/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080312.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 51 Headlines ALAZ FINE: Recalls Golden Raisins for Undeclared Sulfites AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Fast Tracks Discrimination Lawsuit CASE-IH: Court Rules in Favor of Retirees in Health Benefit Suit CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Considers Motions in Securities Suits CORN PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to $6M Suit Settlement CORN PRODUCTS: April 2008 Hearing Set for Price-Fixing Case ENERGY EAST: N.Y. Court Considers Investor Suit Settlement GRANGE INSURANCE: Proposes to Settle "Bad Faith" Insureds' Suit HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Cats' Vit. Care for Possible Health Risk JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Nix Securities Suit LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Court Mulls Approving Policyholder Deal MIDLAND CO: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion in "Beary" Suit NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid in ERISA Suit NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ohio Court Dismisses Some Claims in "Carr" Case NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Market Timing Suit Still on Appeal NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ala. Court Considers Motions in "Ruth" Lawsuit NATIONWIDE LIFE: Wash. Court Considers Dismissal of ERISA Suit NEW ENGLAND: La. Suit Over "Fraudulent Videotaping" Withdrawn NEWS-PRESS: Settles Employee Overtime Lawsuit for $140,000 RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Workers' Suit Over False Promises SLM CORP: Discovery Ensues in CA FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit SLM CORP: Faces Putative Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery Ongoing in Kans. Securities Fraud Suit SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations THE VILLAGES: To Pay $40MM on Repairs as Part of Suit Settlement TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 5 UNITED AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Ark. Insurance Policy Suit UNITED AMERICAN: Tex. Lawsuit Over UA Partners Program Amended UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit UNITED RENTALS: Enters Settlement MoU for 2004 Accounting Suits UNITED WATER: West Nyack Residents File Lawsuit for Negligence VALERO ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Dismissal Motion v. Fuel Suits VALERO ENERGY: Ill. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Rosolowski" New Securities Fraud Cases CAMTEK LTD: Jacob Sabo Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. ENERNOC INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA FORCE PROTECTION: Coughlin Stoia Files SC Securities Fraud Suit MF GLOBAL: Weiss & Lurie Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* ALAZ FINE: Recalls Golden Raisins for Undeclared Sulfites --------------------------------------------------------- Alaz Fine Food Corp., located at 119 32nd St., in Brooklyn, New York, is recalling Delta brand Golden Raisins because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Delta brand Golden Raisins is sold in 16 oz un- coded plastic bags. The product was sold in New York City. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors and subsequent analysis by food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Delta brand Golden Raisins which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have reported to date in connection with this product. Consumers who have purchased Delta brand Golden Raisins should return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-718-832-5300. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Fast Tracks Discrimination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which filed a class action in July against a dozen major subprime lenders alleging institutionalized racism in lending practices, and lead counsel Brian Kabateck, filed papers on March 7 2008, that will fast track their federal class action lawsuit against Washington Mutual, Citi, GMAC and 15 other mortgage firms who systematically steered African American borrowers into predatory loans. "The victims in this case had the same credit, the same income and the same qualifications as the lenders' other customers. The only difference was the color of their skin. That's why they were stuck with abusive loans," said Mr. Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP. "Quickly resolving this case is essential for victims who have ruined credit and who are losing their homes. This isn't just about justice for the victims. This case is about making sure that this kind of discrimination is stamped out for good," said NAACP General Counsel Angela Ciccolo. In July 2007, NAACP filed a class-action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing: -- Ameriquest Mortgage Co., -- Fremont Investment & Loan, -- Option One, -- WMC Mortgage Corp., -- Citigroup Inc., -- BNC Mortgage Inc., -- Accredited Home Lenders, -- Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Encore Credit, -- First Franklin Financial Corp. -- HSBC Finance Corp., -- Washington Mutual, Inc., of discriminating against black homebuyers, who are 30 percent more likely to be charged higher rates for subprime mortgages than white applicants "with the same qualifications" (Class Action Reporter, July 16, 2007). The NAACP accuses the lending industry, including 11 other named defendants, of "institutionalized, systematic racism," in violation of fair housing, civil rights and credit laws. It claims mortgage lenders were put on notice of this racist behavior in 2004, but the problem has become even worse since then. The NAACP says President George Bush's plan to freeze introductory mortgage rates for five years won't help the majority of African Americans who have already been victimized by discriminatory lending practices. A report published by Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) showed that minority borrowers pay higher annual percentage rates on mortgage loans than non-minorities with equal income and credit risk. For instance, in 2005, African American borrowers paid an average of 128 basis points more for loans than their white counterparts. In the subprime market, the difference was event greater -- 275 basis points more. In Dec. 2007, the NAACP added six additional lenders to the suit (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2007). The new defendants are: -- CitiMortgage, -- Suntrust Mortgage, -- GMAC Rescap, -- JP Morgan, -- National City and -- First Horizon This suit is the first to have ever charged so many major mortgage lenders with racial discrimination. The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. SACV07-0794 AG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabatek, Esq. Richard L. Kellner, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 e-mail: bsk@bklawyers.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Vic Feazell, Esq. Feazell & Tighe, LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78730 Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 CASE-IH: Court Rules in Favor of Retirees in Health Benefit Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Patrick Duggan, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, has issued rulings in favor of Case-IH retirees who sued the company over retirement health care benefits, the Associated Press reports. According to Quad-Cities Online, Judge Duggan issued on March 7, 2008, three rulings favoring the retirees in the long-pending case. The main issue, upheld in federal court Friday, maintained Case-IH's responsibility to provide lifetime health care benefits to the retirees who retired before July 1, 1994, QC Online notes. The company, now known as CNH America, had earlier argued that it no longer bore responsibility for the benefits, AP recalls. Specifically, Judge Duggan upheld the plaintiffs' argument that Case-IH was responsible for the lifetime health benefits even though it had contracted with El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company to take over administration of the retirees' benefits. The judge rejected CNH's argument that it was a different company since its reorganization and was no longer responsible for the benefits. Moreover, Judge Duggan rejected El Paso Tennessee Pipeline's argument that it could modify or change the retirees' health care plan. QC Online recounts that Judge Duggan last year ruled that those who retired after July 1, 1994, and their surviving spouses, were entitled to company-paid lifetime health care benefits. "It's been a champagne day in this office," QC Online quotes Roger McClow, Esq., of Southfield, Mich., who represented more than 5,000 Case-IH retirees, surviving spouses and the dependent spouses, in class-action lawsuits filed in 2004. Mr. McClow told QC Online that the next step is to await damages to be awarded by the court. When CNH and El Paso Tennessee Pipeline increased the medical insurance premiums on its retirees, about half of the retirees stayed with the company's health plan and paid the higher premiums of up to $501 a year, Mr. McClow said. The other half either dropped out of the health care plan and bought their own insurance or incurred other costs. Damages for all the affected retirees are estimated to be in the range of $25 million to $28 million, Mr. McClow said. Damage awards in the case are pending in federal court. CNH spokesman Thomas Witom told AP that the company will consider how to proceed. CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Considers Motions in Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to rule on motions filed by both parties with regards to two purported securities fraud class actions against Choice Hotels International, Inc., initiated in April 2007. The suits were brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006. Both assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company, its current vice chairman and chief executive officer, and its former executive vice president and chief financial officer. These claims are related to the Company's July 25, 2006 announcement of its results of operations for the second quarter of 2006. Since the initial filings, the Company has filed a motion to transfer the litigation from Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Additionally, one plaintiff has petitioned the Court to be named lead plaintiff in the dispute. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Anthony Genovese, et al. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 00734-REB-BNB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kip Brian Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80218-1417 Phone: 303-861-3003 Fax: 303-830-6920 - and - Gerald Bader, Jr., Esq. (gbader@bader-associates.com) Bader & Associates, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue #200 Denver, CO 80014-1160 Phone: 303-534-1700 Fax: 303-534-1701 Representing the defendants is: Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com) Latham & Watkins, LLP-Reston 11955 Freedom Drive Two Freedom Square #500 Reston, VA 20190-5651 Phone: 703-456-1000 Fax: 703-456-1001 CORN PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to $6M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois gave final approval to the proposed $6-million settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against Corn Products International, Inc., and certain of its officers. Between May and June of 2005, the company, Samuel Scott, and Cheryl Beebe were named as defendants in five purported securities class actions filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs are: -- Monty Blatt, -- Dale Anderson, -- Adam Shapiro, -- Neil Hildebrand, and -- Philip Brust. The complaints, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws, seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Jan. 25, 2005, and April 4, 2005. The plaintiffs alleged that the company made false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts based on its disclosure regarding earnings projections and operating margins, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by certain of the company's officers of Section 20A of U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In August 2005, all of these class actions were consolidated in the matter of "Monty Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 05 C 3033)." In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint containing essentially the same legal claims. Cheryl Beebe was not named as a defendant in the consolidated amended complaint. In August 2006, the company answered the consolidated amended complaint and in October 2006 the plaintiffs moved for class certification. A limited amount of discovery has taken place to date. On June 19, 2007, the court preliminarily approved an agreement to settle this case. Under the terms of the settlement we agreed to make payments to claimants and counsel totaling $6.6 million, most of which we expect to be covered by insurance. The deadline to file objections to the settlement passed on Sept. 15, 2007. With no objections being raised, the Court granted final approval to the settlement on Nov. 15, 2007, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-03033," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge James B. Zagel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. (SRudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 693-1058 Fax: (212) 693-7423 Representing the defendants are: Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. (neimer@eimerstahl.com) Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 660-7600 - and - Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. (rkopecky@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100 Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000 CORN PRODUCTS: April 2008 Hearing Set for Price-Fixing Case ----------------------------------------------------------- An April 2008 hearing is set for appeals and cross-appeals regarding the dismissal order in a purported anti-competition class action lawsuit that was filed with the Supreme Court of British Colombia against Corn Products International, Inc. In April 2006, the company was served with the suit, which was filed on June 13, 2005, on behalf of Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg against a number of industry participants, including the company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of high fructose corn syrup sold in Canada during the period between 1988 and June 1995. In the alternative, the complaint seeks recovery under restitutionary principles. In May 2007, the Court ruled on a joint defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the statute of limitations. The court held that the plaintiffs' causes of action other than the claims based on restitutionary principles are time-barred. Appeals and cross-appeals regarding the order are pending, and set for argument in April 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Corn Products International, Inc. -- http://www.cornproducts.com -- together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells a number of ingredients to a variety of food and industrial customers. It operates as a corn refiner and a supplier of food ingredients and industrial products derived from wet milling and processing of corn and other starch-based materials, such as tapioca. Its sweetener products include high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), glucose corn syrups, high-maltose corn syrups, caramel color, dextrose, polyols, maltodextrins, and glucose and corn syrup solids. Its starch-based products include both industrial and food-grade starches. ENERGY EAST: N.Y. Court Considers Investor Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the State of New York for Kings County (Brooklyn) has yet to approve a tentative settlement for a purported class action against Energy East Corp. in connection with Iberdrola S.A.'s proposed acquisition of the company. Howard Lasker, an alleged shareholder of Energy East, filed the suit on July 6, 2007, against the company and its directors. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the consideration for the proposed acquisition is unfair and inadequate because it does not provide Energy East shareholders with a sufficient premium and the defendants have breached their fiduciary duty. It seeks an injunction on the completion of the Merger as well as monetary damages in an amount not specified. On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiff, and Energy East and its directors agreed, subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, to settle the lawsuit. The settlement is based on Energy East's agreement to include certain additional disclosures in its proxy statement. As a result of the settlement, plaintiff will not seek to enjoin the transaction. The settlement, if completed and approved by the court, will result in dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit. The settlement also will result in a release of claims that have been or could have been asserted relating to the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or any disclosures relating to the Merger by the plaintiff and the purported class of Energy East shareholders. In connection with such settlement, the plaintiff's counsel will apply to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed in the aggregate $340,000, which Energy East has agreed to pay, if awarded by the court, provided the court approves the settlement and dismisses the lawsuit with prejudice. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Energy East Corp. -- http://www.energyeast.com-- is a public utility holding company that through its subsidiaries, has regulated transmission, distribution and generation operations in New York and Maine, and is engaged in regulated natural gas transportation, storage and distribution operations in New York, Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts. It also controls energy- marketing companies and has other non-utility businesses. The Company created a support services company in 2004, Utility Shared Services Corp., to consolidate support service functions for its utilities. GRANGE INSURANCE: Proposes to Settle "Bad Faith" Insureds' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Grange Insurance Company proposed a nationwide "bad faith" class action settlement for Grange insureds who submitted UM/UIM (Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage) bodily injury claims, pursuant to Grange auto policies between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 12, 2007, Alison De Villiers of Cincinnati Injuryboard.com reports. The lawsuit alleges that Grange underpaid people for UM/UIM bodily injury claims by using a computer program known as COLOSSUS, or other programs known as Claims Outcome Advisor and InjuryIQ. Specifically, Grange underpaid UM/UIM bodily injury claims through the use of COLOSSUS and conspired with others to reduce the amounts paid for general damages for bodily injury claims submitted under the UM/UIM portion of auto policies. According to the report, bad faith actions like this one reveal the insurance industry's continued attempts to take money away from policyholders and put it into the pockets of the shareholders. Cincinnati Injuryboard.com's Ms. De Villiers said the victims in this case are Grange's own policyholders, who paid premiums to Grange. Grange owes a duty of good faith to policyholders and should not work against them when they seek fair compensation for bodily injuries, Ms. De Villiers writes. HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Cats' Vit. Care for Possible Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartz Mountain Corporation is voluntarily recalling a second specific lot of Hartz Vitamin Care for Cats due to concerns that bottles within the lot may have been potentially contaminated with Salmonella. Hartz is fully cooperating with the US Food and Drug Administration in this voluntary recall. Hartz recalled a specific lot code of Hartz Vitamin Care for Cats last November due to similar concerns. Both lot codes were manufactured for Hartz by UFAC (USA) Inc. in 2007, and were removed from distribution last November. However, bottles from the second lot had been shipped to customers prior to their having been removed from distribution. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, all of whom are at particular risk from exposure and should avoid handling these products. Salmonella symptoms may include fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea in both cats and humans. Anyone experiencing the symptoms of Salmonella infection should seek immediate medical attention. Owners of cats exhibiting these symptoms should also seek veterinary assistance. The product involved is 739 bottles of Hartz Vitamin Care for Cats, lot code SZ 22771, UPC number 32700-97701. While normal testing conducted by Hartz and UFAC has not revealed the presence of Salmonella in any Hartz products, recent sampling conducted by the FDA did detect the presence of Salmonella. Although the company has not received any reports of animals or humans becoming ill as a result of coming into contact with this product, Hartz is taking immediate steps to recover this product from consumers. Cat owners should check the lot code on their bottles, and, if the code is not visible, or if the bottle has lot code SZ 22771 or lot code SZ-16371 imprinted thereon, they should immediately discontinue use of the product and discard it in a proper manner. Consumers can contact Hartz at 1-800-275-1414 with any questions they may have and to obtain reimbursement for purchased product. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Nix Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the dismissal of a securities fraud class action filed against Juniper Networks, Inc. On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint captioned, "Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The plaintiff filed a corrected complaint on July 28, 2006. The Garber class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003, and May 22, 2006. On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint captioned, "Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06 5303 JW," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The Peters class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003, and Aug. 10, 2006. Both of these purported class actions allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock option grants. On Nov. 20, 2006, the court appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on Jan. 12, 2007. The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003 through and including Aug. 20, 2006. It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed that plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days after the company files its restated financial statements with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and the court approved the stipulation on Feb. 16, 2007. On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007. The Court has not yet issued a ruling. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com) Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C. White Plains Plaza, 1 North Broadway, 5th Floor White Plains, NY 10601-2310 Phone: (914) 997-0500 - and - William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com) Audet & Partners 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-982-1776 Fax: 415-576-1776 Representing the defendants is: Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Court Mulls Approving Policyholder Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Barbour County Circuit Court has yet to approve a settlement in the consolidated class action over cancer policies that was filed against Liberty National Life Insurance Co., a wholly- owned subsidiary of Torchmark Corp. The companies were parties to a purported class action, titled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002 009-B," filed with the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, on behalf of all persons who currently are or in the past were insured under Liberty cancer policies, which were no longer being marketed, regardless of whether the policies remained in force or lapsed. The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment. On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs then filed their purported class action, "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. CV- 03-0137," against Liberty and Torchmark with the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, on Dec. 30, 2003. On April 16, 2004, the parties filed a written Stipulation of Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County, Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the Roberts case. A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004. After receipt of briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed independent special master, the Court reconvened the previously continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004. After the Sept. 23, 2004 hearing, the court, after hearing from the objectors to the potential settlement, ordered the appointment of an independent actuary to report back to the Court on certain issues. The report of the independent actuary was subsequently furnished to the special master and the Court on a timely basis. On Nov. 22, 2004, the court entered an order and final judgment in "Roberts" wherein the court consolidated it with "Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-021," for purposes of the Roberts stipulation of settlement, and certified the Roberts class as a new subclass of the class previously certified by that court in "Robertson." The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the stipulation. Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark were permanently enjoined from: -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining, authorizing or continuing premium rate increases inconsistent with the Stipulation; -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in accordance with the Stipulation; -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure described in the Stipulation; and -- failing to implement the special schedules and special provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass members who have no other cancer or medical insurance and are not covered by Medicare. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, released the defendants, enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further prosecution of released claims and retained continuing jurisdiction of all matters relating to the Roberts settlement. In an order issued on Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the objectors' motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on class settlement and certification. The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms. On March 10, 2005, the "Roberts" plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. In an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment and dismissed the Roberts appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in "Roberts" to certify the Roberts class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final judgment approving the settlement since "Roberts" was filed as an independent class action collaterally attacking "Robertson" rather than being filed in "Robertson" under the Barbour County Court's reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case. On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in "Robertson" for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend the Robertson final judgment. Liberty sought an order from the Circuit Court declaring that Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges. A hearing was held on Liberty's petition on March 13, 2007. On March 30, 2007, the Barbour County Circuit Court issued an order denying Liberty's petition for clarification and modification of "Robertson," holding that Liberty's policies did not state that they will pay "actual charges" accepted by providers. On April 8, 2007, the Court issued an order granting a motion to intervene and establishing a subclass in "Robertson" comprised of Liberty cancer policyholders who are now or have within the past six years, undergone cancer treatment and filed benefit claims under the policies in question. Liberty filed a motion with the Barbour County Circuit Court to certify for an interlocutory appeal that Court's order on Liberty's petition for clarification in Robertson on April 17, 2007. An appellate mediation of these issues was conducted on Aug. 9, 2007. On Oct. 16, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered orders, based upon the conclusion by the parties of the appellate mediation, staying the proceedings for a writ of mandamus, reinstating the cases on the appellate docket, and remanding the cases to the Barbour County Circuit Court to implement the parties' settlement agreement. A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement agreement was held by the Barbour County Circuit Court on Jan. 15, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. The company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines. MIDLAND CO: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ Midland Co. has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against members of its board of directors over their approval of a $1.3-billion sale of the company to Munich Re insurance company, Business Courier reports. Business Courier recounts that the class-action complaint was filed in December 2007 with the common pleas court in Clermont County by Brualdi Law Firm P.C. in New York, purportedly on behalf of Midland shareholders. The complaint alleged that Midland's directors stand to reap "enormous benefits" from the sale, that some of those benefits had not been disclosed to shareholders, and that certain details of Midland's sale and valuation process were not properly disclosed. The only named plaintiff, Superior Partners, was not otherwise identified. The benefits to Midland directors that were disclosed include: * cash for non-employee directors' share equivalents ranging from $146,027 for Richard Norman to more than $1 million for John O'Mara; and * acceleration of stock options worth $1.6 million each and cash for stock-based performance awards of $1.3 million each for CEO John W. Hayden and Joseph P. Hayden III, the company's chairman and chief operating officer. Undisclosed benefits include severance payments to J.P. Hayden III under a change of control agreement and incentives to him related to the sale of its barge transportation business, and payments to John W. Hayden under a post-merger employment agreement, the lawsuit said. "The individual defendants failed to properly inform themselves of Midland's value or give adequate consideration to having the company remain independent and failed to do so because of their interest in quickly signing the sale agreement and thereby obtaining the improper personal benefits they will receive," the complaint charged. According Business Courier, Midland and the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding that provides for the proposed settlement. Business Courier notes that in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Midland said it had agreed, as part of the proposed lawsuit settlement, to make certain additional disclosures, which were included in a revised proxy statement that was filed in February. It did not otherwise identify any additional disclosures that are in that document. It also has agreed to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and expenses, the amount of which also were not disclosed. All the settlement terms are subject to court approval. Midland has scheduled a special shareholders meeting on March 24 to vote on its proposed sale to Munich Re for $65 a share. The sale process was triggered last summer when Midland CEO John Hayden informed the board that the Hayden family, which owns about 28% of Midland stock, had decided to sell some or all of its stake in the company, according to a description of the events leading up to the sale that was included in the proxy statement. NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion in "Beary" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., National Life Insurance Co., and Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., are opposing a motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint in the matter "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK." The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class of all sponsors of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable annuity contracts with NFS, NLIC and NRS. The suit was filed on Nov. 15, 2006, NFS by Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, In His Official Capacity, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all sponsors of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity contracts with the defendants during the class period. The class period is from Jan. 1, 1996 until the class notice is provided. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments from certain mutual funds. The complaint seeks an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants, including interest. On Jan. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss. On Sept. 17, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On Oct. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed their opposition to the plaintiff's motion, according to NFS' Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Scott E. Smith, Esq. (ses@smithphillipslaw.com ) Smith Phillips & Associates 1225 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-846-1700 Fax: 614-486-4987 - and - Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (acelaw@mcn.org) 4800 North Federal Highway Suite 100D Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561-392-2222 Fax: 561-392-2123 Representing the defendants are: Quintin Franc Lindsmith, Esq. (qlindsmith@bricker.com) Bricker & Eckler LLP 100 South Third Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-227-2300 Fax: 614-227-2390 - and - Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Hale 1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-663-6126 Fax: 202-663-6363 NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Bid in ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion by plaintiffs in the matter, "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01552-SRU," which had sought to dismiss the amended counterclaim made by Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its Nationwide Life Insurance Co. subsidiary, according to NFS' Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company," alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed March 21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified retirement plans under ERISA that purchased variable annuities from NLIC. The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from certain mutual funds. The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys� fees. To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs' request for certification of the alleged class. On Sept. 25, 2007, NFS' and NLIC's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was denied. On Oct. 12, 2007, NFS and NLIC filed their answer to the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint and amended counterclaims. On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss NFS' and NLIC's amended counterclaims. On Nov. 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim, with the exception that it was tentatively granting the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with respect to NFS' and NLIC's claim that it could recover any "disgorgement remedy" from plan sponsors. The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard A. Bieder, Esq. (rbieder@koskoff.com) Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C. 350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport CT 06604 Phone: 203-336-4421 Fax: 203-368-3244 Gregory G. Jones, Esq. (greg@gjoneslaw.com) 603 S. Main, Suite 200 Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: 871-424-9001 Fax: 817-424-1665 - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. (rmandel@smi-law.com) Stanley, Mandel & Iola 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: 214-443-4300 Fax: 214-443-0358 Representing the defendants are: Jessica A. Ballou, Esq. (jballou@llgm.com) LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-293-3535 Fax: 860-293-3555 - and - Sam Broderick-Sokol, Esq. (sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr-LLP-DC 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-663-6000 Fax: 202-663-6363 NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ohio Court Dismisses Some Claims in "Carr" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio dismissed certain claims in the purported class action, "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," according to National Financial Services, Inc.'s Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC, a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., was named in a class action filed with the Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company." The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The complaint also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum premium and attorneys' fees. On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification on the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the United States and the Virgin Islands who, during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC for term life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class period that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding certain specified products. Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of Ohio who may hear the case. The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990, through Feb. 2, 2006. On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 30, 2007, NLIC filed a motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 31, 2007, the court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment. On Feb. 4, 2008, the Court entered its ruling on the parties' pending motions for summary judgment. The Court granted NLIC's motion for summary judgment for some of the plaintiffs' causes of action, including breach of contract claims on all decreasing term policies, plaintiff Carr's individual claims for fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and all unjust enrichment claims. However, several claims against NLIC remain, including the plaintiff's individual claim for breach of contract and the claims for breach of contract for the term life policies in 43 of 51 jurisdictions. The Court has requested additional briefing on NLIC's affirmative defense that the doctrine of voluntary payment acts as a defense to the breach of contract claims. Based in Columbus, Ohio, Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.nationwide.com/nw/-- is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and other companies that comprise the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of companies. The company, a provider of long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S., develops and sells a diverse range of products, including individual annuities, private and public group retirement plans, other investment products sold to institutions, life insurance and advisory services. NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Market Timing Suit Still on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the Mutual Funds Investment Litigation are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the dismissal of their case, which names as one of the defendants Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in a class action filed with