Source: https://www.sfmslaw.com/class-actions/settled-cases-archive/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:07:51+00:00

Document:
Summary of Case and Settlement: On April 21, 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a settlement of a class action by consumers who purchased invisible or transparent tape. SFMS was involved in this action as class counsel. Consumers charged that the sales and marketing practices of the Defendant, 3M Company, violated antitrust and consumer protection laws and caused retailers not to sell competing brands of tape and to charge too much for 3M tape. The settlement provided $41 million worth of consumer products to charities.
More Information: If you would like to receive additional information on the settlement, please click here.
Summary of Case and Settlement: As of June 18, 2007, a partial settlement was reached in this matter involving the following class: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Aaipharma, Inc. between April 24, 2002 and June 15, 2004. A settlement hearing took place on October 2, 2007 before the Court in Raleigh, North Carolina.
If you would like to receive additional information concerning this action, contact us online or call 866-540-5505.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS filed a securities class action against American Business Financial Services, Inc. (“ABFS” or “Company” or “Defendant”) on March 4, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of ABFS subordinated notes between January 18, 2002 and January 20, 2005 (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit sought to recover on behalf of investors who bought the Company’s subordinated notes pursuant to materially false and misleading prospectuses and registration statements, which violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that, at the end of 2004, the Company stopped paying principal and interest on maturity and stopped honoring checks written on ABFS money market accounts. On December 23, 2004, the Company issued a press release stating that it was unable to make any payments on its notes as they became due and, on January 21, 2005, the Company announced that it had filed for bankruptcy protection.
On March 30, 2005, the various cases against ABFS were consolidated and lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed. Following further investigation by lead counsel, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on November 16, 2005. On February 16, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and, on April 3, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted their opposition. On January 9, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. On October 1, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion For Class Certification, which was granted by the Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. The Class consists of persons who purchased or rolled over ABFS Notes between January 18, 2002 and January 20, 2005. On April 4, 2008, the Court directed Plaintiffs to issue notice to Class members regarding the pendency of the action as a class action.
On September 19, 2008, Judge O’Neill granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of a proposed settlement.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On September 20, 2006, SFMS obtained preliminary approval of a settlement of a class action against Apple Computer, Inc. (“Apple”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that the inverter board of Apple’s 17-inch LCD Studio Display monitor (“Display”) was faulty, resulting in the gradient dimming of the top or bottom half of the screen of the Display and a power light constantly blinking on and off in a short-short-long pattern to signal a problem, as well as alleged misrepresentations by Apple regarding the Display. Under the terms of the settlement, class members received the opportunity to be reimbursed in the form of certain cash refunds as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement.
The Honorable Carl J. West entered the order granting, among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action suit (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Preliminary Approval Order” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order.
This Settlement Agreement provided for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the provision, by first class mail, of Class Notice (which provided general information regarding the proposed settlement). In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: Scott R. Shepherd (877-891-9880; sshepherd@sfmslaw.com).
Summary of Case and Settlement: On January 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie presiding, preliminarily approved a settlement in a securities class action, which was filed on behalf of a number of Plaintiffs against Defendant, Arotech Corporation.
For information regarding the settlement, please click on the Notice link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has settled a class action against B.J.’s Wholesale Club (“B.J.’s”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, alleging that B.J.’s failed to disclose surcharges on pre-paid telephone cards that were sold on the premises of certain B.J.’s clubs, in violation of New Jersey law. Under the terms of the settlement, class members were eligible to receive a phone card with 150 pre-paid minutes of calling time.
On November 9, 2005, The Honorable Charles W. Dortch, Jr. entered an order granting, among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order.
The Preliminary Approval Order provided for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the publication of a Class Notice (which provided general information regarding the proposed settlement).
On January 25, 2006, after a Fairness Hearing, Judge Dortch entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement in all respects. To download a copy of the Final Approval Order, please click on the appropriate link below.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “Contact Us For More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on January 7, 2010, the District of New Jersey, the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden presiding, preliminarily approved a settlement in a consumer class action which was filed on behalf of a number of plaintiffs against Defendants, BMW of North America, LLC, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC and Bridgestone Corporation. The litigation involved allegations that certain Turanza Tires equipped on BMW 3 Series vehicles were defective.
For information regarding the settlement, please click on the Class Notice link below. Claim Forms are available through the link below under Settlement Information and must be postmarked by no later than November 8, 2010. More information on the settlement may be obtained by calling 877-571-8674.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On November 21, 2003, the Court consolidated the various cases against Check Point Software and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. Due to further investigation by Plaintiff’s counsel, an Amended Complaint was filed on January 14, 2004. In March 2004, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff submitted its response. The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, with leave for Plaintiff to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted an Amended Complaint on April 27, 2005. On September 2, 2005, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and, in October of 2005, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion. On April 26, 2006, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. In May 2006, a case management plan was approved by the Court, allowing until December 15, 2006 to complete fact discovery, with expert discovery to be completed three months after the close of fact discovery. A status conference was held on October 4, 2006, and discovery was stayed.
A settlement conference was held November 9, 2006, and the final approval hearing for the settlement took place in June 2007 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 29, 2007, the Court issued a Final Judgment and Order settling this action.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James E. Miller (866-540-5505; jmiller@sfmslaw.com).
Summary of Case and Settlement: On January 22, 2009, The Honorable Carl West, of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, entered an Order granting preliminary approval (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) of a settlement in a class action against Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (“Citibank”) regarding claims arising from Citibank’s marketing, distribution and issuance of a Ford/Citibank “co-branded” credit card (the “Card”) from February 1993 through December 31, 1997. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that certain Card holders were not provided the opportunity to earn the maximum number of rebates over a five-year period that could be applied to the purchase of a new Ford vehicle (the “Ford Rebate Program”) when the Ford Rebate Program was terminated in 1997. Citibank denies all of the allegations made in the Complaint, denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and has asserted numerous defenses as to both liability and damages. Nevertheless, Citibank agreed to settle the case for the purpose of avoiding the burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continuing the case.
Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order. You should read the Class Notice carefully to understand the benefits conferred by this settlement by clicking on the “Class Notice” link below. In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit. Finally, if you would like to review or complete a Claim Form that must be completed and submitted in compliance with the accompanying instructions, please click on the “Claim Form” link below.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Co- Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “Contact Us For More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit relating to Dannon’s advertising for Activia® and DanActive® branded products (“Products”) and their benefits from “probiotic” bacteria. The lawsuit claimed that the advertising was not true. Dannon stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong; however, Dannon has settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.
A federal Court authorized this notice. Persons were Class members if they purchased, not for resale purposes, the Products in the United States at anytime up until April 23, 2010. Class members are eligible to receive up to $100.
A $35,000,000 fund, and possibly up to $45,000,000, has been created to reimburse Class members for the Products they purchased, and to pay related expenses.
To ask for cash and remain in the Class, Class members had to mail or submit a completed claim form online by October 1, 2010. Requests for exclusion had to be filed by May 24, 2010, and Class members wishing to remain in the Class but objecting to the settlement had to do so by May 24, 2010. Visit the website for important information about these options.
The Court held a hearing on June 23, 2010 to consider the settlement and Class Counsel’s request for $10,000,000 in attorneys’ fees, plus expenses.
Summary of Case and Settlement: In November 2006, the parties jointly filed a stipulation to settle this case and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on December 5, 2006. Class notice was mailed by lead plaintiff to class members. On March 9, 2007, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact counsel at the following telephone number and email address: James E. Miller (866-540-5505; jmiller@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has obtained final approval of a settlement in a class action against Excel Title, LLC (“Excel”) in the Circuit Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The action alleged that Excel collected certain fees at settlements from consumers but did not perform the corresponding service, in violation of Minnesota law. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed were eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected. In addition, Excel agreed to modify its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On December 12, 2006, The Honorable Francis J. Connolly entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement of this class action suit (the “Final Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Final Approval Order. In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS and its co-counsel have settled a class action against FARO Technologies, Inc. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleged that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by repeatedly issuing false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Under the terms of the settlement, Class members were entitled to a pro-rata share of the cash settlement based upon the number of eligible shares of common stock and/or other publicly-traded securities that a Class member purchased or otherwise acquired and the timing of the purchases and any sales.
On October 3, 2008, the Honorable Anne C. Conway presiding, entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement of this class action suit (the “Final Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Final Approval Order. In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the settlement of this class action suit.
The deadline to submit claims in this matter was October 30, 2008.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James E. Miller (866-540-5505; jmiller@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has settled a class action against Fidelity National Title Company’s Congress Title Division (“Fidelity”) in Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action alleged that Fidelity collected certain fees at settlements from consumers and did not perform the corresponding service, in violation of New Jersey law. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed were eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected. In addition, Fidelity agreed to modify its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On December 21, 2004, The Honorable Martin A. Herman entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement of this class action suit. The parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below, and provides even more detail about the terms of the settlement of this class action suit.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com), or click on the “More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS served as one of class counsel for a certified national settlement class of Fleet credit cardholders who alleged that Fleet violated federal Truth in Lending laws and Rhode Island statutory and common laws when it changed “fixed” APRs after soliciting cardholders to make balance transfers at “fixed” APRs. On November 22, 2004, the court granted final approval to the settlement, valued in excess of $4 million. More than 200,000 class members submitted claims and received distributions from the settlement.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS obtained final approval of settlements in class actions filed against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) on behalf of owners and lessees of certain Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car automobiles (“Vehicles”) registered in the states of Connecticut and Wisconsin. The cases are entitled Annelli v. Ford Motor Company, CV-04-4001345-S (Superior Court of Connecticut, and Cuellar and McVicker v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 04-CV-009309 (Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) (“Wisconsin Action”) (collectively “Lawsuits”).
In February 2008, after extensive negotiations, the parties entered into a stipulation to settle the Lawsuits. Pursuant to the settlement, Ford offered the TSB Repair free of charge to all settlement class members (i.e., 1992-2001 owners and lessees of the Vehicles) who chose to have the TSB Repair performed at a Ford authorized dealer. The Upgrade Program Repair continues to be available to class members and others who choose to pay for this option. To view the parties’ Settlement Agreement, please click on the “Settlement Agreement” link below.
On July 8, 2008, The Honorable Robert C. Leuba of the Superior Court of Connecticut, entered an Order granting final approval of the Connecticut Action (the “Connecticut Final Approval Order”). Please click on the link below to view a copy of the Connecticut Final Approval Order.
On July 9, 2008, The Honorable David A. Hansher of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, entered an Order granting final approval of the Wisconsin Action (the “Wisconsin Final Approval Order”). Please click on the link below to view a copy of the Wisconsin Final Approval Order.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has settled a class action against Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc. (“Fujitsu”) and certain other companies arising from, among other things, the marketing and sale of the MPG3xx and MPF3xxx-AH series of Fujitsu 3.5-inch hard disk drives.
The Preliminary Approval Order provides for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the publication of a Class Notice (which provides general information regarding the proposed settlement). You should read the Class Notice carefully to understand the benefits conferred by this settlement. The Class Notice is available below under “Settlement Information.” In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the appropriate link below under “Settlement Information” and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit. Finally, if you would like to review or complete a Claim Form that must be completed and submitted in compliance with the accompanying instructions, please click on the link below to contact us.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com), or click on the link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On December 12, 2008, The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased, not for resale, one of the notebook computers in the United States (“Class”). The notebook computers are defined as the Gateway CX210X, CX210S, M285E, M285G or M7225C, as well as the Gateway M7309H, M153XL and DX42X, model notebook computers (“Notebook(s)” or “Notebook Computer(s)”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order. Under the terms of the settlement, Class members who were unable to utilize the Notebook Computers in the manner that they intended because they were unable to obtain use of four gigabytes (“GB”) of random access memory (“RAM”) were entitled to return their Notebooks and obtain full reimbursement of the price paid for the Notebooks and any RAM purchased to upgrade the Notebooks (up to $2,700 per Notebook), which maximum recovery was based upon the highest amount that Class members generally paid for a Notebook Computer ($2,500) and the highest amount that consumers reasonably should have paid for extra RAM ($200) to upgrade to four GB of RAM. The settlement also provided that Class members who purchased RAM to upgrade their Notebook to four GB of RAM, but who did not choose to return their Notebook Computer for refund (or otherwise did not qualify for the refund option), received reimbursement for 50 percent of the amount that they paid to upgrade to four GB of RAM (up to a maximum recovery of $100), based upon the fact that the Notebook Computers indisputably could access at least three GB of RAM and based upon the maximum amount that consumers reasonably should have paid for two GB of extra RAM ($200) during the pertinent time period. Finally, the settlement provided that Class members who chose not to seek relief under either of the first two categories (or otherwise did not qualify for relief) received one of five items free of charge from Gateway.
