/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 254 Headlines AAFES: Recalls "Soldier Bear" Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Crash Hazard CARE INVESTMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York CONSTAR INT'L: Files Objections in Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado Federal Court DISCOUNT SUPPLY: Recalls Charts For Lead Paint Standard Breach DRUG COS: Defrauded Medicare with Price Fixing Plan, Judge Says ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Faces Subscribers' Antitrust Suit in Calif. ENERGY FUTURE: Nixing of Securities Suit Remanded to Lower Court ENERGY FUTURE: Finalizes Documents of $7.25M ERISA Suit Deal ENERGY FUTURE: 5th Cir. Drops Appeals on Settlement of 2002 Suit ENERLUME ENERGY: Jan. 28, 2008 Set Hearing on Settlement EQUITY MEDIA: Defendants, Plaintiffs Added to Ark. Investor Suit FGX INT'L: Recalls Kids' Sunglasses on Paint's High Lead Level ILLINOIS: Chicago Sued Over Ban of Cellphones while Driving MERCHANDISE CORP: Recalls Christmas Candle Sets for Fire Hazard MGA INSURANCE: Faces Litigation Over MRI Reading Reimbursements PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Cell Sites SALLIE MAE: Faces Lawsuit in Conn. Alleging Bias In Lending SCOPE APPAREL: Recalls Boys' Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings SPORT SUPPLY: Lawsuit Over Old SSG Shares Purchase Dismissed SPRINT NEXTEL: Preliminarily Settles Tax Litigation in Miss. STARBUCKS COFFEE: Recalls lab921 Mugs Due To Burn Hazard TYCO INT'L: $3B Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval UST INC: Lawyers in Wisc. Smokeless Tobacco Suit to Get $16M Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases INTERACTIVE GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Alfred Yates Jr. Files N.Y. Securities Suit ********* AAFES: Recalls "Soldier Bear" Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Army & Air Force Exchange Service, of Dallas, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 11,400 soldier bear toys. The company said the surface paint on the toys contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No incidents or injuries have been reported so far. The recall involves wooden toys made by First Learning Company Ltd., of Hong Kong and plastic military vehicle toy play sets made by Toy World Group Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong. The style number, UPC codes and "Soldier Bear" logo are printed on the toy's packaging. Toy Description Style UPC Wooden Pull-Along Learning Blocks Wagon (alphabet blocks in a wooden wagon) 6320 834162002158 Time Teacher (magnetic shapes & clock in pull cart) 6231 834162002646 Wooden Riding Horse 6349 834162003698 Vehicle Playset (blue military vehicle with action figures 1007 4895130810072 The toys were made in China and sold at AAFES stores worldwide from August 2006 through October 2007 for between $5 and $20. To see pictures of the recalled toys: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08141d.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from children and return them to the nearest AAFES store for a full refund. For additional information, contact AAFES at (800) 866-3605 anytime, or visit http://www.AAFES.com BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Crash Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 480 Ski-Doo Model Year 2008 MXZ X 600 RS Snowmobiles. The company said a defect in the carburetor can prevent the throttle from freely returning to the idle position. This can result in an unexpected loss of control leading to a collision and cause serious injuries or death. The firm has received three reports of snowmobiles with stuck throttles. No injuries reported. The recall involves Ski-Doo model year 2008 MXZ X 600 RS snowmobiles. The model name is located on the side panels. The snowmobiles were sold in yellow or black/slate. The recalled snowmobiles were manufactured in Canada and were sold at Ski-Doo dealers nationwide during November 2007 for about $9,500. Picture of recalled snowmobiles are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08527.jpg Consumers should stop using the vehicles immediately and contact any Ski-Doo dealer to schedule a free repair. Consumers with recalled snowmobiles are being sent direct notices from Bombardier. For more information, call Bombardier Recreational Products toll-free at (888) 638-5397 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.ski-doo.com CARE INVESTMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Care Investment Trust, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit was filed on Sept. 18, 2007, alleging that the Registration Statement relating the initial public offering of shares of Care Investment Trust Inc.'s common stock, filed on June 21, 2007, failed to disclose that certain of the assets in the contributed portfolio were materially impaired and overvalued and that Care was experiencing increasing difficulty in securing its warehouse financing lines. The suit is "Briarwood Investments, Inc., et al. v. Care Investment Trust Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08159," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY, 10119 Tel: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com -- and -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 CONSTAR INT'L: Files Objections in Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Constar International, Inc. filed objections to the Report and Proposed Order of the Special Master in the consolidated securities class action filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The company and certain of its present and former directors, along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters were named defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action, "In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020." The class action is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Edmund V. Ludwig. Two lawsuits have been consolidated into In re Constar: -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al., Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003. The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on Nov. 14, 2002, contained material misrepresentations or omissions. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants in the lawsuits violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiffs seek class-action certification and an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses. Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters, the company has incurred certain indemnification and contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to the lawsuit. The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005, and the Company's answer was filed on Aug. 8, 2005. On Nov. 14, 2005, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court denied the Company's motion on May 24, 2006. On June 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The motion was referred to the Special Master, and, on May 9, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Proposed Order granting the motion. The defendants filed objections to the Report and Proposed Order of the Special Master on May 17, 2007. Those objections are currently pending, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP 401 B. Street, STE. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com -- and -- Darren J. Check, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Steven B. Feirson, Esq. Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Scott A. Thompson, Esq. Dechert, Price & Rhoads 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Phone: 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2390 Fax: 215-994-2222 E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com michael.kichline@dechert.com scott.thompson@dechert.com CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- CROCS, Inc., and two of its executive officers face a purported securities fraud class action before the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Colorado. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased the company's stock in the market between July 27, 2007, and Oct. 31, 2007. The suit alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements about the company, and the business and prospects, in press releases and at investor conferences during the Class Period, and that the market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated as a result. The suit alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The suit is "Dhingra, et al. v. CROCS, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-02351," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Representing the plaintiffs are: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com DISCOUNT SUPPLY: Recalls Charts For Lead Paint Standard Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Discount School Supply, of Monterey, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,000 Giant Measuring Chart. The company said the paint on the grow chart contains excess levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The Giant Grow Chart measures a child's growth with a giant yellow ruler-shaped plastic chart. The grow chart also has a picture of a bean stalk painted on it from top to bottom. The recalled giant measuring charts were manufactured in China and were sold by Discount School Supply catalogs and the company's Web site from August 2000 through August 2007 for about $10. Picture of recalled giant measuring charts are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08528.