On May 14, 2012, Judge Otis D. Wright II of the United States District Court for the Cental District of California appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Bates v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-01336-ODW-AJW.

The lawsuit stems from the illegal and deceptive practice of promoting, marketing, distributing and selling of C-4 Extreme, a purported “diet supplement” which, unknown to Plaintiffs and other like consumers, contains a dangerous substance known by many names, including “1,3 Dimethylamylamine,” “Methylhexaneamine,” and “Geranamine” (referred to as “DMAA”).  Defendants, GNC Holdings, Inc., General Nutrition Centers, Inc., Cellucor Sports Nutrition, Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, Woodbolt Distribution, Ltd., Woodbolt Management LLC, and Woodbolt International market and distribute C-4 Extreme as a pre-workout powdered “dietary supplement” when in fact, C-4 Extreme contains the dangerous and synthetic stimulant, DMAA.

Recently, the FDA sent warning letters to multiple manufacturers and distributors of these purported “dietary supplements” that there is no evidence DMAA is safe and that under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, manufacturers, marketers and distributors of dietary supplements are responsible for ensuring that they are marketing a safe product.  The FDA further noted that DMAA is known to narrow the blood vessels and arteries, which can elevate blood pressure and may lead to cardiovascular events ranging from shortness of breath and tightening in the chest to heart attack or even death.

If you have questions regarding this matter or our other investigations of products containing DMAA please contact Antonio Vozzolo at avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330 or Jamie R. Mogil at jmogil@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330.

On April 19, 2012, Judge John A. Mendez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel in Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00125-JAM-JFM, to represent a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased mislabeled KitchenAid refrigerators from Whirlpool Corporation, Best Buy, and other retailers.

The lawsuit alleges that Whirlpool and others misrepresented the energy efficiency of KitchenAid refrigerators by promoting them as ENERGY STAR-qualified and labeling them with the ENERGY STAR logo. In fact, the refrigerators do not meet the ENERGY STAR standards for energy efficiency and consume significantly more energy than the label states.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Antonio Vozzolo at avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330 or Christopher Marlborough at cmarlborough@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330.

On April 4, 2012, District Court Judge Leonard B. Sand of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as sole Lead Counsel in In re China Organic Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:11-cv-08623-LBS.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Richard Gonnello at rgonnello@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330 or Francis McConville at fmcconville@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330.

By Max Stendahl

Law360, New York (March 30, 2012, 12:06 PM ET) -- Dynegy Inc. investors lashed out again Wednesday at the power company’s $1.7 billion prebankruptcy restructuring, alleging in a putative class action in New York that controversy surrounding a coal asset transfer caused “devastating” stock losses.

Shareholder Charles Silsby’s complaint in federal court also targets billionaire investor and major Dynegy equity holder Carl Icahn. Dynegy purchased coal-fired and gas-powered facilities from Dynegy Holdings LLC in September, shortly before placing the holding company into bankruptcy as part of a pact with investors to sort out more than $4 billion in debt.

Dynegy creditors have since pilloried the coal transfer, contending it illegally allowed top shareholders like Icahn to jump ahead of them in bankruptcy court. As part of the transfer, Dynegy received a financial instrument called an undertaking that was later valued at $1.25 billion, a figure the creditors assert was too high.

Two weeks after the transfer, Dynegy’s stock priced in at nearly $6 per share, according to the suit. But on March 9, an examiner tapped by Dynegy Holdings’ bankruptcy judge to probe the transfer issued a scathing report deeming it fraudulent.

News of the report sent Dynegy’s stock tumbling to 76 cents per share, victimizing “unsuspecting” investors like Silsby, according to the complaint.

Public statements Dynegy made after striking the so-called CoalCo deal proved misleading in light of the report's findings, meaning Dynegy stock had been trading at artificially high levels, the suit alleges.

“Throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose that Dynegy’s wholly owned subsidiary fraudulently transferred direct ownership in one of Dynegy’s indirectly owned subsidiaries directly to Dynegy,” the complaint said, referring to CoalCo.

Dynegy CEO Robert C. Flexon and chief financial officer Clint C. Freeland are also named as defendants in the suit, which seeks to represent hundreds of Dynegy stockholders.

Katy Sullivan, a Dynegy representative, declined Friday to comment.

Critics of the coal transfer, including examiner Susheel Kirpalani of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, claim it gave Dynegy valuable assets and the opportunity to use them as a vehicle for exchanging Dynegy Holdings outstanding bonds for structurally senior bonds at a discount.

Dynegy publicly rebuked Kirpalani’s report a week after its release, calling it “an advocacy piece” that attacked the deal without sufficient evidence. The report was based on thousands of hours of interviews with nondebtor parties, but less than eight hours of interviews with top Dynegy executives, the company said in a March 16 court filing.

Dynegy also rebutted claims that Dynegy Holdings was insolvent at the time of the transfer, a major point of contention among disgruntled creditors. The company said the unit then had more than $1 billion in liquidity, about $570 million in market capitalization and a bright financial future.

Dynegy and its creditors are scheduled to meet in bankruptcy court April 4 to provide a progress report on court-ordered mediation overseen by Kirpalani.

Silsby is represented by Richard W. Gonnello, Emily C. Komlossy and Francis P. McConville of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available.

The case is Silsby v. Icahn et al., case number 12-cv-02307, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

--Additional reporting by Lisa Uhlman and Carolina Bolado. Editing by Eydie Cubarrubia.

All Content © 2003-2012, Portfolio Media, Inc.

On March 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as sole lead counsel in In re GLG Life Tech Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:11-cv-09150-BSJ-GWG.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Richard Gonnello at rgonnello@faruqilaw.com, (212) 983-9330 or Francis McConville at fmcconville@faruqilaw.com, (212) 983-9330.

On February 21, 2012, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Interim Class Counsel in Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-CIV-0089 (SRC)(MAS), to represent a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased mislabeled Maytag brand washing machines from Whirlpool Company, Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Sears Holdings Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges that Whirlpool, Lowe’s and Sears misrepresented the energy efficiency of certain washing machines by promoting them as ENERGY STAR-qualified and labeling them with the ENERGY STAR logo. In fact, the washing machines do not meet the ENERGY STAR standards for energy efficiency and consume significantly more energy than the label states.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Antonio Vozzolo at avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330.

By Evan Weinberger

Law360, New York (January 31, 2012, 1:22 PM ET) -- An Eastman Kodak Co. employee on Friday launched a purported class action alleging the bankrupt photography icon's top executives and directors allowed employee benefit plans to invest in the company's stock even as it careened toward its Chapter 11 filing.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Rochester, N.Y., Kodak employee Mark Gedek alleged that the company's President and CEO Antonio M. Perez, Chief Financial Officer Antoinette P. McCorvey, several other top executives and the entire board of directors had breached their fiduciary duties to workers by allowing the Eastman Kodak Employees’ Savings And Investment Plan and the Kodak Employee Stock Ownership Plan to purchase company stock even as they knew it was not a prudent investment.

“Their fiduciary duties notwithstanding, defendants failed to protect the plans’ participants’ retirement savings from being imprudently invested in company stock, and as a result, the plans, and ultimately their participants, suffered losses,” the complaint said. “A prudent fiduciary facing similar circumstances would not have stood idly by as the plans lost tens of millions of dollars.”

Kodak, a onetime photography giant, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Jan. 19 after failing to sell some of its digital patents and stem the ballooning losses that have long plagued the trailblazer. The move came after Kodak's ongoing struggle to right itself in the face of intense competition from new technologies.

The company had been refashioning itself since at least 2008, focusing more on its digital and commercial offerings and winnowing its film and consumer products.

According to the complaint, Perez, McCorvey and the other defendants were in breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because they continued to purchase Kodak stock even as the company's share price, and revenues, plummeted.

Kodak's stock has lost 99 percent of its value since 1999, the complaint said.

The stock, once valued at more than $80 per share, was hovering around the $1 mark as of November 2011. Once a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Kodak shares began trading on the over-the-counter pink sheets in January, just before the bankruptcy filing, the complaint said.