The Preliminary Approval Order provided for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of the Class by requiring the publication and dissemination (by e-mail and first class mail) of a Class Notice (which provided general information regarding the proposed settlement). Notice and Proof of Claim Forms were sent via e-mail or first class mail to the Class prior to January 8, 2009. Copies of the Class Notice and Claim Form are available to download by clicking on the appropriate links below under Settlement Information. Please be advised that the deadline to submit the Claim Form was April 13, 2009. Final approval of the settlement was granted by the Court on August 25, 2009.
If you have questions concerning the settlement, please contact James E. Miller (866-540-5505; jmiller@sfmslaw.com) or Nathan Zipperian (877-891-9880; nzipperian@sfmslaw.com).
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that the Superior Court of Connecticut has preliminarily approved a Settlement in a class action lawsuit that SFMS brought on behalf of original end-user purchasers of GeoDeck TM decking products manufactured between April 2002 and October 2003 inclusive that purchased and installed the GeoDeck decking product prior to October 1, 2007 at an identified property.
For more information about the terms of the Settlement and to obtain a Claim Form, please access the Settlement Administrator’s website at www.compositesdesdeckingsettlement.com or please call the Telephone Assistance Program at 888-624-6711.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS, along with co-counsel, obtained final approval of a class action settlement against Hartford Life Insurance Company (“Hartford Life”) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-1835 (AVC).
The Complaint alleged that The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Hartford Life and Neuberger Berman Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) entered into revenue sharing agreements and arrangements with various mutual funds, as well as between themselves, pursuant to which Defendants received payments for their own benefit, in violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, et seq.
For purposes of the settlement, the Court certified a “Monetary Relief Class” consisting of all current and former trustees, sponsors, fiduciaries, and administrators of employee pension benefit plans covered by ERISA subject to Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Sections 401a or 401k for which employee pension benefit plans Hartford Life has acted as a service provider at any time from November 14, 2003 through March 1, 2010. The Court further certified a “Structural Changes Class” consisting of all trustees, sponsors, fiduciaries, and administrators of employee pension benefit plans covered by ERISA and subject to IRC Sections 401a and 401k for which employee pension benefit plans Hartford Life acts as a service provider on March 1, 2010 and all trustees, sponsors, fiduciaries, and administrators of employee pension benefit plans covered by ERISA subject to IRC 401a or 401k for which employee pension benefit plans Hartford Life acts as a service provider after March 1, 2010.
The deadline for submission of claims was June 29, 2010.
For information on the settlement, please click on the links below Settlement Information.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS, along with co-counsel, filed a class action complaint against H&R Block, Inc., H&R Block Group, Inc., H&R Block Services, Inc., H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., H&R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc., H&R Block Eastern Tax Company, LLC, H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., and H&R Block Eastern Support Services, LLC (collectively “Block”) in 2002 in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The case, captioned McNulty and Erzar v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 02-cv-4654, alleged that Block violated Pennsylvania state law, and its duties to Class members, when it electronically filed their tax returns and charged them for the electronic filing. The Class included all individuals who had their personal tax returns prepared at an H&R Block-branded, company-owned location in Pennsylvania and incurred a fee for the electronic filing of their tax returns at an H&R Block-branded, company-owned location during the period between August 31, 1996 to June 27, 2008.
After negotiation, the parties entered into a stipulation to settle this matter on June 13, 2008. To view the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate link below under Settlement Information. Following a hearing on June 27, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The Final Approval Hearing took place September 22, 2008, and the deadline to submit Claim Forms to the Claims Administrator was November 21, 2008.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On February 6, 2009, SFMS, along with co-counsel, filed a class action complaint (“Complaint”) on behalf of Plaintiff, Lone Summit Bank (“Plaintiff”), against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (“Heartland” or “Defendant”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Complaint alleges violations of state laws of negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contracts on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated banks, credit unions, savings and loans, and other financial institutions that issued Visa, MasterCard, American Express and/or Discover branded credit and/or debit cards from which data was compromised or stolen from Heartland’s payment processing network and that have had (or will have) to reissue one or more such cards as a direct result of the Heartland data breach. This case was transferred to the Southern District of Texas pursuant to the Multi-District Litigation Panel on June 20, 2009 and Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss in October, 2009.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in this matter in March, 2010. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement and notice has been sent to the class. The final approval hearing took place on December 10, 2010 and the deadline to submit claims is August 1, 2011. For more information on the settlement, please visit the settlement website, www.hpscardholdersettlement.com.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On February 14, 2011, the Court approved the settlement of this action. The Settlement Class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. common stock during the period February 18, 2009 through and including December 1, 2009.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has obtained final approval of a settled a class action against Home Closing Services, Inc., (“Home Closing”) in Circuit Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that Home Closing collected certain fees at settlements from consumers, but did not perform the corresponding service, in violation of Minnesota law. Under the terms of the settlement, all Class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed were eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected. In addition, Home Closing agreed to modify its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On May 17, 2006, The Honorable Heidi S. Schellhas entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement. The parties’ Class Notice and Settlement Agreement are available for review by clicking on the respective links below and provide even more detail about the terms of the settlement. The deadline to submit a Claim Form was June 8, 2006.
Summary of Case and Settlement: This class action complaint (“Complaint”) was filed against S.P. Carpet Pros, Inc. (“Carpet Pros”) and Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Home Depot”) in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, Civil Action No. CGC-05-446984. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are carpet installers who were improperly classified as independent contractors while in the employ of Carpet Pros and Home Depot, thereby resulting in the wrongful denial of overtime compensation, compensation for meal periods and rest breaks and reimbursement for expenses related to their employment.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and a hearing took place on June 23, 2010. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 28, 2010. On September 20, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and a hearing occurred on September 29, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the Court approved the settlement in this matter.
For more information on this settlement, please contact Nathan Zipperian at nzipperian@sfmslaw.com or 866-844-7545.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on January 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Honorable Roger W. Titus presiding, preliminarily approved a nationwide settlement in a consumer class action, which was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs from various states against Defendants, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) and Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”). The litigation involved the marketing and sale of certain Honda and Acura vehicles equipped with Run-Flat Tires (“Vehicles”). The settlement was negotiated over a number of months with the assistance of a nationally recognized mediator on behalf of Plaintiffs in all of the pending cases and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class with Honda and Michelin.
On June 23, 2009, the Honorable Roger W. Titus entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement (the “Final Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Final Approval Order. The deadline to submit a Claim Form and Release in the settlement was January 20, 2010.
If you have questions concerning the settlement, please contact Betsy Ferling-Hitriz (866-540-5505; bferling@sfmslaw.com) or James E. Miller (866-540-5505; jmiller@sfmslaw.com).
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS filed the first of several class action lawsuits against Host America Corp. (“Host America” or “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors on August 8, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and, specifically, that the Company’s July 12, 2005 Form 8-K and press release were false and misleading. The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Host America securities between July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005. The Complaint also alleged that, contrary to certain representations by Defendants, “Wal-Mart was not a customer of the Company’s in connection to purchasing the LightMasterPlus . . . Wal-Mart had made no commitment to purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside of the test installation” and, therefore, Defendants had no basis for stating that the test installation was a “first-phase roll-out,” that “the next phase will involve a significant number of stores,” or that the purported installation was a “major event for our company.” On August 31, 2005, Host America issued a press release updating investors about the ongoing investigation into its July 12, 2005 notice. In the press release, Host America informed investors that the Company “never had a written agreement” or “any agreement for the installation of LightMasterPlus” with Wal-Mart and that nearly two months after its announcement on July 12, 2005, “neither Host nor its wholly-owned energy management subsidiary R.S. Services, Inc. has received from Wal-Mart a list of the 10 stores to be surveyed.” In reaction to this announcement, the price of the Company’s common stock closed on September 1, 2005, down $10.54 per share, or more than 73 percent (73%).
On October 7, 2005, a number of class members and groups of class members moved for appointment of lead plaintiff. The briefing regarding the appointment of the lead plaintiff was completed on November 14, 2005. On April 11, 2006, Carolantic Partners, LLC was appointed as lead plaintiff. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed by the appointed lead counsel on June 22, 2006. A Pre-Motion Conference was held on October 6, 2006, for purposes of discussing the filing of Defendant Roger Lockhart’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Following the Pre-Motion Conference, Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on January 5, 2007. Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 12, 2007. Host America, as well as individual defendants, moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed its response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in April 2007.
A stipulation and agreement of partial settlement was filed with the Court on May 22, 2007. The agreement in principle to settle this action does not include claims asserted against Defendant Roger Lockhart. To view or download the Notice of Pendency of the Proposed Settlement, please click on the link below. A settlement fairness hearing took place on January 28, 2008 and the deadline to submit Proof of Claim Forms was February 20, 2008. To view or download a Proof of Claim Form, please click on the link below. Or, if you prefer, please feel free to visit the Host America settlement website, www.HostSettlement.com. The Court is currently considering a Motion for Settlement as between lead plaintiffs and defendant Roger Lockhart.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on April 18, 2011, the Superior Court for the State of California (Orange County), the Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock presiding, preliminarily approved a nationwide settlement in a consumer class action, which was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs from various states against Defendant, Idea Village Products Corp. (“Idea Village”). The litigation involved the marketing and sale of Kinoki Food Pads from retail stores (such as Wal-Mart). The settlement was negotiated over a number of months with the assistance of a mediator on behalf of Plaintiffs and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class with IV.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On December 30, 2005, the Court appointed the Immucor Investor’s Group (consisting of West Virginia Laborers’ Pension Trust, Penny Reno, Pedro Simoes and Marlin Cobb) as Lead Plaintiff and, on February 2, 2006, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) against Immucor, Edward L. Gallop, Gioacchino De Chirico and Steven C. Ramsey. The CAC was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Immucor securities between August 16, 2004 and August 29, 2005. On March 7, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the CAC, Lead Plaintiff filed a response and, on October 4, 2006, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss. On October 19, 2006, Defendants answered the CAC and Plaintiff moved to certify the class on January 22, 2007. During a conference with the Court, the parties informed the Court that a settlement in this matter has been reached. The parties submitted their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on May 14, 2007 and, on May 18, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Class notice has been mailed to class members.
For more information on the settlement, please contact James E. Miller (866-540-5505; jmiller@sfmslaw.com).
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS filed class actions against Menu Foods, Inc., Menu Foods Income Fund, Menu Foods Holdings, Inc., Menu Foods Midwest Corporation, Chemnutra Inc., Chemnutra LLC, Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company Inc., and Suzhou Textile Import and Export Company (“Defendants”) in April 2007 in the United States District Courts for the Districts of New Jersey and Florida. The complaints alleged claims on behalf of consumers who purchased pet food products manufactured by Defendants for their pets, which caused pets to suffer illness and, in some cases, death. The complaints alleged claims for negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty.
The Food and Drug Administration, in conjunction with Menu Foods, announced a massive recall of pet food throughout the United States on March 16, 2007. The recall covered all “cuts and gravy” wet pet food produced and distributed by Menu Foods, including dozens of brands such as Iams, Eukanuba, Best Choice, Paws, and Nutro Max. A list of affected brands can be found at Menu Foods website, www.menufoods.com/recall. A copy of the recall notice and additional information can be found at www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01590.html. After lawsuits were filed throughout the country, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all related cases transferred to the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Thereafter, on May 24, 2007, in response to reports that certain Defendants or their customers were improperly communicating with consumers, the Court prohibited Menu Foods from having any direct contact with pet owners.
After negotiation, the parties entered into a stipulation to settle this matter on May 22, 2008. Following a hearing on May 30, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. The Final Approval Hearing took place on October 14, 2008. Through this website, you can view a list of the recalled products, the Class Notice, the Preliminary Order approving the Settlement, Claim Form, and the Settlement Agreement. The deadline to submit a Claim Form was November 24, 2008.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On June 16, 2006, The Honorable Richard Sankovitz entered an Order granting preliminary approval of a class of all individuals and entities who from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2005, paid to place Run of Press advertisements in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order. Under the terms of the settlement, commercial and private party advertisers are eligible to receive various forms of relief.
The Preliminary Approval Order provides for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the publication of a Class Notice (which provides general information regarding the proposed settlement). You should read the Class Notice carefully to understand the benefits conferred by this settlement by clicking on the “Class Notice” link below. In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit. If you would like to review or complete a Claim Form that must be completed and submitted in compliance with the accompanying instructions, please click on the “Claim Form” link below. Final approval of the parties’ settlement was granted on September 29, 2006. To view the Final Approval Order, please click on the “Final Approval Order” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: Preliminary approval of a settlement of a class action against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (KKD) has been obtained in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
On November 15, 2006, the Honorable William L. Osteen, Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, entered an Order granting, among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action.
The Settlement Agreement provided for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the provision, by first class mail, of Class Notice (which provides general information regarding the proposed settlement). According to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order and the Class Notice, Settlement Class members wishing to participate in the settlement were required to complete and submit Proof of Claim Forms by no later than March 5, 2007. Any requests for exclusion and/or objections to the settlement were due by January 16, 2007.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has obtained final approval of a settlement in a class action against Land Title Services, Inc. (“Land Title”) in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, alleging that Land Title collected certain fees at settlements from consumers and did not perform the corresponding service in violation of Wisconsin law. Land Title denies the allegations, but has agreed to resolve the case. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed are eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected. In addition, Land Title has agreed to modify its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On December 17, 2007, The Honorable Jean W. DiMotto of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement of this class action suit.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS served as one of class counsel for a certified national class of all persons who purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation during the period between April 22, 2003 and April 19, 2004. Plaintiffs had brought claims against Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and certain of its officers and directors in September 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Oregon, alleging violations for the federal securities laws. On November 6, 2006, the Court granted final approval to the settlement valued in excess of $3.5 million.
Summary of Case and Settlement: A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving certain Philips and Magnavox plasma televisions that were sold in the United States. The lawsuit claims that Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Philips”) violated the law by making, marketing and selling flat screen televisions containing a defect that causes them to prematurely fail and become inoperable.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS filed a class action lawsuit against Majesco Entertainment Company (“Majesco” or “Company”) and certain of its officers and directors in July 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Majesco securities between December 8, 2004 and July 12, 2005 (the “Class Period”). The Complaint alleged that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the diversification of Majesco’s product line and stated that the Company’s revenue and income would significantly increase in fiscal year 2005. Unbeknownst to investors, Majesco’s claimed increase in revenue and income was unreasonable because it would disproportionally depend on the success of just one of its video games, and on the Company’s continued improper accounting for development costs.
The truth began to emerge on July 12, 2005, when Majesco issued a press release after the market closed announcing a dramatic reduction in its anticipated 2005 results. Rather than the expected net revenues of $175-$185 million and income of $16-$18 million, the Company now stated it expected a loss of $16-$19 million on revenues that would be at least $50 million lower than previously announced. Majesco also announced that, after less than a year, Yankowski had resigned as CEO and Chasen had been removed as CFO. On this news, the price of Majesco stock dropped drastically, falling 48%, from $6.89 per share on July 12, 2005 to $3.56 per share on July 13, 2005.
On October 12, 2005, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, Diker M&S Cap Master Ltd., and lead counsel. Due to further investigation by Plaintiff’s counsel, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on December 14, 2005. The Class Period was modified to December 8, 2004 through September 12, 2005. In February 2006, Defendants filed various motions to dismiss this action. Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motions and on September 29, 2006, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Consolidated Complaint on November 29, 2006 and Plaintiff’s class certification was filed on November 30, 2006. On January 12, 2007, the Court stayed all proceedings in this matter through May 11, 2007. In June of 2007, the Court issued an order setting a discovery schedule in this matter. A settlement conference was held on September 4, 2007 with Lead Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel, Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLP. The Court ordered that discovery could proceed in this matter. The Court held a further settlement conference on November 7, 2007. A scheduling conference occurred on January 23, 2008 and a discovery deadline was set for June 20, 2008. Further, a briefing schedule was established for Plaintiff to resubmit its brief in support of class certification. On February 11, 2008, the Court issued an order staying all discovery as well as the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Settlement on March 25, 2008, which was approved by the Court of April 9, 2008. A final approval hearing was held on February 6, 2009 before the Court. On February 24, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and authorized disbursement of the settlement funds on April 29, 2009.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On November 29, 2006, SFMS obtained preliminary approval of a settlement of a class action against Medical Staffing Network, Inc. (“MSN”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleged that MSN’s Health and Welfare Plan (“Plan”) failed to provide proper notice pursuant to the requirements of the Comprehensive Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161, et seq. (“COBRA”), resulting in class members unwittingly suffering a gap in coverage and a concomitant denial of certain health benefits. Under the terms of the settlement, class members received (1) the opportunity to be reimbursed for certain claims that were denied as a result of a gap in coverage, (2) the opportunity to receive payment of statutory damages; and (3) the benefit of a change in MSN’s practice with respect to the dissemination of COBRA notices related to gaps in coverage to ensure that all future gaps in coverage are timely made known to Plan participants. Please click on the link below under “Preliminary Approval Order” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order.
On February 28, 2007, after a Fairness Hearing, The Hon. Daniel T. K. Hurley granted final approval to the settlement in all respects. In approving the settlement, Judge Hurley called the case a “tremendously important lawsuit” and commended the “outstanding job” done by SFMS lawyers Douglas Dehler, James Shah and Scott Shepherd. To download a copy of the Final Approval Order, please click on the appropriate link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On February 17, 2009, The Honorable Alfred V. Covello of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut entered an Order granting preliminary approval of a partial class action settlement on behalf of all persons or entities that are administrators of 401k Plans, which engaged Hartford Life Insurance Company as a full-service provider to design, implement, administer and/or assist in administering their 401k Plans for which, at any time since November 14, 2003, Neuberger Berman Management has served as an investment advisor. The partial settlement provides for payment to this class of 575 administrators of $225,000, less any attorneys’ fees and costs approved by the Court.
The Preliminary Approval Order provides for notice of the proposed settlement to members of the class by requiring the dissemination (by e-mail and first class mail) of a Class Notice (which provides general information regarding the proposed settlement). Please be advised that the deadline to object to the settlement was April 30, 2009. Final approval of the Settlement was granted by the Court on July 17, 2009.
The parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Download Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on July 28, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Honorable Roger W. Titus presiding, preliminarily approved a nationwide settlement in a consumer class action, which was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs from various states against Defendants, Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) and Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”). The litigation involved the marketing and sale of certain Nissan vehicles equipped with Run-Flat Tires (“Vehicles”). The settlement was negotiated over a number of months with the assistance of a mediator on behalf of Plaintiffs and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class with Nissan and Michelin.
If you have questions concerning the settlement, please contact Laurie Rubinow, Attorney (866-540-5505 Ext. 208; lrubinow@sfmslaw.com) or Betsy Ferling-Hitriz, Legal Assistant (866-540-5505 Ext. 204; bferling@sfmslaw.com).
Summary of Case and Settlement: Final approval has been obtained in a settled class action, entitled In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 06-826, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Defendants violated the federal antitrust laws by engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices for oriented strand board in the United States. SFMS was one of the class counsel working on the case. Under the terms of the settlement, Class members were entitled to a pro-rata share of the dollar value of the appropriate settlements. Membership in the Classes was determined by the type of OSB product the Claimant purchased and the date of purchase.
The deadline to submit claims in this matter was December 1, 2008.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Natalie Finkelman Bennett (877-891-9880; nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “Contact Us For More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has settled a class action against Palm, Inc. arising from, among other things, the marketing and sale of the m515 Handhelds that allegedly experienced problems as a result of electro-static discharge events.
On November 9, 2005, The Honorable Jack Komar, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entered an Order granting, among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action suit (the “Preliminary Approval Order”). Please click on the link below under “Settlement Information” to view a copy of the Preliminary Approval Order.
The Preliminary Approval Order provides for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the publication of a Class Notice (which provides general information regarding the proposed settlement). You should read the Class Notice carefully to understand the benefits conferred by this settlement by clicking on the “Class Notice” link below. In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit. Finally, if you would like to review or complete a Claim Form that must be completed and submitted in compliance with the accompanying instructions, please click on the “Claim Form” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit relating to Reebok’s advertising for EasyTone shoes and apparel and their claimed benefits of extra strength, calorie burning and muscle tone.
Under the proposed settlement, a $25,000,000 fund has been created to provide cash refunds to Class Members. Further, Reebok will change its advertisements as part of the settlement and as part of a consent decree between Reebok and the Federal Trade Commission.
If you purchased certain Reebok products from December 5, 2008, through the date of the first mailing of the class notice, you may be entitled to receive cash refunds. The Reebok products include, EasyTone Easy Tone Flip, RunTone, TrainTone, JumpTone, SimplyTone, SlimTone, EasyTone Capri EasyTone Pants, EasyTone Shorts, EasyTone Long Bra Top, EasyTone Sleeveless Shirt, and EasyTone Short Sleeve Top. If you are a Class Member and submit a valid Claim Form, you could receive $50 per pair of eligible shoes, $40 for EasyTone pants and capris, and $25 for other EasyTone apparel. Depending upon the available funds, these amounts could be reduced or they could be increased up to double.
In order to receive a cash refund, you must submit a Claim Form either electronically or via first class mail. The claim form must be sent electronically or postmarked by April 10, 2012.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS served as Lead Counsel of a litigated nationwide class (except in California) of plaintiffs asserting claims against Rexall Sundown for violations of state and federal laws against unfair competition and false advertising in connection with Rexall’s distribution and sales of Cellasene to consumers nationwide. Cellasene was marketed to consumers who wanted to reduce or eliminate cellulite, and the product was sold in drug stores, grocery stores and other retail locations throughout the United States. Rexall agreed to pay up to $12 million into a Consumer Redress Fund to pay refunds. Consumers who purchased Cellasene received refunds of $30 per box of Cellasene, up to a total of $240 (eight boxes).
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on October 2 2009, the Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable Charles R. Norgle presiding, preliminarily approved a settlement in a securities class action which was filed on behalf of Co- Lead Plaintiffs, City of Boca Raton General Employees’ Pension Plan and Central Laborers’ Pension Fund against Defendants, Sara Lee Company (“Sara Lee”) and various officers and directors. The litigation involved allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly misstating or omitting material adverse facts regarding Sara Lee’s business, operations and management and the value of Sara Lee common stock, which allegedly enabled Sara Lee to complete securities offerings, and allegedly enabled the individual defendants to sell their personally-held shares to the public. The Court preliminarily approved the parties’ Settlement Agreement dated September 29, 2009.
For settlement purposes, the Court preliminarily certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Sara Lee common stock during the time period August 1, 2002 through and including April 24, 2003, excluding the Defendants, the officers and directors of Sara Lee, and members of their immediate families, any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. For a copy of the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate links below. To view a copy of the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate link below under “Settlement Information.” A final approval was scheduled for January 26, 2010 before the Court. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than February 25, 2010.
Summary of Case and Settlement: Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC is pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached to settle the Shape Up! Litigation, currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC 312830), against Philip C. McGraw and CSA Nutraceuticals, GP, LLC. The Shape Up! products, which are no longer distributed or sold, include the Shape Up! Apple, Pear, and Intensifier supplements and the Shape Up! meal replacement products, including bars, shakes, and ready-to-drink mixes.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made material misrepresentations and false claims based on certain marketing, promotional and advertising materials concerning Shape Up! products. The Defendants’ position is that the Shape Up! products were accurately described, that Defendants acted properly, and that McGraw did not receive any money from the sale of the products as his endorsement fee was paid directly to charity.
The Court did not reach any decision regarding the case. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, a settlement fluid recovery fund will be established consisting of $6 million of Nutrilite® Daily Multivitamin Multimineral, 6-month supply, and $4.5 million in cash, out of which all costs and attorneys fees will be paid. All of the contents of the fund will be distributed. McGraw will have no personal obligation to contribute to the Fund.
The agreement provides benefits to people who can establish, by affidavit or proof of purchase, that they bought Shape Up! supplements on or before July 1, 2006. The agreement will also provide benefits to certain charitable organizations. These charities are to be selected by the parties and approved by the Court.
The four-page Class Notice contains important information concerning the proposed settlement and the rights of Class members, including instructions for determining your eligibility and how to file a claim. The Notice is available at Shape Up Settlement.
If you are a Class member and want to participate in the settlement, you must file a valid Claim Form postmarked no later than January 22, 2007. The Claim Form is available at Shape Up Settlement. The deadline to request exclusion from the Settlement Class is November 28, 2006. The deadline to comment in support of or in opposition to the settlement is November 28, 2006. A final approval hearing was held on December 15, 2006 and the Court granted approval of the settlement.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on November 30, 2009, the Superior Court of California, the Honorable Aurelio Munoz presiding, preliminarily approved a settlement in a consumer class action which was filed on behalf of Plaintiff, Lawrence Sypher against Defendant, Soleus International Inc. (“Soleus”). The litigation involved alleged misrepresentations concerning information in the marketing, advertising and sale of portable air conditioners using evaporative technology. Soleus has denied all claims alleged in this litigation.
After negotiation before a mediator and subsequent continued negotiation between the parties, the parties reached a settlement in this matter. The parties submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and the Court preliminarily approved the parties’ Settlement Agreement dated September 21, 2009.
For settlement purposes, the Court preliminarily certified a class consisting of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased Soleus Portable Air Conditioners (including the KY, LX, PE or PH series), which were advertised as using Evaporative Technology, on or before October 20, 2009. For a copy of the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate links below. A final approval hearing was scheduled for August 19, 2010 before the Court. The deadline to submit Claim forms was June 1, 2010.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on October 15, 2009, the Superior Court of California, the Honorable Luis R. Vargas presiding, preliminarily approved a settlement in a consumer class action which was filed on behalf of Plaintiff, Martin Hapner against Defendant, Sony Electronics, Inc. (“Sony”). The litigation involved alleged defects in certain Sony VAIO notebooks in the GRX 500 and 600 series. Sony has denied all claims alleged in this litigation.
After negotiation before a mediator and subsequent continued negotiation between the parties, the parties reached a settlement in this matter. The parties submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement dated August 14, 2009.
For settlement purposes, the Court preliminarily certified a class consisting of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased, not for resale, or received as gifts, Sony Vaio GRX notebook computers in the 500 and 600 series (including, PCG-GRX500, PCG-GRX510, PCG-GRX520, PCG-GRX550, PCG-GRX560, PCG-GRX570, PCG-GRX580, PCG-GRX590, PCG-GRX600, PCG-GRX650, PCG-GRX670, and PCG-GRX690). For a copy of the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, please click on the appropriate links below. The final approval hearing was scheduled for February 18, 2010 before the Court. The deadline for submitting Claim Forms was April 3, 2010. Please contact us with any questions concerning the settlement or visit www.esupport.sony.com/vaiogrxsettlement.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has obtained preliminary approval of a class action against Stewart Title of Kansas City, Inc. (“Stewart Title”) in Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence, alleging that Stewart Title collected certain fees at settlements from consumers and did not perform the corresponding service, in violation of Missouri law. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed are eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected, plus an interest equivalent. In addition, Stewart Title agreed to modify its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On March 3, 2006, The Honorable W. Stephen Nixon, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence, entered an Order granting, among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action suit (the “Preliminary Approval Order”).
The Preliminary Approval Order provides for notice of the proposed settlement to potential members of this class by requiring the publication of a Class Notice (which provides general information regarding the proposed settlement). In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit. Finally, if you would like to review or complete a Claim Form that must be completed and submitted in compliance with the accompanying instructions, please contact us.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com) or click on the link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that on December 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Honorable William J. Martini presiding, preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action against Unilever United States, Inc., filed on behalf of purchasers of SuperShots for Blood Pressure. The settlement class consists of all persons who purchased, not for resale, SuperShots for Blood Pressure in the United States, including the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States, and/or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Class members who purchased SuperShots were entitled to receive money back based upon their purchases of SuperShots as outlined in the Class Notice and based upon submission of a valid Claim Form. The deadline to submit Claim Forms was June 18, 2010. On April 19, 2010, the Court granted final approval of this class action settlement.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS filed a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of SupportSoft, Inc. (“SupportSoft”) in December 2005 against SupportSoft Systems, Inc. and various officers and directors in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, and violation of California Corporations Code Section 25402, against Defendants. The action was filed on behalf of SupportSoft, seeking to recover damages resulting from Defendants’ conduct. Specifically, the case alleged that Defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements through press releases and conference calls, and that the statements and omissions were deliberately made to conceal problems in SupportSoft’s business and in order to artificially inflate SupportSoft’s stock price. It was further alleged that Defendants harmed the Company by exposing it to potentially huge liability in a series of class action cases filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by defrauded purchasers of SupportSoft’s stock. Plaintiff in this derivative action sought to recover damages on claims asserted on behalf of SupportSoft.
On November 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in this matter. The Stipulation included key corporate governance changes at SupportSoft, including the hiring of a new Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer; the addition of four new SupportSoft directors, three of whom are independent; reforms concerning the Board of Director responsibilities; Board education and training; reforms concerning auditors and the compensation of executives; and changes to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. To view the Stipulation of Settlement in this matter, please click on the appropriate link below. At the December 3, 2007 hearing, the Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation and Settlement terms contained therein.
The final approval hearing took place on February 11, 2008 and final approval of the derivative settlement was granted on February 15, 2008.
Summary of Case and Settlement: Preliminary approval of a settlement of a class action against Taser International (“Taser”) has been obtained in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
On December 14, 2006, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and scheduled a settlement for March 12, 2007. In addition, the Court’s Order provided that Notice of the settlement was to be distributed by no later than January 3, 2007, and that all objections to the settlement or requests for exclusion were due (in writing) to Lead Plaintiff’s counsel on or before March 5, 2007. The deadline to submit all Proofs of Claim was April 16, 2007. The Court issued final approval of the settlement in the Taser matter on March 19, 2007.
Summary of Case and Settlement: On November 17, 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a settlement on behalf of a class of people who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Toyota Sienna vehicle, model year 2004, 2005, or 2006, produced on or before September 17, 2005, that came factory-equipped with Run-Flat Tires.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has obtained preliminary approval of a class action against U.S. Title Guaranty Company (“U.S. Title”) in Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, alleging that U.S. Title collected certain fees at settlements from consumers and did not always perform the corresponding service, in violation of Missouri law. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed are eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected. In addition, U.S. Title has modified its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On October 15, 2010, The Honorable David L. Dowd of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, entered an Order granting, among other things, preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action suit (the “Preliminary Approval Order”).
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact the settlement administrator at More information on the settlement may be obtained by calling 1-866-233-5699.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS has obtained final approval of a settlement in a class action against Weichert Title Agency (“WTA”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, alleging that WTA collected certain fees at settlements from consumers and did not perform the corresponding service, in violation of New Jersey law. WTA denied the allegations, but was in agreement to resolve the case. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members from whom fees were collected and no service was performed were eligible to receive a full refund of the fees collected, including interest at 10%. In addition, WTA has modified its practice with respect to the imposition, collection and disposition of the fees at issue.
On February 22, 2008, The Honorable Louis R. Meloni of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, Wisconsin, entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement of this class action suit.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, please contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com) or click on the “Contact Us For More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS and the Law Offices of James C. Mentkowski, S.C. have obtained final approval of a class action against Defendant, Timothy J. Brophy, Jr. (“Brophy”), in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. On July 30, 2007 the Honorable David A. Hansher approved the settlement on behalf of residential tenants who rented properties from Brophy between March 30, 2000 to May 15, 2007.
The lawsuit, entitled Wineberg v. Brophy, Case No. 06-CV-003064, was filed in Wisconsin state court on behalf of the following two proposed classes of persons who, from March 30, 2000 to the present (the “Class Period”): (a) paid security deposits or made rent payments to Brophy, during the Class Period for properties owned by Brophy where there were uncorrected housing and building code violations that Brophy failed to disclose; or (b) did not receive from Brophy the return of security deposits that they paid him, or a written explanation of the reasons why any such amounts were being withheld, within twenty-one (21) days (collectively “the Class”).
On January 26, 2007, the Court entered an order determining that this lawsuit was appropriate for class action treatment and certifying these two classes of persons. On March 15, 2007, the Court held a hearing and determined that damages should be awarded to Class members.
Under the settlement, Brophy agreed to make a cash payment in the sum of $300,000 (the “Common Fund”), which was to be used for purposes of paying: (a) a cash payment, on a pro rata basis, to all Class members who timely submitted claim forms; and (b) attorneys’ fees and costs and an incentive award. In addition, pursuant to the settlement, Brophy is prohibited from: (a) renting any properties that have outstanding building code violations, and (b) failing to comply with applicable law regarding the return of security deposits to tenants. Brophy has consented to the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, to enter any necessary contempt findings and to award counsel for any petitioning party reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with obtaining any relief for a violation of the injunction. Furthermore, Brophy must provide new and existing tenants an agreed-upon notice of the tenants’ rights under the statutes and administrative code sections under which this lawsuit was instituted.
You should read the Class Notice carefully to understand the benefits conferred by this settlement by clicking on the “Class Notice” link below. In addition, the parties’ Settlement Agreement is available for review by clicking on the “Settlement Agreement” link below and provides even more detail about the terms of the proposed settlement of this class action suit. Finally, if you would like to review or complete a Claim Form that must be completed and submitted in compliance with the accompanying instructions, please click on the “Claim Form” link below.
If you have any questions regarding this case or the parties’ settlement, you should contact Lead Counsel at the following telephone number and e-mail address: James C. Shah (877-891-9880; jshah@sfmslaw.com) “or click on the “Contact Us For More Information” link below.
Summary of Case and Settlement: SFMS announces that a stipulation and agreement of settlement of this class action was filed with the Court on October 24, 2007, with the Court preliminarily approving the settlement on October 25, 2007. The agreement in principle to settle this action covers all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Xybernaut Corporation on the open market between May 10, 2002 and April 8, 2005. To view or download the Notice of Pendency of the Proposed Class Action and its Settlement, please click on the link to the Xybernaut settlement website below. The deadline for parties to exclude themselves from the settlement or object to the settlement was January 31, 2008. The settlement fairness hearing was set for February 20, 2008 and completed Proof of Claim Forms were due to the settlement administrator on or before February 19, 2008.
If you have any questions regarding the Proof of Claim Form, you may also contact the Claims Administrator by telephone at (888) 633-9346.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.