Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 61
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Right to Reinstate Appeal Stayed Thru May 2012
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 'Kaufman' Suit Settlement Pending Court OK
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks En Banc Rehearing in Merchants Litigation
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Anti-Steering" Lawsuits Still Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Hearing on $49.5MM Deal Set for April 27
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defends False Advertising Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants to Compel Arbitration in "Mesi" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Supreme Ct. Ruling Supports Arbitration Plea
AMERICAN EXPRESS: California Court Closed "Meeks" Class Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal From Aneke Suit Ruling Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration Motion in "O'Brien" Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Khanna" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CARBO CERAMICS: Faces Investor Class Action in New York
CEZINC: Noranda Income Fund to Vigorously Contest Class Action
CITY OF ALTON, IL: To Amend Motion to Dismiss Tow Fee Suit
CITY OF BARTLESVILLE, OK: Police Officers File Class Action
CREATIVE ARTISTS: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 900,000 Safety 1st Cabinet Locks
EASTON SPORTS: Recalls 12,000 Easton Raptor Lacrosse Helmets
ELI LILLY: Still Defends Propoxyhene-Related Class Action
FIRST SOLAR: May 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends N.Y. Shareholder Class Action
HUMANA INC: Unit Still Defends Lawsuit Over Negotiated Discounts
INTUIT: Seeks Dismissal of TurboTax Fee Class Action
LEGGETT & PLATT: Still Defends Antitrust Suits in U.S. & Canada
LEGGETT & PLATT: Recalls 25,200 Adjustable Mattress Bases
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Oklahoma Opts Into Class Action
NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Investors Must Pay $6.5MM Legal Cost Security
NATIONAL BASEBALL: Sued for Printing Credit Card Expiration Date
N.C. BAPTIST HOSPITAL: Says Not Obligated to Pay Settlement Tax
RON WILSON: Investors Meet to Discuss Potential Class Action
STERLING JEWELERS: Gender Bias Class Action Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: Judge Allows Trial on Veterans' Class Action
UNUM GROUP: To Appeal Certification Order in Merrimon Suit
VECTOR GROUP: Trial in "Smith" Suit Set for July 16
VECTOR GROUP: 7th Circuit Upheld Dismissal of "Cleary" Suit
VECTOR GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set to Begin on Oct. 5
WILLIS GROUP: May Face Fraud Class Action After Stanford Ruling
Apellants in a consolidated ERISA Litigation against American
Express Company have had their right to reinstate appeal of the
complaint stayed through May 2012, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
In December 2008, a putative class action captioned Obester v.
American Express Company, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain Employee
Retirement Income Security Act obligations by: (1) allowing the
investment of American Express Retirement Savings Plan assets in
American Express common stock when American Express common stock
was not a prudent investment; (2) misrepresenting and failing to
disclose material facts to Plan participants in connection with
the administration of the Plan; and (3) breaching certain
fiduciary obligations. Thereafter, three other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in the Obester
matter were filed against the defendants: Tang v. American Express
Company, et al., filed on December 29, 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Miner v.
American Express Company, et al., filed on February 4, 2009 in the
York, and DiLorenzo v. American Express Company, et al., filed on
February 10, 2009 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. American Express filed a motion to
dismiss these actions. In April 2009, these actions were
consolidated into a Consolidated Amended Complaint, captioned In
re American Express ERISA Litigation. Following argument on
American Express' motion to dismiss the action, the Court
permitted plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint. In April
2010, American Express filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. On November 2, 2010, the District Court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. On
December 2, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing
the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. On September 29, 2011, the parties stipulated, and the
Court subsequently ordered, that the Appeal be considered
withdrawn but subject to appellants' right to reinstate their
appeal by January 31, 2012. On January 20, 2012, the Court
further stayed through May 2012 appellants' right to reinstate
their appeal.
American Express Company, and its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
service company whose principal products and services are charge
and credit payment card products and travel-related services
offered to customers and businesses around the world.
American Express Company continues to await court approval of its
settlement to resolve a consumer class action complaint relating
to gift cards, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
The Company is a defendant in a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
allegations in Kaufman relate primarily to monthly service fee
charges assessed on the Company's gift card products, with the
principal claim being that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior
to the imposition of monthly service fees. On or about September
12, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that was
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court
granted preliminary approval on September 21, 2011 and
preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of (with
some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of all
gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002 through
the date of preliminary approval of the settlement, including
without limitation, gift cards sold at physical retail locations,
via the Internet, or through mall co-branded programs." Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, an approximate $6.8 million
total settlement fund will be created and class members will be
entitled to submit claims against the settlement fund to receive
refunds of certain gift card fees. Any monies remaining in the
settlement fund after payment of claims to class members, costs of
notice and administration and class counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses would be paid to charity. In addition, the Company would
make available to the settlement class for a period of time the
opportunity to buy gift cards without paying a purchase fee or any
shipping fees and would allow certain cardholders to obtain
refunds of unused funds on gift cards without paying a check
issuance fee. The final settlement approval hearing was scheduled
for February 29, 2012.
The Company is also a defendant in Goodman v. American Express
Travel Related Services, a putative class action pending in the
that involves allegations similar to those made in Kaufman.
Plaintiffs in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman proceedings
and are objecting to the Kaufman settlement. If the Court
approves the final settlement in Kaufman, all related gift card
claims and actions would also be released. In similar gift card
litigation filed in San Diego County (California) Superior Court,
Kazemi v. Westfield America, Inc., the matter settled on a class
basis in 2011, with total payments required to be made (to class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and plaintiffs'
incentive awards) of less than $550,000.
American Express is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for an en banc rehearing of a matter related to a
merchants' litigation against them, according to the Company's
Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Since July 2003, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws. These cases have all been consolidated in the
under the caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.
A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern
District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Company, et al. The Marcus case
is not consolidated. The plaintiffs in these actions seek
injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. In April
2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all the actions filed
prior to the date of its motion. In March 2006, that motion was
granted, with the Court finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be
subject to arbitration. The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's arbitration ruling and in January 2009, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District
Court. The Company filed with the United States Supreme Court a
petition for a writ of certiorari from the Second Circuit's
arbitration ruling. In May 2010, the Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition, vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and
remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for further
consideration. On March 8, 2011, the Second Circuit again
reversed the District Court, and reaffirmed its prior reasoning in
doing so notwithstanding the Supreme Court's vacatur and remand of
the decision. The Company thereafter filed a motion with the
Second Circuit requesting that the Court stay issuance of the
mandate remanding the matter to the District Court pending a
petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. On April 4, 2011, the Second Circuit granted the Company's
motion to stay the issuance of the mandate. On May 9, 2011, the
Second Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties
concerning how the decision by the United States Supreme Court in
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion applies to this case. That
briefing was submitted on June 3, 2011.
On August 1, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order stating that
it was sua sponte considering rehearing. On February 1, 2012, the
Second Circuit again reversed the District Court, and reaffirmed
its prior reasoning in doing so notwithstanding the decision by
the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion. On February 14, 2012, the Company petitioned the
Second Circuit for rehearing en banc.
In October 2007, The Marcus Corporation filed a motion seeking
certification of a class. In September 2008, American Express
moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of The Marcus
Corporation's complaint, and The Marcus Corporation cross-moved
for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. In March
2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, without prejudicing their right to remake such a
motion upon resolution of the pending summary judgment motions. A
case captioned Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company, et al.,
which makes similar allegations as those in the actions described
above, was filed and remains in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County (filed December 2003). The Company continues to
request that the California Superior Court stay such action. To
date, the Hayama action has been stayed.
In February 2009, an amended complaint was filed in In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation. The amended complaint contains a
single count alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws
through an alleged unlawful tying of: (a) corporate, small
business and/or personal charge card services; and (b) Blue,
Costco and standard GNS credit card services. In addition, in
February 2009, a new complaint making the same allegations as made
in the amended complaint filed in In re American Express
Merchants' Litigation was also filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. That new case is
captioned Greenporter LLC and Bar Hama LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Express
Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
Proceedings in the Greenporter action and on the amended complaint
filed in In re American Express Merchants' Litigation have been
held in abeyance pending the disposition of the motions for
summary judgment in the Marcus case.
Several class action complaints over violations of anti-steering
policies continue to be pending against American Express Company,
according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.
Since August 2005, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions alleging that the Company's "anti-steering"
policies and contractual provisions violate United States
antitrust laws. Those cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation. The plaintiffs' complaint in that consolidated action
seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. These plaintiffs
agreed that a stay would be imposed with regard to their
respective actions pending the appeal of the Court's arbitration
ruling in In re American Express Merchant's Litigation. Given the
2009 ruling of the Second Circuit in the Merchant's Litigation),
the stay was lifted, and American Express' response to the
complaint was filed in April 2009. In July 2010, the Court
entered an order partially staying the case pending the Second
Circuit's arbitration ruling, following a 2010 remand by the U.S.
Supreme Court in connection with In re American Express Merchants'
Litigation. In June 2010, the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs in In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation filed an action making similar allegations captioned
National Supermarkets Association v. American Express and American
Express Travel Related Services. Upon filing, the plaintiffs
designated that case as "related" to In re American Express Anti-
Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation. That case had been partially
stayed pending the Second Circuit's arbitration ruling in the
Merchants' Litigation.
In June 2008, five separate lawsuits were filed against American
Express Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York alleging that the Company's "anti-
steering" provisions in its merchant acceptance agreements with
the merchant plaintiffs violate federal antitrust laws. As
alleged by the plaintiffs, these provisions prevent merchants from
offering consumers incentives to use alternative forms of payments
when consumers wish to use an American Express-branded card. The
five suits were filed by each of Rite-Aid Corp., CVS Pharmacy
Inc., Walgreen Co., Bi-Lo LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company. The
plaintiff in each action seeks damages and injunctive relief.
American Express filed its answer to these complaints and also
filed a motion to dismiss these complaints as time barred. The
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaints in
March 2010. On October 1, 2010, the parties to these actions
agreed to stay all proceedings pending related mediations, and
Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes entered an order staying these
actions on October 18, 2010. The parties have since notified the
Court that those mediations have reached impasses. On January 21,
2011, the following parties filed lawsuits making similar
allegations that the Company's "anti-steering" provisions violate
antitrust laws: Meijer, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Raley's
Inc., Supervalu, Inc., The Kroger Co., Safeway, Inc., Ahold
U.S.A., Inc., Albertson's LLC, Hy-Vee, Inc., and The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.
In November 2010, two putative class action complaints making
allegations similar to those in In re American Express Anti-
Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
Firefly Air Solutions, LLC d/b/a 128 Cafe and Plymouth Oil Corp.
d/b/a Liberty Gas Station. In addition, in December 2010, a
putative class action complaint making similar allegations, and
seeking certification of a Wisconsin-only class, was filed by
Treehouse Inc. d/b/a Treehouse Gift & Home in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In January
2011, a putative class complaint, captioned Il Forno v. American
Express Centurion Bank, seeking certification of a California-only
class and making allegations similar to those in In re American
Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, was filed in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. These matters also had been partially stayed pending
the Second Circuit's arbitration decision in the action captioned
In re American Express Merchants' Litigation. After the partial
stay was lifted, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Complaint
making similar allegations to the prior class allegations in the
various class complaints, but dropping certain merchants as
plaintiffs. After this complaint was filed, the Court again
partially stayed these matters on May 18, 2011 in light of the
Second Circuit's stay of the issuance of the mandate in the action
captioned In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.
On February 7, 2011, in response to a transfer motion filed by the
plaintiffs in the Plymouth Oil action, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order centralizing
the actions in the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Nicholas G.
Garaufis: (a) the putative class action that had been previously
pending in the Southern District of New York captioned In re
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation; (b) the
putative class actions already pending in the Eastern District of
New York filed by Firefly Air Solutions, LLC and by Plymouth Oil
Corp.; and (c) the individual merchant suits already pending in
the Eastern District of New York. On February 15, 2011, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued a
conditional transfer order centralizing the related putative class
actions pending in the Central District of California and Western
District of Wisconsin before Judge Garaufis in the Eastern
District of New York, and those actions have been centralized
before Judge Garaufis for all pre-trial purposes. These
consolidated matters are being coordinated with the action brought
by DOJ and certain states that is also pending in the Eastern
District of New York against American Express relating to the non-
discrimination provisions in its merchant agreements.
A New York federal court is set to convene an April 27, 2012
hearing to consider final approval of a $49.5 million settlement
resolving claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning
foreign currency conversion rates in the class action complaint
filed by Ross, according to the Company's February 24, 2012 Form
the year ended December 31, 2011.
In July 2004, a purported class action captioned Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank was filed in the United States
complaint alleges that American Express conspired with Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency
conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in
certain of their cardmember agreements. The suit seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express
cardholders are not part of the class. In September 2005, the
District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the action
and preliminarily certified an injunction class of Visa and
MasterCard cardholders to determine the validity of Visa's and
MasterCard's cardmember arbitration clauses. American Express
filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court, which
motion was denied in September 2006. The Company filed an appeal
from the District Court's order denying its motion to compel
arbitration. In October 2008, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit denied the Company's appeal and remanded
the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January
2010, the Court (1) certified a damage class of all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the alleged co-conspiring banks during the
period July 22, 2000 to November 8, 2006, who were assessed a
foreign exchange transaction fee or surcharge and who have
submitted valid claims in In re Currency Conversion Antitrust
Litigation, and (2) denied American Express' motion to amend its
answer to add the affirmative defense of release. In June 2010,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with the Court,
which sought dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, and on March 29,
2011, the Court denied that motion. Trial has been scheduled to
begin on May 7, 2012. The parties have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims asserted on behalf of the damage
class concerning foreign currency conversion rates, under which
the Company agreed to pay $49.5 million into a settlement fund.
The Court preliminarily approved that settlement on November 18,
2011. A hearing at which the Court will consider entry of an order
finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled for
April 27, 2012. The claims asserted by the injunction class
concerning cardmember arbitration clauses are not included in the
proposed settlement and will continue to be litigated. On January
6, 2012, the Company filed a motion requesting that the Court
certify for immediate appeal that portion of its March 29, 2011,
decision that denied American Express' motion for summary judgment
with respect to the claims asserted concerning cardmember
arbitration clauses. That motion was fully briefed on February
American Express Company continues to defend the lawsuit commenced
by Homa alleging fraudulent advertising, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
In June 2006, a putative class action captioned Homa v. American
Express Company, et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The case alleges, generally,
misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered" "up to 5
percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card. The complaint
initially sought certification of a nationwide class consisting of
"all persons who applied for and received an American Express Blue
Cash card during the period from September 30, 2003 to the present
and who did not get the rebate or rebates provided for in the
offer." On December 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and
asserting claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while
so residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from September 30, 2003
to the present." The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other
unspecified relief that the District Court deems appropriate. In
May 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff appealed that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, and in February 2009, the Third
Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings. In October 2009, a
putative class action captioned Pagsolingan v. American Express
Company, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. That case made allegations
that were largely similar to those made in Homa, except that
Pagsolingan alleged multiple theories of liability and sought to
certify a nationwide class of "[a]ll persons who applied for and
received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from
September 30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate
or rebates provided for in the offer." In May 2010, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Pagsolingan case in its entirety.
Subsequently, in response to a request by the Company, the
District Court stayed the Homa action pending the outcome of a
case captioned AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which was subsequently
decided by the United States Supreme Court in a manner that
supports the Company's position that its motion to compel
arbitration should have been granted. The Company renewed its
motion to compel individual arbitration, and on August 30, 2011,
the District Court granted the motion and reinstated its earlier
Order compelling individual arbitration. On September 22, 2011,
plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit. Briefing regarding that
appeal is presently ongoing.
American Express Centurion Bank is seeking to compel arbitration
in the class action complaint filed by Mesi, according to American
Express Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
In June 2009, a putative class action, captioned Mesi v. American
Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The complaint seeks
to certify a class of American Express Cardmembers with billing
addresses in 16 different states "whose interest rates on their
outstanding balances were retroactively increased" by the Company.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages "in excess of
$5,000,000" and unspecified injunctive relief. The complaint has
been amended three times by plaintiff. On February 16, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
supports American Express Company's assertion to compel
arbitration in the lawsuit filed by Lopez, et al., according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint seeks to certify a
nationwide class of American Express Cardmembers whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased. American Express filed a motion to compel
arbitration, and plaintiffs amended their complaint to limit the
class to California residents only. The Company filed a revised
motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Both motions were denied by the Court. Subsequently,
in response to a request by the Company, the Court stayed the
action pending the outcome of the case AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, which was subsequently decided by the United States
Supreme Court in a manner that supports the Company's position
that its motion to compel arbitration should have been
granted.
