/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130117.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 12 Headlines ABBVIE INC: AWP Litigation vs. Parent Still Pending in Mass. ABBVIE INC: FTC's Writ of Certiorari in AndroGel Suit Pending AMERICAN GREETINGS: Suits Over Weiss' Acquisition Offer Pending AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties Seek Stay of Baker and Collier Suits AMERISTAR CASINOS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Pinnacle ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis Liability May Reach $100 Billion ASTRAZENECA: Sued For Conspiring Over Generic Form of Nexium AT&T INC: Settles Cramming Class Action for $5.5 Million AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Anew Product BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action BLUEGREEN CORP: Still Faces BFC Merger-Related Class Action Suit CLS TRANSPORT: Sup. Ct. Agrees to Review "Iskanian" Case CPI CORP: Faces "Hellmann" ERISA-Violation Suit in Missouri CPI CORP: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund's Suit Dismissed in Nov. CPI CORP: To Seek Class Decertification in "Paige" Suit FANNIE MAE: Faces Class Action Over Refusal To Pay Transfer Tax JP MORGAN: Customers File Suit Asserting False Advertising Claims LONGWEI PETROLEUM: Cohen Milstein Files Class Action in New York PETSMART: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations QIAO XING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action in N.J. RITE AID: Judge Directs Payment of $20.9MM to Former Managers SILVERCORP METALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y. SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Injunction in Humboldt Suit Terminated TRICAN WELL: Faces $10-Mil. Overtime Class Action in Texas * Employers Change Approach to Resolving Workplace Class Actions ********* ABBVIE INC: AWP Litigation vs. Parent Still Pending in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------ Several cases, brought as purported class actions or representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, are pending against Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Inc.'s parent, that allege generally that Abbott and numerous other pharmaceuticals companies reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, state Attorneys General, and other state government entities, generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The federal court cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Multi District Litigation Rules as In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456, which now includes only one state Attorney General lawsuit filed in August 2006 on behalf of the State of South Carolina. In addition, several cases are pending against Abbott in state courts: Commonwealth of Kentucky, filed in September 2003 in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky; State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin; State of Illinois, filed in February 2005 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; State of South Carolina (on behalf of its state health plan), filed in August 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit of Richland County, South Carolina; State of Alaska, filed in October 2006 in the Superior Court for the Third Judicial District in Anchorage, Alaska; State of Idaho, filed in January 2007 in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Ada County, Idaho; State of Utah, filed in November 2007 in the Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County, Utah; State of Louisiana, filed in October 2010 in the Nineteenth Judicial District, Parish of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 2, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ABBVIE INC: FTC's Writ of Certiorari in AndroGel Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Trade Commission's writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of a decision dismissing the bulk of its claims in the AndroGel Antitrust Litigation remains pending, according to AbbVie Inc.'s January 2, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Inc.'s parent, acquired in February 2010) et al. were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi District Litigation Rules as In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. MDL 2084 includes: (a) 3 individual plaintiff lawsuits: Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., was filed in April 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; and Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and Walgreen Co. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., both of which were filed in June 2009 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; (b) 7 purported class actions: Meijer, Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., all of which were filed in May 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Fraternal Order of Police v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in September 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in October 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; LeGrand v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in September 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; and Health Net, Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed in February 2011 in the Northern District of Georgia; and (c) a lawsuit brought by the FTC, Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in May 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In February 2010, Solvay's motion to dismiss the cases was partially granted and all of the FTC's claims and all of the plaintiffs' claims except those alleging sham litigation were dismissed. In May 2012, that decision was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and in October 2012, the FTC filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the decision. In September 2012, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Solvay on the remaining claims of the private plaintiffs. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Suits Over Weiss' Acquisition Offer Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- American Greetings Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits arising from the non-binding proposal from the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer to acquire all of the outstanding Class A and Class B common shares that are not currently owned by the Weiss family, according to the Company's January 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 23, 2012. On September 26, 2012, American Greetings Corporation announced that the Board of Directors had received a non-binding proposal (the "Going Private Proposal") dated September 25, 2012, from Zev Weiss, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and related parties, to acquire all of the outstanding Class A and Class B common shares not currently owned by them for $17.18 per share. On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against American Greetings Corporation and all of the members of its Board of Directors, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in evaluating the Going Private Proposal and seeking declaratory relief. Subsequently, eight more lawsuits were filed in Cuyahoga County state court against American Greetings Corporation and its Board of Directors. One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The remaining lawsuits were consolidated and remain pending with the commercial docket in Cuyahoga County court. On December 6, 2012, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against American Greetings Corporation, certain members of the Weiss family, the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, Irving Stone Limited Liability Company, Irving I. Stone Support Foundation and Irving I. Stone Foundation, alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss defendants by proposing and pursuing the Going Private Proposal (the "Wolfe Litigation") and seeking declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System filed a similar, purported class action against the same defendants as the Wolfe Litigation, also alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss defendants and seeking declaratory relief (the "LMPERS Litigation"). On November 30, 2012, the Wolfe Litigation plaintiff filed Motions to (1) Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigations; (2) for Appointment as Co-lead Plaintiff; (3) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff's Counsel, and (4) for Partial Summary Judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its Oppositions to the Motions (a) to Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigation, (b) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff and (c) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff's Counsel. On the same day, American Greetings Corporation also filed a Motion to Dismiss the action. Management says it is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for these cases in which the damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in the early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Corporation's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Based in Brooklyn, Ohio, American Greetings Corporation sells paper greeting cards, electronic greeting cards, party products (such as wrapping papers and decorations), and electronic expressive content (e.g., ringtones and images for cell phones). In addition to the American Greetings brand, the Company owns the Carlton Cards, Tender Thoughts and Gibson brands of greeting cards. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Parties Seek Stay of Baker and Collier Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in two parallel class action lawsuits against American Greeting Corporation filed a joint motion to stay the litigations for 60 days to allow them to engage in private mediation, according to the Company's January 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 23, 2012. American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern District of Ohio on January 11, 2012, by Theresa Baker as the personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe (the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010, by Keith Collier as the personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the "Collier Litigation"). In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by using its employees' identities and personal information to benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of the former employees whose estates form the putative class. The plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney's fees. On April 30, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. The court stayed the plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until the Motion to Dismiss was decided. On September 19, 2012, the Ohio federal court ordered the Baker plaintiff to file an amended complaint and then denied without prejudice the Corporation's Motion to Dismiss the Baker Litigation as moot. On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On October 18, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Class certification has not been decided in either of these cases. In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as attorney's fees and costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the Ohio federal court. On July 6, 2012, the court granted the Corporation's Motion to Transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. As requested by the court, the parties filed a joint proposed scheduling order on October 29, 2012, setting the Collier and Baker Litigations on parallel procedural tracks. On January 2, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the Collier and Baker Litigations for 60 days to allow the parties to engage in private mediation. The same law firm represents the individual plaintiffs in the Collier and Baker matters. Based in Brooklyn, Ohio, American Greetings Corporation sells paper greeting cards, electronic greeting cards, party products (such as wrapping papers and decorations), and electronic expressive content (e.g., ringtones and images for cell phones). In addition to the American Greetings brand, the Company owns the Carlton Cards, Tender Thoughts and Gibson brands of greeting cards. AMERISTAR CASINOS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Pinnacle ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim in a lawsuit filed in Clark County Court that Ameristar Casinos is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Pinnacle Entertainment, for $26.50 a share or $2.8 billion. The shareholders want $33 a share. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis Liability May Reach $100 Billion ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Findlay, writing for Macleans.ca, reports that more than 30 gold companies in South Africa are facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of 17,000 former miners who say that, as a result of their work, they are sick with silicosis, a debilitating, irreversible lung disease. The mining companies may be liable for as much as $100 billion, according to Bloomberg News. The lawsuit comes at a difficult time for the mines, which saw massive drops in profit last year due to labor disruptions. Class action lawsuits are unusual in South Africa, which does not have a long history of this type of litigation. In November 2012, a class action lawsuit was successfully brought against companies found guilty of running a bread cartel -- "a seminal judgment," says Wouter De Vos, professor emeritus of law at the University of Capetown. "The miners' case will likely be the most important case to follow." Lawyer Richard Spoor, who filed the silicosis suit against some of the country's biggest mining firms -- including AngloGold Ashanti and Harmony Gold -- says the number of plaintiffs is increasing by 500 people a month. "People in South Africa can't afford litigation," says Mr. De Vos. "Class action is the only means to give them access to justice." ASTRAZENECA: Sued For Conspiring Over Generic Form of Nexium ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a pension plan claims Astrazeneca, Ranbaxy, Teva and others conspired to delay introduction of a generic form of Nexium for up to 6 years, in a federal antitrust class action. AT&T INC: Settles Cramming Class Action for $5.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on Jan. 11 preliminarily approved a settlement worth more than $5.5 million between AT&T Inc. and a class of thousands of customers who say the telephone company illegally billed them for third-party services, like roadside assistance and diet plans, that they hadn't ordered. Under the settlement, AT&T customers who were billed for third- party services from Jan. 1, 2005 to the present will be able to ask the phone company for a complete inventory of the charges, and then file claims to get their money. AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Anew Product --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Avon makes false and misleading claims about its Anew product line, preying "on consumers' fundamental fear of aging and their eternal hope that products exist that can eliminate the signs of aging," a class claims. BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Law360, reports that a Tennessee federal judge on Jan. 10 tossed a shareholder class action against BioMimetic Therapeutics Inc. and its two top executives, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the orthopedics company lied about the progress of approval for a bone injury treatment that decimated its stock price. U.S. District Judge Kevin H. Sharp granted BioMimetic's bid to dismiss the suit, finding that under the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the investors failed to adequately support their claims. BLUEGREEN CORP: Still Faces BFC Merger-Related Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Corporation continues to face a consolidated class action complaint challenging the Company's proposed merger with BFC Financial Corporation, according to the Company's December 31, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Between November 16, 2011, and February 13, 2012, seven purported class action lawsuits related to Bluegreen's proposed merger with BFC Financial Corporation ("BFC") were filed against Bluegreen, the members of Bluegreen's board of directors, BFC and BFC's subsidiary formed for the purpose of the merger. Four of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action in Florida. The other three lawsuits, which were filed in Massachusetts, have been stayed. The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger or, if it is completed, to recover relief as determined by the applicable presiding court to be appropriate. The four Florida lawsuits have been consolidated into one action. On April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint which alleges that the individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a transaction to benefit themselves and not the shareholders, and (iii) failing to protect the interests of Bluegreen's minority shareholders. In the complaint, the plaintiffs also allege that BFC breached its fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority shareholders and that the merger subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC. In addition, the complaint includes allegations relating to claimed violations of Massachusetts law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The three Massachusetts lawsuits make substantially the same allegations and claims as in the Florida cases. The Massachusetts court has stayed all three actions through January 2013 in favor of the consolidated action proceeding in Florida. On September 13, 2012, the Court in the Florida consolidated action denied Bluegreen's motion to dismiss the litigation, meaning the action will continue. Bluegreen subsequently answered the complaint. On November 15, 2012, Bluegreen and BFC announced publicly that they were terminating their November 2011 merger agreement and had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Bluegreen would be acquired in a cash transaction. As a result of this announcement, on November 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Florida Court for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint in order to challenge the structure of and consideration for the new merger. On November 30, 2012, the Florida Court granted the plaintiffs' motion. The Supplemental Complaint alleges that the merger consideration remains inadequate and continues to be unfair to Bluegreen's minority shareholders. CLS TRANSPORT: Sup. Ct. Agrees to Review "Iskanian" Case -------------------------------------------------------- The HR Specialist reports that the California Supreme Court has agreed to review a case that enforced a class-action waiver and required a limousine driver to arbitrate his wage-and-hour claims. Seven justices voted to review Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles LLC, a California Court of Appeal decision holding that the Federal Arbitration Act "conclusively invalidates" a decision that ruled a class-action waiver could be unconscionable under California law. The court will decide whether the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion case overruled a 2007 California case (Gentry v. Superior Court) in the context of nonwaivable labor law rights. It will also consider whether Concepcion permits arbitration agreements to override the statutory right to bring representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act. The Supreme Court's Concepcion decision allows employers to use arbitration agreements, but state courts often require contracts to be fair. Agreements that are too one-sided often cross the line into what state courts call "unconscionable contracts." Under common law, unconscionable contracts are not enforceable. CPI CORP: Faces "Hellmann" ERISA-Violation Suit in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- CPI Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit in Missouri filed by Theodore J. Hellmann, according to the Company's December 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 10, 2012. The Company, several of its current or former officers and employees and The Charles Schwab Trust Company have been named as defendants in a lawsuit entitled Theodore J. Hellmann v. CPI Corporation, et. al., filed November 21, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No.: 4:12-cv-02177. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are fiduciaries of the CPI Corp. Employees Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the "Plan") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and that Defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants whose individual accounts included investments in the Company's common stock during an alleged Class Period of August 31, 2010, to the present, when Plaintiffs allege that the common stock was an imprudent investment. Plaintiff also alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiff purports to assert these claims on behalf of the Plan as well as a proposed class of other Plan participants and requests, among other things, restoration of losses to the Plan, damages, a constructive trust and an allocation of losses allegedly attributable to the decline in the Company's stock price to the accounts of Plan participants. Responsive pleadings are not yet due in this case. Nevertheless, the Company believes the claims are without merit and it will vigorously defend the case on behalf of itself and its officers and employees. It is not possible at this time to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait photography services at more than 2,500 locations in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico and provides on location wedding photography and videography services through an extensive network of contract photographers and videographers. CPI CORP: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund's Suit Dismissed in Nov. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. CPI Corp., et al., was voluntarily dismissed in November 2012, according to the Company's December 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 10, 2012. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. CPI Corp., et al., filed January 13, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-75 AGF. IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund (IBEW) commenced a putative securities class action against CPI Corp. (CPI), Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins and David M. Meyer on January 13, 2012. The Complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CPI common stock between April 20, 2010, and December 21, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). IBEW alleged on behalf of the purported class that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false statements and omissions, CPI common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. By court stipulation dated February 9, 2012, the parties agreed that not later than 60 days after entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, the Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended class action complaint, which shall be deemed the operative complaint and the Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint within 60 days after service of the Consolidated Complaint. On March 13, 2012, plaintiffs IBEW and George David filed a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. That motion was granted on August 3, 2012. The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal on November 6, 2012. The dismissal is with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, IBEW and George David. The Court entered a Memorandum and Order of Dismissal on November 9, 2012. Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait photography services at more than 2,500 locations in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico and provides on location wedding photography and videography services through an extensive network of contract photographers and videographers. CPI CORP: To Seek Class Decertification in "Paige" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- CPI Corp. said in its December 31, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 10, 2012, that it will file a motion for class decertification in the coming months in the class action lawsuit initiated by Shannon Paige, et al. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are defendants in a lawsuit entitled Shannon Paige, et al. v. Consumer Programs, Inc., filed March 8, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC367546. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-2498-FMC (RCx). The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay him and other hourly associates for "off the clock" work and that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law. The Plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief for himself and others similarly situated. On October 6, 2008, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but allowed Plaintiffs to attempt to certify a smaller class, thus reducing the size of the potential class to approximately 200. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the smaller class on November 14, 2008. The Company filed its opposition on December 8, 2008. In January 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their claims that they worked "off the clock." The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to their missed break claims and stayed the action until the California Supreme Court ruled on a pending case on the issue of whether an employer must merely provide an opportunity for employees to take a lunch break or whether an employer must actively ensure that its employees take the break (Brinker Restaurant v. S. C. (Hohnbaum)). The California Supreme Court ruled on the Brinker case on April 12, 2012. The Court held that employers do not have to ensure that a meal period is taken, but have only to make it available. Pursuant to order of the Court in the Paige case, the parties filed briefs in May on the impact of the Brinker case. On July 16, 2012, the Court certified a class limited to meal and rest breaks claims for Sears Portrait Studio managers working in California. The parties have commenced post-certification discovery, and the Company will file a motion for class decertification in the coming months. The Company believes the claims are without merit and continues its vigorous defense on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries against these claims, however, an adverse ruling in this case could require the Company to pay damages, penalties, interest and fines. It is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait photography services at more than 2,500 locations in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico and provides on location wedding photography and videography services through an extensive network of contract photographers and videographers. FANNIE MAE: Faces Class Action Over Refusal To Pay Transfer Tax --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac illegally refuse to pay the local option transfer tax on property sales, Spokane claims in a federal class action for Washington counties and cities. JP MORGAN: Customers File Suit Asserting False Advertising Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that JP Morgan Chase did not tell customers who accepted mortgage modifications that it would report them to credit reporting agencies, a class action for false advertising, wrongful credit reporting and unfair competition claims in Superior Court. LONGWEI PETROLEUM: Cohen Milstein Files Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Jan. 11 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited from May 17, 2010 through January 3, 2013, inclusive. Longwei is an energy company engaged in the wholesale distribution of finished petroleum products in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about Longwei's business and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges (1) Longwei failed to disclose a material related party investment totaling $32 million made by Longwei's subsidiary, Shanxi Zhinghe Energy Conversion Co. Ltd.; (2) Longwei failed to disclose that Yongjun Cai, its Chief Executive Officer, was a minority owner of three of Longwei's operating subsidiaries; and (3) Longwei greatly exaggerated its wholesale fuel sales. As a result of these materially false and misleading statements, Longwei's stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. On January 3, 2013, an internet report published by Geoinvesting.com disclosed these materially false and misleading statements and omissions. On this news, Longwei's stock fell 73%, closing at $0.62 per share on January 3, 2013, down from $2.30 per share on January 2, 2013. If you purchased shares in Longwei during the period from May 17, 2010 through January 3, 2013, inclusive, you may, no later than March 5, 2013, move the court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff. There are certain legal requirements to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation, including the Southern District of New York. If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with regard to your rights, please contact either of the following: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Cameron Clark Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (888) 240-0775 (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com cclark@cohenmilstein.com PETSMART: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Petsmart stiffs hourly workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court. QIAO XING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm on Jan. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Qiao Xing Mobile Communication Company Ltd. between September 10, 2010 and May 2, 2012. The case filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey. To join the Qiao Xing Mobile class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll- free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Qiao Xing Mobile and its present and former officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants concealed the Company's lack of internal controls and corporate governance failures, which rendered the Company's public statements during the Class Period materially false and misleading. As a result, the Company's stock has been delisted and the Company's has gone "dark." The Complaint alleges that when this adverse information began to enter the market the price of Qiao Xing Mobile securities dropped damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 18, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. RITE AID: Judge Directs Payment of $20.9MM to Former Managers ------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Rite Aid can pay former assistant store managers $20.9 million to settle a series of class actions concerning overtime, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Jon Jones III said that more than 7,000 received notices identifying them as potential class members, and that more than 1,961 class members have submitted claims forms since the settlement was entered in June 2012. Judge Jones is managing the settlement of a series of lawsuits filed suit in federal and state courts across the country against Rite Aid Corp. and Eckerd Corp. Lead plaintiff Shirley Craig represents employees who once worked as assistant managers or co-managers for the pharmacy chain. They say Rite Aid denied them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. The class filed an unopposed motion for final approval of class and collective action settlement, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards to class representatives in September 2012. Class representative Jennifer Hearn filed an objection in October, asserting that the settlement does not adequately compensate New Jersey class members and fails to reflect differences in New Jersey law. Judge Jones held a fairness hearing in December, attended by class counsel, counsel for Rite Aid and Ms. Hearn's attorney. He approved the proposed settlement and awarded attorneys' fees and incentive awards on January 7. "This settlement is the result of years of daily communication between class counsel and counsel for Rite Aid and is the product of arms-length bargaining and well-informed negotiations and mediations undertaken with the able and excellent guidance of U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson," Judge Jones wrote. "The parties assert, and the individual dockets reflect, that substantial discovery, including but not limited to hundreds of depositions and requests for documents, has been undertaken in many of the cases subject to this omnibus settlement. Finally, only one objection has been filed, and thus the number of objectors is but an infinitesimal fraction of the total population of the settlement class, weighing in favor of applying the fairness presumption." The complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation easily favor approval of the settlement, according to the ruling. "Discovery disputes would abound in many of these individual cases resulting in additional and unnecessary delay and expense," Judge Jones wrote. "Not only would continued litigation of these cases result in a massive expenditure of class counsel's resources, it would likewise place a substantial drain on judicial resources." The reasonableness of the settlement fund also supports approval, he said. "The $20.9 million proposed settlement will result in an average payment of $1,845 to each of the 7,342 class members, and each class member will receive an award proportional to his or her unpaid overtime worked during the applicable limitations period. Faced with substantial litigation risks as to the remaining (and dispositive) questions of law, these proportionate settlement awards are indeed fair and reasonable," the 35-page opinion states. The court awarded class counsel more than $6.9 million in attorneys' costs and fees. Ms. Craig received an incentive award of $7,500, and 20 other class representatives will each get $5,000. SILVERCORP METALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Silvercorp Metals, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action filed, in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13-Civ- 279, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Silvercorp between June 24, 2010 and September 13, 2011, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Silvercorp securities during the Class Period, you have until March 1, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. Silvercorp Metals engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and mining of precious and base metal properties in China and Canada. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Company overstated the quality and quantity of its ore reserves. Silvercorp's own filings with the Chinese authorities demonstrated that it had lower production than represented in its filings with the SEC. On September 13, 2011, a report was published disclosing that Silvercorp had been misleading the investing public about the quality and quantity of its minerals production. When the truth regarding the quantity and quality of Silvercorp's minerals production was disclosed, Silvercorp's stock price fell $1.54 per share or nearly 20% to close at $6.30. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. It has offices in New York, Chicago, and San Diego. SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Injunction in Humboldt Suit Terminated ---------------------------------------------------------- A motion for early termination of an injunction related to the Humboldt County Action, with respect to 17 California nursing facilities that subsidiaries of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. still operate, was granted in December 2012, according to the Company's January 2, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In conjunction with the September 2010 settlement by Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its subsidiaries, including 22 subsidiaries that operated skilled nursing facilities in California (collectively, the "Defendants"), of class action litigation against them (the "Humboldt County Action"), the Defendants agreed to an injunction under which the subsidiary Defendants were required to provide specified nurse staffing levels, comply with specified state and federal laws governing staffing levels and posting requirements, and provide reports and information to a court-appointed auditor. The injunction was to remain in effect for a period of 24 months unless extended for additional 3-month periods for non-compliance. Defendants demonstrating compliance for an 18-month period that ended September 30, 2012, were permitted to petition the court for early termination of the injunction. On April 1, 2011, the five subsidiary Defendants that at the time operated skilled nursing facilities in Humboldt County (the "Former Humboldt County Facilities") transferred their operations to an unaffiliated third party skilled nursing facility operator. On November 14, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion to terminate the injunction and vacate the final judgment in the Humboldt County Action. Based upon compliance with the injunction through the requisite 18-month period, on December 21, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Humboldt County, granted the Defendants' motion for early termination of the injunction, and the injunction has now ended, with respect to the 17 California nursing facilities that the subsidiary Defendants still operate. In its order, the court determined that the injunction termination did not apply to the Former Humboldt County Facilities. However, the 2010 court-approved stipulation and order establishing the injunction provides that the injunction applies to the named defendants and any successor licensees of the applicable nursing facilities, but only if those successor licensees are affiliates of the named defendants. As noted, the Former Humboldt County Facilities have been operated by an unaffiliated third party since April 2011. Therefore, under the terms of the injunction it does not apply to the Former Humboldt County Facilities unless an affiliate of the Defendants operates them. The Defendants' motion to vacate prior findings in the Humboldt County Action was also not granted. TRICAN WELL: Faces $10-Mil. Overtime Class Action in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that a field engineer has filed a $10 million lawsuit against an oil and gas well company for misclassifying the engineers as exempt employees and not paying overtime wages. Joseph Gauthier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Trican Well Service Ltd. on Jan. 9 in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of salaried field engineers who worked for Trican and were allegedly denied their rights under applicable federal wage and hour laws. Mr. Gauthier was employed by the defendant out of its facility in Longview. He was classified as an exempt employee and was not paid overtime wages, according to the suit. The defendants are accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying employees as exempt. On behalf of the class members, Mr. Gauthier is asking for an award of more than $10 million in damages for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, civil penalties, interest, attorney's fees and court costs. The plaintiff is represented by Josh Sandford of Sandford Law Firm PLLC in Little Rock, Ark. Case No. 6:13-cv-00046 * Employers Change Approach to Resolving Workplace Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Green, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that any employer who wondered what effect the U.S. Supreme Court's Wal- Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes gender discrimination case would have on private class action cases needn't look any further than the top 10 employment discrimination class action settlements of 2012. At roughly $49 million in settlements, that total came in at the lowest level since 2006 and was far shy of the pre-Dukes total of $346 million in 2010. "That's a pretty dramatic difference," says Gerald Maatman Jr., who co-chairs the class action litigation group at Seyfarth Shaw and co-authored the 800-plus page "Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report," which the firm published January 14. Following the 2011 Dukes decision, Mr. Maatman says that employers are changing their approach to resolving workplace class actions. "When I'm defending these big cases, the approach now at the mediation table or the settlement table is: 'Mr. Plaintiffs lawyer, if you thought your case was worth a dollar prior to [Dukes], we think it's worth a dime now.'" This latest edition of the workplace litigation report offers a circuit-by-circuit and state-by-state review of significant class action rulings rendered in 2012. It analyzes the most significant class and collective action settlements over the past 12 months and offers insights into what's ahead in 2013. As influential as the Dukes decision was, Mr. Maatman says the plaintiffs class action bar is hardly standing still. "We saw a lot of new sorts of theories and approaches being utilized to try to work around Dukes," he says. And although their opponents on the management side tried to extend the ruling to the wage-and- hour context, Mr. Maatman says that by and large, judges declined to buy into their argument. The report cites six key trends in its overview of workplace class action developments last year: 1. The U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion altered the course of class actions and litigation. Both cases were widely cited throughout the lower courts last year. Concepcion fed significant litigation over workplace arbitration agreements. In those cases, like with real estate, says Mr. Maatman, "location, location, location is everything." He says, "There are cases going both ways and judges going both ways, even within the same jurisdiction," adding that "the final chapter hasn't been written." 2. Government enforcement litigation reached new "white-hot" levels in 2012. The heightened activity was particularly apparent at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to the report, more discrimination charges were filed with the EEOC in 2012 than in all but one previous year since the founding of the commission: 99,412 charges against private sector employers. Although the EEOC filed half the number of lawsuits as in 2011, Mr. Maatman says the EEOC is focusing on its systemic investigation program. "Basically, the EEOC caught its breath" in 2012 says Mr. Maatman. He thinks the agency is gearing up to bring more, and higher- stakes, lawsuits in 2013. "If you're involved in litigation with the EEOC in 2013, I think you've got a tiger by the tail. It's very difficult to defend one of those cases." 3. Dukes influenced settlement strategies in workplace class actions in a profound way. The SCOTUS decision helped employers defeat and devalue discrimination class actions, and it resulted in fewer and lower- cost settlements. 4. The continued dislocations in the U.S. economy during 2012 fueled more class action and collective action litigation over wage-and-hour laws. When the economy is such that it's harder to find another job after an employee has been terminated, Mr. Maatman says, "there is no economic disincentive to sue." 5. Wage-and-hour litigation continued to outpace all other types of workplace class actions. "We saw an inability of employers to utilize the lessons of [Dukes] to defeat, fracture, or break up wage-and hour-class actions," according to Mr. Maatman. "Everybody thinks the wave is going to crest," he says, but the report's authors predict the increasing trend will continue in 2013. 6. The plaintiffs class action bar is a tight-knit community, and developments in Rule 23 and Sec. 216(b) case law in 2012 saw rapid strategic changes based on evolving decisions and developments. "You're seeing this shake-out period where plaintiffs lawyers are rebooting and retheorizing how they can still certify a case," says Mr. Maatman. "So if you're an employer, you're basically saying, 'Dukes is out there, and I can utilize it -- rely upon it -- but it's not the last word." ********* 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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *