/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130122.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 15 Headlines 227 CHERRY STREET: Sued for Garage Closure During Hurricane Sandy AMERICAN DAIRY: Faces Two Class Suits For Breach of Contract AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit ANGEL CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Wage and Hour Laws CARGILL MEAT: Accord on Workers' Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK CARMAX INC: Appeal in "Fowler" Suit Remains Pending in Calif. CINTAS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Rehearing Bid in "Serrano" Suit CITIZENS INC: SPFIC Continues to Defend Louisiana Class Suit COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits CORNER STORE: Awaits OK of Valero's Fuel Temperature Suit Deal CORNER STORE: Ultramar Defends Price Fixing Suits in Canada ELOQUA: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Claims ENIGMA SOFTWARE: Sued for Charges Despite Software Cancellation FINISAR CORP: Calif. Court Tosses Securities Class Action Suit KPMG: Two Auditors Face Class Suit Over TierOne Corp. Collapse LIFE PARTNERS: Class Cert. Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending MATTEL AND FISHER: Infant Sleepers Prone to Molds, Suit Claims MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Approval of Canadian Suit Settlement MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Has Paid Full Amount of DRAM Suit Settlement NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Still Defending Suit Over Defective GamePads OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Genaera Liquidating Trust Suit ROBBINS & MYERS: Only One Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending SIOUX HONEY: Judge Rejects Sue Bee Clover Honey Class Action SQUARE INC: Sent Text Messages Without Prior Consent, Suit Says STARLINE TOURS: Sued for Not Paying All Hours Worked by Employees TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits ZEP INC: "Britto and Cowan" Class Suit Remains Pending ZILLOW: Faces Securities Suit For Misleading Statements ********* 227 CHERRY STREET: Sued for Garage Closure During Hurricane Sandy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Abraham Lee, Chee Kheong Sam and Aldous Wong, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated Plaintiffs, brought on December 14, 2012, a class action Complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Defendants Cherry Street, LLC, Park-It Management, and Central Parking System of New York, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals that paid a monthly fee in consideration for the right to park their vehicles at the parking garage located at 227 Cherry Street, New York, New York 10002, on October 28, 2012. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and other appropriate relief for their claims arising out of Defendants' negligence and gross negligence relating to their: (1) misleading and false representations made to Monthly Parking Customers that the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage would remain open during Hurricane Sandy a/k/a "Superstorm" Sandy; (2) Defendants' failure to notify Monthly Parking Customers that their vehicles must be removed from the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage by 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 28, 2012; and (3) Defendants' failure to respond to multiple requests by Monthly Parking Customers after 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 28, 2012, to open the gate to the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage for the purpose of removing their vehicles, obtaining personal property and evacuating "Zone A" in lower Manhattan. They also seek damages and other appropriate relief for Defendants' failure to exercise due care to adequately secure the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage premises subsequent to the multiple warnings issued by the National Hurricane Center and by New York City government officials for Zone A prior to Superstorm Sandy, and for their negligence and conduct relating to mitigation of damages following the storm. Plaintiffs Abraham Lee, Chee Kheong Sam and Aldous Wong are citizens of the State of New York and reside in New York County and are individuals who were Monthly Parking Customers on October 28, 2012, at the parking garage located at 227 Cherry Street, New York, New York 10002. Cherry Street, LLC, is a limited liability corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its address of authorized service located at 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10174. It owned the 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage. Park-It Management is a New York company, with its principal place of business located at 250 West 26th Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10001. It managed, maintained, operated, supervised, controlled and staffed 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage. Central Parking System of New York, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation, licensed to conduct business in the State of New York, with numerous offices located throughout New York City. It also managed, maintained, operated, supervised, controlled and staffed 227 Cherry Street Parking Garage. The Plaintiffs are represented by: NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 267-3700 Facsimile: (212) 587-0031 - and - Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq. IMBESI CHRISTENSEN 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002 New York, New York 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-5588 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com AMERICAN DAIRY: Faces Two Class Suits For Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions in Hennepin County Court accuse American Dairy Queen Corp. of breaching franchise contracts by increasing franchisees' payments for promotions. AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholders' lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's January 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On June 22, 2012, a complaint, 12 cv 5476, was filed in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California by Kevin McGee against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On July 5, 2012, a second complaint, 12 cv 05789, was filed by Michael Kane against a similar group of defendants. The complaints, brought as putative class actions on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who purchased the common stock of the Company between September 27, 2010, and June 15, 2012, were virtually identical and were based entirely on supposed "inconsistencies" raised by the Company's then auditors and the subsequent termination of those auditors by the Company. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and rules promulgated thereunder. On October 16, 2012, the court granted the motion of Richard Deutner and Rent EDV Dienstleistungs GmbH for appointment as lead Plaintiff and, thereafter, ordered that the amended consolidated complaint be filed no later than November 19, 2012. On that date, Plaintiff filed and served an amended consolidated complaint, which repeated the allegations set forth in the original complaint and added allegations to the effect that the Company's restatement of its financial statements evidenced allegedly knowing and intentional misstatements of material facts in the Company's public filings. The Company and two former and one current director have been served with the amended consolidated complaint. Responses were due December 19, 2012. In accordance with the schedule set by the Court, the served Defendants, including the Company, served and filed a motion seeking dismissal of the amended consolidated complaint in the action. The motion seeks dismissal of all causes of action. The Company denies the allegations. No prediction can be made, however, as to the final outcome of the matter. ANGEL CITY: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Wage and Hour Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Aceves, an individual; Class Representative, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Current and Former Employees of Defendants v. Angel City Trading, Inc., a corporation; and Does 1 through 150, inclusive, Case No. BC498280 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 28, 2012) seeks remedy for alleged wage and hour law violations by Angel City Trading. The complaint says the Defendants are engaged in a pervasive and unlawful scheme to deprive their employees of the protections granted to them by California wage and hour laws. During the Class Period, the Defendants failed to compensate employees for all hours worked, and failed and refused to pay overtime wages, the Class Members relate. Mr. Aceves is a resident of Los Angeles County, California. Angel City is a California corporation headquartered in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis P. Wilson, Esq. WILSON TRIAL GROUP 3322 W. Victory Boulevard Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 843-1788 E-mail: wilsontrialgroup@att.net - and - Tony Luti, Esq. THE LUTI LAW FIRM 7095 Hollywood Boulevard, Number 351 Hollywood, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 960-2600 E-mail: tony@lutilaw.com CARGILL MEAT: Accord on Workers' Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 16, 2013, granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action lawsuit captioned Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. Court-appointed Class Representatives Christina Barbosa and Patricia Aguillera Barrios filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals against Defendants Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., and Does 1-50. The Court provisionally certified the Settlement Class as all current and former hourly production and support employees of the Defendant's meat packing facility in Fresno, California between February 2, 2009, and January 16, 2013, who do not timely opt out of the Settlement. A final fairness hearing is scheduled in Courtroom 7 on the date and time set forth in the implementation schedule, which will be issued separately by the Court. A copy of the Court's January 16, 2013 order is available at http://is.gd/RFaX53from Leagle.com. The settlement class is represented by: R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Tel No: (661) 949-2595 Fax: (661) 949-7524 - and - THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 1021 Unionville, PA 19375 Tel No: (610) 324-2848 The Claims Administrator may be reached at: Dahl Administration LLC 6465 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 420 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Tel No: (952) 562-3600 Fax: (952) 562-3625 CARMAX INC: Appeal in "Fowler" Suit Remains Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax, Inc.'s subsidiaries, CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. Plaintiffs filed an appeal that is currently pending with the California Court of Appeal. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters. CINTAS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Rehearing Bid in "Serrano" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cintas Corporation is still awaiting an appellate court decision with respect to its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the class action lawsuit filed by Mirna E. Serrano, et al., according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back to the District Court. On November 21, 2012, Cintas filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc requesting that a full panel of the Sixth Circuit review the decision issued by the three-judge panel and reverse the three-judge panel's decision. The Sixth Circuit ordered the EEOC to respond to the Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc, and the EEOC filed its response on December 14, 2012. As of January 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit has not yet ruled on Cintas' Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc. Avalos Litigation Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African- American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos). On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits. Following denial of class certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately. In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case after the denial of class certification. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Appellate Court has made no determination regarding the merits of Davis' appeal. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cintas Corporation is a publicly traded company that operates more than 430 facilities throughout North America. The Company provides specialized services to businesses, including the design and manufacturing of corporate identity uniform programs, entrance mats, restroom supplies, promotional products, first aid and safety products, fire protection services and document management services to approximately 900,000 businesses. CITIZENS INC: SPFIC Continues to Defend Louisiana Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Citizens, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class action lawsuit commenced by the state of Louisiana, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Security Plan Fire Insurance Company ("SPFIC"), a Company subsidiary, is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Louisiana styled The State of Louisiana v. AAA Insurance (the "Road Home Litigation"), which was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on August 23, 2007. The Louisiana Attorney General filed the Road Home Litigation as a putative class action lawsuit in state court against SPFIC and approximately 200 other insurers on behalf of the State of Louisiana, as assignee, and on behalf of a class of Road Home fund recipients alleging that SPFIC and the other insurers have failed to pay all damages owed under their policies. The insurers removed the matter to federal court. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and in March 2009, the district court granted part of the defendants' motion, dismissing all of the extra- contractual claims, including the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims. As a result, the remaining claims are for breach of contract and declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims by the insurers. The court did not dismiss the class action allegations. The defendants also had moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because of anti- assignment language in the insurers' policies. The court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration on the assignment issue but found the matter was ripe for consideration by the federal appellate court. The defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit accepted review. On July 20, 2011, the Fifth Circuit ruled there was no public policy which precludes an anti-assignment clause from applying to post loss assignments, but the anti-assignment language must be evaluated on a policy by policy basis and unambiguously express that the non-assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments. In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the State's motion to remand to state court. The Road Home Litigation remains pending in federal district court. The State has yet to identify the specific claims it contends are at issue in the Road Home Litigation, or the alleged deficiencies in adjusting those claims. Each individual claim at issue will require an individual analysis. A number of the claims may be subject to individual defenses. To date, there has been no discovery in the Road Home Litigation. The Company anticipates the State will vigorously pursue the matter in the district court and are uncertain as to the impact a case by case analysis of claims will have on SPFIC. An estimate of possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time as a result of the Fifth Circuit or federal district court's rulings in the Road Home Litigation. SPFIC intends to vigorously defend any remaining proceedings. COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Commercial Metals Company continues to defend antitrust lawsuits filed by purchasers of steel products, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies, including Commercial Metals (CMC). The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The lawsuit, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the defendants between January 1, 2005, and September 2008, seeks treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Document discovery has taken place but motions for class certification are not yet pending nor have any depositions been taken. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Since the filing of the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28 states naming the same defendants and containing allegations substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works complaint. That case has in effect been stayed. Another indirect purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state court, again naming the same defendants but contending that the conspiracy continued through 2010. The case has been removed to federal court and plaintiffs have moved to remand. The motion to remand has not yet been decided and no motion practice or discovery has taken place. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the information available at this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss relating to these cases. Commercial Metals Company -- http://www.cmc.com/-- engages in recycling, manufacturing, fabricating, and distributing steel and metal products, and related materials and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1915 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas. CORNER STORE: Awaits OK of Valero's Fuel Temperature Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Corner Store Holdings, Inc. is awaiting approval of Valero Energy Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit over fuel temperature, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10- 12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 13, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Valero Energy Corporation, Shell Oil Products Company LLC, ConocoPhillips, Chevron USA, Inc., Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, The Kroger Company and a few other retailers in San Francisco federal court. The Company was spun off from Valero. The complaint accused the defendants of violating state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume or price of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Following this filing, numerous other federal complaints were filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation). In mid-April 2012, Valero and certain of the other defendants reached a preliminary class settlement with the plaintiffs. On September 28, 2012, the court initially denied approval of this settlement concluding that the settling parties had failed to show how the settlement sufficiently benefited the class members. The settling parties, including Valero, agreed with the court and supplemented the record to demonstrate how the settlement will benefit the class, and the Company expects that the settlement will ultimately be approved. Because a portion of Valero's alleged liability in the class action allegedly arises out of the Company's retail operations, the Company has agreed to indemnify Valero for 50 percent of the monetary portion of the settlement (or otherwise 50 percent of any monetary payment that Valero ultimately may be obligated to pay in final resolution of the class action). The Company has also agreed to certain actions required under the proposed settlement agreement on a prospective basis, including the posting of fuel temperatures at the Company's U.S. retail sites. The proposed settlement agreement includes a full release from liability for Valero and its affiliates, including the Company. The Company has recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to this matter. However, if the settlement is not approved, the Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the lawsuits in excess of the amount accrued due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation. The Company believes that such an outcome in any one of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial position. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot reasonably be made. CORNER STORE: Ultramar Defends Price Fixing Suits in Canada ----------------------------------------------------------- Corner Store Holdings, Inc.'s affiliate continues to defend class action lawsuits in Canada alleging illegal price fixing, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ultramar Ltd., Valero Energy Corporation's principal Canadian subsidiary ("Ultramar"), was named as a defendant in four class actions alleging that Ultramar and other competitors engaged in illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of Quebec. The Company was spun off from Valero. The cases were filed in June 2008 following a guilty plea by Ultramar and an employee and charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs Ultramar et al in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal. As required pursuant to the civil procedure rules in effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The guilty plea followed an extensive government investigation and was confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec. The plaintiffs attempted to widen the scope, alleging the existence of a conspiracy extending between 2002 and 2008 throughout Quebec. The court allowed a time range of 2002 to 2006 but did not expand the geographic area beyond the four limited markets identified by the investigation. A hearing on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in November 2009, the court authorized the action to proceed on a class basis for the limited geographic area. A statement of claim was filed but the proceedings were suspended until May 5, 2011. The suspension was a result, in part, of damage proof issues for plaintiffs that developed pre-discovery. The court required the plaintiffs to file a report on damages on May 5, 2011. Ultramar intends to vigorously contest the scope of alleged liability and damages. On June 10, 2011, Ultramar was served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin/Marcel Lafontaine v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. This matter had previously been put in abeyance to allow the first filed claim to proceed. The plaintiff changed the venue and the geographical scope of its recourse alleging that defendants colluded in other regions of Quebec. By issuing this motion, the attorney for the plaintiff (the same as for the other price fixing matter) is trying to extend its claim outside the limited territory authorized by the court in the Jacques matter. On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of the territory to be covered by the action. Ultramar's alleged liability in these claims arises entirely out of the Company's retail operations in Canada. As a result, the Company expects that it will agree to indemnify and hold harmless Valero fully from any liability associated with these claims pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement. The Company does not believe that this case has merit, and it intends to vigorously contest the matter. The Company has not recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to this matter, but due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the lawsuits. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or substantially all of these cases cannot be reasonably made due to a number of factors, the most significant of which is that no amount of damages has been specified by the plaintiffs. ELOQUA: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Eloqua is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Oracle Corp., for $23.50 a share or $871 million, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. ENIGMA SOFTWARE: Sued for Charges Despite Software Cancellation --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Enigma Software Group keeps charging customers for its purported virus protection software even after they cancel, a class action claims in Federal Court. FINISAR CORP: Calif. Court Tosses Securities Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint captioned IN RE FINISAR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:11-cv-01252 EJD, (N.D. Cal.) Lead Plaintiff Martin Derchi-Russo filed the class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Finisar Corporation stock between December 1, 2010, and March 8, 2011, against Finisar and corporate officers Eitan Gertel, Jerry S. Rawls and Kurt Adzema. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants made certain misleading statements about the Company's performance during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. Finisar, a technology company that develops and sells fiber optic subsystems and components, experienced six consecutive fiscal quarters of revenue growth prior to December 2010. Mr. Derchi- Russo alleged that the Defendants misled investors as to the nature of that growth. Through the course of annual negotiations with customers, Finisar learned that it was experiencing a serious slowdown in business, particular from customers in China, Mr. Derchi-Russo disclosed. Judge Davila ruled that the causes of action in the complaint are dismissed with leave to amend, and that Mr. Derchi-Russo may file an amended complaint on or before February 6, 2013. The court further scheduled a Case Management Conference March 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., and directed the parties to file an updated Joint Case Management Statement on or before March 1. A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/co64njfrom Leagle.com. KPMG: Two Auditors Face Class Suit Over TierOne Corp. Collapse -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that KPMG auditors Darren Bennett and John Aesoph issued TierOne Corp. a clean audit just before the bank collapsed, investors claim in a federal class action. LIFE PARTNERS: Class Cert. Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a class certification ruling in the lawsuit against a subsidiary of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. The Company is a party to a class action lawsuit filed in the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, and styled Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966. On November 20, 2012, the court certified this action as a class action with a class consisting of 38 persons. LPI has appealed this ruling and intends to vigorously defend the allegations in the lawsuit, including opposing certification of the purported class. Because of the appeal regarding the certification of the class, the trial setting may be further postponed. MATTEL AND FISHER: Infant Sleepers Prone to Molds, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Mattel and Fisher Fisher- Price sell Rock 'n Play Infant Sleepers that are susceptible to growth of unsafe mold, a class action claims in Federal Court. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Approval of Canadian Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of three class action lawsuits in Canada, according to the Company's January 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 29, 2012. Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products also have been filed against the Company in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other common law claims (collectively the "Canadian Cases"). The claims were initiated between December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United States. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008, respectively. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each of those decisions. On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of class certification and remanded the cases for further proceedings. On October 16, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving these three putative class action cases subject to certain conditions including final court approval of the settlement. The settlement amount did not have a material effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of pending matters against it and, therefore, cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchaser cases and the Canadian Cases. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Has Paid Full Amount of DRAM Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its January 7, 2013, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 29, 2012, that as of November 29, 2012, it had paid the full amount into an escrow account of its $67 million settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit. At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against the Company and other dynamic random- access memory (DRAM) suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In July 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class- action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the class settlements, the Company agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. As of November 29, 2012, the Company had paid the full amount into an escrow account in accordance with the settlement agreement. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of pending matters against it and, therefore, cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchaser cases and the Canadian Cases. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Still Defending Suit Over Defective GamePads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joubin Rahimi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Nintendo Of America Inc. was filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 13, 2012, and is related to Nintendo's newest video game system, known as the Wii U. The Wii U's main piece of hardware, known as the GamePad controller, has a design and/or manufacturing defect that causes the controller to rattle and emit noise, thereby impeding the gaming experience -- the very purpose for which the item is manufactured and purchased. The complaint asserts Nintendo is and has been aware of the problem, but has failed to disclose as much to unsuspecting consumers, and has refused to rectify it. Mr. Rahimi brought the action on behalf of himself and all other California purchasers of Nintendo's Wii U video game systems, alleging claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violations of California's Civil Remedies Act, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, as well as on behalf of purchasers nationwide of the Wii U controller, alleging a violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Mr. Rahimi is a resident of California. Nintendo of America Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and having its principal place of business at 4600 15th Avenue Northeast in Redmond, Washington 98052. Nintendo is the United States distributor for Nintendo Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation headquartered in Kyoto, Japan. Nintendo Co., Ltd. is a multinational electronics company and is the largest video game manufacturer in the world by revenue. Indeed, as of September 30, 2012, Nintendo Co., Ltd. was reported to have sold approximately 637.7 million video game hardware units, and some 4.01 billion video game software units. As the United States distributor for Nintendo Co., Ltd., Defendant Nintendo of America Inc. was the entity responsible for injecting the Wii U video game console into the United States stream of commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 350-4342 Facsimile: (8581430-3719 OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Genaera Liquidating Trust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit initiated against Genaera Liquidating Trust, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30, 2012. In July 2012, the Company received notice that it was being named, along with twenty six other parties, as a defendant in a class action lawsuit being brought against the Genaera Liquidating Trust ("Trust"). The Company purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009. The Company does not believe the allegations against the Company in the complaint have merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Recognizing that the outcome of litigation is uncertain, management believes that the litigation is unlikely to have a materially adverse impact to the Company's financial statements. ROBBINS & MYERS: Only One Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Only one of the three merger-related lawsuits filed against Robbins & Myers, Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. On August 8, 2012, Robbins & Myers, Inc. ("Robbins & Myers"), and National Oilwell Varco, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("NOV"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Robbins & Myers will merge with an affiliate of NOV, with Robbins & Myers surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of NOV (the "Merger"). The Merger Agreement has been unanimously approved by the Boards of Directors of both Robbins & Myers and NOV. In connection with the proposed merger with an affiliate of National Oilwell Varco, Inc., on August 13, 2012, August 17, 2012, and October 5, 2012, respectively, shareholder derivative and class action complaints were filed in the District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, its directors, and National Oilwell Varco, Inc. and its affiliate. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders and that National Oilwell Varco aided and abetted the Company's directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief, rescission of the merger agreement and the plaintiffs' costs and disbursements in pursuing the actions, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. On October 22, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed the action pending in Texas State Court with prejudice and on January 4, 2013, the plaintiff dismissed the action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff in the remaining lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio agreed not to pursue injunctive relief to enjoin the special meeting of shareholders and in return, the Company withdrew its pending motion to dismiss and agreed to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. Robbins & Myers, its directors and each of the other named defendants are defending and will continue to defend the remaining lawsuit. The Company does not expect that this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations or completion of the merger. Robbins & Myers, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a supplier of engineered equipment and systems for critical applications in global energy, industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical market SIOUX HONEY: Judge Rejects Sue Bee Clover Honey Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Sioux Honey Association Cooperative should not face a class action over the absence of pollen in Sue Bee Clover Honey, a federal judge ruled. SQUARE INC: Sent Text Messages Without Prior Consent, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Ball, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Square, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:12-cv-06552 (N.D. Calif., December 28, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons to whom the Defendants caused text messages to be sent without prior express consent utilizing an automatic dialing system. The Defendants' conduct was the proximate and actual cause of monetary loss and other damage incurred by him and the class members, Mr. Ball asserts. He argues that the Defendants willfully and knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, he asks the Court award him and the class treble damages. Mr. Ball is a resident of Stanton, California. Square Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Fialkow, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NEAL J. FIALKOW INC. 215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 584-6060 Facsimile: (626) 584-2950 E-mail: nfialkow@pacbell.net - and - Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON & SELDEN, LLP 801 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2170 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 542-2100 Facsimile: (213) 542-2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com STARLINE TOURS: Sued for Not Paying All Hours Worked by Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joan Harp, an individual; Class Representative, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Current and Former Employees of Defendants v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., a corporation; Starline Sightseeing Tours, Inc. a corporation, Starline Tours USA, Inc. a corporation, Vahid Sapir, an individual, Fred Sapir, an individual and Does 1 through 150, inclusive, Case No. BC498279 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 28, 2012) accuses the Defendants of failing to compensate the proposed class members for all hours worked, pay overtime compensation, provide meal and rest periods, and reimburse expenses. The Defendants are engaged in a pervasive and unlawful scheme to deprive their employees of the protections granted to them by California wage and hour laws, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as driver/delivery worker in California. The Defendants are California corporations headquartered in Los Angeles, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis P. Wilson, Esq. WILSON TRIAL GROUP 3322 W. Victory Boulevard Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 843-1788 E-mail: wilsontrialgroup@att.net - and - Tony Luti, Esq. THE LUTI LAW FIRM 7095 Hollywood Boulevard, Number 351 Hollywood, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 960-2600 E-mail: tony@lutilaw.com TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Chrome 6 Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits arising from exposure to chrome 6, according to the Company's January 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant. The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The lawsuit requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as punitive and exemplary damages. Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case. As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined. Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc. from the lawsuits, and the Company's subsidiaries operating in Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs. Most of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as defendants. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs. Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant. The lawsuits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from these lawsuits. The court has dismissed from these lawsuits plaintiffs that failed to provide required information, leaving approximately 250 plaintiffs. Prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3. The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from lawsuit to lawsuit. Following dismissal of certain causes of action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the remaining causes of action typically include, among other things, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability, willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally request, among other things, general and punitive damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and medical monitoring costs. As of January 9, 2013, none of the plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any specific amount or range of damages. Some of the lawsuits include additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants. The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them. The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits may be filed against the Company alleging damages due to injuries to persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6. The Company is a defendant in other lawsuits that arose in the ordinary course of business. In the Company's judgment the ultimate liability, if any, from such legal proceedings will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. ZEP INC: "Britto and Cowan" Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Zep Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit captioned Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc. brought by its subsidiary's current and former sales representatives, according to the Company's January 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2012. The Company is a defendant in Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., a lawsuit that was commenced in December 2010, and a lawsuit known as Aguilar, et al v. Zep Inc. and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc. that was commenced on December 24, 2012. Both lawsuits are pending in the Superior Court in Alameda County, California. The plaintiffs, who are current and former sales representatives employed by Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("Acuity"), allege that Acuity failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses and failed to pay their wages by assessing unlawful deductions from commissions. Messrs. Britto and Cowan are also seeking to recover statutory and/or civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Private Attorney General Act. The lawsuit filed by Britto and Cowan was brought on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class that includes all of Acuity's current sales representatives based in California and all former sales representatives based in California who were employed by Acuity on December 30, 2006, or thereafter. Approximately 171 persons were employed by Acuity in California as sales representatives on December 30, 2006, and thereafter and, are therefore, members of the putative class proposed by Britto and Cowan. The Company has reached settlements with approximately one-half of the members of the putative class. Britto and Cowan have indicated that they intend to contest the validity of the settlements. The Company believes that the basis for their challenge, as it has been explained to the Company, is without merit. On May 7, 2012, the Court issued a ruling with respect to Britto's and Cowan's motion for class certification in which it denied the motion with respect to all causes of action asserted. At the same time, the Court denied another motion filed by Britto and Cowan in which they sought leave to amend their complaint to add a claim based on the Company's alleged failure to comply with requirements of the California Labor Code relating to the form of wage statements. On June 1, 2012, Britto and Cowan filed a motion for leave to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of 54 individual plaintiffs and a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying class certification. On July 30, 2012, the Court granted Britto's and Cowan's motion for leave to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in their lawsuit. The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying class certification. After the Court's action, 55 plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit. The interveners asserted, in addition to the claims related to expense reimbursement and commission deductions, a claim based on the Company's alleged failure to comply with requirements of the California Labor Code relating to the form of wage statements. The Company appealed the Court's July 30, 2012 decision granting the motion for leave to intervene. On December 20, 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld the Company's appeal of the trial court's decision to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan. The decision of the Court of Appeal directs the trial court to deny the motion for leave to intervene and directs the plaintiffs to reimburse the Company for its costs of the appeal. As a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, the purported class-action lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan now involves only Messrs. Britto and Cowan. However, on December 24, 2012, 54 of the current and former sales representatives who sought to intervene in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan filed a lawsuit against the Company in which they asserted against the Company on behalf of themselves individually the same claims that they sought to assert by intervening in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan. This lawsuit seeks to put the named plaintiffs in the same position they would have occupied if they had been allowed to intervene in the lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan. During the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, the Company established a $1.8 million accrual with respect to its potential liability to the plaintiffs in the Britto and Cowan lawsuit. During fiscal year 2012, this accrual was reduced by the approximately $0.2 million in payments made to settle the claims of certain current and former sales representatives. Based on the facts known as of January 7, 2013, the Company's current accrual of $1.6 million continues to represent its best estimate of the probable settlement cost related to this litigation. The Company believes that it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims made in the lawsuits, and it intends to assert the defenses aggressively. If the Company is not successful in its defense against the claims asserted in the lawsuits and if there is an adverse verdict on the merits from which there is no successful appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement of the litigation, the resulting liability could be material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. However, because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the lawsuits, including the amount of damages, if any, any plaintiff may be able to prove, and because the Company's liability, if any, arising from the litigation, including the amount of any damages awarded if plaintiffs are successful in the litigation or any negotiated settlement, could vary widely, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of loss that may arise from the litigation in excess of the estimated amounts. ZILLOW: Faces Securities Suit For Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that officers and directors of Zillow dumped $26 million of their shares at prices inflated by false and misleading statements about the company, a class action claims in Federal Court. ********* 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 * * *