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the chart immediately and contact Discount School Supply to receive a credit or refund. For more additional information, contact Discount School Supply at (800) 919-5242 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; visit the firm's Web site: http://www.discountschoolsupply.comor e-mail: chartrecall@discountschoolsupply.com DRUG COS: Defrauded Medicare with Price Fixing Plan, Judge Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that three pharmaceutical companies artificially marked up their prices to defraud Medicare and encourage doctors to prescribe their drugs over those of competitors. The decision came in a class-action lawsuit against AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Warwick Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough Corp. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris ruled against AstraZeneca, Bristol- Meyers Squibb and Warwick, while clearing Johnson & Johnson of "egregious misconduct." However, the judge described even Johnson & Johnson's actions as "troubling." Judge Saris agreed with the plaintiffs' complaint that the drug companies deliberately inflated their average wholesale prices in 2003, when those prices were still used to determine Medicare reimbursements. This created a gap between the prices Medicare was paying and the (lower) prices charged to doctors and pharmacies. As a result, doctors would actually be reimbursed more than they had paid for the drugs, creating a profit incentive for doctors to prescribe certain products. Judge Saris ruled that AstraZeneca had overcharged for its prostate cancer drug Zoladex and ordered the company to pay nearly $4.5 million to one of the two groups of plaintiffs. Likewise, Judge Saris found that Bristol-Meyers Squibb had overcharged for cancer drugs Blenoxane, Cytoxan, Rubex, Taxol and Vepesid, and ordered the company to pay $183,454. Judge Saris requested more information to set damages amounts for the other group of plaintiffs. While the court did not decide on the damages Warrick must pay, Judge Saris ruled that Warrick had overcharged for the generic asthma medication albuterol sulfate -- the same medicine sold by GlaxoSmithKline under the brand name Ventolin. One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Steve Berman, Esq., at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, said that his clients were very happy with the ruling. "We are also grateful that she found [that] the biggest victims were the patients who had to pay these outrageous prices out of pocket as a result of the defendants' wrongful conduct," Mr. Berman said. Representing plaintiffs is: Steve W. Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 268-9320 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Web site: http://www.hagens-berman.com ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- An August 2008 trial has been scheduled for a purported class action filed by retailers against EchoStar Communications Corp. in the Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado. During 2000, the retailers commenced lawsuits in Arapahoe County and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's satellite hardware retailers. The plaintiffs ask the courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. EchoStar Communications says it is vigorously defending against the suits and has asserted a variety of counterclaims. The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state court action. EchoStar Communications has filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to the company's motion. The state court granted limited discovery, which ended during 2004. The plaintiffs argued that the company did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery process. The court agreed, denying the company's motion for summary judgment as a result. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. EchoStar Communications Corp. -- http://www.echostar.com-- is primarily a holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the Company operates two interrelated business units: the DISH Network and EchoStar Technologies Corp. (ETC). The DISH Network provides a direct broadcast satellite (DBS) subscription television service in the U.S. DISH Network services include hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive television channels, digital video recording, high-definition television, international programming, professional installation and around-the-clock customer service. ETC designs and develops DBS set-top boxes, antennae and other digital equipment for the DISH Network -- collectively referred to as EchoStar receiver systems. ETC also designs, develops and distributes similar equipment for international satellite service providers. ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Faces Subscribers' Antitrust Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Echostar Satellite, LLC, a unit of EchoStar Communications Corp. faces a purported antitrust class action in California that was filed by cable and satellite subscribers. On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2007). The complaint names 12 media companies as defendants: -- NBC Universal, Inc., -- Viacom Inc., -- The Walt Disney Company, -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., -- Time Warner Cable, Inc., -- Comcast Corporation, -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., -- Cox Communications, Inc., -- The DirecTV Group, Inc., -- Echostar Satellite LLC, -- Charter Communications, Inc., -- Cablevision Systems Corp. The named plaintiffs are: -- Rob Brantley, -- Darryn Cooke, -- William and Beverly Costley, -- Christiana Hills, -- Michael B. Kovac, -- Michelle Navarrette, -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and -- Joseph Vranich. The suit states that the bundling conspiracy restrains trade, suppresses and eliminates competition, fixes and elevates prices and forces consumers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for channels they do not want. The lawsuit challenges the collective conduct of defendants which was eliminated, in material part, competition among and between the content providers or programmers for cable or satellite television distribution and the cable and satellite providers by the practice of offering only prepackaged tiers of bundled programs and refusing to offer cable programming to consumers on an "a la carte" basis. The class action sees to terminate the practice of offering consumers only bundled or prepackaged bundled tiers, and to require programmers and cable providers to offer channels on an "a la carte" or individual choice basis. The plaintiffs brought the action under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit and a reasonable attorneys' fee, against defendants for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs and class members by reason of defendants' violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2. The lawsuit was brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons residing in the U.S. who subscribe to "expanded basic cable" provided by one of the cable television or direct broadcast satellite television provider defendants within four years of the date of the filing of the complaint. The plaintiffs ask the court to find: (a) whether the defendants have engaged in collaborative activity to preclude cable or satellite subscribers from securing "a la carte" programming apart from "basic" cable service; (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set forth in the complaint, the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages, equitable relief or other relief, and the amount and nature of the relief; (c) whether the defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, making injunctive relief appropriate; (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, ask the Court: -- that the matter be certified as a class action with the class defined set forth in the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in the alternative Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and that the named plaintiffs be appointed class representatives and their attorneys be appointed class counsel; -- to enter judgment against the defendants for treble damages as a result of the defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and that the plaintiffs be awarded a reasonable attorneys' fee and the costs of suit as required by Section 4 of the Clayton Act; -- to enter an order requiring the defendants to immediately cease the wrongful conduct; enjoining the defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic cable channels; and ordering the defendant cable providers and direct broadcast satellite providers to notify subscribers that they each can purchase "a la carte" (separately) except for "basic cable"; and -- for other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper. The suit is "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al, Case No. CV07-06101," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. David W. Kesselman, Esq. Blecher & Collins, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3334 Phone: (213) 622-4222 Fax: (213) 622-1656 E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com or dkesselman@blechercollins.com ENERGY FUTURE: Nixing of Securities Suit Remanded to Lower Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action commenced by Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund Incorporated against Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On Sept. 6, 2005, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the company and C. John Wilder. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of the plaintiffs and a putative class of owners of certain TXU Corp. securities who tendered such securities in connection with a tender offer conducted by TXU Corp. in 2004. The complaint alleged violations of the provisions of Sections 14(e), 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and purported to assert a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. An amended complaint dropped the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in September and October 2004 for certain equity-linked securities in which it was expressly disclosed that TXU Corp. management was evaluating whether it should recommend to the TXU Corp. board of directors that the board reevaluate TXU Corp.'s dividend policy. After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the disclosure, TXU Corp. management did make a recommendation to the board to reevaluate TXU Corp. dividend policy and the board elected to increase the quarterly dividend. Plaintiffs in the litigation contend that the disclosure in connection with the tender offer was inadequate. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, and the District Court entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the litigation with prejudice on Aug. 30, 2006. The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and on appeal, the Fifth Circuit remanded the dismissal to the District Court in light of the decisions in "Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.," according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund Incorporated, et al. v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV- 1784," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael C. Dodge, Esq. Dodge & Associates 3710 Rawlins, Suite 1600 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-273-3280 Fax: 214-273-3281 E-mail: miked@texasatty.com Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-274-1100 E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com -- and -- Rosemary J. Shockman, Esq. Shockman Law Offices 8170 N 86th Place, Suite 102 Scottsdale, AZ 85258-4308 Phone: 480-596-1986 E-mail: rshock@aol.com Representing the defendants is: Richard S. Krumholz, Esq. Fulbright & Jaworski Texas Commerce Bank Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-2784 Phone: 214-855-8000 Fax: 214-855-8200 E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com ENERGY FUTURE: Finalizes Documents of $7.25M ERISA Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., is in the process of preparing documents in the settlement of a consolidated class action commenced by the Hargrave plaintiffs filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In November 2002, February 2003 and March 2003, three lawsuits were filed, asserting claims under ERISA on behalf of a putative class of participants in and beneficiaries of various employee benefit plans of EFH Corp. The ERISA lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in February 2004 against EFH Corp., the directors of EFH Corp. serving during the putative class period as well as certain officers of TXU Corp. who were the members of the TXU Thrift Plan Committee. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of participants in the employee benefit plans during the period between April 26, 2001 and Oct. 11, 2002. The plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification and, after class certification discovery was completed, the District Court denied plaintiffs' initial class certification motion without prejudice and granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs' second class certification motion, filed on the basis of their amended complaint, was denied and the case was ordered dismissed without prejudice on Sept. 29, 2005. They filed an appeal of the dismissal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While on appeal, the matter was referred to the 5th Circuit's alternative dispute resolution program and subsequently to mediation. While mediation was unsuccessful, further discussions led to an agreement in principle to settle this litigation on Dec. 24, 2006, for $7.25 million, before attorney's fees, to be paid by EFH Corp. to the thrift plan pursuant a court approved allocation. A Memorandum of Understanding confirming the agreement in principle was signed on Jan. 24, 2007 and the settlement is in the process of being confirmed with final settlement documents after which the settlement will be submitted to the District Court for approval. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Hargrave v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv- 02573," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gary B. Lawson, Esq. Godwin Pappas Langley Ronquillo 1201 Elm St., Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75270-2084 Phone: 214-939-4870 Fax: 214-760-7332 E-mail: glawson@godwinpappas.com -- and -- Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq. Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers America Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor Houston, TX 77019 Phone: 713-659-6400 Fax: 713-659-6262 Representing the defendants are: David P. Poole, Esq. TXU Legal Dept. 1601 Bryan St., 21st Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-812-6001 Fax: 214-812-6032 E-mail: dpoole@txu.com -- and -- Robert K. Wise, Esq. Hunton & Williams 1601 Bryan St., 30th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-3402 Phone: 214-979-3071 Fax: 214-880-0011 E-mail: bwise@hunton.com ENERGY FUTURE: 5th Cir. Drops Appeals on Settlement of 2002 Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed certain appeals regarding the approval of a settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., in 2002. In October, November and December 2002 and January 2003, a number of lawsuits were filed against EFH Corp. (then known as TXU Corp.) and certain of its former officers and directors. The lawsuits were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed by the District Court. The consolidated complaint alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. On January 20, 2005, EFH Corp. executed a memorandum of understanding settling the litigation. After preliminary certification of a settlement class and notice to such class, the District Court conducted a hearing and thereafter on Nov. 8, 2005 granted final approval of the settlement. Certain members of the settlement class who objected to the settlement appealed the orders approving the settlement to the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was dismissed on June 11, 2007 and as a result, the District Court's Judgment is final and not subject to further appeal, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Energy Future Holdings Corp., -- http://www.txucorp.com-- formerly TXU Corp., is an energy company that is a holding company conducting its operations principally through its TXU Energy Company LLC, TXU Electric Delivery Company and TXU Generation Development Company LLC subsidiaries. TXU Energy Holdings segment includes the activities of TXU Energy Company and TXU DevCo., and also includes the activities of a lease trust holding certain natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. TXU Electric Delivery segment includes the activities of TXU Electric Delivery, and its wholly owned bankruptcy-remote financing subsidiary. ENERLUME ENERGY: Jan. 28, 2008 Set Hearing on Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut set a Jan. 28, 2008 fairness hearing on the settlement of purported securities fraud and derivative lawsuits against EnerLume Energy Management Corp., formerly Host America Corp., according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Securities Fraud Litigation In August 2005 and September 2005, 12 putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company, Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and David J. Murphy. One or more of the complaints also named Gilbert Rossomando, Peter Sarmanian, Roger D. Lockhart and EnergyNsync, Inc. On Sept. 21, 2005, as amended on Sept. 26, 2005, the Court issued a Consolidation and Scheduling Order, consolidating the actions under , "In re Host America Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250 (VLB)." On Feb. 12, 2007, lead plaintiffs filed an amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Securities Laws, which named as defendants Host, Geoffrey W. Ramsey, David J. Murphy, Peter Sarmanian and Roger D. Lockhart, and purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of the Company from July 12, 2005 to Sept. 1, 2005. In general, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company's July 12, 2005 press release contained materially false and misleading statements regarding Host's commercial relationship with Wal- Mart. The complaint alleged that the statements harmed the purported class by artificially inflating the price of Host's securities through close of trading on July 22, 2005, and that certain defendants personally benefited from the inflated price by selling stock during the alleged class period. The Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages based on alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and under Section 20A. On March 27, 2007, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the Class Action. Derivative Actions The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in two shareholder derivative actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut: -- "Michael Freede v. Geoffrey Ramsey, et al., Civil Action No. 05-01326 (JBA)" (filed Aug. 19, 2005); and -- "Joella W. Cheek v. Geoffrey Ramsey, et al., Civil Action No. 05-01326 (JBA)" (filed Sept. 13, 2005). The plaintiffs did not make pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors. By order dated Oct. 20, 2005, the court consolidated the derivative actions -- Federal Derivative Action -- and administratively consolidated that action with the Class Action under "In re Host America Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250 (VLB)." On June 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended Derivative Complaint, which named as defendants Geoffrey Ramsey, David Murphy, Anne Ramsey, Peter Sarmanian, Gilbert Rossomando, Roger Lockhart, Host directors C. Michael Horton, Nicholas M. Troiano, Patrick J. Healy, and John D'Antona, and Host itself as a nominal defendant. The Verified Amended Derivative Complaint was based on substantially the same allegations as the Class Action Consolidated Complaint, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and insider trading. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages and other relief purportedly on behalf of Host. On March 27, 2007, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the Federal Derivative Action. Settlement On May 22 and 23, 2007, the Company and its past and present directors and officers named as defendants in the Class and Derivative Actions, and the plaintiffs filed agreements to settle and fully resolve all claims against the Host America defendants in both actions. The Class Action settlement calls for a gross payment of $2.45 million, of which $1.7 million will be funded by defendants' insurer, to the class in exchange for a release of all claims against the Host America defendants based on the July 12, 2005 press release. Under the Derivative Action settlement, the Company has agreed to adopt certain therapeutic corporate governance policies and to payment of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs of $140,000. On Oct. 18 and 19, 2007, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the Class and Derivative settlements. The Court has scheduled fairness hearings on the settlements for Jan. 28, 2008. The suit is "In Re: Host America Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01250," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Representing the plaintiffs: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.687.1980 Fax: 212.687.7714 E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.317.2300 Sarraf Gentile LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005 New York, NY, 10018 Phone: 212.868.3610 Fax: 212.918.7967 Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street Hartford, CT, 06106 Phone: 800.797.5499 Fax: 860.493.6290 E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com Scott & Scott LLC P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue Colchester, CT, 06415 Phone: 860.537.5537 Fax: 860.537.4432 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Phone: 877.891.9880 E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com - and - Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT, 06901-1490 Phone: (203) 327-2300 Fax: (203) 967-9273 E-mail: info@wrkk.com EQUITY MEDIA: Defendants, Plaintiffs Added to Ark. Investor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three new plaintiffs and three new defendants were added to a purported shareholder class action filed against Equity Media Holdings Corp., formerly known as Equity Broadcasting Corp., in the circuit court of Pulaski County, Arkansas in relation to a merger agreement. Equity Media was incorporated in Delaware on April 29, 2005 as Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. to serve as a vehicle for the acquisition of an operating business through a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar transaction. On March 30, 2007, Coconut Palm merged with Equity Broadcasting Corp., with Coconut Palm remaining as the legal surviving corporation. Immediately following the merger, Coconut Palm changed its name to Equity Media Holdings Corp. In connection with the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, EBC and each member of EBC's board of directors was named in a lawsuit filed by an EBC shareholder on June 14, 2006. As a result of the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, pursuant to which EBC merged into Coconut Palm, Coconut Palm, which was renamed Equity Media Holdings Corp., is a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit contains both a class action component and derivative claims. The class action claims allege various deficiencies in EBC's proxy used to inform its shareholders of the special meeting to consider the merger. These allegations include: -- the failure to provide sufficient information regarding the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair value of EBC's Class A common stock; -- that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common stock; -- failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut Palm's outstanding warrants; -- failure to provide pro-forma financial information; -- failure to disclose alleged related party transactions; -- failure to provide access to audited consolidated financial statements during previous years; -- failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of directors in connection with the merger; and -- alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its assets. The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of improper self-dealing, including through a management agreement between EBC and Arkansas Media, LLC. In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the plaintiff also requested injunctive relief to enjoin EBC's annual shareholder meeting and the vote on the merger. An injunction hearing was not held before EBC's annual meeting regarding the merger so the meeting and shareholder vote proceeded as planned and EBC's shareholders approved the merger. On Aug. 9, 2006, EBC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied. On Feb. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement" with the court alleging the parties reached an oral agreement to settle the lawsuit. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to withdraw the motion to settle and filed a "Third Amended Complaint" on April 10, 2007. This motion added two additional plaintiffs and expanded on the issues recited in the previous complaints. On July 31, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Fourth Amended Complaint". This motion added three new plaintiffs and three new defendants to the proceedings. The three additional defendants bear a fiduciary relationship to three previously named defendants. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Equity Media Holdings Corp., formerly Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. (Coconut Palm), is an owner and operator of television stations in the U.S. FGX INT'L: Recalls Kids' Sunglasses on Paint's High Lead Level -------------------------------------------------------------- FGX International Inc., of Smithfield, R.I., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 260,000 children's sunglasses. The company said surface paint on the sunglasses can contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No incidents or injuries have been reported so far. The recall involves 15 styles of children's sunglasses. The style name is printed on the product inside the left temple arm. The name "Foster Grant" may also appear on the temple arm of some styles. The styles included in the recall are: Balloon Encompass Jr. IK Bond Fade IK Boom Gadget IK Bubble Gum Iceman Bullseye Lily Buzz Outer Space Conqueror Jr. Pluto Curly Q No other styles are included in the recall. The sunglasses were made in China and sold at various stores nationwide from January 2007 through November 2007 for between $3 and $11. Pictures of the recalled sunglasses are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08087a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08087b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08087c.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the sunglasses away from children and return them to FGX International for a free replacement or refund, including shipping and handling. For more information, contact FGX International toll-free at (877) 277-0104 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.fgxi.com ILLINOIS: Chicago Sued Over Ban of Cellphones while Driving ----------------------------------------------------------- The City of Chicago, Illinois, is facing a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging the City has issued more than 25,000 citations for using cell phones while driving, imposing $2 million in fines, and did it without adequately informing drivers of the new law, the CourtHouse News Service reports. On May 11, 2005, the Chicago City Council passed Municipal Ordinance 9-40-260, which prohibits the use of mobile telephones and similar devices while operating a motor vehicle. The Ordinance imposes a substantial fine on alleged violators. CourtHouse News Service says named plaintiff Chris Yarusso filed the action on behalf of: (1) relative to the federal false arrest claim, all persons who, at any time on and after two years preceding the filing of the lawsuit until the date of entry of judgment, were issued citations under the Ordinance by defendant officers; (2) relative to the state false arrest claim, all persons who, at any time on and after one year preceding the filing of the lawsuit until the date of entry judgment, were arrested by the defendant officers based on the utilization of mobile telephones while operating a motor vehicle; and (3) relative to the state malicious prosecution claims, all persons who received citations solely for utilizing mobile telephones while operating motor vehicles. Mr. Yarusso, according to CourtHouse News Service, asks the court to: -- enjoin Chicago Police Officers from issuing citations regarding the Ordinance until such time as signs are posted as required by Illinois law; -- order the City of Chicago to immediately drop all charges against any individual cited for violating the Ordinance; -- order the City of Chicago to post signs providing notice of the Ordinance as required by Illinois law; -- declare that the practice of the City of Chicago in regards to arresting and citing people under the Ordinance is unconstitutional; and -- order the City of Chicago to return all money collected from individuals cited or arrested under the Ordinance. The suit is "Chris Yarusso et al v. Mayor Richard Daley et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are: Blake Horwitz The Law Offices of Blake Horwitz, Ltd. 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 723 Phone: (312) 616-4433 Fax: (312) 565-7173 MERCHANDISE CORP: Recalls Christmas Candle Sets for Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Specialty Merchandise Corporation, of Simi Valley, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,000 Christmas Candle Sets. The company said the snowman candle could tip over and the exterior coating on both candles can ignite, posing a fire hazard. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the 2-pieced Snowman and Christmas tree candle set. The snowman candle measures roughly 6 inches in height and the Christmas tree candle measures 7 inches high. The recalled candle sets were manufactured in China and were sold through SMC's catalog from October 2003 through September 2007 for between $4 and $13. Picture of recalled candle sets is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08144.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the candles immediately and contact SMC to return the candle for a refund of the original purchase price. For additional information, contact SMC at (888) 839-8757 or visit the company's Web site: http://www.smcorp.com/recall MGA INSURANCE: Faces Litigation Over MRI Reading Reimbursements --------------------------------------------------------------- MGA Insurance Co., Inc., a unit of GAINSCO, INC., faces a purported class action styled, "MD Readers, Inc. (a/a/o Jose Asensi) and all others similarly situated v. MGA Insurance Company, Inc.," according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The Complaint, as amended, alleges that MGA has failed to pay the named Plaintiff the appropriate amounts in reimbursements for MRI reading, and that MGA should be liable to all similarly situated MRI providers. GAINSCO, INC. -- http://www.gainsco.com-- is engaged in the property and casualty insurance business, focusing on the nonstandard personal auto market. The Company writes minimum and slightly higher coverage limits, nonstandard auto insurance in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas and California. The Company's insurance operations, which include its ongoing nonstandard personal auto insurance and the runoff of its commercial lines business, are conducted through two insurance companies: General Agents Insurance Company of America, Inc. (General Agents) and MGA Insurance Company, Inc. (MGAI). PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Cell Sites ------------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd. (TASE:PTNR), an Israeli mobile communications operator, was served on Dec. 17, 2007, with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action. The suit was filed against Partner in the Tel-Aviv District Court by a purported subscriber. The Plaintiffs allege that cell sites were erected near their properties illegally, causing environmental damage. They seek various remedies, including the removal of all allegedly illegal communications devices, including the Company's and the other operators' 3G communication devices (for which relevant building permits have been obtained under National Zoning Plan 36), wireless access devices (which were deployed pursuant to a waiver from obtaining building permits under the Communication Law), and communication devices which have been "concealed" in another structure. The plaintiffs estimate the class damages against all 3 cellular operators together at NIS 1 billion, which amount, if awarded, is to be given to a fund managed by environment and communications specialists. Some of the plaintiffs' claims have been raised lately by several local planning and building authorities while the validity of the waiver for wireless access devices is pending in an appeals court decision, Partner Communications said in a news statement. The Company believes it has strong legal arguments against those claims and intends to contest the lawsuit vigorously. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. For more information contact: Mr. Emanuel Avner - Chief Financial Officer Mr. Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor and International Relations Partner Communications Company Ltd. Tel: +972-54-7814951 or +972-54-7814151 Fax: +972-54-7815961 or +972-54 -7814161 E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il or oded.degany@orange.co.il Web site: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/ SALLIE MAE: Faces Lawsuit in Conn. Alleging Bias In Lending ----------------------------------------------------------- Sallie Mae Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that the lender discriminates against minority students in underwriting student loans, charges them higher interest rates and fees than similarly situated white applicants, and steers minority students into substandard loans, the CourtHouse News Service reports. CourtHouse News Service says named plaintiffs Sasha Rodriguez and Cathelyn Gregoire brought the action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Sallie Mae has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class through Sally Mae's company-wide underwriting and disclosure policies as generally applied to all minority applicants. The Plaintiffs allege that through its company-wide discriminatory policy, Sallie Mae intentionally violated civil rights laws, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in Lending Act in the origination or underwriting of private student loans with the goal of increasing its earnings at the expense of minorities, CourtHouse News Service says. The Plaintiffs also allege that Sallie Mae deceptively concealed its discriminatory underwriting practices from minority students in order to continue its exploitation of minority applicants. The Plaintiffs, according to CourtHouse News Service, ask the court to rule on: (a) whether Sallie Mae discriminated against plaintiffs by charging them disproportionately higher interest rates and fees on private student loan than those charged to similarly situated Caucasians depending on the school the plaintiffs attended; (b) whether Sallie Mae discriminated against plaintiffs by charging them disproportionately higher rates and fees than those charged to similarly situated Caucasians depending on plaintiffs' credit history or their cosigners credit history; (c) whether Sallie Mae's intent in its discriminatory policies and practices were racially motivated; (d) whether Sallie Mae maintained a corporate policy to extend private student loans on a racially discriminatory basis by concealing material information from plaintiffs such as the fact that the loans were not extended under the same terms and conditions as those offered to similarly situated Caucasians; (e) whether Sallie Mae trained, directed or determined that its agents conceal or not disclose Sallie Mae's discriminatory lending practices; (f) whether Sallie Mae devised and deployed a scheme or common course of conduct which acted to defraud or deceive plaintiffs or exacted unreasonable, unconscionable or discriminatory rates and fees on private student loans by taking advantage of its position of superior knowledge and otherwise; (g) whether Sallie Mae systematically failed to disclose to plaintiffs material information such as the actual basis on which loan terms would be determined; (h) whether Sallie Mae systematically discriminated against class members and engaged in a deceptive scheme and common course of conduct in targeting an economically disadvantaged segment of the population for the lending of private student loans; (i) whether defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z by failing to make accurate disclosures clearly and conspicuously in writing in a form that the consumer may keep, prior to consummation of the transaction; (j) whether Sallie Mae knew or should have known that its underwriting practices were discriminatory and in violation of the ECOA and the TILA; (k) whether plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance injunctive relief or equitable relief against Sallie Mae; (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to award of punitive damages against Sallie Mae; and (m) whether plaintiffs and class members have sustained damages and the proper measure of those damages. The Plaintiffs ask the Court: -- for an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- to award them their costs and disbursements incurred in connection with the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- to grant extraordinary equitable or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, reformation, attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of Sallie Mae's ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiffs have an effective remedy; -- to award punitive damages to plaintiffs; -- to grant declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from the injunctive and declaratory relief; -- to appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and designating the undersigned counsel as counsel for the class; and -- to grant other and further relief as the court deems just and proper including, but not limited to, recessionary relief and reformation. The suit is "Sasha Rodriguez et al. v. Sallie Mae (SLM) Corporation, Case No. 3:07CV1866(WWE)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Representing the plaintiffs are: M. Hatcher Norris, Esq. Butler, Norris & Gold 254 Porspect Avenue Hartford, CT Phone: (860) 236-6951 Fax: (860) 236-5263 E-mail: rnorris@bnglaw.com -- and -- Christina Collins, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. Nicole C. Mayer, Esq. James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA 4830 west Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550 Tampa, FL 33609-2589 Phone: (813) 286-4100 Fax: (813) 286-4174 SCOPE APPAREL: Recalls Boys' Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scope Apparel L.P., of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 72,000 boys' hooded sweatshirts. The garments have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No incidents or injuries have been reported so far. The boys' small and medium sized hooded zip-up sweatshirts have various designs on the front, and were sold in charcoal, navy blue and brown colors. "Whatever" and "RN#39209" are printed on the tag sewn into the jacket. The sweatshirts were made Bangladesh, India, China and Pakistan and sold at mass merchandise and specialty children's clothing retailers nationwide from August 2007 through November 2007 between $20 and $40. To see picture of the sweatshirts: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08121.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard, or return the sweatshirts for a full refund to either the place of purchase or Scope Apparel. For additional information, contact Scope Apparel toll-free at (888) 692-7129 ext. 0 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT, or visit http://www.scopeimp.com SPORT SUPPLY: Lawsuit Over Old SSG Shares Purchase Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Sport Supply Group, Inc. f/k/a Collegiate Pacific, Inc. announced that Jeffrey S. Abraham, as Trustee of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham Money Purchase Plan, dated December 31, 1999, f/b/o Jeffrey S. Abraham, voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, the complaint filed on September 21, 2006, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 2435-VCS. On Sept. 21, 2006, Jeffrey S. Abraham, as Trustee of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham Money Purchase Plan, dated Dec. 31, 1999, f/b/o Jeffrey S. Abraham, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 2435-N against: -- the Company, -- Michael J. Blumenfeld, -- the four directors of Old SSG: * Arthur J. Coerver, * Harvey Rothenberg, * Robert W. Philip, and * Thomas P. Treichler, and -- Old SSG, as a nominal defendant The plaintiff is a former stockholder of Old SSG and brought the action as a class action on behalf of all Old SSG minority stockholders. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the $8.80 cash price per share of Old SSG common stock paid to the minority stockholders in the merger was unfair in that the purchase price failed to take into account the value of Old SSG, its improved financial results and its value in comparison to similar companies. The Plaintiff also alleges that the process by which the merger agreement was arrived at could not have been the product of good faith and fair dealing because the Company and Mr. Blumenfeld acted in bad faith by taking various actions to depress the price of Old SSG common stock and dry up the market liquidity in such shares, all in an effort to effect the merger. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of Old SSG breached their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty to the plaintiff and the other minority stockholders in the merger agreement negotiations. The plaintiff requested that the merger be enjoined or in the alternative, damages be awarded to the Old SSG minority stockholders. On January 31, 2007, the plaintiff amended his complaint and is requesting that the court certify plaintiff as the class representative of the proposed class and award plaintiff and the class compensating or rescissory damages. The plaintiff also seeks the costs of bringing the action, including reasonable attorneys fees and experts' fees. Sport Supply Group, Inc. -- http://www.sportsupplygroup.com/-- formerly Collegiate Pacific Inc., is a marketer, manufacturer and distributor of sporting goods equipment, physical education, recreational and leisure products, and a marketer and distributor of soft good athletic apparel and footwear products (soft goods), primarily to the institutional market in the U.S. SPRINT NEXTEL: Preliminarily Settles Tax Litigation in Miss. ------------------------------------------------------------ Sprint Nextel has reached a preliminary settlement of tax litigation involving more than 350 municipal governments across Missouri. Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved by St. Louis County Circuit Judge Bernhardt C. Drumm, Jr. as well as the cities themselves, Sprint Nextel will pay $52.2 million in back taxes and legal fees. In turn, the cities will end all litigation against Sprint Nextel and its subsidiaries. In addition, Sprint Nextel will dismiss all tax protest litigation against the cities. If approved by Judge Drumm and the city council of the municipal governments who participated in the class action litigation, the agreement would end six years of litigation between Sprint Nextel and Missouri's local governments. The settlement follows the announcements of agreements with St. Louis and Springfield, Missouri. Final approval of the settlement is expected by May 2008. "While many believe the attempts by Missouri local governments to expand local telephone taxes to the wireless industry violate the state constitution, Sprint Nextel recognizes that it's in the interest of our customers, our shareholders and the cities to resolve these disputes on terms that are reasonable and fair. That's why we've arranged a settlement with the cities involved in this case," commented Mark Beshears, vice president, Sprint Nextel. As a result of the settlement, Sprint Nextel customers in Missouri will see an increase in their monthly invoices in the first quarter of 2008. The first customers to be impacted with a bill increase will be notified with a bill message included in their Jan. 2008 invoice. Their invoices will increase in Feb. 2008. Other customer groups will be notified in Feb. for a Mar. 2008 increase. According to a recent study by CTIA - The Wireless Association, Missouri consumers pay an average of approximately 16.36 percent of their invoices in taxes, surcharges and fees. This means Missouri consumers bear the 16th highest wireless tax burden among the 50 states. For more information, contact: John B. Taylor Sprint Nextel Media Contact Phone: 571-437-4685 E-mail: john.b.taylor@sprint.com STARBUCKS COFFEE: Recalls lab921 Mugs Due To Burn Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- Starbucks Coffee Co., of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 167,000 Starbucks Fusion Coffee Mugs made by lab921 of Seattle, Wash. The plastic handle can detach from the body of the mug when filled with hot liquids, posing a minor burn hazard to consumers. Starbucks has received 23 reports of handles detaching from the mug, including nine that resulted in minor burns. The recall involves two styles of Starbucks 14-ounce Fusion Coffee Mugs. The mugs are white and have a black plastic handle, and a stainless steel base. The cups have "Starbucks Coffee" printed on a black stamp or a brown original Starbucks logo stamp. The mugs were made in China. Mugs with the "Starbucks Coffee" stamp were sold at Starbucks stores nationwide from February 2007 through November 2007 for about $11. Mugs with the original logo stamp were sold only at Starbucks Pike Place store in Seattle, Washington during the same period and for the same price. To see picture of the recalled mug: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08123.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the mugs and contact Starbucks for instructions on returning the cups for a full refund. Starbucks is also offering a free beverage as an incentive to return the recalled mugs. For additional information, contact Starbucks at (800) 624-8678 anytime or visit http://www.starbucks.com TYCO INT'L: $3B Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, following the Nov. 2 final approval hearing, granted final approval to the $3.2 billion settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed against Tyco International Ltd., certain of the company's former directors and officers and its former auditors, the Accountancy Age reports. The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquire Common Stock, Notes or Options on Common Stock of Tyco from December 13, 1999 to June 7, 2002, inclusive. Deadline to file claims is December 28, 2007. Case Background The company and certain of its former directors and officers were named as defendants in over 40 securities class actions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire most of the securities class actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New Hampshire securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," a consolidated securities class action complaint against the company certain of the company's former directors and officers and its former auditors. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. As to the company and certain of its former directors and officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Claims against the company's former directors and officers are also asserted under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among others: -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed acquisitions; -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results; -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101, promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings performance; -- compensation of certain of the company's former executives; -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate transactions; -- their sales of Tyco shares; -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and -- the criminal investigation of the company's former chief executive officer. On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class "consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby, excluding defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling interest." In May, Tyco agreed to immediately fund $2.975 billion in cash to settle securities and accounting fraud claims relating to the Kozlowski era (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2007). In July, Tycos auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, agreed to pay $225 million to settle securities and accounting fraud claims relating to Tycos securities class action (Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2007). Consequently, Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has given preliminary approval to the $3.2 billion settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jul 18, 2007). The case caption is: In re: Tyco International, Ltd. Multidistrict Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md- 01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro. For more information, contact: Katharine Ryan, Esq. Michael Yarnoff, Esq. Darren Check Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-822-2223 or 1-610-822-2203 or 1-610-822-2235 E-mail: kryan@sbtklaw.com or myarnoff@sbtklaw.com or dcheck@sbtklaw.com UST INC: Lawyers in Wisc. Smokeless Tobacco Suit to Get $16M ------------------------------------------------------------ Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael Dwyer awarded the lawyers, who brought a purported class action against UST Inc. over its smokeless tobacco products, $16 million in legal fees, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. The legal fees in the suit brings the settlement of the case to an estimated $83.5 million, according to the report. In 2002 a Wisconsin lawsuit was brought on behalf of Jason Feuerabend, a snuff user, and all others who bought UST products between January 1990 and May 7, 2004. Mr. Feuerabend's lawsuit contended that he paid too much for his snuff because of UST's monopolistic tactics. In May, UST settled purported class actions over smokeless tobacco products that were filed in California and Wisconsin (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007). Under the settlement, Wisconsin snuff users could each receive $816 in coupons that will enable them to buy the smokeless tobacco at a huge discount over the next 20 years. To get the coupons, consumers must be adults and prove that they bought UST snuff between 1990 and 2004. UST coupons will be either $6 off for three-pack of tins or $1.50 off single tins. Mr. Feuerabend will receive $10,000 as a result of the settlement. In Sept., Judge Dwyer granted preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007). Deadline to file claims is on July 28, 2008. UST denies any wrongdoing or that smokeless tobacco causes health problems. UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its wholly owned subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and International Wine & Spirits Ltd. The company is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of consumer products in three operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and All Other Operations. The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment manufactures and markets smokeless tobacco products. The Wine segment produces and markets varietal and blended wines, and imports and distributes wines from Italy. UST Inc.'s international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco, are included in the All Other Operations segment. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 14, 2008 MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey's Seminars Ritz-Carlon Hotel, San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 23-24, 2008 EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 29-30, 2008 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS AND LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 7-8, 2008 DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES ALI-ABA Washington, DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 11-12, 2008 MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey's Seminars The Westin, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 14-16, 2008 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA San Diego Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 27-28, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 28-29, 2008 FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION American Conference Institute Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 27-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION ALI-ABA Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 April 9-12, 2008 MEALEY'S 15TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE Mealey's Seminars The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 10-11, 2008 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Wynn, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 May 1-2, 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES ALI-ABA Boston, Massachusetts Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 29-31, 2008 MASS LITIGATION ALI-ABA Charleston, South Carolina Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 June 25-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION ALI-ABA Boulder, Colorado Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 10-11, 2008 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu July 30, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute Chicago, Illinois Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu October 23-24, 2008 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Bellagio, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ December 1-31, 2007 HBA PRESENTS: "PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-31, 2007 HBA PRESENTS: "WHAT EVERY BUSINESS LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT BANKRUPTCY" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-31, 2007 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-31, 2007 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-31, 2007 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-31, 2007 CONFIDENTIALITY IN CIVIL LITIGATION: ASSUMED NAMES, SEALED DISCOVERY, PRIVATE SETTLEMENTS, ARBITRATION AND APPEALS IN FEDERAL AND TEXAS STATE COURTS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 23, 2008 MOORE'S RULES OF FEDERAL PRACTICE TELECONFERENCE: TUTORIAL OF PROCEDURAL FEDERAL PRACTICE IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT RULE CHANGES Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 7, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PRODUCT RECALLS Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 13, 2008 LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 27, 2008 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS GASKETS TELECONFERENCE: EXPOSURE AND STATE OF THE ART Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 16, 2008 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 24TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 COMPLEX LITIGATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING MOTIONS TO COMPEL CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. New Securities Fraud Cases INTERACTIVE GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Giant Interactive Group, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO" or "Offering") on or about November 1, 2007 through November 19, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Giant Interactive and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Giant Interactive, formerly Giant Network Technology Limited, is an online game developer and operator. The Company focuses on massively multiplayer online ("MMO") games that are played through networked game servers, in which a number of players are able to simultaneously connect and interact. Giant Interactive operates three MMO games, all of which it has developed internally: ZT Online, ZT Online pay-to-play ("PTP") and Giant Online. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's average concurrent user ("ACU") and peak concurrent user ("PCU") figures as presented in the Registration Statement included game users engaged in "gold farming" activities; (2) that, prior to the IPO, the Company had implemented a major rule change for ZT Online which was designed to discourage "gold farming" activities; and (3) that this rule change would materially reduce the Company's ACU and PCU numbers in subsequent quarters. On November 19, 2007, after the close of the market, Giant Interactive shocked investors when it announced its financial and operational results for the third quarter of 2007 (ended September 30, 2007). Among other things, the Company reported that its ACU count for the third quarter had decreased over 6.5 percent from the second quarter of 2007, and that its PCU count for the third quarter had decreased 17.2 percent from the second quarter of 2007. On a subsequent conference call, Company representatives attributed both the ACU and PCU declines to a major rule change in the Company's ZT Online game, a change that the Company had instituted months before its IPO. On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.78 per share, or over 25.4 percent, to close on November 20, 2007 at $11.10 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. This closing price on November 20, 2007 represented a cumulative loss of $4.40 per share, or over 28 percent, from the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just weeks earlier. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 25, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Alfred Yates Jr. Files N.Y. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC has filed a class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu" or the "Company") securities between April 18, 2006 and December 10, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges WaMu and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company had failed to adequately disclose the extent of its exposure to anticipated losses and defaults in its lending portfolio; (2) that contrary to earlier representations, the Company had failed to adequately reserve for losses as conditions in the credit and housing markets deteriorated; (3) that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy with First American and EA to artificially inflate the appraised value of homes for certain mortgages to artificially inflate the Company's reported loan-to- value ratios; (4) that the Company's lending portfolio and the mortgages that it issued were substantially riskier than they were represented to investors to be; (5) that as a result, the Company's investment portfolio was impaired; (6) that, as a result of the above, the Company would be forced to take substantial charges in subsequent quarters to remedy such failures; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. According to the complaint, on October 17, 2007, after the market closed, WaMu stunned investors by disclosing that it had suffered a 72% drop in third quarter of 2007 net income and would have to set aside up to $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 to cover its loan losses. On this news, WaMu's stock dropped from $33.07 per share to as low as $30 per share, closing at $30.52 per share on October 18, 2007 on volume of more than 36 million shares. Then, on November 1, 2007, News York's Attorney General issued a press release announcing that a lawsuit was filed against First American Corporation and eAppraiseIT, alleging that they conspired with Washington Mutual to inflate Real Estate appraisals. Following this disclosure, WaMu's stock dropped to as low as $23.59 per share before closing at $23.81 per share, on volume of 31 million shares. Then on November 2, 2007, MarketWatch.com reported that Washington Mutual may have to set aside $412 million to $2.1 billion in extra reserves in response to the New York Attorney General's lawsuit. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $1.94 per share, or over 7.5 percent, to close on November 2, 2007 at $23.81 per share, on heavy trading volume. Then on November 7, 2007, MarketWatch.com further reported that Washington Mutual indicated that its 2007 credit losses could amount to between $2.7 billion to $2.9 billion, almost double the estimates that the Company provided July 2007. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $4.19 per share, or over 17.3 percent, to close on November 7, 2007 at $20.19 per share, on heavy trading volume. Finally, on December 10, 2007, after the close of the market, the Company disclosed that it expected to report a net loss for the fourth quarter of 2007. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.46 per share, or over 12.3 percent, to close on December 11, 2007 at $17.42 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh Toll free: 800-391-5164 or Phone: 412-391-5164 Fax: 412-471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *