/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121122.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 22, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 232 Headlines ABIOMED INC: Says Securities Class Action Without Merit ALABAMA: Judge to Rule on HIV-Positive Inmates Isolation Policy ANCESTRY.COM INC: Faces Suits Over Permira's Proposed Acquisition APPLE INC: Retail Store Workers File Overtime Class Action ASSOCIATED ASSET: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Collection Practices BEHRINGER HARVARD: Faces Class Action in Texas Over CMG Proposal BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over School Fees BP: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Extension of Opt Back in Period CAL-MAINE FOODS: Still Defends Egg Pricing Antitrust Litigation CROSSMARK INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Overtime Class Action EMCORE CORP: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action DGSE COS: Faces "Barfuss" Suit Over Accounting Irregularities DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Bradley" Suit in California DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Steinfeld" Suit in California EXPEDIA INC: Faces Another Antitrust Class Suit in California FLATBUSH FEDERAL: Reached MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet Cars GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Evaporator Coil Defects GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged ECPA Violation GOVGUAM: No Agreement Reached in Tax Refund Negotiations HANTZ FINANCIAL: May Face Class Action Over MedCap Notes HYATT HOTELS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit in Connecticut IBM CORP: Class Action Over Endicott Campus Pollution Drags JEFFRIES GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York KAYAK SOFTWARE: Sued Over Proposed Priceline.com Buyout KSW INC: Reaches Class Settlement to Resolve Merger-Related Suit MARRIOTT INT'L: Stock Plan Lawsuit in Maryland Still Pending MASCO CORP: $75MM Antitrust Suit Settlement Approved in October MASCO CORP: Files Judgment Motion in "Von Der Werth" Class Suit NORTHFIELD BANCORP: Hammered MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Action PEP BOYS: Mechanics File Overtime & Minimum Wage Class Action PFIZER INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in New York PJ CLARKE: Faces Class Action for Alleged Labor Law Violations TJ MAXX: Assistant Managers Get Conditional Certification TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2.77MM Vehicles Worldwide to Fix Defects UNILEVER UNITED: Judge Tosses False Advertising Class Action ********* ABIOMED INC: Says Securities Class Action Without Merit ------------------------------------------------------- Abiomed, Inc. disclosed that a purported class action complaint was filed on November 16, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Karse Simon and Arlene Simon, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired Abiomed's securities between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012, against Abiomed, Michael R. Minogue, Abiomed's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Robert L. Bowen, Abiomed's Chief Financial Officer. The complaint claims that Abiomed and Messrs. Minogue and Bowen violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged disclosures related to the Food and Drug Administration and the marketing and labeling of Abiomed's Impella 2.5 product. The plaintiffs seek a jury trial. Abiomed has reviewed the complaint and believes that the allegations are without merit. Abiomed plans to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Abiomed's policy is not to discuss pending litigation. Based in Danvers, Massachusetts, Abiomed, Inc. -- http://www.abiomed.com-- is a provider of medical devices that provide circulatory support. Its products are designed to enable the heart to rest by improving blood flow and/or performing the pumping of the heart. ALABAMA: Judge to Rule on HIV-Positive Inmates Isolation Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Heim, writing for Alabama Live, reports that Alabama and South Carolina are the only states where HIV-positive inmates are isolated from other prisoners. According to a report in The New York Times, that policy could soon change. Judge Myron H. Thompson, according to the report, plans to rule on the legality of the policy before Thanksgiving. He presided over a September trial in which a class action suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The goal of the policy is to prohibit the spread of the virus and to keep down medical costs. The Alabama Corrections Department's concern, reports The Times, is that the virus will spread through sex, through rape or through blood when inmates give one another tattoos. But other issues have been raised when separating infected inmates. Albert Knox, a former pimp convicted of cocaine possession, told the paper that guards called out "dead man walking" as he passed through the halls. He was banned from eating in the cafeteria, working around food or visiting with classmates in his substance- abuse program. He said prisoners are denied equal treatment. "It felt like we were lepers," Mr. Knox, 46, who is living in Indiana on parole, told The Times. "HIV inmates don't want anything special. All we want is to be treated like regular inmates." ANCESTRY.COM INC: Faces Suits Over Permira's Proposed Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ancestry.com Inc. is facing class action lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by a company owned by Permira funds, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On October 22, 2012, the Company announced that a company owned by the Permira funds and co-investors entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire the Company for $32.00 per share in cash in a transaction valued at $1.6 billion. The transaction, which is subject to the approval of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock and other customary closing conditions, is expected to close in early 2013 and potentially earlier. In certain circumstances, if the transaction were terminated, the Company would be required to pay a fee of $37.8 million to a company owned by the Permira funds and co-investors. Following the announcement on October 22, 2012, of the execution of the merger agreement between the Company and companies owned by the Permira funds, the following complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of the Company: Heck v. Sullivan, et al. (C.A. No. 7893), Smilow v. Ancestry.com Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 7987) Boca Raton Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v. Billings, et al. (C.A. No. 7989) and Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Billings (C.A. No. 7988). Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on behalf of the public stockholders of Ancestry.com and names as defendants the Company, its directors and the entities that were formed for effectuating the transaction. All but the Heck action also name Permira as a defendant. The Boca Raton Police & Firefighters' Retirement System and Pontiac General Employees Retirement System actions also name Howard Hochhauser as well as certain investment funds affiliated with Spectrum Equity Investors as defendants. The complaints generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the merger. The Company says the outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain and cannot be predicted with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the Company. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in the lawsuits are without merit. APPLE INC: Retail Store Workers File Overtime Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Apple stiffs workers for overtime at its retail stores, a worker claims in a class action in Superior Court. ASSOCIATED ASSET: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meredith Yeomans, writing for azfamily.com, reports that a class action was filed against Associated Asset Management. As a single income household, Robert and Kristy Leatham find themselves spending a lot of family time at home. Kristy is a nursing student and Robert is a law enforcement officer. While they still find time for their two kids, Robert says an ongoing dispute with his homeowners association could cost him his home. "This is our home. This is where we want to raise our children," he said. "I don't want to lose it." It is common for HOA's to contract with community management companies to oversee their day-to-day business dealings, like collecting HOA dues. Earlier this year, the Leathams' management company, a Tempe business called Associated Asset Management, placed a lien on the Leathams' San Tan Valley home after the Leathams fell behind on their HOA dues. Robert contacted AAM and was shocked to learn his $150 in back payments had ballooned to more than $1300. According to Robert, his balance jumped to more than $1,300 because AAM had tacked on a number of fees including filing fees for the lien and attorney fees for the law firm AAM hired. Robert says the balance isn't fair at all. "The law firm and the management company making money off the back of homeowners is ridiculous," Robert said. Robert hired his own attorney, Roger Wood, who told 3 On Your Side that he's discovered thousands of liens and lawsuits that he claims were wrongfully filed against Arizona homeowners, like the Leathams. As a result, Mr. Woods recently filed a class action lawsuit against AAM, claiming it, and 26 other management companies, violated fair debt collections practices by charging illegal and exorbitant collection fees. "That act is set up to help consumers, to help people like my plaintiffs in this case to protect themselves from unjust, unlawful predatory collection practices," Mr. Wood explained. 3 On Your Side contacted AAM which sent this statement: "A lawsuit has been filed by three individuals on behalf of a purported class of homeowners seeking relief for various property management company practices. The lawsuit contains numerous factual and legal errors and the claims against AAM have no merit. Further comment cannot be made due to active litigation." As for the Leathams, they hope their case will help other homeowners in the long run. "I wish I had a tree in the backyard that I can go pick the money off. I guess they think those money trees are in these neighborhoods because it's ridiculous they're putting us in this situation," Robert said. BEHRINGER HARVARD: Faces Class Action in Texas Over CMG Proposal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc. disclosed in an October 4, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on September 17, 2012, a lawsuit, seeking class action status, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). Neither the Company nor any of the other defendants believe the suit has merit and each intend to defend it vigorously. The named plaintiff, Ms. Lillian Hohenstein, states that she owns shares (less than one- tenth of one percent) in the Company and purports to file the suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs named Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc. (the "Company"), Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC ("BHH"), the Company's previous sponsor, as well as each of the Company's directors: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S. Aisner, Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge (individually a Director and collectively the Directors) and Scott W. Fordham, the Company's Chief Operating and Financial Officer, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting Officer (individually an Officer and collectively the Officers), as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and (e) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities law in connection with: (1) the recommendations made to the Company's shareholders in response to certain tender offers made by CMG Partners, LLC and its affiliates; and (2) the solicitation of proxies for the Company's annual meeting of shareholders held on June 24, 2011. CMG initiated a tender on August 23, 2011 for up to 1.0 million shares of the Company's common stock at a price equal to $1.80 per share. CMG initiated a second tender for up to 1.0 million shares at the same price on February 23, 2012. The aggregate amount subject to the tender offers represented less than 0.7 percent of the Company's outstanding common stock. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company, BHH, the Directors and Officers each individually breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company, BHH, the Directors and Officers were unjustly enriched by the purported failures to provide complete and accurate disclosure regarding, among other things, the value of the Company?s common stock and the source of funds used to pay distributions. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the Company, BHH, the Directors and Officers were also negligent in permitting the Company to make what Plaintiffs allege were misleading disclosures. Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) that the court declare the proxy to be materially false and misleading; (2) that the filings on Schedule 14D-9 were false and misleading; (3) that the authorization secured pursuant to the proxy be found null and void and that the Company be required to re-solicit a shareholder vote pursuant to court supervision and court approved proxy materials; (4) that the defendants have violated their fiduciary duties to the shareholders who purchased shares of the Company from February 19, 2003 to the present; (5) that the defendants be required to account to Plaintiffs for damages suffered by Plaintiffs; and (6) that Plaintiffs be awarded costs of the action including reasonable allowance for attorneys and experts fees. BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over School Fees ------------------------------------------------------ Hayley Beitman, writing for Downtown, reports that a husband and wife have filed a class-action lawsuit against Birmingham Public Schools, claiming the requirement to purchase a planner, lock and gym uniform for their son who attends Derby Middle School contradicts the state constitution and has been illegal since 1972. On November 2, Troy residents John and Laurie Kelly filed a lawsuit in Oakland Country Circuit Court. The suit states that during school registration every August, students are required, "to purchase a planner or assignment book, a lock for their hall locker, a lock for any locker used for physical education and a specific uniform for physical education consisting of blue shorts and gray T-shirts." The locks cost either $3 or $6, the planner costs $10, and the uniform costs $19. Attorney-at-law Mark Wasvary represents the Kelly family. "I've spoken with many parents. I've been contacted by other parents who are upset by this. It's a concern. I know some people think $40, what's the big deal? The big deal is the school is blatantly violating the law when other districts don't seem to be doing this. Why should Birmingham be any different?" he said. The Kelly family willingly purchased these items for their son, who is in the sixth grade at Derby Middle School, 1300 Derby Road in the Birmingham School District. The issue came to the Kellys' attention on October 18, when a staff member at Derby Middle School sent an e-mail to parents stating, "in a review of fees that have been charged to students and parents, it has been determined that some fees are beyond what is permitted." Mr. Wasvary said the e-mail did not suggest parents will be refunded. "They know every student spent $10 on a planner. They keep a list of locks they sell. All of these things are listed in the registration documents. For these three schools, it's online listing what you must buy, and at least for the locks and planners, you must buy them directly from the school," Mr. Wasvary said in response to the e-mail. According to the lawsuit, points are deducted from the student's grade if they fail to wear the gym uniform and due to the point deduction, a student could fail the class if they did not purchase the $19 uniform at all. "These charges are contrary to the State Board of Education position in 1972 following the lawsuit regarding these very same issues. The State Board of Education put out a statement stating schools are not allowed to charge for these particular items," Mr. Wasvary said. "The State Board of Education has sent out notices reminding them they do not charge these things. The most recent notice that I found was in 2011 but Birmingham has been charging these fees for years." Birmingham Public Schools spokesperson Marcia Wilkinson could not be reached for comment. Mr. Wasvary said Birmingham Public Schools has 30 days to submit a response. The case will come before Judge Michael Warren. BP: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Extension of Opt Back in Period ------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Pickrell, writing for Chron, reports that BP and some plaintiffs' lawyers in the litigation over the 2010 Gulf oil spill are asking a federal judge to give claimants who asked to leave a proposed class-action settlement another chance to participate. The British oil company and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, a court-appointed group of attorneys representing private claimants, asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans to give claimants until Dec. 15 to revoke requests to opt out of the proposed settlement, according to a Nov. 14 filing. BP and the committee said in the filings that their request is in response to individual plaintiffs' attorneys who want to revoke some of the opt-out requests they filed on behalf of clients. The deadline was Nov. 1 for opting out of the settlement and Nov. 5 for revoking opt-out requests. The motion on Nov. 14 doesn't ask Judge Barbier to re-open the opt-out period, but to extend the deadline for opting back in. The settlement, proposed earlier this year by BP and the Steering Committee, could resolve claims against BP by 100,000-plus Gulf Coast residents who suffered economic or health damages when BP's Macondo well blew out, spilling millions of barrels of oil that decimated coastal fishing, tourism and other businesses. The deal requires Judge Barbier's approval, and he signaled at a hearing that he's inclined to approve it. Claimants who did not opt out by Nov. 1 are bound by the terms of the settlement, which BP has estimated will total $7.8 billion, although the proposed deal sets no cap on damages. Court-supervised claims administrator Patrick Juneau reported at the hearing that 25,000 prospective claimants had filed to opt out. Mr. Juneau estimated that about half of these opt-out requests met the court requirements, which include a valid claimant signature and an address. Plaintiff Steering Committee attorney Joe Rice estimated this week that only about 6,000 opt-outs currently meet the court's requirements. At the hearing, Judge Barbier noted that some attorneys had tried to opt out a large number of potential claimants. "I am greatly concerned about some counsel who have attempted to or encouraged their clients to participate in en masse opt-outs," Judge Barbier said. "I think a lawyer owes a fiduciary duty or an ethical duty to analyze each client's claim and inform the client to let them make a claim. To just send form letters to thousands of clients and say, 'We don't like this settlement,' without further analysis, is not serving your client well, at the least. Those who do opt out, you have to consider that when you opt out of the settlement, what are you opting in to? You are giving up payment now for years of litigation and delays." Houston lawyer Brent Coon, who estimated that about 10,000 of his 15,000 spill clients had opted out, welcomed the prospect of a time extension, saying many of his clients opted out because they didn't know what they would receive in the settlement. "Our goal is just to make sure our clients get paid and are not subject to the whims of an adjustor who doesn't understand the math or had a bad day," he said. The opt-out deadline fell before most prospective claimants received settlement offers. While many legal experts say that is standard procedure in a class-action settlement, Coon and other plaintiff attorneys have said the complex nature and high value of many of the business claims make more information necessary for claimants to weigh their options. "We are not intimidated by the process," Mr. Coon said. "I wish they would have extended the date by a much longer amount." CAL-MAINE FOODS: Still Defends Egg Pricing Antitrust Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. continues to defend itself in egg pricing- related antitrust lawsuits, according to the Company's October 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 1, 2012. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in 25 antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In 16 of these cases, the named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In 14 of those putative class actions, the named plaintiffs allege that they are retailers or distributors that purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants. In the other two putative class actions, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties. In the remaining nine cases, the plaintiffs sued for their own alleged damages and are not seeking to certify a class. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. Six of the nine non-class suits were filed in the same court that is presiding over the putative class actions. Another of these non-class cases was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it has been transferred to the Eastern District and consolidated for pretrial proceedings with the other cases. Another non-class suit was filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, where it remains pending. The remaining non-class suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, but the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred that case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where it has been consolidated with the other cases pending in that court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs in two of the non-class suits originally filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed their suits without prejudice, and there are thus now seven non-class suits pending. The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser case filed a consolidated complaint on January 30, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint. The direct purchaser plaintiffs did not respond to those motions. Instead, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with one defendant. The final hearing on approval of that settlement has been held, but the court has not yet ruled. If it is approved, the settlement would not require the settling party to pay any money. Instead, the settling defendant, while denying all liability, would provide cooperation in the form of documents and witness interviews to the plaintiffs' attorneys. After announcing this potential settlement with one defendant, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2009. On February 5, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period and claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector. On February 26, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the direct purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims related to the egg products sector. The court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations but did so without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to seek leave to further amend their complaint if they, in good faith, believe they can address the deficiencies noted by the court. On June 4, 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with a second defendant. The final hearing on approval of this settlement has also been held, but the court has not ruled. If this settlement is approved, then the defendant would pay a total of $25 million and would provide other consideration in the form of documents, witness interviews, and declarations. This settling defendant denied all liability in its potential agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and stated publicly that it settled merely to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. On January 30, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion for leave. The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser case filed a consolidated complaint on February 27, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers? consolidated complaint. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs did not respond to those motions. Instead, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2010. On May 7, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period, claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector, claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer fraud statutes, and common-law claims for unjust enrichment. The court granted the motion to dismiss claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to each cause of action. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer fraud statutes and common-law claims for unjust enrichment. The court denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss a claim for a supposedly separate conspiracy in the egg products sector. On June 4, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 25, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file another amended complaint. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. On June 7, 2012, the court ordered the indirect purchasers to submit a brief addressing whether they have standing to assert an injunctive relief claim under federal law. The Non-Class Cases The cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class were filed between November 16, 2010 and December 12, 2011. The plaintiffs in the non-class cases pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed amended complaints on February 10, 2012. On March 26, 2012, the Company joined other defendants in filing a motion to dismiss all claims barred by the statute of limitations. On May 1, 2012, the non-class plaintiffs responded to that motion. On May 22, 2012, the Company joined other defendants in filing a reply brief in support of that motion. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the six non-class cases pending in Pennsylvania on April 26, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the non-class complaint in the case pending in Kansas state court, and the Company joined other defendants in the Kansas case in moving to dismiss all claims for damages arising outside the three-year statute of limitations period and all claims for damages arising from purchases of eggs and egg products outside the state of Kansas. The court took under advisement the limitations motion, pending a ruling in another case that will determine whether the limitations period in the Kansas case will be three or five years. The court reserved judgment on the motion to dismiss claims for damages arising from purchases of eggs and egg products outside the state of Kansas until discovery reveals which sales occurred within Kansas. In reserving judgment, the court stated that only sales within Kansas would be relevant to any calculation of alleged damages. Allegations in Each Case In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions originally alleged a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running "through the present." The court has now granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' and the indirect purchasers' claims outside the statute of limitations period, and thus the putative class claims now only relate to a September 2004 to present class period. The direct purchaser putative class action case alleges two separate sub-classes ? one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act and the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of Columbia. Seven of the nine non-class cases remain pending. In five of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In one of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the consolidated cases. The Kansas state court has entered a schedule for discovery and dispositive motions. The Kansas state court case is set for trial starting February 3, 2014. The Company intends to continue to defend these cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. CROSSMARK INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge on Nov. 14 refused to certify a class of retail employees of marketing company Crossmark Inc. in a putative class action surrounding overtime pay, ruling that the proposed class members were not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro concluded that the 52 employees named in the suit failed to demonstrate any nationwide policy by the company that led to the denial of overtime pay for the class of employees. EMCORE CORP: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hartranft, writing for ABQ Journal, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a shareholders' class action against Emcore Corp. and top executives alleging securities violations related to company activities in 2007 and 2008. U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez granted Emcore's motion to dismiss the case earlier this fall and issued an order last week dismissing an Emcore motion for sanctions against the shareholder plaintiffs. Emcore officials declined to comment on the rulings. The Albuquerque-headquartered Emcore makes compound semiconductor components for the fiber-optic and solar-power markets and has hundreds of contracts for space-based solar arrays. The initial complaint, filed by shareholders Maurice and Claude Prissert of Florida in 2008, accused Emcore of federal securities violations and asked for compensatory damages. It also named five company officials, seeking to hold them liable. Another shareholder filed a similar complaint shortly after and the cases were consolidated. Emcore said the claims had no merit. The plaintiffs alleged Emcore knowingly made false or misleading statements and omitted information about multimillion-dollar contracts for solar components with Green and Gold Energy and ES System and the resulting order backlog in 2007 and 2008. The announcements caused Emcore stock to trade at inflated levels, they claimed. The plaintiffs contended that when the alleged misrepresentations were revealed in two analyst reports, Emcore's stock fell, causing a loss to the plaintiffs who bought stock, they claimed. In her dismissal of the case, Judge Vazquez said the analyst reports were skeptical of Emcore's customers' ability to fulfill their contracts, but neither identified the alleged misrepresentations that formed the basis for the claims. She said the complaint failed to say Emcore's alleged statements and omissions were ever disclosed to the market so as to have affected the price of stock. The judge also determined the plaintiffs failed to adequately show the defendants had specific knowledge of the alleged misrepresentations, or to show their loss was the result of wrongdoing. DGSE COS: Faces "Barfuss" Suit Over Accounting Irregularities ------------------------------------------------------------- DGSE Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit commenced by Grant Barfuss arising from certain accounting irregularities, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On April 16, 2012, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K disclosing that its Board of Directors had determined the existence of certain accounting irregularities beginning approximately during the second calendar quarter of 2007 and continuing in periods subsequent thereto (the "Accounting Irregularities"), which could affect financial information reported since that time. The Company also announced that it had engaged forensic accountants to analyze the Accounting Irregularities, and that financial statements and information reported since the inception of the Accounting Irregularities, believed to be the second calendar quarter of 2007, should not be relied upon. The Company brought the Accounting Irregularities to the attention of the SEC in a letter dated April 16, 2012. On June 18, 2012, the Company received written notice that the SEC had initiated a private investigation into the Accounting Irregularities, to determine whether any persons or entities had engaged in any possible violations of the federal securities laws. The Company has cooperated fully, and continues to cooperate fully, with the SEC staff in the investigation. This investigation is still pending as of the date of October 31, 2012, and there can be no certainty as to the outcome of this investigation, or to the findings of the SEC. Also, in connection with the Accounting Irregularities, and the subsequent halt in trading of the Company's common stock on the Exchange, the Company has received notice of two lawsuits that have been filed by its shareholders. The first is a lawsuit filed by Grant Barfuss, one of the Company's shareholders, on September 7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Although Mr. Barfuss desires this lawsuit to be a class action, the court has not certified a class for this lawsuit. Mr. Barfuss filed this lawsuit against DGSE, Dr. L.S. Smith, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, John Benson, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and William H. Oyster, the Company's former Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Barfuss alleges violations of securities laws and seeks unspecified damages, and alleges that certain of the Company's public filings in 2010 and 2011 were false and misleading. The second lawsuit is a derivative lawsuit. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Bradley" Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services continues to defend itself against a consumer class action commenced by Walter Bradley, according to the Company's October 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2012. On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Walter Bradley, et al. v. Discover Financial Services). The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). The Company will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff. Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment services company. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Steinfeld" Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services continues to defend itself against a consumer class action commenced by Andrew Steinfeld, according to the Company's October 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2012. On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Andrew Steinfeld, et al. v. Discover Financial Services, et al.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). The Company will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff. Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment services company. EXPEDIA INC: Faces Another Antitrust Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Will Winkelstein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com LP, Travelocity.com LP, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Priceline.com Incorporated, Booking.com B.V., Booking.com (USA), Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Hilton Worldwide Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Marriott International, Inc., Trump International Hotels Management, LLC, Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. and John Does 1-100, Case No. 3:12-cv-05573 (N.D. Calif., October 30, 2012) is brought to recover for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class as a result of the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive, unfair and deceptive conduct. The Defendants conspired, through a combination of contracts, mutual promises, agreements and understandings to eliminate competition on the online prices offered to the public for the Hotel Defendants' rooms and to fix the retail price for room reservations at the price the Hotel Defendants were selling room reservations ("Rack Rates"), Mr. Winkelstein alleges. He contends that the Defendants' retailer agreements were unlawful resale price maintenance agreements in that they constituted a conspiracy between the Online Defendants and the Hotel Defendants to fix, maintain, and inflate Rack Rates in the market for online reservations. Mr. Winkelstein is a resident of San Francisco, California. Expedia is a Delaware corporation based in Bellevue, Washington. Hotels.com, an affiliate of Expedia, is a Texas limited partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Travelocity.com , a Delaware limited partnership based in Southlake, Texas, is owned by Sabre. Booking.com, a company based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, owns and operates Booking.com, the leading worldwide online Room Reservations agency by room nights sold, attracting over 30 million unique visitors each month via the Internet from both leisure and business markets worldwide. Booking.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com. Booking.com (USA) is a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in New York. Booking.com (USA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com. Priceline.com is a Delaware corporation based in Norwalk, Connecticut. Orbitz Worldwide is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Sabre is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Southlake, Texas. Intercontinental is a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Starwood is a Maryland corporation based in Stamford, Connecticut. Starwood's hotels are primarily operated under the brand names St. Regis(R), The Luxury Collection(R), Sheraton(R), Westin(R), W(R),Le Meridien(R), Four Points(R) by Sheraton, Aloft(R)and Element(R). Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. Trump International is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York. Hilton is a Delaware company based in McLean, Virginia. Kimpton is a Delaware limited liability based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry Gross, Esq. Adam Belsky, Esq. Sarah Crowley, Esq. GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 3670 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-0200 Facsimile: (415) 544-0201 E-mail: terry@gba-law.com adam@gba-law.com sarah@gba-law.com FLATBUSH FEDERAL: Reached MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Flatbush Federal Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its October 4, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 13, 2012, by and among (i) Northfield Bank, Northfield Bancorp, Inc. and Northfield Bancorp, MHC and (ii) Flatbush Federal Savings & Loan Association, Flatbush Federal Bancorp, Inc. and Flatbush Federal Bancorp, MHC, as amended, pursuant to which Flatbush Federal Savings & Loan Association would be merged with and into Northfield Bank (the "Bank Merger"), Flatbush Bancorp would be merged with and into Northfield Bancorp (the "Mid-Tier Merger" and Flatbush MHC would be merged with and into Northfield MHC (the "MHC Merger", and together with the Bank Merger and Mid- Tier Merger, the "Proposed Mergers"). On March 26, 2012, a Flatbush Bancorp stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Flatbush Bancorp shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, against Flatbush Bancorp, Flatbush MHC, each member of the Flatbush Bancorp board of directors and Northfield Bancorp and Northfield MHC (the "Action"). The complaint was amended June 28, 2012. The case is captioned Robert H. Elburn et. al. v. Jesus R. Adia, D. John Antoniello, Patricia A. McKinley Scanlan, Alfred S. Pantaleone, Charles J. Vorbach, Michael J. Lincks, Flatbush Federal Bancorp, Inc., Flatbush Federal Bancorp, MHC, Northfield Bancorp, Inc. and Northfield Bancorp, MHC. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Flatbush Bancorp board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to inadequate consideration, engaging in a process that involved conflicts of interest and by failing to disclose certain material facts to Flatbush Bancorp stockholders in a registration statement filed with the SEC on June 15, 2012. The complaint also alleges that Flatbush Bancorp, Flatbush MHC, Northfield Bancorp and Northfield MHC aided and abetted the Flatbush Bancorp board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. On October 2, 2012, defendants and plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Plaintiff regarding the settlement of the Action. Defendants continue to deny the allegations set forth in the amended complaint; however, to avoid the risk of the Action delaying or adversely affecting the Proposed Mergers and to minimize the expense and disruption that defending the Action would engender, Flatbush Bancorp, while not admitting that it committed any disclosure violations, agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to provide certain additional disclosures related to the Proposed Mergers. The disclosures are contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus that was mailed to stockholders on or about September 21, 2012. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Flatbush Bancorp's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which time the Supreme Court of the State of New York will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. From the time of execution of the memorandum of understanding and while the Court is considering the settlement, the Action will be stayed and the plaintiff has agreed that he will not move or seek to obtain a temporary restraining order or injunction to delay, halt or postpone the stockholders' vote on the Proposed Mergers or the consummation of the Proposed Mergers. If the settlement is finally approved by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Proposed Mergers, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that Flatbush Bancorp's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Mid-Tier Merger. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Flatbush Bancorp or its successor. Defendants and plaintiffs will negotiate in good faith regarding the appropriate amount of attorneys? fees to be paid by Flatbush or its successor in interest if the Proposed Mergers are consummated. The fees are subject to Court approval and will not be deducted from merger consideration. Defendants, however, have reserved the right to challenge any request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Supreme Court of the State of New York will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet Cars ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Welsh at The Wall Street Journal reports that General Motors Co. is recalling a number of its newer Buick, Cadillac and Chevrolet models for problems that could compromise passenger safety in a collision. The car maker's Cadillac luxury division is recalling certain XTS large sedans from the 2013 model year because their rear-seat head restraints may not lock onto the upright position after being folded forward. This could result in the hear rests being positioned too low, based on federal safety standards, which could increase the risk of neck injury in a crash. Cadillac said the recall affects 12,626 cars that it built from October 12, 2011, through August 30, 2012. Under the recall dealers will replace the head restraints free of charge. The recall is scheduled to begin this month. Owners may contact Cadillac at 800-458-8006. In a separate filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, GM is recalling certain 2012 Buick Verano, Chevrolet Cruze, and Chevrolet Sonic cars because their driver- side frontal air bags may not work properly. The airbags have a part called a shorting bar that may intermittently touch the air bag terminals. If the bar and terminals are in contact during a crash, the bag might not deploy when needed, which increased the risk of injury. GM said the recall affects 2,949 vehicles. The Company said its dealers will replace the steering wheel airbag coil to correct the problem. Owners may contact GM at 800-521-7300. GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Evaporator Coil Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Goodman Global, Inc. and its affiliates for allegedly selling defective central air conditioning units. The civil action was filed in Kentucky state court on behalf of all consumers in Kentucky, and in the United States, that purchased a central air conditioning unit bearing the trade names Goodman(R) and Amana(R) from 2008 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that Goodman and Amana central air conditioning units sold during this time frame contained defective evaporator coils that improperly and prematurely rupture and leak refrigerant (a.k.a. Freon), which in turn causes the air conditioners to stop functioning properly. The lawsuit also alleges that Goodman has known about the defective evaporator coils since at least 2008, but that the company has failed to inform consumers about the problem or issue a recall. The lead plaintiff, Susan Pastor-Richard, acquired her Goodman air conditioner when her family moved into their new house in November 2009. As alleged in the complaint, after only one summer of use, her Goodman air conditioner stopped working. According to the lawsuit, she added Freon to it, which allowed it to function over the next summer. But as also alleged in the complaint, in summer 2012, Ms. Pastor's Goodman air conditioner again stopped working and she found out that the evaporator coil on her unit had ruptured and was leaking Freon. Goodman allegedly refused to repair her unit or provide any credit toward the cost of repairs. Through their investigations, attorneys for the putative class have uncovered numerous reports of similar incidents across the county. The lawsuit is captioned Susan Pastor-Richard v. Goodman Global, Inc., et al., civil action no. 12-CI-2239, and a copy of the complaint can be found at the Web site of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, http://www.tzlegal.com GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged ECPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a Madison County teen on Nov. 15 sued Google, claiming the search engine giant intercepts and uses Gmail subscribers' e-mails to generate advertising revenue. The suit was filed in federal court by A.K., as next friend of the 16-year-old child, J.K, who seeks class action status for the complaint that alleges violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and Illinois' eavesdropping statute. Thomas Rosenfeld, Mark Goldenberg and Kevin Green of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli & Rowland in Edwardsville submitted the complaint on behalf of the plaintiff. The minor asserts in the complaint that Google makes the majority of its revenue from advertising and charges advertisers based on the either number of times an ad appears on the screens of Gmail subscribers or the number of time Gmail subscribers click on these ads. Google, the suit states, "utilizes an electronic device to intercept and scan the contents of subscribers' incoming and outgoing e-mails immediately after the e-mail communication is sent and before it arrives at its intended recipient." This "allows Google to place targeted ads on its subscribers' Gmail screens and, thereby, generate revenue for Google," the minor asserts in the complaint that notes minors do not need parental consent to obtain a Gmail account. It adds, "As a result of Google's interception, scanning, and use of Minor Child's e-mails to place targeted advertisements, Google has obtained a monetary benefit." The minor's suit proposes the creation of a class that includes minors throughout the nation who have a Gmail account and have sent or received e-mails from non-Gmail users or another minor Gmail subscriber within the past two years. "The Class consists of millions of individuals," the minor asserts in the suit. The complaint also suggests a sub-class that would include minor Gmail subscribers in Illinois. The sub-class relates to the suit's allegation that Google violated Illinois' eavesdropping statute. The first count of the complaint alleges a violation of the ECPA in that the minor did not consent to Google's alleged practice of intercepting e-mails. It also contends that Google didn't obtain consent from the minor's parents to do so or from non-Gmail users who sent or received e-mails from Gmail subscribers. The minor asserts in the complaint that the alleged ECPA violation entitles each class member to statutory damages in the amount of $100 for each day of the violation or $10,000, as well as injunctive and\or declaratory relief, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and litigation costs. In addition, the complaint includes counts for intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment and violations of the state's eavesdropping statute. GOVGUAM: No Agreement Reached in Tax Refund Negotiations ------------------------------------------------------- Jerick Sablan, writing for Pacific Sunday News, reports that after three closed-door negotiation meetings, attorneys for the government and taxpayers have been unable to reach an agreement on how tax refunds should be paid. Attorneys in a class-action refunds suit said on Nov. 16 that negotiations had resulted in no agreement despite the assistance of Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan, according to District Court of Guam documents. As a result, the attorneys filed their proposed permanent injunction -- which would require GovGuam to pay all tax refunds in six months -- to be considered by a federal judge. The Office of the Attorney General has said this requirement would force the government into contempt almost immediately. These negotiations sprang from a class-action lawsuit filed last April. The lawsuit sought to end GovGuam's failure to pay refunds on time. Over the last decade, it has not been uncommon for GovGuam to pay refunds as many as four years late. The court documents stated GovGuam would save money in interest owed on refunds and conserve resources previously devoted to processing requests to expedite refunds. However, the government disagrees. If the government is forced to pay all tax refunds within six months of the day taxes are filed, the government won't have enough money to provide "critical services" to the community, according to the AG's office. The proposal also would eliminate the expedited tax refund program, which the attorneys argued was unfair. Some taxpayers were given their refunds due to hardship or need. The injunction would eliminate this and instead go in order of filing. People who file early would be the first to receive refunds regardless of their hardship or need. The injunction would require, for a period of five years, a quarterly report showing GovGuam is complying. In the past, the government has cleared this refund debt by borrowing money on the bond market. Gov. Eddie Calvo used bond funding to clear most of the government's refund debt, but the government has reached its borrowing capacity, which means 2012 tax refunds will have to come from government coffers. HANTZ FINANCIAL: May Face Class Action Over MedCap Notes -------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Kelly, writing for InvestmentNews, reports that it appears that the private-placement debacle that swept through the independent-broker-dealer industry and forced dozens of small to midsize firms to close is finally over. It has been several months since InvestmentNews and other industry publications have covered the story in any meaningful way, and a certain amount of stability has returned to the marketplace. For firms that sold Medical Capital Holdings Inc. notes and survived -- most notably Securities America Inc. -- the litigation is over, and they can get back to business. But the picture for one broker-dealer isn't so clear. Hantz Financial Services Inc. is still dealing with the fallout from Medical Capital, the $2.2 billion Ponzi scheme built on shaky medical receivables that the Securities and Exchange Commission closed down in July 2009. According to InvestmentNews sister publication Crain's Detroit Business, Hantz still faces a potential class action over the sale of the notes. A judge in Michigan's Oakland County soon could decide on what may be a final attempt to certify the class of investors. The report -- published Nov. 11, about Hantz's selling MedCap private placements to 300 clients -- came as something of a surprise. A midsize firm with 260 affiliated advisers, Hantz had flown under the radar when it came to selling MedCap notes. According to the Crain's Detroit story, the remaining investors could have damage claims against the firm totaling more than $20 million. Hantz general counsel David Shea told Crain's Detroit that the firm stopped selling MedCap notes in 2008 after it learned that a previous series of notes had defaulted. Hantz also performed due diligence on the company and the notes, he said. In an interview on Nov. 12, Mr. Shea said that the plaintiffs failed to certify a class action in another lawsuit in 2010. "It's in front of the same judge as before," Mr. Shea said, adding that he is confident of a favorable outcome for Hantz. "You don't get a do-over." The firm has settled with a couple of clients over the sale of the notes, but another client failed to win an award against Hantz in securities arbitration, Mr. Shea said. The firm didn't sell the final series, the disastrous MedCap VI, he added. MedCap is in receivership. Meanwhile, thousands of investors are waiting to find out if they will get any of their money returned. HYATT HOTELS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit in Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------- Hyatt Hotels Corporation is facing an antitrust class action lawsuit in Connecticut, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. In September 2012, a putative class action was filed against the Company, several other hotel companies and several online travel companies in federal district court in Connecticut seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. The online travel companies and the other hotel companies have also been named in other actions, and a motion for consolidation is before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. The Company disputes the allegations and will defend its interests vigorously. The Company currently does not believe the ultimate outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. IBM CORP: Class Action Over Endicott Campus Pollution Drags ----------------------------------------------------------- Matt Porter, writing for WBNG Binghamton, reports that in five pre-trial decisions, a Broome County Supreme Court Judge has likely set the stage for a number of appeals before the trial even begins. Judge Ferris D. Lebous ruled twice in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of village residents suing IBM Corporation over contamination at its former campus in Endicott, and three times in favor of IBM. Resident and business owner Mark Bacon is part of a class action lawsuit. He claims pollution contaminated his investment, a two-story brownstone that stands alone in a parking lot across from the former campus that used to be a full block of businesses and residences. "If they had came out and told me there was a problem," said Mr. Bacon, "I wouldn't have put the money into this building, this building was fallen down." Mr. Bacon bought and renovated the building in 2000 costing him just over $130,000. Two years later, tests showed contaminants in the ground as well as vapor contamination in the air. "All of a sudden, IBM's problem is my problem," he said, "They hide behind their lawyers and this will drag on forever. And I live with the problem they created." The judge's rulings for the plaintiffs were: Judge Lebous denied IBM's motion preventing jurors from hearing allegations of negligence for groundwater pollution that made its way into the air. He also ruled that trespass allegations must be considered as part of the case. For IBM, Lebous ruled: The plaintiffs did not show enough evidence to bring damages as a result of continued medical monitoring. The plaintiffs did not have enough "medical proof" to back up their argument linking other contaminants besides TCE to cancers in residents. The judge also ruled that only property owners of affected properties can bring a suit against the company. With the mixed decision, both sides are expected to appeal. And that's going to extend this case longer than it already is. Frustrating residents in the village including Rick White, a former IBM employee, who's a member of the Western Broome Environmental Stakeholder's Coalition (WBESC). "We cannot get to a resolution that will make this village well," said Mr. White, "It's as simple as that, make the village well." The coalition has stayed out of the lawsuit, but advocates on behalf of the village. Mr. White hopes a future study by the National Institute of Occupational Safety (NIOSH) of more than 25,000 IBM employees' medical records will prove the plaintiff's case. Action News reached out to attorneys for both sides and IBM. None were available for comment. JEFFRIES GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Jeffries Group is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Leucadia National Corp., in a stock swap valued at $3.4 billion, shareholders claim in New York Supreme County Court. KAYAK SOFTWARE: Sued Over Proposed Priceline.com Buyout ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kayak Software is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Priceline.com, for $1.8 billion, shareholders say in Chancery Court. KSW INC: Reaches Class Settlement to Resolve Merger-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- KSW, Inc. negotiated a settlement resolving a Delaware class action complaint relating to a merger transaction, according to the Company's October 4, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 18, 2012 a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Company Board, Kool Acquisition Corporation (Offeror), Kool Acquisition LLC (Parent), and The Related Companies, L.P. (Parent Guarantor) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware encaptioned Thomas McCormack v. KSW, Inc. et al., Case No. CA7875. The plaintiff in the case purported to sue on behalf of a class of Company stockholders and alleged that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, the Company entering into the proposed transaction with affiliates of Parent Guarantor without taking reasonable steps to maximize stockholder value and without performing a meaningful market check or bargaining for a "go shop", agreeing to sell the Company at an inadequate price, and filing a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9. The complaint also alleged that Offeror, Parent and Parent Guarantor aided and abetted the purported breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the proposed transaction or, if the transaction is consummated, rescinding the transaction or rescissory damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and expert fees. In addition, on September 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the closing of the Offer and the Merger. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and on the terms and subject to the conditions described, Purchaser has agreed to commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of the Company's issued and outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, at a price of $5.00 per share, net to the holder in cash, without interest, subject to any required withholding taxes. On October 1, 2012, the plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims with the defendants, on behalf of themselves and the class of Company stockholders who are entitled to tender their shares in the Offer, in accordance with a Settlement Term Sheet, dated and filed with the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware on October 1, 2012. Among other things, the Settlement Term Sheet releases any and all claims that have been or could have been made by the class of Company stockholders against any of the Defendants (as defined in the Settlement Term Sheet) and their affiliates relating to: (i) the Merger, including but not limited to the vote on the Merger; (ii) the disclosures made by or on behalf of the Company through and including consummation of the Merger; and (iii) the compensation received by any Defendant through and including the consummation of the Merger. The settlement also releases any claims that have been or could have been made by either party or its counsel against any other party or its counsel, relating to the prosecution or defense of the action. The settlement is subject to preparation of a final settlement agreement and court approval. MARRIOTT INT'L: Stock Plan Lawsuit in Maryland Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Marriott International, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action complaint over the Company's Employee Stock Plan, according to the Company's October 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 7, 2012. On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those set forth in the awards, various other purported ERISA violations, and various breaches of contract in connection with the awards. The plaintiffs seek damages, class attorneys' fees and interest, with no amounts specified. The action is proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman are the current named plaintiffs. The parties currently are engaged in limited discovery concerning the issues of statute of limitations and class certification. The Company anticipated filing a motion for summary judgment in the fall of 2012. The Company and the Stock Plan have denied all liability, and while the Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims being made by the plaintiffs, it can give no assurance about the outcome of the lawsuit. The Company currently cannot estimate the range of any possible loss to the Company because an amount of damages is not claimed, there is uncertainty as to whether a class will be certified and if so as to the size of the class, and the possibility of its prevailing on its statute of limitations defense may significantly limit any claims for damages. MASCO CORP: $75MM Antitrust Suit Settlement Approved in October --------------------------------------------------------------- Masco Corporation's $75 million settlement of an antitrust class action lawsuit was approved in October 2012, according to the Company's October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. A lawsuit was brought against the Company and a number of its insulation installation companies alleging that certain of their practices violated provisions of the federal antitrust laws during the period 1999 through 2004. The case was filed in October 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Columbus Drywall & Insulation, Inc., Leo Jones Insulation, Inc., Southland Insulators, Inc., Southland Insulators of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a Devere Insulation, Southland Insulators of Delaware LLC d/b/a Delmarva Insulation, and Whitson Insulation Company of Grand Rapids, Inc. against the Company, its subsidiaries Masco Contractors Services Group Corp., Masco Contractor Services Central, Inc. ("MCS Central") and Masco Contractor Services East, Inc., and several insulation manufacturers (the "Columbus Drywall case"). In February 2009, the court certified a class of 377 insulation contractors. In July 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle in which the Company and its insulation installation companies named in the lawsuit agreed to pay $75 million in return for dismissal with prejudice and full release of all claims, which was recorded by the Company in the second quarter of 2012. The Company and its insulation installation companies continue to deny that the challenged conduct was unlawful and admit no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. A settlement was reached to eliminate the considerable expense and uncertainty of this lawsuit. The settlement was approved by the court on October 26, 2012. MASCO CORP: Files Judgment Motion in "Von Der Werth" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Masco Corporation disclosed in its October 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it filed a renewed motion for judgment in October 2012 in the class action lawsuit brought by Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good. In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Masco Contractor Services, and several insulation manufacturers seeking class action status and alleging anticompetitive conduct (the "Von Der Werth case"). In the Von Der Werth case, plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy in the Columbus Drywall case indirectly resulted in an increase in the retail price of fiberglass insulation they purchased from retailers from 1999 to 2004. The Von Der Werth case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and was administratively stayed by the court in February 2010. The Company, along with its insulation manufacturer co-defendants, filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in October 2012. Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes that the conduct of the Company and its insulation installation companies, which is the subject of the Von Der Werth case, has not violated any antitrust laws. While there cannot be any assurance that the Company will ultimately prevail in this lawsuit, the Company does not believe that the ultimate disposition of the Von Der Werth case will be material to the Company. NORTHFIELD BANCORP: Hammered MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In an October 4, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Northfield Bancorp, Inc. disclosed that on October 2, 2012, it entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 13, 2012, by and among (i) Northfield Bank, Northfield Bancorp, Inc. and Northfield Bancorp, MHC and (ii) Flatbush Federal Savings & Loan Association, Flatbush Federal Bancorp, Inc. and Flatbush Federal Bancorp, MHC, as amended. As previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC by Northfield Bancorp on September 21, 2012, on March 26, 2012, a Flatbush Bancorp stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Flatbush Bancorp stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, against Flatbush Bancorp, Flatbush MHC, each member of the Flatbush Bancorp board of directors and Northfield Bancorp and Northfield MHC. The complaint was amended June 28, 2012. The case is captioned Robert H. Elburn et. al. v. Jesus R. Adia, D. John Antoniello, Patricia A. McKinley Scanlan, Alfred S. Pantaleone, Charles J. Vorbach, Michael J. Lincks, Flatbush Federal Bancorp, Inc., Flatbush Federal Bancorp, MHC, Northfield Bancorp, Inc. and Northfield Bancorp, MHC. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Flatbush Bancorp board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to inadequate consideration, engaging in a process that involved conflicts of interest and by failing to disclose certain material facts to Flatbush Bancorp stockholders in a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2012. The complaint also alleges that Flatbush Bancorp, Flatbush MHC, Northfield Bancorp and Northfield MHC aided and abetted the Flatbush Bancorp board of directors? breaches of fiduciary duties. Defendants continue to deny the allegations set forth in the amended complaint; however, to avoid the risk of the Action delaying or adversely affecting the Proposed Mergers and to minimize the expense and disruption that defending the Action would engender, Flatbush Bancorp, while not admitting that it committed any disclosure violations, agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to provide certain additional disclosures related to the Proposed Mergers. The disclosures are contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus that was mailed to stockholders on or about September 21, 2012. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Flatbush Bancorp?s stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which time the Supreme Court of the State of New York will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. From the time of execution of the memorandum of understanding and while the Court is considering the settlement, the Class Action will be stayed and the plaintiff has agreed that he will not move or seek to obtain a temporary restraining order or injunction to delay, halt or postpone the stockholders? vote on the Proposed Mergers or the consummation of the Proposed Mergers. If the settlement is finally approved by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Proposed Mergers, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that Flatbush Bancorp's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Mid-Tier Merger. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for an award of attorneys? fees and expenses to be paid by Flatbush Bancorp or its successor. Defendants and plaintiffs will negotiate in good faith regarding the appropriate amount of attorneys' fees to be paid by Flatbush or its successor in interest if the Proposed Mergers are consummated. The fees are subject to Court approval and will not be deducted from merger consideration. Defendants, however, have reserved the right to challenge any request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Supreme Court of the State of New York will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. PEP BOYS: Mechanics File Overtime & Minimum Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that The Pep Boys stiffs mechanics for overtime and minimum wages, a class action claims in San Bernardino Superior Court. PFIZER INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a dozen large investors have sued Pfizer Inc. for securities fraud, distancing themselves from a long-running shareholder class action over allegations the company misled them about the safety of the pain relievers Celebrex and Bextra. The plaintiffs in the new case, filed late on Nov. 15 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, include the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Calpers), the biggest U.S. public pension fund, the California State Teachers' Retirement System (Calstrs), and several mutual funds. "Opting out" of securities class actions has become a growing trend, as some plaintiffs gamble they can do better by suing solo or in a small group instead of joining a larger case. The plaintiffs in the new case said in September that they would not be part of the pending class action. The class action, led by the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, grew out of lawsuits that started in 2004 following a study on the cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and Bextra. Pfizer said it will fight the new case, as well as another opt-out case and the larger class action. "The company believes these cases and the original class action lawsuit have no merit based on the undisputed facts in the record and the governing federal securities law," said Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder. He said both drugs "were rigorously studied and tested" by the company and independent experts, and that the U.S. government, doctors, patients, and investors received accurate information on the risks and benefits of the medications. Revenues from Celebrex and Bextra dropped by over $2 billion in the first nine months of 2005 after the safety concerns were made public, while Pfizer saw a $68.4 billion loss in stock market value between October 2004 and October 2005, according to allegations by investors. In September 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle a U.S. Department of Justice probe into the marketing of drugs including Bextra. Plaintiffs have opted out of past securities fraud class actions, including cases involving Countrywide Financial Corp and stemming from the collapse of WorldCom. "Opt-outs are a major trend, probably reflecting the increased competition within the plaintiff's bar," said John Coffee, a law professor and securities law expert at Columbia University Law School. He said large institutional investors "can settle for more in cases in which they are not submerged in a huge class with smaller investors." Other public pension funds in the Nov. 15 lawsuit include the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, the Montana Board of Investments and the Arizona State Retirement System. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and American Century Investment Management are also among the plaintiffs. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as interest and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs are represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, a New York law firm that often leads class actions. Other investors also have opted out of the Pfizer class action. Wolf Opportunity Fund Ltd and Okumus Capital LLC sued Pfizer on Nov. 14, making similar allegations of fraud. Matthew Siben, a lawyer for Wolf and Okumus with law firm Dietrich Siben Thorpe, did not respond to a request for comment on Nov. 15. Jay Eisenhofer, a lawyer for the lead plaintiff in the class action, declined to comment on the new cases. The case is Montana Board of Investments, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-cv-9379. PJ CLARKE: Faces Class Action for Alleged Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Mariela Lombard, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a former P.J. Clarke's bartender is serving the legendary red brick saloon with a class action lawsuit, claiming unsavory treatment of its service staff. Michael Nielsen worked at the venerable watering hole on Third Avenue at 55th Street from 2007 through February and claims its owners -- including actor Timothy Hutton -- failed to pay overtime, unlawfully deducted meal costs and forced employees to over-report tips to avoid an IRS audit. "I worked there for five years, very hard, and throughout the entire time was treated without respect and unfairly," Mr. Nielsen, 43, told the Daily News. He said for three years he started his Saturdays with a 7-hour shift at the 128-year-old flagship bar favored by Jackie O. and Frank Sinatra, then raced across town for another 9-hour shift at its spin-off in Lincoln Square. He regularly worked more than 60 hours a week but never received overtime, he claimed. "I've been a bartender since I was 19 years old, and I've never seen anything like this," he said. Lawyer David Gottlieb said "hundreds" of current and former staffers should be eligible to join the federal suit, filed on Nov. 16 in Manhattan. P.J. Clarke's owner Phil Scotti characterized Nielsen as disgruntled. "He was fired because he refused to declare all his tips consistently," Mr. Scotti told The News. "He can file this lawsuit, and we'll bring up all his sales and how much he declared and it will become obvious, and in the end he'll end up paying a lot of money." He said the Upper East Side location is a separate company from its Lincoln Square outpost, and a third location near the World Financial Center. "Nobody works at two locations unless they want to," he said. "I'm ethical. I make sure all that stuff is taken care of, so this doesn't worry me much. It just makes me angry." TJ MAXX: Assistant Managers Get Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------- Katie Johnston, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that about 3,000 T.J. Maxx assistant managers nationwide will be allowed to join a lawsuit against TJX Cos. for failure to pay overtime, following a federal court ruling last week. The ruling, in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, grants conditional certification for a collective action lawsuit, similar to a class-action suit, which was filed in early 2011 by a former assistant manager in New York. The complaint alleges that the Framingham company regularly required Mohammed M. Ahmed and other salaried assistant managers to perform duties usually done by hourly workers, such as running the cash registers and unloading delivery trucks, without paying them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a week. "It's a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act," said Sara Kane, who is representing Mr. Ahmed. About 3,000 assistant managers who worked at TJ Maxx from August of 2007 to the present -- though the time frame is in dispute -- could receive invitations to join the lawsuit. TJX, which also runs Marshalls and HomeGoods, did not return calls seeking comment. TJX is facing several lawsuits over similar wage and employee misclassification violations, Ms. Kane said. TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2.77MM Vehicles Worldwide to Fix Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Yoshio Takahashi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Toyota Motor Corp. said on November 14, 2012, that it will recall 2.77 million vehicles world-wide to fix shaft and water- pump defects, just a month after the Company's biggest recall for a single part, in a move that may once again dent its reputation for quality after the massive recalls two years ago. Recalls don't necessarily hurt a company's sales in the long term. Still, vehicle reliability plays a large part in the strength of Toyota. Successive large recalls could hurt the Company's brand image, as seen in a series of serious glitches by the car maker in 2009 and 2010 when it came under harsh criticism for its slow response to vehicle flaws. Toyota has since then aimed for quick responses to fix defects as it strives to regain customers' trust. For the latest repairs, Toyota will recall 2.76 million vehicles due to a defect in the shaft connecting the steering wheel to the gearbox, a spokeswoman for the Company said. The problem affects 10 models produced between August 2000 and December 2011, including the Corolla and Avensis. The Company also will recall a further 630,000 vehicles in five models to fix a defect in the water pump used in the hybrid system, the spokeswoman said. The affected models, built between May and September 2011, include the second-generation Prius and the FCHV-adv fuel-cell vehicle. In all, 620,000 vehicles have both the shaft and water-pump defects, including the second-generation Prius, the spokeswoman said. There have been no reports of accidents or injuries related to these faulty parts, she added. The latest glitches follow a global recall of 7.4 million vehicles by Toyota last month for faulty power-window switches, the Company's largest recall to date for a single part. This is an unwelcome setback for Toyota after the Japanese car maker last week posted a solid quarterly profit and lifted its earnings forecast for the current business year. The Company has been bouncing back from the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, despite faltering sales in China related to a consumer backlash amid the territorial disputes between Beijing and Tokyo. On the Tokyo Stock Exchange, Toyota shares fell slightly on November 14 to close at 3,060 Yens ($38.54), their lowest for the day. The benchmark Nikkei 225 Stock Average finished nearly flat. To fix the defective shaft, which might disable the steering function, Toyota will recall 1.51 million vehicles in Japan, 669,000 in the U.S. and 496,000 in Europe, with the rest of the affected vehicles in Australia, the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere. The pump glitch, which might cause the vehicles to be unable to run, affects 350,000 vehicles in the U.S., 175,000 in Japan and 83,000 in Europe, with the remainder in other markets. UNILEVER UNITED: Judge Tosses False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge on Nov. 15 tossed a proposed class action accusing Unilever United States Inc. of falsely marketing butter substitute products as "light," saying the label can be applied fairly as compared to butter and not just to regular versions of the substitute products. A pair of California consumers had alleged that Unilever violates California labeling requirements regarding the term "light" -- which can only be applied to products that contain at least 50 percent less fat than similar products under California law. ********* 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 * * *