The collapsing stock price did not stop fiduciaries of the two employee benefit plans from investing in the company stock. As of Dec. 30, 2010, the plans held more than $30.2 million in Kodak stock, the complaint said.

The company's executives and directors held more than 4.2 million shares, or well over 1 percent, of the total employee take of Kodak stock, representing a potential conflict of interest, the complaint said.

The complaint lists a proposed class period ranging from Jan. 1, 2010, to Jan. 27, 2011, the date the complaint was filed.

Kodak said the complaint was "without merit."

"We will defend vigorously against it," said company spokesman Christopher K. Veronda.

Counsel for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.

Gedek and the purported class is represented by Nadeem Faruqi, Jacob A. Goldberg, Gerald D. Wells III and Robert Gray of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The case is Gedek v. Perez et al., case number 6:12-cv-06051, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

--Additional reporting by Hilary Russ. Editing by Kat Laskowski.

On January 18, 2012, Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Interim Class Counsel in Bates v. Kashi Co., et al., Case No. 11-CV-1967-H (BGS) to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of Kashi products that were labeled as “all natural,” yet contained artificial and synthetic ingredients.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Vahn Alexander at valexander@faruqilaw.com or (424) 256-2884.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Interim Class Counsel in Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-CIV-6973 (SRC)(MAS), to represent a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Lowe's Companies, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that Samsung and Lowe's misrepresented the energy efficiency of certain refrigerators by promoting them as ENERGY STAR-qualified and labeling them with the ENERGY STAR logo. In fact, the refrigerators do not meet the ENERGY STAR standards for energy efficiency and consume significantly more energy than the label states.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Antonio Vozzolo at avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or (212) 983-9330.

By Lance Duroni

Law360, Wilmington (December 20, 2011, 9:32 PM ET) -- A Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. shareholder launched a class action Monday in Delaware challenging restaurant magnate Tilman Fertitta's $117 million bid for the steakhouse chain, claiming the deal shortchanges investors.

Fertitta, the owner of Houston-based restaurant and hospitality giant Landry's Restaurants Inc., announced Friday that Morton's board had agreed to the $6.90-per-share deal, which boasts a 34 percent premium.

But Morton's shareholder Lon Myers calls the price "grossly unfair and inadequate" in a complaint filed in Delaware court, claiming Morton's board members breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by signing off on the deal.

The offer neglects to factor in synergies created through the merger and the company's generally rosy financial prospects, according to the suit.

"[W]hile Fertitta will benefit from cost savings and synergies in the proposed transaction, the Morton's shareholders are left without adequate consideration," Myers said.

To support his claim that the deal undervalues Morton's, the plaintiff cites revenue increases at the company of 5 to 10 percent for each quarter of 2011 over the same quarters in 2010, along with one independent Wall Street analysis that suggested a $9-per-share price target for Morton's.

"The proposed transaction is wrongful, unfair and harmful to Morton's public shareholders because they will not be able to share equitably in the true value of the company," Myers said.

The suit also takes issue with various provisions in the merger agreement that allegedly discourage competing offers and set the deal in stone, including a so-called "top-up" option allowing Fertitta dodge a shareholder vote on the deal by purchasing shares to reach the 90 percent threshold necessary to complete the merger.

Private equity fund Castle Harlan Partners III LP, which owns roughly 28 percent of the Morton's outstanding shares, has entered into an agreement to tender its shares into the offer and vote in favor of the merger.  The fund's CEO John Castle is also a Morton's director and a defendant in the suit.

The plaintiff is seeking an injunction barring the deal, along with unspecified damages.

The complaint comes on the heels of a settlement last week in a similar class action in the same court over Fertitta's proposed purchase of McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant. McCormick agreed to disclose additional information on the deal to shareholders in return for the claims being dropped, according to court documents.

Chicago-based Morton's owns 77 restaurants throughout the U.S. and one in China.  Fertitta's acquisition of the chain is expected to close in February.

Myers is represented by James P. McEvilly and Juan E. Monteverde of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available.

The case is Lon Myers v. Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. et al., case number 7122, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

--Additional reporting by Sindhu Sundar. Editing by Elizabeth Bowen.