, Dr. John Peterman testified that the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) permitted and authorized the use of the terms
"light" and "lowered tar and nicotine" in cigarette descriptors.
Judge Byron determined that Philip Morris had misled customers
through its light and low tar labeling and entered a $10.1 billion
verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, who brought what is believed
to be the nation's first consumer fraud lawsuit against a tobacco
company.
In its 2005 decision that overturned the Byron verdict, the
majority of the Supreme Court found that Philip Morris could not
be held liable under the state's Consumer Fraud Act for using
these terms because the FTC permitted them.
Mr. Tillery, however, asserts in his petition that the U.S.
Solicitor General that same year abandoned the position that the
FTC had a long standing policy approving light and low tar labels,
a statement he claims shows that Peterman's testimony was
"factually inaccurate."
He further argues that relief in the Price case is warranted based
on Altria Group v. Good. In 2008, the nation's court in that case
held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising
was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette
advertising.
But, attorneys for Philip Morris contend that neither the 2008 FTC
statement nor the U.S Supreme Court ruling constitutes newly-
discovered evidence or even evidence for that matter.
The tobacco company argues that Section 2-1401 of the Illinois
Code of Civil Procedure, which was what Mr. Tillery's petition for
relief was filed pursuant to, is "not a ticket to eternal
litigation."
Philip Morris asserts in its March memo in opposition to Mr.
Tillery's petition that section 2-1401 requires plaintiffs to
prove, among other factors, that the allegedly newly-discovered
evidence existed at the time the judgment was rendered, but was
unknown, and that it would have affected the outcome of the case.
This avenue for seeking relief, the company states, does not allow
judgments to be vacated just because events that take place after
the judgment might have affected the outcome of the case had it
been in progress when those events occurred.
Furthermore, Philip Morris argues that if the court determines
that the 2008 events merit the reopening of the decade-old case,
then it should be given the same opportunity.
The company claims that there is "a wealth of new evidence and new
court decisions" that would corroborate Justice Lloyd Karmeier's
view that the plaintiffs didn't have a viable claim for class-wide
damages.
It is unclear whether Judge Ruth will issue a ruling on the
petition for relief at today's hearing or just take it under
advisement.
Given the pending nature of the case, Mr. Tillery declined comment
through a firm spokesman.
A message left for W. Jason Rankin of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville,
one of attorneys representing the tobacco company, was returned by
a spokesman for Philip Morris' parent company, Altria Client
Services. He also declined comment.
In addition to Mr. Rankin, Philip Morris is represented by Larry
Hepler of HeplerBroom, and Chicago attorneys Michele Odorizzi of
Mayer Brown and George Lombardi of Winston & Strawn.
The case that has bounced between the circuit, appellate and
supreme courts in Illinois all began in 2000, when Mr. Tillery
filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sharon Price.
The suit claimed that Philip Morris deceptively promoted health
benefits of light and low tar cigarettes. It didn't make claims
for personal injury, but rather sought the difference between what
smokers paid for cigarettes and what they would have paid if
Philip Morris hadn't deceived them.
Following a bench trial in Madison County, Judge Bryon in 2003
awarded plaintiffs damages in the amount of $10.1 billion, which
included $1.8 billion in attorney's fees.
After the Illinois Supreme Court ordered Judge Byron to dismiss
the case in 2005, Mr. Tillery requested a rehearing. The justices
denied his request, spurring Mr. Tillery to seek review from the
U.S. Supreme Court, which denied it.
Following the Illinois Supreme Court's order, Judge Byron
dismissed the case in 2006. Two years later, Mr. Tillery sought
relief from the dismissal in Madison County Circuit Court.
Philip Morris moved to dismiss the petition under the statue of
limitations, as well as for failing to allege a basis for relief.
Judge Ruth, who had inherited the case from Judge Byron when he
retired, ruled in favor of the tobacco company, saying that the
statute of limitations to file the petition had expired.
Mr. Tillery appealed and like Judge Ruth, the Fifth District
Appellate Court determined that the statute of limitations applied
and did not address the tobacco company's claim that the
plaintiffs failed to allege a basis for relief.
The appeals panel remanded the case back to Judge Ruth on the
question of facts.
Philip Morris appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which
refused to disturb the appellate court ruling last September.
Although she wrote the majority opinion for the court in 2005,
Justice Garman dissented from the court's decision to deny the
tobacco company's petition for leave to appeal.
She said her colleagues should have granted Philip Morris'
petition "because it will inevitably reach us in the normal course
of this litigation."
"The parties deserve an answer sooner rather than later and the
instant petition for leave to appeal is the proper procedural
mechanism for us to provide that answer," Judge Garman wrote.
"In addition, the people of the state of Illinois and other
litigants, whose access to the courts is affected by litigation
that endures for a decade or more, also deserve to have us address
this matter."
PIPER JAFFRAY: Defends Antitrust Class Action Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies is defending antitrust class action
lawsuits in New York, according to the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the SEC and
various state attorneys general are conducting broad
investigations of numerous firms, including the Company, for
possible antitrust and securities violations in connection with
the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment contracts and
derivatives to municipal issuers from the early 1990s to date.
These investigations commenced in November 2006. In addition,
several class action complaints have been brought on behalf of a
proposed class of government entities that purchased municipal
derivatives. The complaints allege antitrust violations and are
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under the multi-district litigation rules. Several
California municipalities also have brought separate class action
complaints in California federal court, and approximately 18
California municipalities have filed individual lawsuits that are
not as part of class actions, all of which have been transferred
to the Southern District of New York and consolidated for pretrial
purposes.
The Company says no loss contingency has been reflected in the
Company's consolidated financial statements as this contingency is
neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.
Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for these matters because alleged damages have not
been specified, the proceedings remain in the early stages, there
is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being
certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and
there are significant factual issues to be resolved.
REAL MEX: Recalls 77,688 Lbs. of Grilled Chicken Salad Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Real Mex Foods, a Vernon, California establishment, is recalling
approximately 77,688 pounds of Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad Kits.
The salad kits include dressing made with cilantro that is the
subject of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall by Fresco
Green Farms Inc., due to possible Salmonella contamination, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.
The products subject to recall are:
* 36-oz. trays of "El Torito Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad
Kit."
* 18-lb. cases that contain eight (8) 36-oz. trays of "EL
TORITO Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad Kit."
The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
4140" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The cases bear any of
the following sell by dates: "08/23/12," "08/30/12," "09/06/12,"
or "09/14/12." The trays bear the same sell by dates in the
following format: "082312," "083012," "090612," or "091412." Each
case is also marked with an identifying item number of "24203."
The products were produced between July 23, 2012, and August 6,
2012, and distributed to retail establishments in California.
When available, the retail distribution list will be posted on
FSIS' Web site at:
www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp
FSIS was alerted to the problem by Real Mex Foods. The Company
was informed by a supplier that the cilantro used in the product
is subject to an FDA recall. FSIS and the company have received
no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this
product.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.
Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. Salmonella infections can be life-threatening,
especially to those with weak immune systems, such as infants, the
elderly, and persons with HIV infection or those undergoing
chemotherapy. The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are
diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours.
Additional symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting
that can last up to seven days. Individuals concerned about an
illness should contact a health care provider.
Consumers and news reporters with questions about the recall
should contact the company's President, Michael Siegmund, at (323)
282-2700.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.
FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
The FSIS disclosed that Costco stores in California received the
recalled products.
The FSIS says this list may not include all retail locations that
have received the recalled product or may include retail locations
that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore,
the FSIS says, it is important that consumers use the product-
specific identification information available at
http://is.gd/MVdsGL,in addition to the list of retail stores, to
check meat or poultry products in the consumers' possession to see
if they have been recalled.
SAGE RUTTY: Seeks Dismissal of RICO Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Will Astor, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports that a
retired doctor's class action claim against Sage Rutty & Co. Inc.
should be thrown out as the action of a "disgruntled but
experienced investor," lawyers for the Rochester investment firm
contend.
Michael Cappette M.D. sued Sage Rutty in June, claiming the firm's
advisers misled him on risks entailed in a private placement for a
Florida real estate venture.
A former Rochester resident who is now retired and living in
Cyprus, Mr. Cappette is seeking damages equal to three times his
$50,000 investment in the Florida venture. Sage Rutty is liable
for treble damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act, Mr. Cappette maintains.
In papers filed in July, a Sage Rutty lawyer contends that
Mr. Cappette's claim does not describe a pattern of activity
sufficient to file a RICO complaint and that if the RICO claim
fails, the rest of the suit should also be thrown out.
Mr. Cappette claims in his June complaint that a Sage Rutty
adviser concealed the investment's heavy risks and later falsely
claimed to adequately inform him of them, but a subscription
agreement submitted as part of Mr. Cappette's own evidence shows
that the facts were presented to him, Sage Rutty attorney Peter
Abdella of Harter Secrest & Emery states in the dismissal motion.
"(Cappette) either knew or should have known as of the date of the
Subscription Agreement and Limited Liability Compliance
Questionnaire that he was purchasing an illiquid asset with the
risk that the principal could be lost," Mr. Abdella states in
court papers.
The physician's class action claims also lack merit because Mr.
Cappette failed to show that any others are in a similar
situation, Mr. Abdella adds.
No hearing on the dismissal motion has yet been scheduled.
Mr. Cappette plans to file an amended complaint later this month,
court records show.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal Bid Granted in 2011 Power Outage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that its subsidiary's motion to dismiss
punitive damages in the class action lawsuit arising from the
September 2011 power outage was granted in July 2012.
In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County,
California. Within several days of the outage, several customers
of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a Company subsidiary,
filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court against
Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West, and SDG&E alleging
that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit
seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including
punitive damages.
In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the
punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service
Company and Pinnacle West from the lawsuit. In addition, more
than 7,000 customers' claims, primarily related to food spoilage,
have been submitted directly to SDG&E. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric
Reliability Corp. (NERC) conducted a joint inquiry to determine
the cause of the power failure and issued a report in May 2012
regarding their findings. The report does not include any
findings of failure on SDG&E's part that led to the power failure.
SMART BALANCE: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Spreadable Butters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Smart Balance and GFA Brands
"callously" push Smart Balance Spreadable Butters with bogus
claims that they "block the absorption of dietary cholesterol," a
class action claims in Federal Court in New York.
SMART BALANCE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Balance, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging deceptive labeling and marketing of
certain products, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
In October 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging that the labeling and marketing of the Company's Smart
Balance(R) "Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s" products are unfair,
deceptive, and improper because they contain 1g of fat from the
Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss in response to the Complaint, which was granted
in part and denied in part on June 25, 2012. The court has given
the plaintiffs thirty days to re-plead certain claims and the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation. The Company does not expect that the resolution of
this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business.
SMART BALANCE: Faces Suit Over Butter & Canola Oil Blend Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Balance, Inc. is facing a purported class action lawsuit
relating to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter
& Canola Oil Blend products, according to the Company's August 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
The Company recently became aware of a class action lawsuit filed
in the Southern District of California relating to the labeling
and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend
products. The Company has not yet been served with the Complaint,
but has obtained and reviewed a copy of the Complaint. Based on
the Company's review, the Company believes the allegations
contained in the Complaint are without merit and the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.
SMART BALANCE: Appeal From Calif. Suit Settlement Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving Smart Balance, Inc.'s
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in California is
pending, the Company disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.
In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District in
California in Santa Ana, California, relating to claims made in
connection with the labeling of the Company's Nucoa(R) stick
margarine product. The Company entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the lawsuit and the settlement amount was
charged to expense during the third quarter of 2011. The
settlement was approved by the court on June 12, 2012. However,
in July 2012, the former legal counsel to the plaintiff in the
case who attempted to intervene in the action, filed an appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
Company believes that neither this appeal, nor its ultimate
outcome, will have any material adverse effect on its business.
SPRINT: Railroad Rights Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinsella Media LLC on Aug. 15 disclosed that class counsel for
current and former owners of land next to or under railroad Rights
of Way has announced preliminary approval of multiple class action
Settlements involving fiber-optic cable and related
telecommunications equipment that has been installed in railroad
Rights of Way. These Settlements resolve lawsuits in a number of
states across the country, and will provide cash benefits to those
affected.
Sprint, Qwest, and WilTel Communications, the Defendants, are
telecommunications companies. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the
companies or their predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and
installed related telecommunications equipment within railroad
Rights of Way nationwide. A railroad Right of Way is a strip of
land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad.
The Defendants entered into agreements with the railroads that own
and occupy the Rights of Way, and under those agreements paid the
railroads for the rights to install the fiber-optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way.
Plaintiffs allege that, before installing the fiber optic cable
and related telecommunications equipment, the Defendants also were
required to obtain consent from those landowners who owned the
land under the Rights of Way. The Defendants contend that the
railroads had the right to allow them to use the Rights of Way
without the need for further permission from the adjoining
landowners and deny any wrongdoing.
Class Members include current or previous owners of land next to
or under a railroad Right of Way, at any time since the cable was
installed, in 24 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming. Class members can find out when fiber-optic
cable was installed in a particular Right of Way by visiting
http://www.FiberOpticSettlements.comor calling 1-800-378-1670.
Class members will have an opportunity to claim cash benefits if
the Court approves the Proposed Settlements.
The Proposed Settlements will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:
- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is installed,
- the length of time they owned the property, and
- whether the Right of Way was created by a federal land grant.
The Proposed Settlements will also provide the Defendants with a
permanent Telecommunications Easement, which gives them the right
to use the railroad Rights of Way for their fiber-optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment, if they don't already have
that right.
For more information regarding the Class Actions visit
http://www.FiberOpticSettlements.com or call 1-800-378-1670.
SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in "Bennett" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of bondholders in the
lawsuit captioned Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
In March 2009, a shareholder brought a lawsuit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that the Company and three of its former officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff seeks class
action status for purchasers of the Company's common stock from
October 26, 2006, to February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011, the
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the
Company's motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an
interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery has begun.
Plaintiff moved to certify a class of bondholders as well as
owners of common stock, and the Company has opposed that motion.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. The Company does not expect the
resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations.
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Still Defends Suits Alleging Commercial Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. ("Partnership") continues to
defend two class action lawsuits alleging a number of commercial
claims, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 23, 2012.
The Partnership's operations are subject to all operating hazards
and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering
combustible liquids such as propane. The Partnership has been,
and will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings
and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as
a result of these operating hazards and risks, and as a result of
other aspects of its business. In this last regard, the
Partnership currently is a defendant in lawsuits in several
states, including two putative class actions in which no class has
yet been certified. The complaints allege a number of commercial
claims, including as to the Partnership's pricing, fee disclosure
and tank ownership, under various consumer statutes, the Uniform
Commercial Code, common law and antitrust law. Based on the
nature of the allegations under these commercial lawsuits, the
Partnership believes that the lawsuits are without merit and the
Partnership is contesting each of these lawsuits vigorously. With
respect to the pending commercial lawsuits, other than for legal
defense fees and expenses, based on the merits of the allegations
and discovery to date, no liability for a loss contingency is
required.
SUNCORP: IMF Australia Mulls Suit vs. Four More Banks Over Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Quine, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the
investment manager of IMF Australia says the litigation funder has
considered action against a further four banks, which could help
bring the total class action return to $250 million.
James Middleweek said the eight class action claims before the
High Court are in the range of $220-250 million, but that behind
that is potentially $30-40 million worth of claims against
Suncorp, Bendigo, HSBC and Bank of Queensland.
"Collectively, of all of the 12 banks in our sights, it's probably
north of $250 million by value; it remains to be seen whether we
get the whole lot back, but it would certainly be a significant
settlement," said Mr. Middleweek, who is also the managing
director of Perth-based IMF subsidiary Financial Redress, which is
promoting the case.
The suit against ANZ bank over fair fee charges, Australia's
biggest ever class action, hit the High Court on Aug. 14.
Andrew Watson, the principal of Maurice Blackburn, and silk Justin
Gleeson SC are heading up a case on behalf of 170,000 customers
against eight of the nation's major banks.
Mr. Middleweek said King & Wood Mallesons were acting for ANZ but
KWM could not confirm this.
The banks argue the fees, including on late credit card payments,
bounced checks or overdrawn accounts, are lawful. A major
question in the case, however, is whether charges are penalties or
fees for a service.
"What we've done is have a trial within a trial of primarily
issues on the question of penalties," Mr. Middleweek told Lawyers
Weekly.
"The penalties argument in its first stage is a very discrete
legal point: Are these fees on their contractual wording capable
of being penalties? That part of it is actually not factually or
discovery rich; it's a legal point."
Customers had success on late fees payments late last year when
Federal Court Justice Michelle Gordon ruled credit card late-
payment fees could be classified as an illegal penalty as the
amount charged was well beyond the bank cost.
If the High Court finds in favor of bank customers in relation to
other types of fees, Mr. Middleweek said the banks will be firmly
on the back foot in having to produce evidence of what their
actual costs are.
"It's got to be capable of being a penalty but it's also actually
got to be extravagant and unconscionable," said Mr. Middleweek.
"If we have to go with arguments such as unconscionability we
think they're absolutely very strong."
"We take as a starting point that there are some fees where it's
difficult to see what the service is. If you're late paying a
credit card and they fine you $40 what service are they providing?
It's difficult to see what possible service they're providing if
they chose to dishonor a transaction . . . maybe extending credit
is a service but if it operates as a penalty to [customers] then
the onus is on the banks to show it's a genuine pre-estimate,"
explained Mr. Middleweek.
"You can't, in a contract, award yourself the right to damages for
more than you would have recovered in damages."
Mr. Middleweek echoed Mr. Gleeson's argument that it was trivial
to the bank to have an overdrawn account.
Alan Archibald QC, representing ANZ, said Mr. Gleeson's argument
narrowed the law before referencing judgments from the 17th
century, reported Sky News.
There are no precedents as to what is a reasonable amount to
charge for bank fees in Australia.
Arguments were finalized on Aug. 14, with a decision expected
within six to eight weeks.
SUNRISE SENIOR: "Purnell" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that pursuant to a stipulation,
all of LaShone Purnell's individual claims were dismissed with
prejudice, thereby, disposing of her class action suit.
On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff LaShone Purnell filed a lawsuit on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Orange County, against Sunrise
Senior Living Management, Inc., captioned LaShone Purnell as an
individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v.
Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 30-2010-00372725 (Orange County Superior Court). Plaintiff's
complaint was styled as a class action and alleged that Sunrise
failed to properly schedule the purported class of care givers and
other related positions so that they would be able to take meal
and rest breaks as provided for under California law. The
complaint asserted claims for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages;
(2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest
periods; (4) failure to pay wages upon ending employment; (5)
failure to keep accurate payroll records; (6) unfair business
practices; and (7) unfair competition. Plaintiff sought
unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties provided for
under the California Labor Code, injunctive relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees. On June 17, 2010, Sunrise removed this action to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. SACV 10-897 CJC (MLGx)). On July 16, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which
the Court denied. The parties completed briefing on class
certification, and the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion
for class certification on January 23, 2012. On February 27,
2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On July 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal, all of plaintiff's individual claims were dismissed
with prejudice, thereby disposing of the action.
In addition, on January 31, 2012, the same counsel filed what that
counsel characterized as a related lawsuit captioned Cheryl
Miller, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., a Virginia
corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC478075 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
On or about February 8, 2012, Plaintiff Cheryl Miller filed a
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which was served on Sunrise on
February 15, 2012. Plaintiff's FAC was styled as a class action
and alleged that Sunrise failed to pay all wages owed to employees
as a result of allegedly improper "rounding" of time to the
nearest quarter hour and that Sunrise failed to comply with the
California Labor Code by issuing "debit cards" to pay wages. The
FAC asserted claims for: (1) failure to pay all wages due to
illegal rounding; (2) unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices; (3) failure to provide accurate pay stubs, (4) failure
to pay wages upon ending employment; (5) failure to comply with
Labor Code section 212 regarding payment of wages, and (6) seeking
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney
Generals Act. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages,
statutory penalties provided for under the California Labor Code,
injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees. On March 23,
2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) which dismissed
all individual claims with prejudice and the class action
allegations without prejudice thereby disposing of the action.
UNITED STATES: Class Action v. FBI Over Operation Flex Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Silver, writing for The Electronic Intifada, reports
that a federal court ruled on Aug. 14 in favor of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, which had invoked the "state secrets"
privilege to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of
Southern California on behalf of several members of the Muslim
community in Orange County, California.
The plaintiffs had charged the FBI with violating their
constitutional rights by targeting them for indiscriminate
surveillance merely because of their religion.
Thus, a federal court has affirmed what the ACLU's motion warned
against: "The Government's position is that literally any
practice, no matter how abusive, can be immunized from legal
challenge by being labeled 'counterterrorism' and being conducted
in secret."
In the ACLU's statement in opposition to the government's motion
to dismiss, it invoked the case Korematsu v. United States, in
which the Supreme Court ominously ruled that it was constitutional
to intern Fred T. Korematsu and other citizens of Japanese
ancestry during the Second World War. However, the ACLU pointed
out that in that case the government was vulnerable to legal
challenge, a tenet of democracy that the court's recent decision
has helped do away with.
According to the ACLU's Web site, "This marked the first time in
recent memory that the government has asserted the state secrets
privilege to dismiss a lawsuit brought by United States citizens
alleging that a domestic law enforcement operation was violating
their constitutional rights."
Undercover agent spied on Muslim community
The surveillance began in June 2006, when an undercover FBI
informant, Craig Monteilh, was sent into a variety of "mainstream
mosques" in Orange County, California, posing as an Islamic
convert. The FBI code-named this assignment "Operation Flex."
Mr. Monteilh, a former prisoner, describes the progression of his
informant work for the FBI in his testimony. After being
transferred from the criminal division to the counterterrorism
division he studied Arabic and Islam and was trained in the
martial arts of Krav Maga, the official self-defense system of the
Israeli military.
After a couple of weeks of intensive training, Mr. Monteilh
commenced "operation flex" by approaching Sheikh Sadullah Khan, an
imam at the Islamic Center of Irvine, a mosque in Irvine,
California, introducing himself as Syrian-French and interested in
converting. After converting, he became known as Farouk al Aziz.
His covert task was not to uncover criminal activities, but rather
take "Every opportunity to meet people, get their contact
information, meet them privately to get to know them, find out
their background, find out their religious and political views,
and get any information I could for the FBI". He later began
audio-recording and then video-taping any encounter he could.
Undercover agent spied on several mosques
Mr. Monteilh testified that one of his superiors had said, "We
want to get as many files on this community as possible."
Mr. Monteilh, who worked on this assignment until October 2007,
testified to collecting information on around ten different
mosques.
The ACLU, along with the Council for American-Islamic Relations of
Greater Los Angeles and a private firm filed the class-action
lawsuit in February 2011.
The Obama administration argued that any divulgence of specifics
to the case would "cause significant harm to the national
security."
Once again we are seeing the Obama administration justify its
violation of citizens' constitutional rights -- either by spying
on them, arresting them or killing them -- by invoking the need
for secrecy in the name of national security.
WADDELL & REED: Continues to Defend "Taylor" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit commenced by Michael E. Taylor and Kenneth B.
Young, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.
In the action captioned Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young,
individuals, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive; Case No. 09-CV-2909
DMS WVG; in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, filed December 28, 2009, the Company was
sued in an individual action, class action and Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") nationwide collective action by two former
advisors asserting misclassification of financial advisors as
independent contractors instead of employees. Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and a purported class of Waddell & Reed, Inc.
financial advisors, assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages
and overtime wages, and under California Labor Code Statutes for
timely payment of wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation,
meal periods, reimbursement of losses and business expenses and
itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair Business Practices
under Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages.
Plaintiffs moved for conditional collective action certification
under the FLSA. The Company opposed this motion and additionally
moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' individual FLSA claims.
The Court issued an order on January 3, 2012, granting the
Company's summary judgment motions, holding that Plaintiffs'
individual FLSA claims fail as a matter of law, and denying
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification
under the FLSA as moot. This ruling effectively removes all
nationwide FLSA claims from the case.
Plaintiffs intend to continue to pursue the California claims.
The Company says an adverse determination in this matter could
have a material adverse impact on its financial position and
results of operations. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend against plaintiffs' claims.
At this stage in this litigation, based upon the information
currently available to the Company, the Company is not able to
determine that an unfavorable outcome is remote, reasonably
possible, or probable, and the Company has determined that it
cannot reasonably estimate either the amount or the range of
possible losses that would result if plaintiffs were to prevail,
therefore, the Company has not made any accruals with respect to
this matter in its consolidated financial statements.
WESTERN UNION: Reaches Deal to Resolve Colorado Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has reached a preliminary
agreement in principle to resolve class action lawsuits pending in
Colorado.
The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21,
2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. as a
defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. also moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On
November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the
decision.
On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District
Court proceedings pending their appeal. The plaintiffs have not
sought and the Court has not granted class certification. A
preliminary agreement in principle has been reached with the
plaintiffs and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement between the parties and the
Court's approval. The preliminary agreement would result in a
substantial amount of the settlement proceeds to be paid from the
Company's existing related unclaimed property liabilities. If a
settlement agreement is not completed or approved, the Company and
Western Union Financial Services, Inc. intend to vigorously defend
themselves against both lawsuits.
WILLIAMS COS: Suits Over Published Gas Price Indices Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits alleging
manipulation of published gas price indices, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
On December 1, 2011, the Company announced that its Board of
Directors approved a tax-free spinoff of 100 percent of its
exploration and production business, WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX), to
the Company's shareholders. On December 31, 2011, the Company
distributed one share of WPX common stock for every three shares
of Williams common stock. As a result, with the exception of the
December 31, 2011 balance sheet which no longer includes WPX, the
Company's consolidated financial statements reflect the results of
operations and financial position of WPX as discontinued
operations.
Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against WPX and others, in each
case seeking an unspecified amount of damages. WPX is currently a
defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to the
federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summary
judgment in the Colorado case in favor of WPX and most of the
other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. In 2009,
the court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of
the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in WPX's favor. The
court's order became final on July 18, 2011, and the Colorado
plaintiffs might appeal the order.
In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted WPX's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the
plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act
gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. In 2011, the
plaintiffs' appealed the court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and in early 2012, the parties completed briefing the
issues. A decision is expected in 2013.
Because of the uncertainty around these current pending unresolved
issues, including an insufficient description of the purported
classes and other related matters, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.
However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of
these items and the Company's related indemnification obligation
could result in future charges that may be material to its results
of operations.
WILLIAMS COS: Trial in "West" Suit Scheduled for April 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set for April 2013 in the purported class action lawsuit
initiated by James West against a subsidiary of The Williams
Companies, Inc., according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state
court in Fairbanks, Alaska, on behalf of individual property
owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.
The lawsuit named the Company's subsidiary, Williams Alaska
Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC
(FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. The
Company owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when the
Company sold it to FHRA. The Company and FHRA have made claims
under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in
connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. The
Company and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking,
among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the
other party caused the sulfolane contamination.
In August 2010, the court denied West's request for class
certification. On May 5, 2011, the Company and FHRA settled the
James West claim, leaving FHRA and WAPI claims. On November 17,
2011, the Company filed motions for summary judgment on FHRA's
claims against it, but the motions are unlikely to resolve all the
outstanding claims. Similarly, FHRA has filed motions for summary
judgment that would resolve some, but not all, of the Company's
claims against it. Trial is set for April 2013.
While significant uncertainty still exists due to, among other
things, ongoing proceedings and expert evaluations, the Company
says it currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss
exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount
up to $32 million. The Company might have the ability to recover
any such losses under the pollution liability policy if FHRA has
not exhausted the policy limits.
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Payment Distributed to "Downes" Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Substantially all payments to class members have been made
pursuant to the settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by
Alan M. Downes, according to Wisconsin Electric Power Company's
August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
In June 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against the Wisconsin Energy Corporation Retirement
Account Plan (Plan) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that Plan
participants who received a lump sum distribution under the Plan
prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full
benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and were owed
additional benefits, because the Plan failed to apply the correct
interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to
their normal retirement age. In September 2010, the plaintiff
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint alleging additional
claims under ERISA and adding the Company's parent, Wisconsin
Energy Corporation, as a defendant.
In November 2011, the Plan entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs for $45.0 million, and the court promptly
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. As part
of the settlement agreement, the Plan agreed to class
certification for all similarly situated plaintiffs. The
resolution of this matter resulted in a cost of less than $13
million for 2011 after considering insurance and reserves
established in the prior year. The court approved the settlement
on April 3, 2012, and issued its written order on April 20, 2012.
Substantially all payments to class members have been made
pursuant to the settlement. The Company says it does not
anticipate further charges as a result of the settlement.
WORLD CLASS: Recalls 25 Heated Mats for Pets Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 25 Indoor Pet Heating Comfort Pad Mats were voluntarily
recalled by importer, World Class Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, and
manufacturer, Fuzhou Senhor Leisure Products Co., Ltd., of China,
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 heated mats have poor wiring and construction, posing a fire
and electrical shock hazard to consumers.
The firm has received two reports of the mats catching on fire,
including property damage. One fire involved the asphyxiation
death of a dog.
This recall involves "GSI electronic 50W indoor pet heating
comfort pad mats" with model number GKC2G002. The mats are
polyester, were sold in various shapes and sizes and have a white
electrical cord. They were sold in a variety of colors, including
beige and pink. Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12743.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively online at www.amazon.com from July 2011 through March
2012 for about $19.
Consumer should immediately stop using the recalled pet mats and
contact World Class to receive a full refund. The firm is
directly contacting consumers who purchased the recalled product.
For more information, contact World Class Inc. toll-free at (888)
941-5079 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m Eastern Time Monday
through Thursday, or e-mail the firm at gsiamazon@gmail.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *