/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120913.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 182 Headlines AHMC INC: Agrees to Pay $6MM to Settle Overtime Class Action ALLSTATE INSURANCE: App. Court Refuses to Revive Class Action AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Cramming AURORA ORGANIC: Settles Organic Milk Class Actions for $7.5MM BAYER: March 2013 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BELFORD HIGH: Ordered to Pay $22.7 Million in Class Action CANADA: Non-Striking Students File Class Action v. Quebec Gov't. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Brantley" Plaintiffs to Appeal to Sup. Ct. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Class Suit Ongoing CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in N.Y. Consumer Suit Ongoing CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Has to Answer "Livingston" Suit by Sept. 14 CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Still Pending in Indiana CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: "Collins" Class Suit Dismissed in July DEL MONTE CORP: Sued Over Dangerous Chicken Jerky Dog Treats FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings in Mich. Suit Over Transfer Taxes FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Ongoing FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Class Action Suit Remains Dormant FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Appeal Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings on Pending Bids in "Kuriakose" Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Ohio Class Suit Pending in Sup. Ct. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Defends Suits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Ricotta Salata Frescolina Brand GENESEE & WYOMING: Sued Over Proposed RailAmerica Acquisition GEOEYE INC: Faces Two Suits Over Proposed DigitalGlobe Merger ILLINOIS: Health Dept. Faces Suit for In-Home Nursing Funding Cuts ISTAR FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $29 Mil. KINDER MORGAN: Settles El Paso Shareholder Suits for $110 Mil. LAW SCHOOL: Government Intervention Sought in LSAT Class Action LEUCADIA NAT'L: Debt-Collection Suit Gets Class-Action Status REGIONS FINANCIAL: Loan Officers File Overtime Class Action SEC: Must Face Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme SYNGENTA: Montgomery Water Systems Join Class Action Settlement TARGET CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay Laid-Off Employees' Wages TD BANK: Faces Class Action in Penn. For Uncompensated Overtime UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in California ULTRAMAR: Court Approves Gas Price Hike Class-Action Expansion UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Mentally-Disabled Immigrants' Suit VERTEX PHARMA: Issues Correction to Sept. 6 Class Action Release WET SEAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action ********* AHMC INC: Agrees to Pay $6MM to Settle Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Zach Winnick, writing for Law360, reports that hospital chain AHMC Inc. has agreed to pay $6 million to settle a class action alleging it shorted about 2,500 workers on overtime and breaks, but a California judge held off on approving the deal on Sept. 7, saying she needs more information about the value of their claims. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michelle R. Rosenblatt declined to grant a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by AHMC and several related hospital entities. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: App. Court Refuses to Revive Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey appellate court on Sept. 7 refused to revive a class action looking to prevent Allstate Insurance Co. and other auto insurers from denying drivers coverage for diminished vehicle values under their policies' uninsured and underinsured motorist provisions, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court noted that the appeal didn't concern whether a third- party action for a vehicle's diminished value following an accident could stand, but instead whether the plaintiffs could obtain a ruling requiring the insurers to pay such claims in the future. AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Cramming ----------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility "very deliberately" crams for itself and allows third-party crammers to use it, a class action claims in Superior Court. AURORA ORGANIC: Settles Organic Milk Class Actions for $7.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Aurora Organic Dairy on Sept. 7 disclosed that it has reached an agreement to settle all claims in the consolidated class action lawsuits pending before the U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the district court confirmed that Aurora's milk was at all times properly labeled and sold as organic, and that Aurora's milk has been certified as organic by a USDA-accredited certifying agent since 2004. As such, the only remaining action in this lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2007, concerned marketing claims made by Aurora and its customers. While the courts confirmed Aurora's organic certifications have always been valid and the Company is confident it would prevail in trial on the remaining marketing claims, Aurora reached the settlement to avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation. According to the agreement, the Company will pay a one-time amount of $7.5 million to cover all settlement class costs, including class claims, attorneys' fees for up to 60 or more plaintiffs' lawyers, and the costs of notice and administration. The Company also will continue for three years certain existing farming practices at its Platteville dairy. The settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, dismisses all claims brought against Aurora and its retail customers, and contains no admission of wrongdoing by any of the parties. "Since our inception in 2004, Aurora Organic Dairy's mission has been to provide American families with high-quality organic milk," said Marc Peperzak, founder and CEO of Aurora Organic Dairy. "Without exception, we have always produced organic dairy products without chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, antibiotics and artificial growth hormones according to USDA organic standards. Aurora's products have been continuously certified as organic since 2004 with the USDA Organic Seal, the marketplace standard that American families rely on and trust." To ensure the highest quality organic dairy products, Aurora follows a strict set of guidelines for organic livestock operations and management. In accordance with USDA organic regulations, Aurora cows receive a diet of organic-certified feed, including pasture, grown without the use of chemical fertilizers or synthetic pesticides, and other prohibited substances. With more than 8,200 acres of organic pastures for grazing, Aurora farms consist of free-stall barns, open housing and best-in-class milking parlors. Aurora processes its milk in its own state-of- the-art processing facility to ensure that organic standards are followed at each level of its sustainable-scale organic dairy, from the farm to the carton. "As the market for organic products expands, more people want to know how their food is made," said Scott McGinty, President of Aurora Organic Dairy. "Our sustainable-scale, integrated organic dairy model assures retailers and consumers they have the very best organic milk in the marketplace. As a result, more families are able to access high-quality organic milk they can trust." "From our milking facilities to our barns, we pride ourselves on maintaining the highest standards for animal welfare, and I personally have worked to secure Aurora's position as a pioneer in the care and treatment of our animals," said Dr. Juan Velez, Executive Vice President of Farm Operations for Aurora Organic Dairy. "As organic farmers, we fundamentally understand that high-quality milk can only come from healthy cows, and we place extreme focus on science-based disease prevention and on keeping our cows healthy and stress-free." Aurora's commitment to exacting animal welfare standards is evidenced by its continual certification from Validus, an independent third-party animal welfare auditor. With stringent standards for animal welfare accreditation, Validus' comprehensive audit system was developed by leading animal welfare experts, including; Dr. Jim Reynolds, Western University, CA; Dr. Dennis Armstrong, Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona; John Smith Ph.D., University of Arizona and Mike Gamroth, Oregon State University. In addition, the program is annually reviewed by world-renowned animal welfare expert, Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University. Aurora Organic Dairy is a producer of private-brand organic milk and butter for U.S. retailers. Based in Boulder, Colorado, it operates a calf ranch and organic dairy farms in Colorado and Texas, as well as an organic dairy processing plant in Platteville, Colorado. BAYER: March 2013 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Douglas & London P.C. on Sept. 7 issued a statement pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: If you purchased either of the following Bayer Aspirin products in the U.S., you may be entitled to compensation. Bayer(R) Aspirin With Heart Advantage 1/1/08 - 7/23/12 Bayer(R) Women's Low-Dose Aspirin + Calcium 1/1/00 - 7/23/12 WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? Plaintiffs claim that Bayer overcharged consumers for Bayer(R) Aspirin With Heart Advantage and Bayer(R) Women's Low-Dose Aspirin + Calcium ("Combination Aspirin Products") or that these products should not have been sold, because these products were not FDA-approved, could not provide all advertised health benefits and were inappropriate for long-term use. Bayer denies it did anything wrong. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong. The lawsuit is called In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, No. 09-MD-2023 (BMC) (JMA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT? Under the terms of the proposed settlement, each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid claim may be entitled to money. Bayer has agreed to make payments totaling $15,000,000.00 to settle Plaintiffs' claims, including attorneys' fees and costs. For more details, write to the address or visit the Web site identified below. ARE YOU AFFECTED? If you purchased either of the listed Combination Aspirin Products in the U.S. for personal, family or household uses within the specific time stated, then you are a member of a Settlement Class. Be sure to visit the Web site for complete Class Member definitions. WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in any Settlement Class or not, and you must decide soon -- the deadline for exclusion is December 20, 2012. Stay In: you will be legally bound by the terms of the settlement, and you won't be able to sue Bayer-as part of any other lawsuit- for any claims arising from or related to the Combination Aspirin Products except for any personal injury claims. To receive benefits from the settlement, you must submit a valid, sworn Claim Form. The Claim Form must be postmarked or submitted online by April 29, 2013. Any member of any Settlement Class that does not timely submit a valid, sworn Claim Form will not be entitled to settlement benefits. To file a Claim Form, visit http://www.BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com Get Out: If you get out, you will not receive benefits from the proposed settlement, but you will keep rights to sue Bayer for these claims, and will not be bound by the terms of the settlement. To be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must act before December 20, 2012. If you wish to be excluded from one or more of the Settlement Classes visit http://www.BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com Object: If you stay in any Settlement Class, you can object to the Settlement and must act by February 5, 2013. WHO REPRESENTS ME? The Court has appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Douglas & London P.C. to represent the Settlement Classes. You may hire your own attorney, if you wish, at your own expense. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and to approve attorney fees and costs. The Hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201. If you are a member of a Settlement Class who did not seek to be excluded, you may write to the Court to object to the proposed settlement, and you may ask to speak at the hearing about the fairness of the proposed settlement. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions, visit http://www.BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com,call 1-877-257- 5766, or write to Bayer Combination Aspirin Litigation Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 94975-8061. BELFORD HIGH: Ordered to Pay $22.7 Million in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Nick DeSantis, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education, reports that a federal judge has ordered a Pakistani man and two of his companies, Belford High School and Belford University, to pay $22.7-million in a class-action lawsuit originally filed by a Michigan woman who accused the businesses of selling worthless degrees, according to the news Web site MLive.com. The judgment, handed down by Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court in Flint, Mich., reflects the roughly $250 price of each diploma sold to 30,500 American students from 2003 to 2009, when the lawsuit was filed, multiplied by three. The defendant, Salem Kureshi, had argued that his operations were not a sham, but the judge rejected his claims and ordered him to comply with the terms of the judgment. A spokesman for Belford University, which is based in Humble, Tex., declined to comment on the lawsuit. CANADA: Non-Striking Students File Class Action v. Quebec Gov't. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nickeesha Swaby at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action against 25 colleges and Quebec, Canadian students say the schools didn't do enough to protect students who did not want to strike against tuition increases this spring. About 150,000 of Quebec's 460,000 post-secondary students went on strike this spring, challenging the government's plan to increase tuition by $325 a year over 5 years. University students in Quebec pay about $2,520 a year in tuition: the lowest in Canada and less than half of what students in most other provinces pay, according to Statistics Canada. Lead plaintiffs Kim Laganiere and Mihai Adrian Graghici sued 25 universities and junior colleges and the attorney general of Quebec, claiming their education and job prospects were injured when winter term classes were terminated. Ms. Laganiere, a 20-year-old nursing student at College Montmorency, says she voted against the strike vote, but was unable to finish her academic session when winter classes were terminated. She says she will get her diploma 6 months later than expected, and wants compensation for the time she will miss in the work force. Ms. Graghici says she is in a similar situation, as her studies at the Universite Laval were also disrupted. During the protests, Quebec courts issued temporary injunctions for several post-secondary institutions, intended to force students to end picket lines and return to class. In May, Bill 78 was enacted to ensure that post-secondary students have the right to attend classes without obstruction. Bill 78 restricts protesting on college grounds and requires protest groups of 50 or more people to submit protest routes and agendas to police for approval. But the class claims in its complaint, "This measure did not address the damage already caused to students wanting to pursue their courses." The class blasts the government for "doing nothing" to facilitate the resumption of classes, before Bill 78. It claims that government officials tried to negotiate with student associations that organized the strikes "while they knew or should have known that these associations had no legitimacy to do so." The newly elected Parti Quebecois government has promised to scrap the tuition hikes and repeal Bill 78, which was implemented by outgoing Premier Jean Charest. The class seeks compensation for lost earnings, lost work experience, and loss of tuition and scholarships. The class is represented by Michel Savonitto. A copy of the Complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/Quebec.pdf CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Brantley" Plaintiffs to Appeal to Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation disclosed in its August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. filed a petition seeking leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the dismissal of their class action suit. On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Cablevision and several other defendants, including other cable and satellite providers and programming content providers. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering programming in packaged tiers rather than on an "a la carte" basis. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any non-defendant programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary element of the alleged antitrust injury. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 30, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case. On April 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed petitions for rehearing which the Ninth Circuit denied on May 4, 2012. On August 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Company says it intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit captioned Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision-compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in N.Y. Consumer Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated consumer litigation against Cablevision Systems Corporation, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Has to Answer "Livingston" Suit by Sept. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation has until September 14, 2012, to answer the amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011. The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court granted the application on April 13, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants have until September 14, 2012, to answer or otherwise respond. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Still Pending in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery. The case is styled Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 4:07-cv-137. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts, and made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the Company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other claims. The Company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On June 30, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. In that order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain new counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010, in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review the case and advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave to amend the proposed class representatives for class certification. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations stated within the complaint. Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments. The Court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class representatives and a portion of their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed. Discovery in this matter will now proceed. The Company says it intends to defend this action vigorously. Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to it or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at this time. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: "Collins" Class Suit Dismissed in July ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit commenced by Deborah A. Collins in Washington was dismissed in July 2012, Concur Technologies, Inc. said in its August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On February 15, 2012, an alleged derivative and class action complaint, captioned Deborah A. Collins v. S. Steven Singh, et al., No. 12-2-05878-4-SEA, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County against Concur Technologies, Inc. as a nominal defendant and certain of its directors and executive officers by a plaintiff who claims to be a shareholder. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that certain restricted stock units and bonuses granted to officers were improper and subjected Concur to unnecessary tax liability, and that Concur's 2012 proxy statement was false and misleading. Plaintiff purported to bring both derivative claims on Concur's behalf and a direct claim on behalf of shareholders, and sought relief including damages, disgorgement, equitable remedies and attorneys' fees and costs. Concur moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that all of the claims are derivative, and that plaintiff failed to establish her standing to assert such claims on Concur's behalf inasmuch as she did not make a pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors and failed to plead adequately that such demand was excused. On July 20, 2012, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Any such proceedings, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, costly, and result in the diversion of significant operational resources or management time. Although the outcomes of legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, the Company is not currently involved in any legal proceeding in which the outcome, in its judgment based on information currently available, is likely to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial position. DEL MONTE CORP: Sued Over Dangerous Chicken Jerky Dog Treats ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Del Monte and Kroger continued to sell dangerous, Chinese-made Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky dog treats though they knew they could poison dogs, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Langone v. Del Monte Corp., Case No. 12-cv-04671 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/DogBiscuits.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Grenville Pridham, Esq. 2522 Chambers Road, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 486-5144 E-mail: grenville@grenvillpridham.com FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings in Mich. Suit Over Transfer Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting court decisions in a lawsuit related to real estate transfer taxes pending in Michigan, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 20, 2011, Oakland County (Michigan) and the Oakland County Treasurer filed a lawsuit against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the enterprises failed to pay real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in Oakland County where the enterprises were the grantors. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. On November 10, 2011, Genesee County (Michigan) and the Genesee County Treasurer filed a class action lawsuit in the same court on behalf of itself and the other 82 Michigan Counties raising similar claims against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. The Court later certified the class, with two Michigan counties opting out. The Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened in both actions against the defendants. In both actions, FHFA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae asserted that they were not liable for the transfer taxes based on statutory tax exemptions applicable to each. On March 23, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae in both actions, determining that the statutory exemptions did not exempt them from Michigan's state and county transfer tax. On April 24, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Oakland County case sought leave to file a second amended complaint to cover purportedly taxable transactions where the enterprises received property as grantees through a Michigan Sheriff's deed or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Also on April 24, 2012, FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae requested that the Court certify its March 23, 2012 orders granting plaintiffs summary judgment for an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and stay the actions pending resolution of any resulting appeal. On April 26, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Genesee County case sought leave to file an amended complaint to cover purportedly taxable transactions where the enterprises received property as grantees through a Michigan Sheriff's deed or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. On May 21, 2012, FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae filed a petition for permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal and motion for a stay, the Oakland plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint or the Genesee plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint, nor has it addressed the amount of damages the plaintiffs contend are owed in either case. On or about June 22, 2011, Curtis Hertel (individually and as Register of Deeds of Ingham County, Michigan) filed a lawsuit in Michigan state court against Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and others alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in Ingham County where the enterprises were the grantors and grantees. FHFA later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened against the enterprises. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and then filed motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The Court dismissed plaintiff Hertel from the case concluding that Hertel was not a proper plaintiff, but the Court has not yet ruled on the enterprises' and FHFA's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment as to the claims asserted by the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury. The plaintiffs in the Oakland County, Genesee County, and Ingham County cases are all seeking a declaration that the enterprises' statutory exemptions do not cover recording taxes such as the Michigan transfer taxes, damages against the enterprises for unpaid state transfer taxes, as well as penalties, interest, pre- judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company is also a defendant in similar lawsuits in 13 states and the District of Columbia. These lawsuits, other than the one in the District of Columbia, were all filed after the Company received the unfavorable ruling in Michigan on March 23, 2012. Each of these lawsuits generally challenges the Company's statutory exemption from transfer taxes imposed on the transfer of real estate properties and seeks damages in an amount yet to be determined for unpaid transfer taxes on transfers to and/or from the defendants as well as other items, which may include penalties, interest, liquidated penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs or attorneys' fees. These lawsuits may lead to additional similar lawsuits in other states and jurisdictions that impose these taxes. At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the probable outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect on its business, financial condition or results of operation. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to these lawsuits due to the following factors, among others: (a) none of the plaintiffs have demanded a stated amount of damages they believe are due; (b) with respect to the Oakland County and Genesee County lawsuits, the scope of permissible claims has not yet been determined and discovery regarding the amount of damages is still in the early stages; and (c) with respect to the other lawsuits, discovery regarding the amount of damages has not yet begun. FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al., was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006, through November 20, 2007. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, risk management and the procedures the Company put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel. On September 2, 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations against only Patricia Cook. The second amended complaint also extends the damages period, but not the class period. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. On November 19, 2008, the Court granted the motion of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to intervene in its capacity as Conservator. On April 6, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 23, 2012, the Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss and set a briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. On February 13, 2012, plaintiff filed motion for leave to amend, which sought leave to file a third amended complaint and add allegations based on a non- prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December 15, 2011. On March 27, 2012, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, and plaintiff filed its third amended complaint on March 28, 2012. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court denied the motions on May 25, 2012. All defendants have filed answers to the third amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on its business, financial condition, or results of operations. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; and the fact that the parties have not yet briefed and the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the certification of a class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Class Action Suit Remains Dormant -------------------------------------------------------- On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain former Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation officers and others styled Jacoby vs. Syron, Cook, Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and FTN Financial Markets. The complaint, as amended on December 17, 2008, contends that the defendants made material false and misleading statements in connection with Freddie Mac's September 2007 offering of non-cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed- rate preferred stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards and risk management procedures." The complaint further alleges that Syron, Cook, and Piszel made additional false statements following the offering. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel. The case is currently dormant and the Company believes plaintiff may have abandoned it. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Appeal Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied in May 2012 plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the denial of their bid for class certification in the consolidated lawsuit involving Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's underwriters, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding the Company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock. On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2, 2009. The consolidated complaint alleged that three former Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock. The complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others made additional false statements following the offering. The complaint named as defendants Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, Patricia Cook Cty., Goldman, Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. After the Court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, amended consolidated complaint, and second consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Messrs. Syron and Piszel, omitting Ms. Cook and the underwriter defendants, on November 14, 2010. On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect to Messrs. Syron and Piszel. On April 4, 2011, Mr. Piszel filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted that motion on April 28, 2011. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on June 30, 2011, but withdrew this motion on July 5, 2011. The plaintiffs again moved for class certification on August 30, 2011, which motion was denied on March 27, 2012. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of this denial on April 11, 2012. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on May 2, 2012. On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the denial of class certification. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the underwriting agreement in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel. At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the Company is are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the fact that plaintiffs may appeal the denial of class certification. Absent the certification of a specified class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings on Pending Bids in "Kuriakose" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting rulings on several motions pending in the securities class action lawsuit captioned Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook Cty., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook Cty., is another putative class action lawsuit filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on August 15, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007, through August 5, 2008. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On February 6, 2009, the Court granted Federal Housing Finance Agency's motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator. On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 20, 2007, through September 7, 2008. Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 24, 2010. On March 30, 2011, the Court granted without prejudice Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss all claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file a new complaint, which they did on July 15, 2011. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On February 17, 2012, plaintiff served a motion seeking leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint based on the non- prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December 15, 2011. These motions have been fully briefed and remain pending before the Court. At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on its business, financial condition, or results of operations. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; the fact that the Court has not yet ruled upon the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint or plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint; and the fact that the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the certification of a class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Ohio Class Suit Pending in Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in a class action lawsuit in Ohio remains pending in the Ohio Supreme Court, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s August 7, 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 in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy; The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary; and Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount had been approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint by the Court of Common Pleas on all counts except for one relating to an allegation of fraud which it remanded to the trial court. The Companies timely filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the Court of Appeals opinion. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the appeal. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Defends Suits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant ---------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend its subsidiary against lawsuits related to its Bruce Mansfield Plant, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs were filed against FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner." One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints. FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Ricotta Salata Frescolina Brand ------------------------------------------------------- Forever Cheese Inc. is recalling all Ricotta Salata Frescolina brand, Forever Cheese lot # T9425 and/or production code 441202, from one specific production date due to possible Listeria Monocytogenes contamination, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The cheese was sold to distributors for retailers and restaurants in CA, CO, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, VA, WA between June 20 and August 9, 2012. Products were sold to supermarkets, restaurants and wholesale distributors. The cheese in question is Ricotta Salata brand Frescolina from one production date coded 441202 on the original wheel. There have been 14 reported illnesses in 11 states which may be related to this. Picture of the recalled products' label is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm318846.htm The potential for contamination was noted after illness was reported in connection with eating cheese. Each and every distributor and retailer are being contacted in an effort to recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace. If you believe that you have purchased any of this cheese please contact your distributor or retailer for a full refund. If you have any questions please call Forever Cheese (888)930-8693, contact Jeff DiMeo from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and mention Recall. GENESEE & WYOMING: Sued Over Proposed RailAmerica Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------- Genesee & Wyoming Inc. is facing class action lawsuits in connection with its proposed acquisition of RailAmerica, Inc., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 23, 2012, the Company and RailAmerica, Inc. (RailAmerica) jointly announced their entry into an agreement under which the Company will acquire RailAmerica for a cash purchase price of $27.50 per share, or $1.4 billion based on a 50.8 million diluted share count, plus the assumption of net debt of approximately $600 million (RailAmerica Acquisition). In connection with the agreement with RailAmerica, four putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in state courts located in Florida and Delaware. On July 26, 2012, John Langan v. RailAmerica Inc., et al., No. 16-2012-CA-008207 was filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the RailAmerica directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell RailAmerica to the Company via an allegedly flawed process and failed to obtain the best financial and other terms. The complaint also alleges that RailAmerica, the Company and the merger subsidiary aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The complaint requests, among other relief, an order to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, and attorneys' fees. On July 31, 2012, Nicolas Sambuco v. RailAmerica Inc., et al., No. 16-2012-CA-008339 was filed in the same court, names the same defendants, and alleges substantially similar claims. Also on July 31, 2012, plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco filed a motion to consolidate the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco as lead plaintiffs, and appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel in the proposed consolidated action. Brian T. Ford v. RailAmerica, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 7744, and KBC Asset Management N.V. v. RailAmerica, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 7755, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on August 2, 2012, and August 7, 2012, respectively. The Delaware complaints name the same defendants and allege substantially similar claims as the Florida actions. Both Delaware actions seek, among other relief, an order to enjoin consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees. The Ford complaint also seeks damages. GEOEYE INC: Faces Two Suits Over Proposed DigitalGlobe Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- GeoEye, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with DigitalGlobe, Inc., according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 22, 2012, GeoEye entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with DigitalGlobe, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of DigitalGlobe, or Merger Sub, and WorldView, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of DigitalGlobe, or Merger Sub 2, pursuant to which, at the effective time of the Merger, or the Effective Time, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, or the Merger, and the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub will cease and the Company will continue as the surviving corporation in the Merger, or the Surviving Corporation. Immediately after the Effective Time, the Surviving Corporation will be merged with and into Merger Sub 2, or the Subsequent Merger and, together with the Merger, the Combination, and the separate corporate existence of the Surviving Corporation will cease and Merger Sub 2 will continue as the surviving company in the Subsequent Merger. The Combination is intended to qualify as a reorganization for federal income tax purposes. Two putative stockholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been filed against the Company and its Board of Directors challenging its proposed merger with DigitalGlobe (the lawsuit also names DigitalGlobe as a defendant). The lawsuits are: (1) Plaintiff: Dan Behnke Defendants: GeoEye, Inc., James A. Abrahamson, Matt O'Connell, Joseph M. Ahearn, Michael P.C. Carns, Martin C. Faga. Michael F. Horn, Sr., Lawrence A. Hough, Roberta E. Lenczowski, James M. Simon, Jr., Robert G. Warden, DigitalGlobe, Inc., 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc., and WorldView, LLC Court: United States District Court - Eastern District of Virginia Date Filed: July 26, 2012 (2) Plaintiff: James Crow Defendants: James A Abrahamson, Joseph M. Ahearn, Michael P.C. Carns, Martin C. Faga. Michael F. Horn, Sr., Lawrence A. Hough, Roberta E. Lenczowski, Matt O'Connell, James M. Simon, Jr., Robert G. Warden, GeoEye, Inc., DigitalGlobe, Inc., 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc., and WorldView, LLC Court: United States District Court - Eastern District of Virginia Date Filed: July 30, 2012 The lawsuits generally allege that the members of the Company's board of directors, aided and abetted by the Company, and DigitalGlobe, breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement for merger consideration plaintiff claims is inadequate and pursuant to a process plaintiff claims to be flawed. The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger on the agreed- upon terms or to rescind the Merger to the extent already implemented, as well as damages, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against such claims. There may be additional lawsuits of a similar nature. ILLINOIS: Health Dept. Faces Suit for In-Home Nursing Funding Cuts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Illinois illegally, and drastically, cuts in-home nursing funding for disabled people when they turn 21, though numerous lawsuits have successfully challenged the policy, a class action claims in Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Don Harris, through his mother Lisa Jorgensen, sued Julie Hamos, director of the Illinois Department of Health and Services, in federal court. Mr. Harris, who will turn 21 this month, is blind, developmentally disabled, and has seizures, spastic quadriplegia and severe scoliosis, his mother says in the complaint. He requires "approximately 12 hours a day skilled nursing level of care at his home at a cost of approximately $12,000 per month, so that he does not have to be institutionalized or hospitalized for his entire life at a rate of approximately $55,000 per month," the complaint states. Mr. Harris receives government assistance to pay for his in-home nurse through the Private Duty Nursing (PDN) program. However, "enrollment in the PDN program is only available to persons under the age of 21. When those persons in the PDN program turn 21, the defendant's policy and practice is to reduce the existing medical funding by approximately 50 percent based solely on the fact that the person is 21," the complaint states. "This reduction in funding is no due to a change in the plaintiff's medical needs but on the fact that the plaintiff's funding at age 21 comes from a different state program, which has significant caps on funding. The reduction in funding will either result in the plaintiff becoming institutionalized (hospitalized) or if he remains in the family home without sufficient skilled nursing care, then he faces a strong possibility of imminent death or a life-threatening episode." Mr. Harris's mother claims that five other disabled plaintiffs have successfully sued Illinois for reducing medical funding at age 21. "Despite the fact that the defendant has not prevailed to provide reduced medical funding in these 5 separate federal and state lawsuits brought by similarly situated persons like the plaintiff who were turning 21, the defendant continues the same practice to date to reduce medical funding at age 21 as evidence by the plaintiff's case." What's more, 23 medical fragile plaintiffs have obtained interim relief in a related class action, Hampe v Hamos, filed in 2010 in Chicago Federal Court, according to the complaint. It adds: "Plaintiff brings this lawsuit, individually and on behalf of a class, seeking injunctive relief to prevent the defendant from reducing the level of funding for medical care currently provided to the plaintiff and the putative class, which is necessary to prevent institutionalization (hospitalization), which is a more costly and a more restrictive setting than the current home placement." Mr. Harris' mother seeks an injunction requiring the department to maintain the same level of PDN funding to disabled people when they become 21. A copy of the Complaint in Harris v. Hamos, Case No. 12-cv-07105 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/disabilities.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq. ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR., LTD. 1155 S. Washington Street Naperville, IL 60540 Telephone: (630) 369-0103 E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com - and - Mary Denise Cahill, Esq. CAHILL & ASSOCIATES 1155 S. Washington Street Naperville, IL 60540 Telephone: (630) 778-6500 E-mail: mdcahill@sbcglobal.net - and - Michelle N. Schneiderheinze, Esq. 2401 E. Washington Street, Suite 300C Bloomington, IL 61704 Telephone: (309) 533-7340 E-mail: michelle@mnslawoffice.com ISTAR FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $29 Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that real estate financing company iStar Financial Inc. on Sept. 7 agreed to pay $29 million to settle a putative shareholder class action that accused the company and its principals and underwriters of withholding information during a public offering. Lead plaintiffs Plumbers' Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and Citiline Holdings Inc. are seeking preliminary approval of the deal in New York federal court. KINDER MORGAN: Settles El Paso Shareholder Suits for $110 Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Pulsinelli, writing for Houston Business Journal, reports that Kinder Morgan Inc. said Sept. 7 that it has reached a $110 million settlement agreement in El Paso shareholder lawsuits. The lawsuits resulted from Houston-based Kinder Morgan's acquisition of Houston-based El Paso Corp., Kinder Morgan said in its Sept. 7 statement. According to a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, shareholders filed several putative class action lawsuits against the board of directors of El Paso in the days following the merger announcement on Oct. 16. The lawsuits were filed in Texas, Delaware and New York and alleged "that the director-defendants breached their fiduciary duties" to El Paso shareholders and "that EP and KMI 'aided and abetted' the alleged breaches by the EP directors," according to the SEC filing. In February, El Paso shareholders tried to block the merger vote, but a Delaware court denied their motion, the SEC filing states. The merger was completed May 24, and the parties in June began settlement discussions with the assistance of a mediator, the SEC filing states. In July they reached an agreement in principle to settle for $110 million. The settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery Court, among other conditions, according to Kinder Morgan's Sept. 7 statement. "While the acquisition of El Paso benefited both KMI and El Paso shareholders, the company believes that resolving these claims at this time, avoiding the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation, and putting this matter behind it are in the best interest of its shareholders," Kinder Morgan said in its statement. The settlement also includes concessions by Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which served as El Paso's financial adviser in the sale, Bloomberg reports. Goldman Sachs at one time owned 19 percent of Kinder Morgan, and it has agreed to forgo its $20 million fee in the deal as part of the settlement, Bloomberg reports. LAW SCHOOL: Government Intervention Sought in LSAT Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that the federal government seeks to intervene in a federal class action accusing the Law School Admission Council of discriminating against disabled people who take the LSAT exam. The government claims it has a right to intervene based on its "significant protectable interest" in enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued the admission council in March, claiming it failed to provide adequate testing accommodations for disabled people, placed cumbersome documentation requirements on applicants who asked for extra time taking the LSAT, and "flagged" disabled test takers before sending their scores to member law schools. The council removed the case to federal court on April 12 and filed a motion to dismiss the following month, challenging the ADA's permissible scope of implementation. That's when the United States decided to step in, claiming it is the agency charged by Congress with implementing Title III of the ADA, which outlaws discrimination based on disability. The government claims it should be allowed to intervene "as of right" or by permission, because the plaintiffs' interests "may not sufficiently align with those of the United States," and their representation "may be inadequate to protect the United States' interests." And the government's claims against the council "share common questions of law and fact with those in the pending litigation," according to its motion to intervene. "Credentialing examinations, such as the LSAT, are increasingly the gateway to educational and employment opportunities, and the ADA demands that each individual with a disability have the opportunity to fairly demonstrate their abilities so they can pursue their dreams," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Justice Department's participation in this action is critical to protecting the public interest in the important issues raised in this case." A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion by the United States to Intervene and Points and Authorities in Support in The Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01830 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://is.gd/vD9JzZ The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Perez, Esq. Eve L. Hill, Esq. Gregory B. Friel, Esq. Roberta Kirkendall, Esq. Kathleen P. Wolfe, Esq. Nabina Sinha, Esq. Megan E. Schuller, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - NYA Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0663 E-mail: Nabina.Sinha@usdoj.gov - and - Melinda Haag, Esq. Sara Winslow, Esq. Melanie L. Proctor, Esq. 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6730 E-mail: Melanie.Proctor@usdoj.gov LEUCADIA NAT'L: Debt-Collection Suit Gets Class-Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Engquist, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that more than 100,000 New Yorkers could get their day in court after a federal judge granted them class-action status in a civil case that alleges they were victimized by a debt-collection ring. The suit, brought by MFY Legal Services, the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, charges that a robo-signing operation defrauded their clients of millions of dollars and violated federal racketeering and debt collection laws. "This is a huge scheme that they've been running for years," said Susan Shin, a Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project staff attorney. The case came to her organization's attention when alleged victims called its hotline. The defendants include Leucadia National Corp., a public corporation that Ms. Shin said buys debts for pennies on the dollar; Mel S. Harris and Associates, described by the suit as one of the largest debt collection law firms in the state; and Samserv, Inc., a process serving company. "Default judgments were obtained with bogus affidavits," Ms. Shin said. Some debtors did not find out about the judgments until their wages were garnished, she added. Federal Judge Denny Chin granted the class-action status in a 42- page decision released by the plaintiffs on Sept. 7. REGIONS FINANCIAL: Loan Officers File Overtime Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Russell Hubbard, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that Regions Financial Corp. has been sued in a putative class-action which says the largest bank based in the state requires loan officers to work more than 40 hours a week to meet quotas and does not pay them for the overtime. Two former loan officers for Regions who worked in northern Alabama filed the suit last week in U.S. District Court in Birmingham. It says they routinely worked weekends and nights to fill loan quotas and weren't paid for the extra labor as required by federal labor law. Regions, the largest bank based in Alabama, employs and has employed hundreds or thousands of loan officers at about 1,700 branches in 16 states. The suit seeks back wages, overtime wages and unspecified damages on behalf of all loan officers who are or were similarly situated as the former ones who filed the suit. "Because payment was on a commission basis, loan officers often work weeks where their wages fell below the federal minimum wage," the suit says. "Given this compensation structure, there were many weeks in which plaintiffs and class members did not receive pay despite working significant hours." Regions, which employs 23,000 people nationwide, doesn't comment on pending litigation, spokeswoman Evelyn Mitchell said. The suit will now face a process called certification, during which a judge will determine if the circumstances warrant authorizing it to proceed on behalf of all loan officers. According to the lawsuit, loan officers are not managerial employees and therefore are not exempt from federal overtime laws. They exercise no judgment over an applicant's creditworthiness, the suit says, but rather perform data entry tasks, leaving a computer to make lending decisions. "This process involves no exercise of discretion or independent judgment on the part of the loan officer," the suit says. "Loan officers do not evaluate risk. They do not determine loan acceptability. They do not determine the appropriate premium levels." Regions is the largest employer in the Birmingham area, with about 6,000 workers. Shares of the company have risen about 70 percent in the past year. SEC: Must Face Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal judge ruled on Sept. 7 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission must face a putative class action alleging it should have reported Stanford International Bank Ltd., Robert Allen Stanford's bank, to a securities industry liquidator after realizing it was running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. partly denied the SEC's Feb. 14 motion to dismiss the suit by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz. SYNGENTA: Montgomery Water Systems Join Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Waibel, writing for Gazette.net, reports that some Montgomery County water systems could get several thousand dollars through a class action settlement for systems that have detected traces of a particular pesticide in their water. Local water systems officials say they did not find enough of the chemical to be dangerous, but they can still file for payments. Under the settlement, the pesticide company Syngenta will pay $105 million into a fund for water systems around the country that detected the herbicide atrazine in their water. Rockville's mayor and council voted to include themselves in the settlement last month. Craig Simoneau, Rockville's director of public works, said joining the settlement made good business sense, but customers should not be worried about their water quality. "There's no health implications; it was a business decision on our part," he said. Mr. Simoneau said the city is probably entitled to at least $5,000 from the settlement, although they won't know for sure how much the city will get for several more months. The amount Rockville gets will probably depend on how many people apply for money through the settlement, how big their water systems are and how serious their atrazine problems are, he said. Atrazine is used as a herbicide, but can work its way into water through runoff from row crops. Syngenta uses the chemical in several of its herbicides, including Gesaprim, Aatrex and Bicep II Magnum. Ed Crow, an entomologist in the state Department of Agriculture's pesticide regulation unit, said atrazine is commonly used for corn production. "It is pretty widely used, not just here in Maryland, but across the nation," he said. In a 2004 survey issued by the U.S. and Maryland departments of agriculture, atrazine was the second most used herbicide in the state, in terms of the number of pounds used. Marylanders used an estimated 1.1 million pounds of atrazine that year. Because of the concerns about atrazine getting into surface and groundwater, Ms. Crow said people who apply the herbicide have to be trained and certified in how to use it safely. "There are concerns about surface and groundwater with a lot of the herbicides, not just the atrazine," he said. Maryland, like most states, relies on the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate pesticides, Ms. Crow said. The maximum level for atrazine in drinking water set by the EPA is three parts per billion or 0.003 milligrams per liter. According to WSSC's Web site, one part per billion is equivalent to one-half teaspoon of contaminant in an Olympic-size swimming pool. According to the EPA, people who drink water with significantly more than the maximum level of atrazine for many years could have problems with their cardiovascular or reproductive systems. From 2006 to 2012, Rockville city tested its water for atrazine 14 times and detected low levels of the chemical twice. The levels were so low, however, that the city didn't have to do anything to remove the chemical. "To some degree, it's free money," he said. "The only direct cost we have is the cost of our testing and the cost of preparing all this." The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which serves most of Montgomery County, has also filed for a payment from the settlement, spokeswoman Lyn Riggins said in an e-mail. WSSC has not detected the chemical on a regular basis, however. Ms. Riggins said the highest level of atrazine WSSC has detected was around 1.5 parts per billion. "We see it in the spring, which coincides with the planting of corn since it is primarily used for weed control," she said. Wade Yost, Poolesville town manager, said Poolesville's water system has not detected atrazine in the water. He said that is probably because the town uses groundwater from wells, while Rockville and WSSC use surface water from rivers. "They receive water . . . that runs off of fields and things, so that's why they would have (atrazine)," Mr. Yost said. The settlement stems from a suit filed by community water systems operators in six different states who argued that Syngenta should have to pay for testing for the herbicide and filtering it out of their water if necessary. The company issued a statement in May saying it agreed to the settlement to end the business uncertainty and expense of continued litigation. "Syngenta acknowledges no liability and continues to stand by the safety of atrazine," the statement said. TARGET CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay Laid-Off Employees' Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that Target Corp. was hit with a putative class action alleging the retail giant failed to pay the final wages of laid-off employees, among other wage violations, according to a suit removed to the Northern District of California on Thursday. Named plaintiff Aileen Bernardino claims Target failed to pay her for her final day's wages when she was terminated in January about 20 minutes after clocking in for her shift, according to the complaint. TD BANK: Faces Class Action in Penn. For Uncompensated Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Rose, writing for The Delaware County Daily Times, reports that a Folcroft woman has filed a class action complaint against TD Bank N.A. alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as state law claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 4 by former TD Bank employee Aubrey Keller, the bank requires employees opening the bank branch to come to work 15 minutes early to perform certain security tasks. Ms. Keller claims employees cannot log onto a computer application that allows them to clock-in until after the security measures are completed. But much of the pre-shift work, which can take between 15 and 20 minutes, carries employees over the bounds of the 40- hour work week and is therefore uncompensated overtime, according to the complaint. Ms. Keller had worked at the bank's Folsom branch on MacDade Boulevard for about 1 1/2 years, ending in August, according to the complaint. The suit names only the bank and John Does numbered 1-10, who allegedly execute bank policies or have control over payroll processing. Under the FLSA and Minimum Wage Act, employers must pay employees 1 1/2 times their base rate if they work more than 40 hours in a week. The Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law requires employers to pay for all of the wages due an employee. The suit is looking to recover allegedly lost overtime wages for all similarly situated employees going back three years, as well as liquidated damages equal to the amount sought in the suit, or double the alleged lost wages. "TD Bank has maintained an unlawful wage payment system for at least the last three years, and has enforced such unlawful policies nationwide at all of its facilities throughout the United States," the complaint states. Ms. Keller has demanded a jury trial and is seeking an order prohibiting TD Bank from any future alleged violations of state and federal wage laws, as well as legal fees. TD spokesperson Rebecca Acevedo did not return an e-mail seeking comment. No attorneys for the bank have been listed on court records and no hearing date has been set. "This case is simply about trying to ensure TD Bank pays its employees for all the time they work for TD Bank," said Ms. Keller's attorney, Justin L. Swidler, of Swartz Swidler LLC in Cherry Hill, N.J. "All my client is asking for is that she be paid for the time she worked." UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Ubiquiti Networks concealed negative trends such as the proliferation of counterfeit AirMax wireless gear by Kozumi USA, a former distributor that had stolen its source codes, a class claims. A copy of the Complaint in Bell v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04677 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/ubiquiti.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 519 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 ULTRAMAR: Court Approves Gas Price Hike Class-Action Expansion -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that gas stations could pay up to $100 million if the court rules in the plaintiffs' favor in a class-action lawsuit expansion over alleged gasoline price-fixing in several major cities in Quebec, said George Iny, head of the Automobile Protection Association, who filed the lawsuit. On Sept. 6, Quebec's highest court authorized the lawsuit against Ultramar, Orco, Irving, Couche-Tard, Petroles Cardin, Petroles Global and Philippe Gosselin and associates. The first criminal accusations in June 2008 were made in Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines after an investigation by the competition bureau. The expansion, filed by Daniel Thouin and the Automobile Protection Association, takes aim at 23 additional markets. According to the plaintiffs, businesses were contacting each other and collectively hiking prices. Mr. Iny said the lawsuit was broadened based on evidence uncovered by an independent researcher. "His conclusion is that in many markets, the prices for all three grades of gasoline were identical even though the markets were not next to one another. So, as a consequence, [the researcher] says it's impossible that pure chance [. . .] would result in the exact same prices over the exact same days over a period of six months," Mr. Iny said. If the suit turns in favor of the plaintiffs, gas stations could have to pay out as much as $100 million, he said. The suit against the big oil companies covers motorists who filled up between January 2002 and June 2006 in Quebec City, Trois- Rivieres and other major cities. To date, 27 people and seven businesses have pleaded guilty. UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Mentally-Disabled Immigrants' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruxandra Guidi, writing for Southern Public Radio, reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles agreed to hear a class-action lawsuit on behalf of mentally-disabled immigrants in detention who lack legal representation. The class action lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. It centers around the case of Jose Antonio Franco- Gonzalez, an illegal immigrant who, in 2004, threw a rock and injured someone in a gang fight. He was sentenced to a year in jail for assault with a deadly weapon. While in federal detention, it became clear that Mr. Franco- Gonzalez suffered from mental retardation. A judge ruled he was unfit to stand trial and ordered his case closed, but the process kept him in detention for four years. Ahilan Arulanantham represents the plaintiffs in the case; he's the deputy legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Now, there's nothing wrong with that if you release people, and if you have a procedure to release people and provide them with lawyers that can argue for their release. Then that's a perfectly sensible approach," says Mr. Arulanantham. "But when you don't give lawyers, and people don't understand the system and the government doesn't allow them to be released, then administrative closure is just a recipe for disaster." Detained immigrants have to find their own legal representation because they are ineligible to have a public defender. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not comment on pending litigation. A department spokesperson said while in detention, immigrants with mental disabilities are given the care they need, and the agency will soon be implementing a program to provide increased screening of detainees with mental health issues. VERTEX PHARMA: Issues Correction to Sept. 6 Class Action Release ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott LLP issued a correction to the September 6, 2012, release regarding the Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated class action. In the second sentence of the release dated September 6, 2012, the second date of the Class Period should read June 27, 2012 (sted June 28, 2012). The corrected release reads: Scott+Scott LLP filed a securities class action complaint against Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Vertex common stock between May 7, 2012 and June 27, 2012, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Vertex issued false and misleading public statements concerning a pharmaceutical study of its products VX-809 and Kalydeco. Specifically, the complaint alleges that at the start of the Class Period on May 7, 2012, Vertex announced positive "interim data" from its Phase 2 study of VX-809 and Kalydeco. This caused a significant increase in the Company's stock price -- from $37.41 to $58.12 per share. As Defendants continued heralding the positive and "unexpected" interim Phase 2 study results, the Company's stock traded as high as $64.85 on May 25, 2012. Certain of the individual Defendants took advantage of this stock price increase to sell approximately $30 million of Vertex stock. On May 29, 2012, the Company announced that the exceptional results of the Phase 2 study of the two medications were grossly overstated. On this news, the Company's stock price fell from a close of $64.85 on May 25, 2012 to a close of $57.80 on May 29, 2012. Then, approximately one month later, on June 28, 2012, the Company again revised the test results downward. In response to this news, the Company's stock price plummeted from a close of $61.11 on June 27, 2012, to a close of $51.18 on June 28, 2012. You can view a copy of the complaint filed by Scott+Scott at: http://is.gd/rBTByz If you purchased Vertex common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 5, 2012 to serve as lead plaintiff. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett, Esq. at Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott Web site -- http://www.scott-scott.com/-- for more information. There is no cost or fee to you. Scott+Scott is a class action law firm in the United States, with offices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California. The firm has been directly responsible for the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of its clients through the prosecution of major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan class action lawsuits. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, businesses, and other entities worldwide. WET SEAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Anne-Marie Green, writing for CBS, reports that a store in King of Prussia, Montgomery County is at the center of a class action lawsuit in the works. The Wet Seal clothing chain is accused of racial bias. A former employee leveling the accusation spoke to eyewitness news reporter Anne-Marie Green. "I was shocked and I was humiliated." That's how Nicole Cogdell felt just moments after meeting the vice president of teen clothing store Wet Seal at the King of Prussia Mall in January of 2009. She had been manager there for a month and was looking forward to meeting former vice president Barbara Bachman, but she says right after the introduction she heard Ms. Bachman say, "'That's the store manager? I wanted someone with blond hair and blue eyes,'" said Ms. Cogdell. Four days later Cogdell was fired. "I loved working for wet seal." And Wet Seal seemed to love her, at least for a time. The company promoted her a number of times. After losing her job she was disappointed, but she was downright livid when an e-mail sent by that same vice president surfaced. In it Ms. Bauchman writes, "Store teams need diversity. African American-dominate, huge issue." She also has a glowing review for the King of Prussia store but it says of Ms. Cogdell, "not right fit for the store." Ms. Cogdell filed a racial discrimination complaint with the EEOC. "It's not right. It's just not right." After filing her complaint, Wet Seal offered her job back, but when she returned she found her concerns had not been addressed. She quit shortly after returning to the store and hired a lawyer. They are now seeking class action status "We believe the fact that this came from a senior vice president is not an accident," said Ms. Cogdell's attorney, Nancy Demis. "They certainly wanted to keep African-Americans in certain stores and not in their high end showcase stores." Wet Seal sent CBS a statement saying it will vigorously fight the lawsuit and that it has an anti-discrimination policy. The statement continues on to say, "More than half of our store management level employees are members of minority groups, and we are proud of the diversity of our workforce." Ms. Cogdell's attorney has set up a Web site for those who believe they may have been victims of discrimination while working at Wet Seal. She says they have already received a large number of responses. ********* 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 * * *