A California district court closed a class action commenced by
Meeks against American Express Centurion Bank pending further
developments in another lawsuit filed by Ross, according to
American Express Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing
year ended December 31, 2011.
In September 2010, a putative class action, captioned Meeks v.
American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in Fulton County
Superior Court, Georgia, alleging that plaintiff received
unilateral interest rate increases despite alleged promises that
the rate would remain fixed. In October 2010, the Company removed
the matter to federal court. In October 2010, a First Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed, which included three additional
named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
contract, covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, unjust enrichment, duress, violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition
law, and violation of California's False Advertising Act.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all American
Express Cardmembers who received unilateral interest rate
increases despite their accounts being in good standing. In
November 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to remand the
case from federal court back to state court, which the Court
denied in April 2011. In April 2011, American Express filed a
Motion to Compel Arbitration. On January 20, 2012, the District
Court entered an Order administratively closing the action pending
further developments in Ross v. American Express Company pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
An appeal challenging a Columbia court order to compel arbitration
in a class action complaint relating to the use of overseas call
centers is currently pending, according to American Express
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Aneke, et al. v. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc.,
et al., filed on May 31, 2011, and pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. The allegations in
Aneke relate to the Company's use of overseas call centers, which
plaintiffs contend violates the federal Right to Financial Privacy
Act. The Company moved to compel arbitration on an individual
basis and the motion was granted on January 31, 2011. An appeal
was filed on February 10, 2012. Counsel for plaintiffs in Aneke
filed a similar claim against the Company, under a District of
Columbia statute, titled Stein, et al. v. American Express
Company, et al., pending in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia. The Company has moved to compel arbitration in Stein.
Counsel for plaintiffs had also filed a third similar action,
Pickman v. American Express Company, et al., under a California
statute, in the California Superior Court for the County of
Alameda. The Company moved to dismiss Pickman; the Court granted
that motion and dismissed the Pickman action on January 27, 2012.
A California trial court has yet to rule on American Express
Company's motion to compel arbitration in a class action complaint
commenced by Karin O'Brien, according to the Company's Company's
The Company is a defendant in the putative class action lawsuit
entitled Karin O'Brien v. American Express Company, filed in the
California on August 16, 2011. Plaintiff alleges the Company made
telephone calls to her cellular phone without her prior express
consent in an effort to collect missed payments. Plaintiff
purports to assert her TCPA claims on behalf of herself and all
persons within the United States who, on or after August 16, 2007,
received a non-emergency telephone call from the Company to a
cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did
not provide prior express consent for such calls. On October 12,
2011, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Action. Plaintiff seeks discovery in response to the arbitration
motion, and the parties are awaiting a ruling on plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery.
Khanna voluntarily dismissed its class action complaint against
American Express Company, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
captioned Khanna, et al. v. American Express Company, Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., et al., filed on September 7, 2011, in the
York. Plaintiffs alleged that American Express and other
defendants worked with Trilegiant, an Internet-based provider of
membership programs, clubs and services, to defraud online
consumers by charging their credit or debit card accounts via
deceptive and unlawful marketing and sales practices. The suit
asserted claims of unjust enrichment and violations of the federal
RICO Act, and sought injunctive relief, restitution and/or
disgorgement of amounts wrongfully charged, and unspecified
damages. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which
the Court granted in December 2011, and plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the action.
Houston Business Journal reports that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Carbo Ceramics Inc. on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's stock between Oct. 27, 2011, and Jan. 26,
The complaint, which law firm Levi & Korsinsky filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges the
Houston-based company issued false and misleading statements
during that time period.
Carbo manufactures and supplies ceramic proppants primarily used
in hydraulic fracturing of natural gas and oil wells. In January,
Carbo revealed during a conference call for its fourth quarter and
year-end financial results that it had seen a 70 percent decline
in proppant sales in the Haynesville region. The company's common
stock price then fell from $130.72 to $103.76.
The stock closed at $105.75 on March 20, down $4, or 3.6 percent.
The deadline to appoint a lead plaintiff is April 9, Levi &
Korsinsky's March 20 statement said.
Noranda Income Fund on March 20 disclosed that it intends to
vigorously contest proceedings and a new motion for leave to
institute a class action against the CEZinc processing facility
over an incident that occurred at the processing facility on
August 9, 2004.
In August 2004, the CEZinc processing facility was served with a
class action motion to institute a class action presentable before
the Quebec Superior Court, subsequent to an accidental discharge
of sulphur trioxide. The original motion to form a class action
was dismissed in June 2008. The plaintiff appealed the decision.
In August 2009, the Quebec Court of appeal dismissed the motion.
In December 2009, the Processing Facility was served with a new
motion for leave to institute a class action.
The Fund intends to vigorously contest the proceedings and will
not comment on this matter while the proceedings are pending
before the Court.
Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN". Noranda Income
Fund was created to acquire Noranda Inc.'s CEZ processing facility
and ancillary assets located in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec.
The CEZ processing facility is the second-largest zinc processing
facility in North America and the largest zinc processing facility
in eastern North America, where the majority of zinc customers are
located. It produces refined zinc metal and various by-products
from zinc concentrates purchased from mining operations. The CEZ
processing facility is operated and managed by Canadian
Electrolytic Zinc Limited.
Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that the City of Alton on March 16 filed a motion for
leave to amend a previously filed motion to dismiss in a
Jerseyville man's class action lawsuit against the city.
Matthew Carter claims he was arrested June 26, 2011, and claims he
was forced to pay a $500 administrative fee to Alton.
"The City of Alton requested that it be allowed leave to file an
amended motion to dismiss, so the correct rule of civil procedure
can be cited in the amended motion to dismiss and for such other
and further relief as this court deems just and proper," it
Defense counsel spoke with plaintiff's attorney, Brian Polinske,
about the proposed motion for leave to amend, according to the
Mr. Polinske had no objection to the defendant's motion for leave
to amend to correct the citation to the rule cited in defendant's
motion to dismiss.
On Jan. 1, 2010, the City of Alton adopted an ordinance, requiring
persons to pay the Alton Police Department an administration fee
if their vehicle is towed and is impounded incidental to a
custodial arrest for one of the offenses listed in the ordinance.
According to the original complaint, the tow release fees required
by the city required minimal time and cost to the City of Alton,
requiring Alton police department employees to write a receipt for
payment of the required tow fee, which is more than the fees
required by other defendant city ordinances.
Attorney Alvin Paulson of the firm Becker, Paulson, Hoerner &
Thompson withdrew from the case as attorney for Alton, because
"there is no insurance coverage in this matter."
He says he was told by the Illinois Municipal League to withdraw
his appearance.
Madison County Judge Ann Callis on March 2 reassigned the case
from Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth to Associate Judge Thomas Chapman.
James Schrempf is the attorney for Alton.
Madison Case number 11-L-1305.
Laura Summers, writing for Tulsa World, reports that eight police
officers have filed a lawsuit against the city of Bartlesville,
alleging improper use of personnel file information and seeking
financial compensation for alleged illegal employment practices.
The lawsuit, filed by former and current police officers, seeks to
be declared a class action, which could involve any city employee
affected by the personnel file issues.
The suit is the latest civil action to involve the Police
Department, which is facing four lawsuits filed in the Tulsa-based
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Elizabeth Mitchell, Adam Walker and Cody Thomas filed the federal
lawsuits as well as the Washington County District Court suit.
Other officers who are part of the district court action against
the city are Russell Renfro, Sonya Worthington, Stacy Neafus,
Thomas Le-blanc and Carey Duniphin.
Ms. Worthington, Ms. Neafus and Mr. Duniphin were fired in
connection with an alleged attack on a patient at Jane Phillips
Medical Center.
The officers' interactions with the patient were recorded by
hospital security cameras. Ms. Neafus and Ms. Worthington, who
are charged in district court with misdemeanor assault and
battery, allege in the civil suit that the videotape of their
encounter with the patient has been used by the Police Department
as a "training film."
The district court suit alleges that the city maintains "secret"
files of personnel information used "for the purpose of punishing"
The officers want the court to require the city to immediately
collect, remove and destroy any personnel file information that
goes beyond what is required by municipal policies, and state and
federal law.
The officers allege that the city has maintained inadequate
computer security and allowed "confidential information concerning
employees to be disclosed to others."
The suit alleges that the city created an opportunity for personal
information to be wrongfully disseminated by other city employees
or administrators "for the purpose of retaliation, discrimination
and personal vindication."
The lawsuit seeks in excess of $10,000 per employee as well as
punitive damages.
Dave McNary, writing for Variety, reports that Creative Artists
Agency and reps of aging scribes have settled a class-action case
alleging age discrimination in the representation of TV writers.
CAA had been the lone holdout in 23 separate class actions that
were filed a decade ago by the writers against the major
television networks, production studios and talent agencies. The
other 22 cases settled over the past six years for a combined
amount of $74.5 million.
CAA has agreed to make a $150,000 donation and provide limited
consulting services to the non-profit Fund for the Future that
assists older TV writers. The announcement was made jointly by
CAA and lead counsel Steven M. Sprenger of Washington, D.C. and is
subject to final approval by state court in Los Angeles.
CAA said that it strongly denies the writers' allegations and
states that its representation practices fully comply with the law
and reflect its commitment to equal opportunity. It also noted
that it has a long-standing practice against discrimination and
that it represents substantial numbers of writers who are 40 years
of age or older.
"Based on the evidence, it is not likely that CAA would be found
liable for age discrimination with respect to the matters alleged
in the complaint," Mr. Sprenger said.
In addition to CAA's donation to Fund for the Future, CAA will
offer the Fund for the Future up to 60 hours of consulting
services relating to production and distribution of online content
over the next three years. CAA will pay nothing to the
plaintiffs, settlement class members, or their attorneys.
The Fund for the Future was created after 19 of the other 22 cases
settled in 2010.
The class-action settlement announced in 2010, which resolved 19
separate actions, called for payment of $70 million to affected
The massive age-discrimination case was filed by writers over age
40 in 2000, alleging they were victims of systematic age
discrimination by talent agents who aided and abetted networks and
studios by refusing to represent and refer older writers for work
at the studios.
ICM and Broder Kurland had reached the first settlements in the
case in August 2008 for $5 million.
When the suit was filed in 2000, named plaintiffs included Tracy
Keenan Wynn, who was 55 at the time and whose work includes "The
Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman"; Ann Marcus, whose credits
include "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman," "Knots Landing" and "Falcon
Crest"; Jay Moriarty, 54 at the time with credits on "All in the
Family," "The Jeffersons" and "Maude"; and Art Eisenson, who was
58 at that point with credits including "Kojak."
Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG) Inc., of Columbus, Indiana, announced a
voluntary recall of about 900,000 Push 'N Snap Cabinet Locks.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
Young children can disengage the cabinet locks, allowing access to
cabinet contents and posing the risk of injury, due to dangerous
or unsafe items.
DJG has received 200 reports of locks that did not adequately
secure the cabinet, including reports of damaged locks. Of the
reported incidents, the firm is aware of 140 children between the
ages of 9 months and 5 years who were able to disengage the locks
and gain access to the cabinet's contents. In three of the
reported incidents, the children who gained access swallowed or
handled dishwashing detergent, window cleaner or oven cleaner, and
were treated, observed and released from emergency treatment
centers.
This recall involves Safety 1st Push 'N Snap cabinet locks with
model numbers 48391 and 48442. The model numbers are printed on
the back of the product and on packaging. The locks are used to
secure cabinets with two straps that wrap around the knobs or
handles on a cabinet door. When the product is in the "lock"
position, a green triangle is shown through a window on the
device. The Safety 1st logo is embossed on the front of the lock.
Locks manufactured between January 2004 and November 2010 are
included in the recall. The date of manufacture is embossed on
the back. The arrow on the date wheel points to the month and the
numbers of either side of arrow represent the year of manufacture.
A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12136.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, and other retail stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com from January 2004 through February 2012 for between $2
and $4.
Consumers should immediately remove the recalled locks from
cabinets and contact DJG for a free replacement Push 'N Snap lock
with model numbers HS158 or HS159. When removing the recalled
locks, consumers are urged to immediately store dangerous items
out of reach of children. For additional information, contact DJG
toll-free at (866) 762-3212 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.djgusa.com/
Easton Sports, of Scotts Valley, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 12,000 Easton Raptor Lacrosse Helmets. Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
The chin bar can break, causing the wearer to suffer a jaw or
facial injury.
Easton Sports has received six reports of the chin bar cracking or
breaking on impact with a ball or lacrosse stick, including one
laceration injury.
This recall involves all Easton Raptor Lacrosse Helmets. "Easton"
is printed on either side of the back of the helmet and on the jaw
strap. "RAPTOR" is printed low on the back of the helmet in the
center. The helmets were sold in sizes XS/S, M/L, and XL/XXL and
were available in the following colors: white; matte black;
silver; navy blue and white; royal blue and white; and red and
white. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores and online from November 2011 through March
2012 for about $250.
Consumers should stop using these helmets immediately and contact
Easton Sports for a full refund. For additional information,
contact Easton Sports toll-free at (877) 279-8545 between 7:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday, e-mail
eastonlacrossecustserv@eastonbellsports.com, or visit their Web
site http://www.eastonlacrosse.com/
Eli Lilly and Company continues to defend itself against a
Louisiana class action complaint relating to propoxyphene
products, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
In November 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ballard, et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company et al.) against Lilly and other manufacturers as
a putative class action seeking to assert product liability claims
on behalf of U.S. residents who ingested propoxyphene and
allegedly sustained personal injuries. The Company transferred
the U.S. regulatory approvals and all marketing rights to its
propoxyphene products in 2002 to AAi Pharma, which subsequently
transferred all such approvals and marketing rights to Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Company believes these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.
Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, USA, the Company provides answers,
through medicines and information, for some of the world's most
urgent medical needs.
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP on March 20 issued corrected
notice to clarify the deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff in
the securities class action lawsuit Pomerantz has filed against
First Solar Inc. and certain of its officers. The notice issued
on March 16, 2012 incorrectly stated that the deadline for filing
for Lead Plaintiff was May 14, 2012. The correct deadline for
filing for Lead Plaintiff is May 15, 2012.
The class action, (Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc. et al. 12-cv-
00555), filed in the United States District Court, District of
Arizona, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased First Solar securities between April 30,
2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This
class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased First Solar securities
during the Class Period, you have until May 15, 2012 to ask the
To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@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.
First Solar designs and manufactures solar modules. The Company
uses a thin film semiconductor technology to manufacture
electricity-producing solar modules.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) the full impact of certain manufacturing flaws on the
Company's earnings; (2) the Company was improperly recognizing
revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3)
the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 29, 2012, the Company announced its financial results
for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2011.
Specifically, First Solar reported a decrease of $345 million in
net sales for the fourth quarter, as compared to the previous
quarter, "primarily due to the timing of revenue recognition in
our systems business and lower for module-only sales." In
addition, the Company disclosed various charges to earnings,
including a charge of $164 million for warranty payments to
replace equipment that caused premature power loss in certain
panels. The Company spent $125.8 million in the fourth quarter on
warranty claims and has put aside $37.5 million to cover future
On these revelations, First Solar shares declined $4.10 per share
or 11%, to close at $32.30 per share, on February 29, 2012.
The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. It has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington,
General Electric Company continues to defend a shareholder class
action as a New York federal court only partially granted a plea
to dismiss the complaint, the Company disclosed in its February
24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including the Company's
chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and the
Company's directors. The complaints, which have now been
consolidated, seek unspecified damages based on allegations
related to statements regarding the GE dividend and projected
losses and earnings for General Electric Capital Corporation in
2009. In January 2012, the District Court granted in part, and
denied in part, the Company's motion to dismiss.
Founded in 1892 and based in Fairfield, Connecticut, General
Electric Company (GE) -- http://www.ge.com/-- operates as
a technology, service, and finance company worldwide. Its Energy
Infrastructure segment offers wind, gas, and steam turbines and
generators; combined-cycle systems; nuclear reactors, fuel, and
support services; and motors and control systems, as well as
provides water treatment solutions. Its Aviation segment produces
and sells jet engines, turboprop and turbo shaft engines, and
related replacement parts for use in
military and commercial aircraft, as well as provides maintenance,
component repair, and overhaul services. Its Healthcare segment
provides medical imaging and information technologies, medical
diagnostics, patient monitoring systems, disease research, drug
discovery, and biopharmaceutical manufacturing technologies, as
well as remote diagnostic and repair services. Its Transportation
segment provides technology solutions for customers in various
industries, including railroad, transit, mining, oil and gas,
power generation, and marine. The Company's GE Capital segment
offers commercial loans and leases, fleet management, financial
programs, home loans, credit cards, personal loans, and other
financial services. Its Home and Business Solutions segment
provides refrigerators; freezers; electric and gas ranges;
cooktops; dishwashers; clothes washers and dryers; microwave
ovens; room air conditioners; and residential water systems
primarily under the GE Monogram, GE Profile, GE, Hotpoint, and GE
CafA, brand names.
Humana Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a breach of contract
lawsuit relating to negotiated discounts, according to the
Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc. was named as a defendant
in Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military
Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT, a
purported class action lawsuit filed on February 5, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida asserting
contract and fraud claims against Humana Military. The Sacred
Heart Complaint alleged, among other things, that, Humana Military
breached its network agreements with a class of hospitals in six
states, including the seven named plaintiffs, that contracted for
reimbursement of
outpatient services provided to beneficiaries of the U.S.
Department of Defense's TRICARE health benefits program. The
Complaint alleged that Humana Military breached its network
agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals based on
negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services
performed on or after October 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them
based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (so-called
"CMAC rates"). Humana Military denied that it breached the
network agreements with the hospitals and asserted a number of
defenses to these claims. The Complaint sought, among other
things, the following relief for the purported class members: (i)
damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract by Humana
Military, (ii) taxable costs of the litigation, (iii) attorneys
fees, and (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper.
Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred
Heart Health System Inc. requested damages and other relief for
its individual claim against Humana Military for fraud in the
inducement to contract. On September 25, 2008, the district court
certified a class consisting of all institutional healthcare
service providers in TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had
network agreements with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-
surgical services to CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of November
18, 1999, excluding those network providers who contractually
agreed with Humana Military to submit any such disputes with
Humana Military to arbitration. On March 3, 2010, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's class certification order
and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceeding. On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought leave of the
district court to amend their complaint to join additional
hospital plaintiffs. Humana Military filed its response to the
motion on July 28, 2010. The district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional hospitals on September
24, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth
Amended Complaint claiming the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida has subject matter jurisdiction over
the case because the allegations in the complaint raise a
substantial question under federal law. The amended complaint
asserts no other material changes to the allegations or relief
sought by the plaintiffs. Humana Military's Answer to the Fourth
Amended Complaint was filed on November 30, 2010. The Company is
currently involved in discovery on the matter, with trial
currently scheduled for October 2012.
No updates were reported in the Company's latest annual results
filing with the SEC.
Headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, Humana Inc. --
http://www.humana.com/and its subsidiaries, is a health care
company that offers a wide range of insurance products and health
and wellness services that incorporate an integrated approach to
lifelong well-being. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had
approximately 11.2 million members in its medical benefit plans,
as well as approximately 7.3 million members in its specialty
Chris Kanaracus, writing for IDG News, reports that Intuit last
week asked a court to throw out a class action lawsuit brought by
two US taxpayers who claim their use of the TurboTax Online
tax-preparation service resulted in a usurious and "predatory"
Tasha and Fredierick Smith used TurboTax Online in February 2011
to file their 2010 tax return and Intuit charged them $86.90 for
the tax-filing services, a fee the Smiths' opted to have taken out
of their refunds, according to a complaint they filed in January
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Intuit also charged them a $29.95 "Refund Processing Fee" that set
up a direct-deposit account, in which the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service deposited their federal refund about two weeks later,
according to the suit.
That fee amounted to a "refund anticipation loan," a "predatory"
financial instrument from which companies like Intuit make ample
profits, according to the suit.
"Thus plaintiffs paid $29.95 for an approximate 14-day loan of
$86.90," it states. This resulted in an "exorbitant quadruple-
digit interest rate" that was in violation of California's usury
laws, according to the suit.
The Smiths also used TurboTax Online for tax years 2008 and 2009,
and similarly deferred paying the preparation fees, resulting in
the "exorbitant" $29.95 charge, it adds.
Their suit asks the court to recognize class-action status for
themselves and other taxpayers who used the service. It seeks
unspecified compensatory and statutory damages as well as an
injunction against Intuit.
But in a motion to dismiss the suit filed on March 19, Intuit
argued the Smiths' claims have no standing.
For one, "plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that the Refund Processing
Service made available on Intuit's Web site is a 'refund
anticipation loan' that violates various consumer credit
statutes," Intuit said. "But merely calling something a refund
anticipation loan does not make it so."
"In fact, the Refund Processing Service is nothing like a refund
anticipation loan because it is neither a loan nor does it provide
money to a taxpayer in anticipation of a tax refund," the filing
adds. "It is merely a convenient bank service that allows
taxpayers to deduct certain fees after their tax refunds are
received from the IRS."
In addition, the Smiths had the option of paying for their tax-
preparation fees with a credit or debit card but chose to have the
cost deducted from their returns instead, the motion adds.
Intuit isn't directly responsible for the fee at issue in the
case, the motion states.
"What Plaintiffs challenge -- and all that they challenge -- is a
separate fee for the second option that was charged not by Intuit,
but by a third-party bank that assisted them with the
transaction," Intuit said. "To pay the TurboTax fees from their
tax refunds, Plaintiffs entered into a separate contract with a
bank to create a temporary bank account. The bank then received
the refund from the IRS, deducted the TurboTax fees and the
[$29.95] fee for electing this payment option, transferred the
appropriate amount to Intuit, and paid the balance to Plaintiffs
via direct deposit to their bank account."
Intuit's Web site describes the particulars of this fee "in plain
language," the motion adds.
The Smiths in fact "got precisely the benefit of the bargain" and
don't allege they misunderstood the Refund Processing Service,
Intuit said. But now the couple wants the court to penalize
Intuit on grounds the service "was mislabeled under technical
consumer credit statutes," the motion adds.
"If Plaintiffs truly believed they had been wronged, one might
expect them to have sued the banks that actually provided them the
Refund Processing Service and charged them the fee," it states.
"But the banks are heavily regulated under federal law, and they
have arbitration provisions in their contracts. As a result,
Plaintiffs have resorted to suing Intuit."
Intuit is asking the court to dismiss the Smiths' suit with
prejudice, meaning it could not be brought again. A hearing on
the motion is scheduled for June 1.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated continues to defend itself in
antitrust class action lawsuits brought by purchasers of
polyurethane foam products, according to the Company's
Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20
defendants alleging that competitors of the Company's carpet
underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and
Canadian antitrust laws.
A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, the Company has been
named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action
cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on behalf of a
class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b)
an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed
on March 21, 2011 (although the underlying lawsuits do not name
the Company as a defendant); and an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011; and (c) eleven individual
direct purchaser cases, one filed March 22, 2011, another amended
August 24, 2011 to remove class allegations, one amended August
25, 2011 to name the Company as a defendant, four others filed
October 31, 2011, one filed November 4, 2011 and three filed
December 6, 19 and 30, respectively. All of the pending U.S.
cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant, have
been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-02196.
In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of
unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and
May 6, 2011, the Company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated
case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July
19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery
is underway in the U.S. actions.
The Company has been named in two Canadian class action cases (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), as
amended on November 2, 2011, both under the name
Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company, et. al in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 and CV-11-17279. In
each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 15
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100 million,
punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and the costs of the action. The Company has not yet
filed its defenses in the Canadian actions.
The Company denies all of the allegations in these actions and
will vigorously defend itself.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is a manufacturer of components for
residential furniture and bedding, power foundations, carpet
underlay, components for office furniture, drawn steel wire,
automotive seat support and lumbar systems, and bedding industry
machinery.
Leggett & Platt, of Georgetown, Kentucky, announced a voluntary
recall of about 25,200 units of power foundations or adjustable
bases for mattresses. Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Electrical components in the motor control board can fail and
short causing overheating, which poses a fire hazard.
The firm has received 29 complaints of overheating in the
electronic motor control board located in a housing underneath the
deck of the power foundation. No injuries or property damage have
been reported.
The power foundations are motorized bed frames, controlled by
handheld remotes, which enable the head and/or the foot of the bed
mattress to be moved up and down. These power foundations were
offered in all bed sizes and they were sold with handheld remote
controls. The recalled models are "Titanium," "Gold" and
"Signature" by Leggett & Platt and other brands names including
Interflex, American Signature, Spring Air, Sealy and Simmons.
Since power foundations look very similar, consumers should
identify their products by looking at the remote controls. The
remotes controls are either black or dark gray and feature
multiple buttons and a label with one of these brand names:
Adjustables by Leggett & Platt, Interflex, American Signature,
Sealy, Simmons or Spring Air. Photographs of these remotes and
these labels can be viewed anytime at
http://www.titaniumrecall.com/. No other power foundations are
involved in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are
The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at mattress retailers nationwide from March of
2008 to October of 2011 for about $1,700 to $2,200.
Consumers should immediately unplug the power cord and stop using
the power functions of the beds. Consumers should contact Leggett
to arrange for a free in-home repair of the product or for a free
modification kit and consumer installation instructions. For
additional information, call Leggett at (855) 853-3539 between
8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday ET, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.titaniumrecall.com/
Joel Pruett, writing for The Norman Transcript, reports that at
the March 19 meeting of county commissioners, the board approved
receipt of a class action settlement notice.
The Oklahoma Attorney General, for all Oklahoma governmental
entities, alleged that the McKesson Corporation and a publisher of
drug data cooperated to inflate the mark-up factor used to
determine the prices for prescription drugs.
A letter from Assistant District Attorney Carol Dillingham states
that insurance plans administered by Oklahoma State and Education
Employees Group Insurance Board "relied on these inflated prices
in making their reimbursements for these prescription drugs."
According to the letter, the county has opted into the class
action suit to ensure that the "county's rights were fully
protected."
Ms. Dillingham's letter said the Oklahoma Attorney General has
settled the litigation.
According to an attached letter from General Counsel Kathy
Pendarvis of OSEEGIB, "the settlement recovery will be used in
premium calculation for HealthChoice plan year 2013."
In other action, the county commissioners:
* Approved an annual maintenance agreement with Global
Software for May 1 through June 30 for $3,703 in maintenance
* Approved the contract between the Pottawatomie County
Regional Juvenile Detention Center and Cleveland County Board of
Commissioners from July 1 to June 30 at $30 per day per child.
* Approved an agreement between Cox Business and the Cleveland
County Sheriff's Office from current to June 30 for two digital
telephone services at $17 each per month.
* Approved the Canadian River Cruisers' occupation of the east
half of Cleveland County's west-side parking lot for an April 21
auto show. Proceeds will go to Food and Shelter.
* Accepted the 2011 Mineral Interest Report, which lists
unclaimed mineral interests in Cleveland County.
Joe Schneider, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that National
Australia Bank Ltd. shareholders must pay the bank AUD6.2 million
($6.5 million) as security for its legal costs in a class action
lawsuit, a judge said in a decision the stockholders' lawyer said
reduces access to justice in Australia.
The shareholders sued in the Supreme Court of Victoria in
Melbourne in November 2010 seeking to recoup AUD450 million they
claim was lost as the bank's stock declined because of its
exposure to U.S. subprime debt in 2008.
National Australia Bank said it expects to spend more than AUD20
million on legal costs until trial and had asked the judge to
order the shareholders to pay AUD11 million. The plaintiffs
challenged it, calling the sum "extraordinary in size and
unprecedented in Australian legal history," according to the
ruling by Justice Jennifer Davies, who cut the requested amount by
almost half.
The final amount is still "very high," Jacob Varghese of Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, who represents the shareholders, said on
March 20 in a phone interview. "It sets a precedent in Victoria"
and "reduces access to justice," he said.
Plaintiffs would usually be unable to put up that much money in
security, he said. In this case the lawsuit is being funded by
International Litigation Funding Partners Pte, who will pay the
amount, Mr. Varghese said.
Sharna Rhys-Jones, a spokeswoman at National Australia Bank, said
the bank would comment later on the ruling.
National Australia Bank failed to disclose at the beginning of
2008 that it had serious exposure and serious risk of losses, from
its subprime mortgage exposure, Andrew Watson, Maurice Blackburn
principal, said when the lawsuit was filed.
Shares Plunged
The bank's shares fell 36 percent from July 24, 2008, to Sept. 18,
2008, after the Melbourne-based lender boosted provisions for its
exposure to U.S. subprime mortgages to AUD1 billion from AUD181
million in early May of that year. The bank held AUD1.2 billion
of collateralized debt obligations, structured debt securities
that are backed by bonds or loans.
The U.S. subprime-mortgage market collapsed in 2007, triggering a
global financial crisis.
About 250 shareholders, including institutions, signed up for the
National Australia Bank had asked a judge to order the plaintiffs
to identify the shareholders involved in the class action suit.
Justice Tony Pagone rejected National Australia Bank's request in
a March 5 ruling, saying the bank had other means to identify the
shareholders than a judicial order before trial.
The case is Between Pathway Investments Ltd. and National
Australia Bank Ltd. (NAB) SCL2010-6249. Supreme Court of Victoria
(Melbourne).
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing the expiration
date of credit cards on receipts.
A copy of the Complaint in Orcutt, et al. v. National Baseball
Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00513 (N.D.N.Y.), is
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/22/Baseball.pdf
E. David Hoskins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC
Quadrangle Building at Cross Keys
2 Hamill Road, Ste. 362
Telephone: (410) 662-6500 (Tel.)
E-mail: dhoskins@hoskinslaw.com
Bruce Carlson, Esq.
Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
231 Melville Lane
Sewickley, PA 15143
E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
N.C. Baptist Hospital's request to not pay taxes on a federal
class-action lawsuit settlement against the hospital could take
hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the pool of money for
recipients.
Baptist said in a legal filing on March 16 it is not obligated to
pay expenses beyond those listed in the settlement involving the
MedCost health plan, which Baptist co-owns with Carolinas
HealthCare System of Charlotte.
Baptist wants current and former employees benefitting from the
lawsuit to pay the hospital's federal tax bill for the $4.07
million due them.
Attorneys for Baptist and the class-action plaintiffs could not be
reached for comment on March 19. The potential amount of the
Baptist tax bill was estimated by tax analysts, who asked not to
be named out of fear of alienating hospital officials.
The lawsuit brought to light that Baptist and certain affiliates'
group health plans required their employees to pay more in fees
for health benefits than other corporate clients paid. There are
about 15,000 participants, including family members, in the class
action. Baptist's request could delay when the settlement money
is paid. It was scheduled to be distributed to participants by
April 24.
The impact of Baptist's request on individual beneficiaries was
not clear. It could vary widely from person to person depending
on their share of the settlement. The money listed for
participants on the Web site Baptist established --
http://www.wakehealth.edu/erisa-- is considered pretax income.
According to both parties, the issue of employer federal taxes to
be paid on the settlement money was not specifically addressed.
The key element of the latest dispute depends on what expenses
U.S. District Judge James Beaty Jr. considered as included in "a
global," or all-encompassing, settlement.
On Feb. 24, Judge Beaty approved a final settlement of $5.38
million, ruling that total was "fair, reasonable and adequate."
That included Baptist agreeing to pay $438,500 in plaintiffs'
attorney fees. Other administrative expenses also were to be
deducted, lowering the settlement amount to $4.07 million.
Kenneth Johnson and Robert Zaytoun, attorneys for the class
action, said they were told March 8 of Baptist's request by its
counsel, Randy Loftis.
The class-action counsel immediately cried foul once informed of
Baptist's stance. They said in a March 9 filing the hospital was
trying to change the terms of the settlement.
Mr. Loftis said in his filing the plaintiffs are seeking "a new
category of funds from the defendants" and that Baptist is "not
diverting funds that rightfully belong to someone else." The
class-action counsel was given until March 23 to respond to the
Baptist filing.
Mr. Loftis said Baptist's "payment obligations are fully satisfied
by the administrative expenses."
The class-action counsel said the tax liability "is NCBH's
obligation to the IRS as an employer. NCBH cannot rationally
argue that payment of its tax liability from the common fund would
benefit any class member."
The approval of the settlement was expected to have concluded the
lawsuit, which was filed in January 2009.
The lawsuit involves current and former employees and their
families. Those eligible for the settlement participated in the
plan from March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009. Plan participants made
contributions of $9 million to $13 million a year beginning in
March 2002, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said Baptist "violated the duties, responsibilities
and obligations imposed upon them as a fiduciary" under the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ERISA prohibits
most employers from using companies they own to provide health
benefits for employees unless they can show they are putting
workers' interests first.
Baptist has denied any wrongdoing and has said that the extra
charges to its employees were justified because employees
benefited from a better overall health-care plan.
Baptist officials said their selection of MedCost was a plan-
sponsor function, not a fiduciary function, and therefore its
actions were not governed by ERISA.
But according to the agreement, the plaintiffs' attorneys
"obtained reliable documentary evidence to suggest that NCBH had a
history of 'self-dealing' with its subsidiary provider network.
Indeed, that evidence indicated NCBH was even offering better
pricing to outside health plans that used the MedCost network than
it was offering its own plan and own employees."
Mike Ellis, writing for Anderson Independent Mail, reports that
people who invested money with Atlantic Bullion and Coin gathered
on March 19 in a conference room at the Quality Inn in Anderson to
discuss a potential class-action lawsuit against Ron Wilson.
Larry Babb said he was introduced to Ron Wilson's silver
investment business by a friend and put down $720,000 in
He said he lost his money. "My friend got took too," Mr. Babb
Mr. Babb was one of about 300 people who came out to the Quality
Inn in Anderson on March 19 to hear about a potential class-action
lawsuit against Wilson and his Atlantic Bullion & Coin business.
They were jammed into a conference room, and about 100 people had
to stand because there were not enough chairs. The doors were
only open to investors, their spouses or attorneys.
Mr. Wilson, a former Anderson County Council member, has been
named in a complaint from the South Carolina Attorney General's
Office.
The complaint alleges that Mr. Wilson took money from investors in
what the state prosecutors have called a multimillion dollar Ponzi
scheme in which investors thought they were buying silver
securities or physical silver while little, if any, silver was
purchased for their accounts.
Mr. Wilson has not been available for comment and it remains
unclear whether he has an attorney. State and federal officials
said on March 19 that Mr. Wilson had not been arrested or charged
with any crimes.
U.S. Secret Service agents have been brought from Washington,
D.C., Columbia and Charleston to help handle all the interviews
with potential victims and for other investigation needs, said
Thomas Griffin Jr., agent in charge of the Greenville office.
Attorney Candy Kern-Fuller, herself an investor in Mr. Wilson's
silver company, gathered the crowd together to hear about the
chances of getting money back.
"I know many of these people. I went to high school with them,"
Ms. Kern-Fuller, of the Upstate Law Group in Easley, said in cases
like this, it would be almost impossible for investors to get
their whole investment back.
Ms. Kern-Fuller said the Greenville law firm of Covington,
Patrick, Hagins, Stern and Lewis would handle the potential class-
action case and she expects to work on the case after waiving her
claim to any damages.
She said she invested around $10,000 and was able to pull her
principal out awhile ago but has lost purported earnings.
Other clients of Mr. Wilson said they had it much worse.
One woman, who declined to be identified by name, said she has
multiple sclerosis and lost somewhere under half a million
dollars.
"He (Ron Wilson) knew my situation, that I was coming out of an
ugly, ugly divorce and had this going on," the woman said,
fighting tears.
Ms. Kern-Fuller declined to say what she or the other attorneys
said behind closed doors or what was asked of them, but she said
many of Mr. Wilson's clients asked the Secret Service agents
inside about how they were keeping tabs on Mr. Wilson or whether
he had his passport removed.
State and federal officials have not been specific on those
questions for the Independent Mail and Ms. Kern-Fuller said they
were similarly circumspect during the investors meeting, but said
the agents assured investors that they were being cautious.
Ms. Kern-Fuller said she invested and got great returns while
being able to take her money out, and her experience was echoed by
many of the people who waited in the lobby of the hotel before
they signed an affidavit allowing them entrance to the conference
The meeting inside dragged on, hot and stuffy until the air
conditioning made it uncomfortably chilly, several people said.
Most of those who left early were upset with what the lawyers had
told them.
One woman, who said her name was Sylvia, said she is on Social
Security and was not sure if it would be worth her time and money
to try to recover her $13,000 investment. Sylvia said she would
have to pay $500 up front and then 30 percent of whatever was
recovered on her behalf.
Others said they wouldn't be fooling with the class-action case.
"Thirty percent is ridiculous," said David Sweezy. He said he
invested $7,100 and it would not be worth it to pursue what he
expected would be pennies on the dollar, if anything.
"I'm not going to do anything," he said. "Me expecting to get
anything back? I don't."
Ms. Kern-Fuller said class-action lawsuits are like a sermon.
"Half of the people like it, half don't," she said.
The next step would be for attorneys to pore through the forms
that potential victims filled out on March 19.
She did not know on March 19 how many people were interested in
the class-action lawsuit or how much money would be sought.
Alison Grant, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that a gender
discrimination complaint that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court received a favorable decision March 19 for women who said
they were paid less than men at stores owned by Akron-based
Sterling Jewelers.
The high court let stand an earlier ruling that said the women can
try to have their discrimination claims heard as a class action.
"Finally after three years we'll be able to go forward," said
Dawn Souto-Coons, a former assistant manager at a Sterling-owned
Jared Galleria of Jewelry in Brandon, Fla. "I'm absolutely
thrilled." Ms. Souto-Coons and 14 other current and former
Sterling employees said in their complaint three years ago that
they were routinely paid $1 to $3 an hour less than men and
offered fewer promotions. Sterling argued that the women couldn't
pursue a class action because they signed arbitration agreements
that barred them from filing complaints as a group.
Sterling did not return calls on March 19. Company spokesman
David Bouffard has said Sterling investigated the women's claims
when they first arose and couldn't substantiate them.
Sterling has about 1,300 stores nationwide, including Jared, Kay
Jewelers and Marks & Morgan Jewelers, according to its Web site.
Founded in Northeast Ohio in 1910, it was bought in 1987 by Signet
Jewelers Ltd., a United Kingdom company that calls itself the
world's largest specialty retail jeweler by sales.
The Sterling workers' complaint will now return to Kathleen
Roberts, the New York arbitrator who originally decided the retail
workers could seek class status. If Ms. Roberts decides to
certify the case as a class action, it will become one of the
largest sex discrimination cases ever arbitrated in the United
States, affecting as many as 20,000 women.
"This ruling [Mon] day will clear up some of the underbrush and
allow us to focus exclusively on that question" of class
certification, said Joseph Sellers, one of the attorneys for the
women named in the complaint.
Ms. Souto-Coons put the case in motion after she stumbled on
paperwork in her boss's office in 2005. She was filling in for
her general manager when she saw a payroll report on his desk that
showed a manager-in-training with no jewelry background had just
been hired for $14.50 an hour, $2 an hour more than several women
who had jewelry experience.
Ms. Souto-Coons checked other payroll reports and found that men
at the Brandon store had hourly rates several dollars higher than
women doing the same jobs. Besides pay differences, the women
allege that Sterling relied on what has historically been known as
a "tap on the shoulder" system of promotion instead of posting job
openings.
The claims initially were referred to the American Arbitration
Association because Sterling's alternative dispute resolution
programs required that.
Sterling employees are like millions of other Americans who have
signed agreements -- often as a condition of being hired -- to
take employment disputes to binding arbitration instead of filing
a lawsuit.
Although Sterling required arbitration, it didn't like Judge
Roberts' ruling that its arbitration system, called Resolve,
allowed the women to pursue their allegations collectively. The
arbitration agreement was silent on the issue.
Sterling appealed, initially losing its case, then prevailing when
a district court reversed the ruling, and then losing again when
the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit, located in New York,
ruled in the women's favor last July.
"We hold that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority in
determining that the agreement permitted the plaintiffs to proceed
with their effort to certify a class," the appeals court said. It
was this finding that the U.S. Supreme Court let stand.
Mr. Sellers said the Supreme Court's decision follows the
"deference" that is normally given to arbitrator decisions once
employer and employee are functioning under an arbitration
"Once you entrust disputes to an arbitrator, as long as they
follow proper procedures, their decisions are virtually
unreviewable by courts," Mr. Sellers said.
Ms. Souto-Coons, who now raises organic hens in Marion Station,
Md., about 40 minutes southwest of Ocean City, Md., said she and
the other women are in it for the long haul.
"We've waited this long and come this far," she said. "There's no
way we're going to give up now."
Steve Vogel, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a
federal judge in California has agreed to a trial in a class-
action lawsuit alleging that Department of Veterans Affairs'
policies leave veterans suffering from mental disorders at risk of
homelessness.
But Judge S. James Otero of the Central District of California
dismissed portions of the suit, including claims alleging a breach
of fiduciary duty on the part of the VA.
The judge also said the plaintiffs had failed to explain how
disabled veterans have been denied access to VA housing programs
but agreed to allow attorneys to amend their claim with further
The lawsuit, filed in June by several homeless veterans in the Los
Angeles area and the group Vietnam Veterans of America, asks the
court to order the VA to use empty buildings on its sprawling West
Los Angeles Medical Center campus to provide permanent supportive
housing for some veterans. These include a class of veterans who
suffer from conditions such as severe post-traumatic stress
disorder or brain trauma that the plaintiffs argue require a
stable home environment for successful treatment.
"The Government misses the mark in arguing that Plaintiffs do not
have a right to permanent supportive housing," Judge Otero wrote.
David Sapp, an attorney for the homeless veterans, called the
ruling "the first time a judge has ruled that the federal
government has a legally enforceable obligation to ensure that
veterans can access the benefits for which they [are] otherwise
entitled."
The VA, which has vowed to end veterans' homelessness by 2015,
declined comment.
Unum Group disclosed in its February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing
year ended December 31, 2011, that it is preparing to appeal a
class certification order in the class action complaint commenced
by Denise Merrimon, et al.
In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. This
is a putative class action alleging that the Company breached
fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group
life insurance policies when the Company paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under which
the Company paid death benefits via retained asset accounts. The
plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in
retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned
by us from investing those funds belonged to the beneficiaries,
and (2) payment of claims using retained asset accounts did not
constitute payment under Maine's late payment statute, requiring
the Company to pay interest on the undrawn retained asset account
funds at an annual rate of 18%.
On February 3, 2012, the District Court issued an opinion
rejecting both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering
judgment for the Company. At the same time, however, the District
Court held that the Company breached a fiduciary duty to the
beneficiaries by failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates
available in the market for demand deposits. The District Court
also certified a class of people who, during a certain period of
time, were beneficiaries under certain group life insurance
contracts that were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans
and were paid death benefits using retained asset accounts. The
District Court authorized the parties to make an immediate appeal
of its decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the
Company plans to do so.
Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, provides group and individual disability insurance
products primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom. It
also provides a portfolio of other insurance products, including
employer-and employee-paid group benefits, life insurance, long-
term care insurance, and related services. The Company was
founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Trial in the lawsuit captioned Smith v. Philip Morris, to which
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary is also a defendant, is set to
commence on July 16, 2012, according to Vector's February 24,
Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC and other
United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as
defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class
actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers
should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by
cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.
In Smith v. Philip Morris, a Kansas state court case filed in
February 2000, plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and
punitive damages. Class certification was granted in November
2001. In November 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. In addition to joining that summary judgment motion,
Liggett filed its own summary judgment motion in June 2011. Oral
argument occurred on January 18, 2012. Trial is scheduled for July
Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries. The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a trial
court dismissal order of the fourth amended class action against
Liggett Group LLC, and in November, denied a rehearing petition
for the same case, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s February 24,
In June 1998, in Cleary v. Philip Morris, a putative class action
was brought in Illinois state court on behalf of persons who were
allegedly injured by: (i) defendants' purported conspiracy to
conceal material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine;
(ii) defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and
marketing to minors; and (iii) defendants' claimed breach of the
public's right to defendants' compliance with laws prohibiting the
distribution of cigarettes to minors. Plaintiffs sought
disgorgement of all profits unjustly received through defendants'
sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class. In March 2009,
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding, among other
things, allegations regarding defendants' sale of "lights"
cigarettes. The case was then removed to federal court on the
basis of this new claim. In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a
revised motion for class certification as to the three proposed
classes, which motion was denied by the court. In February 2010,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to
all claims, other than a "lights" claim involving another
cigarette manufacturer. The court granted leave to the plaintiffs
to reinstate the motion as to the addiction claims. Plaintiffs
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in an attempt to resurrect their
addiction claims. In June 2010, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and in July 2010,
the court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. In
August 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Plaintiff's
petition for rehearing was denied by the Seventh Circuit in
Trial in the lawsuit Brown v. Philip Morris USA is set to commence
on October 5, 2012, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s February 24,
In April 2001, in Brown v. Philip Morris USA, a California state
court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California
who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes "during the
applicable time period" and who were exposed to defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California. In March
2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class
based on a recent change in California law. In June 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings regarding whether the class
representatives have, or can, demonstrate standing. In August
2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants' rehearing
petition and issued its mandate. In September 2009, plaintiffs
sought reconsideration of the court's September 2004 order finding
that plaintiffs' allegations regarding "lights" cigarettes are
preempted by federal law, in light of the United States Supreme
Court decision in Good. In March 2010, the trial court granted
reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial
summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs'
"lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since
its order was issued, including Good, thereby reinstating
plaintiffs' "lights" claims. Since the trial court's prior ruling
decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California
Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims
currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject,
however, to defendants' challenge to the class representatives'
standing to assert their claims. In December 2010, defendants
filed a motion for a determination that the class representatives
set forth in plaintiffs' tenth amended complaint lacked standing
to pursue the claims. The motion was granted by the court.
Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint adding new class
representatives, which motion was granted by the court and in July
2011, plaintiffs filed their eleventh amended complaint adding new
putative class representatives. Defendants filed their response
in November 2011. Oral argument occurred on January 24, 2012 to
consider the defendants' challenge to the new class
representatives. Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2012.
Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports
that victims of Allen Stanford's estimated $7 billion Ponzi scheme
won a victory when a federal appeals court said they may pursue
class-action litigation against third parties they believe aided
in the now-convicted swindler's fraud.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed on
March 19 a 2011 lower-court ruling and cleared the way for state
court cases against brokerages, lawyers and others accused of
helping Stanford.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas had ruled that the
federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, or SLUSA,
barred the state cases in Louisiana and Texas because they were
related to securities fraud.
But the three-judge appeals court panel said that law was only
"tangentially related" to the fraud alleged by the plaintiffs, the
sale of bogus certificates of deposit issued by Stanford's
Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Among the defendants was SEI Investments Co., which was accused of
inducing investors to move retirement funds into the CDs, and the
insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings.
Both were accused of misrepresenting the CDs as good investments
and of misrepresenting the soundness and competency of Stanford
International Bank. Lawyers for the bank were also accused of
aiding and abetting the fraud.
'The heart, crux, and gravamen of their allegedly fraudulent
scheme was representing to the (plaintiffs) that the CDs were a
'safe and secure' investment that was preferable to other
investments for many reasons," Judge Edward Prado wrote for the
5th Circuit panel.
"That the CDs were marketed with some vague references to Stanford
International Bank's portfolio containing instruments that might
be SLUSA-covered securities seems tangential," Judge Prado
Gordon Cooney, a lawyer for SEI; and Jonathan Polkes, a lawyer for
Willis, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Phillip Preis, a lawyer for some of the investors, said the ruling
was perhaps the most significant for investors since Stanford's
fraud was uncovered in February 2009.
"It will allow us to assert negligence claims," Mr. Preis said in
an interview. "It's a big deal."
A Houston federal jury found Mr. Stanford guilty on March 6 on 13
criminal counts, including fraud, conspiracy and obstructing a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
Mr. Stanford, 61, could face more than 200 years in prison at his
scheduled June 14 sentencing, or a maximum of about 20 years if he
is sentenced to concurrent terms.
The jury also said federal authorities should try to seize $330
million that Mr. Stanford stashed in 29 foreign bank accounts. A
court-appointed receiver recently had only about $113 million of
cash on hand.
The case is Roland et al v. Green et al, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 11-10932.
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.