the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, entitled, "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company." NLIC removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004. On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi- district proceeding entitled, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation." In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed the first amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain exceptions, a class of all persons who held (through their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced market timing or stale price trading activity. The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub- accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement, failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or units in annuities sub-accounts. The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, or to have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain exceptions, of all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held (through their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced market timing activity. The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class member, including all compensatory damages and costs. On June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision, and the issues have been fully briefed. NFS reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com) Andrew Steven Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com) Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC 2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 1-602-776-5903 Fax: 1-602-274-1199 - and - Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Esq. (ebarash@koreintillery.com) George A. Zelcs, Esq. (gzelcs@koreintillery.com) Korein Tillery 701 Market St. Ste. 300 St. Louis, MO 63108 Phone: 1-314-241-4844 Fax: 1-314-241-3525 Representing the company are: Shoshana Leah Gillers, Esq. (shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com) Eric John Mogilnicki, Esq. (eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com) Charles Collier Platt, Esq. (charles.platt@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 1-212-230-8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888 NATIONWIDE LIFE: Ala. Court Considers Motions in "Ruth" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama has yet to rule on both parties motions in the purported class action, "Gwin et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," which names a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., as a defendant. On Nov. 20, 2007, Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed with the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled, "Ruth A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated individuals v. NLIC, NRS, Alabama State Employees Association, PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z." The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all participants in the Alabama State Employees Association plan, excluding members of the Board of Control during the Class Period and excluding ASEA's directors, officers and board members during the class period. The class period is the date from which NLIC and NRS first made a payment to ASEA or PEBCO arising out of the funding agreement dated March 24, 2004, to the date class notice is provided. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, converted plan participants' properties, and breached their contract when payments were made and the plan was administered under the funding agreement. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction, disgorgement of amounts paid, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other equitable and legal relief to which the plaintiffs and class members may be entitled. On Jan. 9, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama. On Jan. 16, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss. On Jan. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. The motions have been fully briefed, according to NFS' Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Gwin et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," filed with U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama, Judge R. David Proctor presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: James S. Christie, Jr., Esq. (jchristie@bradleyarant.com) Bradley Arant Rose & White P.O. Box 830709 Birmingham, AL 35283-0709 Phone: 521-8000 Representing the defendants are: J. Kirkman Garrett, Esq. (jkgarrett@csattorneys.com) Christian & Small LLP Financial Center, Suite 1800 505 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-2696 Phone: 795-6588 Rebecca G. DePalma, Esq. (rdepalma@waadlaw.com) White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC 2025 3rd Avenue, North, Suite 600 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 323-1888 - and - Joseph C. Espy, III, Esq. (jespy@mewlegal.com) Melton Espy & Williams PC 301 Adams Avenue P.O. Drawer 5130 Montgomery, AL 36103-5130 Phone: 334-263-6621 Fax: 334-263-7252 NATIONWIDE LIFE: Wash. Court Considers Dismissal of ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, has yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the dismissal of a purported class action against Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. On July 11, 2007, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which is alleging violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The suit was filed by Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against: -- National Education Association, -- NEA Member Benefits Corporation, -- NLIC, -- Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, -- Security Benefit Group, Inc., -- Security Distributors, Inc. The plaintiffs seeks to represent a class of all current or former National Education Association members who participated in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between January 1, 1991 and the present (and their heirs and beneficiaries). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by failing to prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing to provide complete and accurate information, by engaging in prohibited transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys� fees. On Oct. 12, 2007, NLIC filed a motion to dismiss, according to NFS' Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Daniels-Hall et al v. National Education Association et al., Case No.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ronald B. Leighton presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (ACELaw@mcn.org) Law Offices of Allen C. Engerman, P.A. Sanctuary Centre 4800 N Federal Hwy., Ste. 100-d Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561-392-2222 - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com) Keller Rohrback 1201 3rd Ave. Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Phone: 206-623-1900 Representing the defendants are: Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-663-6126 - and - Abigail V. Carter, Esq. (acarter@bredhoff.com) Bredhoff & Kaiser 805 Fifteenth St. NW Ste. 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-842-2600 NEW ENGLAND: La. Suit Over "Fraudulent Videotaping" Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against The New England Patriots plan to withdraw the complaint, which claims that their "fraudulent videotaping" of the St. Louis Rams' walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI 2002 Super Bowl should cost the team damages in excess of $100 million, the Associated Press reports. The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Feb. 15, 2008. Specifically named as defendants in the matter are: -- The New England Patriots; -- New England Patriots Limited Partnership; and -- Coach Bill Belichick (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2008). The suit was brought on behalf of Willie Gary, identified as a Rams employee and football player, Kevin Hacker, Marcus Miller, and Peter Trout. The plaintiffs claimed that the Patriots fraudulently gained an unfair advantage by taping a Rams walk-through practice the day before the teams played in the Super Bowl XXXVI. They asked for refunds on behalf of everyone who paid to attend Super Bowl XXXVI in New Orleans. The suit further claimed that the Patriots were engaged in fraud, racketeering, breach of contract, and were in violation of Louisiana's unfair trade practices, and consumer protection act. The suit sought restitution for three classes: Rams players, coaches, staff and employees of the team that met New England in the Super Bowl in 2002, all 72,922 fans who attended the game, and owners of St. Louis Rams seat licenses for the 2001 and 2002 seasons. In addition, the suit asked for $35 million in damages, which would be tripled under a federal racketeering act dating back to the 1970s, plus punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The allegations stemmed from reports that the Patriots, in addition to videotaping their 2007 season opener against the Jets for which they were fined and penalized a first round pick, had been illegally videotaping walk-throughs and defensive signals back for seven seasons, according to the ESPN.COM report. In September 2007, both Mr. Belichick, and the Patriots were penalized by the N.F.L. for the alleged pattern of videotaping opposing sidelines, a violation of league rules. Commissioner Roger Goodell then had all pertinent material destroyed, which has drawn concern from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. In court papers filed recently, the plaintiffs' attorneys say they sued last month in an attempt to secure sworn testimony from former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, who allegedly taped a walkthrough practice by the Rams before New England's Super Bowl win. They asked a federal judge in New Orleans to dismiss the case. Eric Deters, Esq., one of Mr. Gary's attorneys, said they are reserving their right to refile the suit if they learn more about Mr. Walsh's alleged role in the Spygate episode. "We're not giving up on the case," Mr. Deters said. "We just want to back off and see what he has to say before we make a move." A lawyer for Mr. Walsh told Associated Press on Sunday that he was hopeful an agreement could be reached that would give his client the "necessary legal protections so (he) can come forward with the truth." The suit is "Gary et al v. New England Patriots et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01002-ILRL-JCW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle presiding. NEWS-PRESS: Settles Employee Overtime Lawsuit for $140,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Santa Barbara News-Press has settled a lawsuit filed against it by two former newsroom employees who alleged that the paper had shortchanged them on overtime pay and on meal and rest periods, The Santa Barbara Independent reports. The Santa Barbara Independent recounts that the suit was originally filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court on October 11, 2006, by former reporter Hildy Medina. In February 2007, the suit was amended to include former reporter Anna Davison. The two alleged that the newspaper failed to pay overtime to employees who worked more than eight hours a day or more than 40 hours a week. It also alleged that the News-Press did not provide its employees with meal and rest periods that are required by California law. In addition, the plaintiffs also claimed that if, by the end of the year, an employee had not used vacation time, the paper's management would eliminate that accrual, which move is a violation of state law. According to the report, the settlement amount is $140,000. Pursuant to this settlement, any person who has worked for the paper in the past six years -- beginning October 2002 -- regardless of whether they lost out on overtime pay or vacation time, is eligible to take a share in the money. The settlement also allows for anyone who has actual documentation that they did not receive proper payment for hours work or vacation time earned to still file a claim against the paper. The reason to do it in bulk, according to Bruce Anticouni, Esq., a local lawyer who specializes in employment litigation, is that there was no sufficient information to figure out who all the individuals were that missed out on the funds and time off afforded to them. The plaintiffs, who are a couple of the dozens of newsroom staff who have left the paper in the last two years, decided that while their case was strong, there was a chance the claim would not be certified as a class action, as many of those involved had different individual circumstances surrounding their employment. "There was too much diversity with respect to the facts," Mr. Anticouni explained. "This way seemed like it was going to allow anyone who worked there to get some [of the settlement]." In addition to whatever they are entitled to as part of the group of former employees receiving a slice of money, the plaintiffs will each receive $5,000 in addition to whatever they are entitled to as members of the class, for being the named plaintiffs. The Santa Barbara Independent also notes that as part of the settlement, the paper's management "denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged," adding that a class action suit would've been inappropriate. "Defendant contends, among other things, that it has complied at all times with the Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and all applicable wage and hour laws and regulations," according to the settlement agreement. RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- RAIT Financial Trust faces a purported securities fraud class action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint, which is seeking class certification, was filed on Aug. 1, 2007, against RAIT Financial Trust, certain of its officers and trustees and the lead underwriters involved in its public offering of common shares in January 2007. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RAIT securities between Jan. 10, 2007, and July 31, 2007. This action purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, RAIT did not adequately disclose that RAIT had provided TruPS to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. that the payment by AHM under the TruPS was supposedly in jeopardy and that RAIT did not adequately reserve for the risk of nonpayment by AHM. The plaintiff further alleges that, as a result, certain of RAIT's statements, including statements in the registration statement, prospectus and prospectus supplement for RAIT's January 2007 offering, were materially false and misleading. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "A1 Credit Company v. RAIT Financial Trust, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03148-LDD," filed with with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D. Davis presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gerald S. Berkowitz (gsb@berklein.com) Berkowitz and Klein LLP 625 B Swedesford Rd. Swedsford Corporate Center Malvern, PA 19355-1530 Phone: 610-889-3200 Fax: 610-889-9564 - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. (rliebenberg@finekaplan.com) Fine, Kaplan and Black 1835 Market St. 28th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-567-6565 Fax: 215-568-5872 Representing the defendants are: Robert W. Hayes, Esq. (rhayes@cozen.com) Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-665-2094 Fax: 215-665-2013 - and - Barbara W. Mather, Esq. (matherb@pepperlaw.com) Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Sq. 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Phone: 215-981-4895 Fax: 215-981-4756 SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Workers' Suit Over False Promises ------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Ala., has filed a class action suit against Signal International, an oil rig construction and repair company, on behalf of immigrant workers involved in the reconstruction and cleanup of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, reports say. A group of 500 foreign welders and pipefitters brought in to work at Gulf Coast oil rig yards after the storm maintain that immigrants brought in under the guest worker program are "systematically exploited and abused," all over the country, Adam Nossiter of The New York Times writes. According to an Associated Press report, workers claim that Signal International lured them into taking jobs at Gulf Coast shipyards on the false promise of green cards and permanent U.S. residency and subjected them to abusive living conditions. The NY Times contends that the workers were recruited in India and the United Arab Emirates and brought in late 2006 and early 2007 under the government's temporary guest worker program. They worked at Signal International, an oil-rig repair and construction company with yards in Pascagoula, Miss., about 85 miles east of here, and in Orange, Tex., about 100 miles east of Houston. In a statement, the company called the workers' charges "baseless and unfounded" and said it had spent "over $7 million constructing state-of-the-art housing complexes" for the workers. The company said that the "vast majority of the workers" recruited had been satisfied with their conditions and that the workers were being paid "in excess" of prevailing rates and in full compliance with the law Signal International, LLC -- http://www.signalint.com/-- is a leading Gulf of Mexico provider of marine and fabrication services. Its facilities span the Gulf of Mexico, affording easy access to offshore rigs and platforms. Four yards in Texas and two in Mississippi expeditiously deliver quality workmanship to maximize customers' uptime. SLM CORP: Discovery Ensues in CA FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- over its Federal Family Education Loan Program billing practices. The suit, "Ann Chae, et al. v. SLM Corp. et al.," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 14, 2007. It was served to the Company by several borrowers. The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code 17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of consumer legal remedies act and unjust enrichment. The complaint challenges the Company's FFELP billing practices as they relate to use of the simple daily interest method for calculating interest. On June 19, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Sept. 14, 2007, the court entered an order denying Sallie Mae's request. The court did not comment on the merits of the allegations or the plaintiffs' case but instead determined that the allegations stated a claim sufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Company filed an answer in September 2007 and, in November 2007 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court denied this motion without ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court entered a scheduling order that set July 8, 2008, as the start date for the trial. Discovery has commenced and is scheduled to continue through May 30, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Ann Chae et al v. SLM Corporation, Case No. 2:07- cv-02319-ER-RC," with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Edward Rafeedie presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael D. Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@cmht.com) Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll West Tower 1100 New York Avenue NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 - and - William J. Genego, Esq. (wgenego@gmail.com) Nasatir Hirsch Podberesky and Genego 2115 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-399-3259 Representing the defendants are: Anne K. Edwards, Esq. (aedwards@akingump.com) Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Century Twr. Plz. 2029 Century Park E, Ste. 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010 Phone: 310-229-1000 SLM CORP: Faces Putative Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- faces a putative securities class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and three senior officers, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit, "Burch v. SLM Corporation, Albert L. Lord, C.E. Andrews, and Robert S. Autor," was filed on Jan. 31, 2008, and has been assigned to Judge William H. Pauley, III. The case purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Common stock of the Company between Jan. 18, 2007, and Jan. 3, 2008. The complaint alleges that the Company and the named officers violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period, which statements allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the Company's results for year-end 2006 and for the first three quarters of 2007 to be materially misstated because the Company failed to adequately accrue its loan loss provisions, which overstated the Company's net income, and that the Company failed to adequately disclose allegedly known trends and uncertainties with respect to its non-traditional loan portfolio. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5. The Company was served on Feb. 5, 2008 and the case is pending. A class has not yet been certified in the above action. The suit is "Burch v. SLM Corporation, Albert L. Lord, C.E. Andrews, and Robert S. Autor, Case No. 1:2008cv01029," filed with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge William H. Pauley, III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery Ongoing in Kans. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "State of New Jersey And Its Division of Investment, et al. v. Sprint Corporation et al., Case No. 2:03cv2071-JWL," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and names as a defendant, Sprint Nextel Corp. The suit is alleging that the Company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent they described new employment agreements with senior executives without disclosing that, according to the allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable. These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to recover any decline in the value of FON and PCS common stock during the class period. The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class action. Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants and the Company's former independent auditor, were dismissed by the court in April 2004. The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied in September 2004, and the parties are engaged in discovery. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "State of New Jersey And Its Division of Investment, et al. v. Sprint Corporation et al., Case No. 2:03cv2071-JWL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas R. Buchanan, Esq. (tbuchanan@mcdowellrice.com) McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC -- KC 605 West 47th Street, Suite 350 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-753-5400/960-7388 Fax: 816-753-9996 - and - Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. (gcastaldo@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin & Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants are: Francis P. Barron, Esq. (fbarron@cravath.com) Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 Phone: 212-474-1000 Fax: 212-474-3700 - and - Chad C. Beaver, Esq. (cbeaver@spencerfane.com) Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP KC 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106-2140 Phone: 816-474-8100 Fax: 816-474-3216 SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Sutter Health and dozens of its medical centers are facing a class-action complaint filed on March 6, 2008, with the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda for violating the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all individuals who are, or have been, employed as nurses, registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, charge nurses, or as other employees performing similar tasks, by one or more of the defendants in the state of California, from Feb. 2004 to the date of the filing of the complaint. The action seeks to recover unpaid wages from the defendants for breaches of their legal obligation under California's Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders: (1) to pay wages for all of the time that the defendants instructed or permitted employees to work including but not limited to agreed-upon rates or applicable overtime compensation; (2) to provide employees with unpaid, 30-minute meal periods, totally relieved of all duties, for every five hours of work; (3) to provide employees with paid 10-minute rest periods, totally relieved of all duties, for every four hours of work; and (4) to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay for each meal or rest period that they were denied. The plaintiffs further seek relief under California's Business and Professions Code for defendants' unfair competition and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices of paying improper wages to plaintiffs and the class, and otherwise depriving employees of their statutory rights. Upon information and belief, throughout the class period, defendants intentionally engaged in a calculated scheme to evade the nurse to patient ratio obligations set forth in California's Health and Safety Code Section 1276.4 and 22 CCR Section 70217. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendants maintain or maintained common policies and practices that failed to adequately compensate plaintiffs and the class adequately for their work; (b) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, and IWC Wage Order 5-2001 and other applicable IWC Wage Orders, by requiring plaintiffs and the class to work without payment for all hours worked; (c) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, IWC Wage Orders 5-2001 and other applicable Wage Orders, by failing to provide plaintiffs and the class with uninterrupted statutorily mandated meal and rest periods; (d) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Sections 201-203 by failing to pay all hourly and overtime wages and rest and meal period compensation due and owing at the time that any class member's employment with defendants terminated; (e) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section 1174 by failing to maintain accurate records of hours worked by plaintiffs and the class; (f) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section 226 and IWC Wage Orders 5-2001 by failing to itemize in wage statements all hours worked and the correct hourly rate compensation, and by failing to itemize deductions from wages and accurately report total hours worked by the plaintiffs and the class; (g) whether the defendants violated the California Health and Safety Code Section 1276.4 and the California Code of Regulations, 22 CCR Section 70217, by failing to staff hospitals with the minimum nurse to patient ratios; (h) whether and entity that does not directly pay an employee but that directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of the employee is the employee's employer and liable to the employee for violations of California's wage and hour law and regulations; (i) whether the defendants violated Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226-226.7, 512, 1194, IWC Wage Order 2001 and other applicable IWC Wage Orders which violation constitutes a violation of fundamental public policy; (j) what compensatory damages, and injunctive and other equitable relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits, are the plaintiffs and the class entitled to receive from defendants; and (k) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to equitable and specific relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. The plaintiffs request judgment as follows: -- for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and statutory or regulatory penalties, all in accordance with proof; -- for restitution to plaintiffs and the class including unpaid wages, compensation, and penalties for all uncompensated work and for meal and rest periods that were not provided to plaintiffs and the class, and for disgorgement of money or profits acquired by defendants and each of them by means of unfair competition, all in accordance with proof; -- for injunctive relief to restraining defendants and each of them: (a) from failing to pay plaintiffs and the class at their regular rates for all time worked; (b) from failing to keep accurate records showing all the time that defendants suffer or permit plaintiffs and the class to work; (c) from failing to give plaintiffs and the class unpaid, 30-minute rest periods for every four hours in a work day; (d) from failing to give plaintiffs and the class paid, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours in a work day; (e) from failing to provide relief registered nurses in adequate numbers sufficient to allow all registered nurses to take their meal and rest periods totally relieved of all duties; (f) from coercing registered nurses into not reporting overtime and the depr1vation of their meal periods and rest periods by, among other things, disciplining registered nurses who report working through their meal and rest periods; and (g) to prohibit defendants engaging in acts constituting unfair competition; -- for a declaration of the rights and obligations of defendants and the class under California law; -- for attorney's fees and costs of litigation, pursuant to sections 218.5 and 1194 of the California Labor Code, section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable legal authorities; and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. The suit is "Luisa Bissett et al. v. Sutter Health et al.," filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Laurence J. Hasson, Esq. Amy A. Weaver, Esq. Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, New York 10036 Phone: (212) 447-7070 Fax: (212) 447-7077 Robert H. Stropp, Jr., Esq. Mooney, Green, Baker & Saindon, PC 1920 L Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 783-0010 Fax: (202) 783-6088 - and - Robert A. Cantore, Esq. Jay Smith, Esq. Michael D. Weiner, Esq. Scott G. Miller, Esq. Gilbert & Sackman 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90010 Phone: (323) 938-3000 Fax: (323) 937-9139 THE VILLAGES: To Pay $40MM on Repairs as Part of Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The companies that run a central Florida retirement community have agreed to pay $40 million to cover improvements and repairs as part of a civil lawsuit settlement, the Associated Press reports. According to AP, a circuit judge in Lake County approved the settlement of the class-action lawsuit, which claimed that monthly amenity fees paid by The Villages' 70,000 residents had been misused by The Villages of Lake-Sumter Incorporated, the Village Center Community Development District and developer H. Gary Morse. The settlement requires the developer to pay about $40 million over the next 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts, according to the report. The settlement also requires the defendants to pay $50,000 each to five plaintiffs and $6.7 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The defendants denied any wrongdoing or misappropriation. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m., on June 5, 2008, for the $50,000,000 settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action suits filed against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. The class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Transkaryotic common stock during the period from Jan. 4, 2001, through Jan. 10, 2003, inclusive. The deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on April 26, 2008. The deadline to file claims is on June 30, 2008. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, at 2:00 p.m., on June 5, 2008. Case Background In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class actions against: -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005; and -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period. On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all related cases. The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9, 2003, and subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation." In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint against: -- TKT; -- Dr. Selden; -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer; -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead, III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board of directors; -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members of TKT's board of directors; and -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann. The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2003, which the lead plaintiffs opposed. On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement. Thereafter, on May 26, 2004, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss. Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on July 16, 2004. On July 23, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. Both parties have provided briefs to the court regarding class certification. In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2005, the court entered judgment on all claims alleged against SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann & Company. On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on all claims alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead, Yetter, Miller, and Thomas. On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on all claims alleged against him. In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court approval, for $50 million. Shire will contribute $27 million toward the settlement and its insurance companies will contribute the remaining $23 million. The $27 million settlement cost has been provided for within SG&A during this quarter. In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008). The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Finkel, Esq.(RFinkel@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 - and - Darren Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtk.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02115 Phone: 617-526-6145 Fax: 617-526-5000 Michael K. Fee, Esq. (MFEE@ropesgray.com) Ropes & Gray, LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-7000 Fax: 617-951-7050 - and - Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 UNITED AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Ark. Insurance Policy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in a purported class action against United American Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Torchmark Corp., which was filed with the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas. The suit, "Smith and Ivie v. Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742- 2," was brought on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers of association group health insurance policies or certificates issued by the Company through Heartland Alliance of America Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc. In it, the plaintiffs assert claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, common law liability for non- disclosure, breach of fiduciary duties, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violation of Arkansas law and the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Insurance Department. The plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as actual and punitive damages. On Sept. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a nationwide class, defined as all United American insureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual Hospital and Surgical Expense health insurance policy and an individual supplemental term life insurance policy from Farm & Ranch through Heartland. The defendants removed this litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Case No. 4:05- cv-1382, but that Court remanded the litigation back to state court on plaintiffs' motion. Discovery is proceeding, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. The company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines. UNITED AMERICAN: Tex. Lawsuit Over UA Partners Program Amended -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Neuman v. United American Insurance Co., Case No. 36593," which was filed with the Texas state court, against United American Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Torchmark Corp., have amended their case to add other allegations, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On July 26, 2007, the purported class action litigation was filed for a class comprised only of Texas citizens in the state District Court of Falls County, Texas. The plaintiffs assert that the UA Partners program is a fraudulent scheme presented by United American to prospective insureds when they apply for insurance as a discount product and service program and the fee for this program is built into the insurance premium. They also allege that United American has been unjustly enriched as a result of the UA Partners program and are suing for money had and received and attorneys fees On Jan. 28, 2008, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege breach of contract and unfair business practices prohibited by the Texas Insurance Code in connection with the UA Partners program and now seek actual and additional statutory damages. UA Partners Program According to the company's Web site, the program offers UA Partners members and their families access to negotiated rates with over 300,000 physicians and over 4,100 hospitals across the country through a network of providers. These network programs are administered by Competitive Health. The company said it is an optional program. UA Partners members who participate in the provider network can expect to save 5%- 40% for physician charges and hospital charges. Because this program is not insurance, there are no benefit restrictions. Torchmark, Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. The company operates in two segments: insurance, which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines. UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against United Rentals, Inc. Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the company. Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf of a purported class comprised of purchasers of the company's securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to Aug. 30, 2004. The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its chairman, vice chairman, and chief executive officer, its former president and chief financial officer, and its former corporate controller. These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that certain of the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements, which resulted in damages to the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the company's securities. On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action asserted claims: -- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and -- against one or more of the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of such Act. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating the three actions. On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's and Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the purported class. The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation." The parties agreed upon, and the court subsequently approved, a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in this action and the briefing of any motions to dismiss directed to the operative complaint in the action. On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which: -- adds allegations relating to, among other things, the conclusions of the Special Committee and to other matters disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K; -- amends the purported class period to include purchasers of the company's securities from Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug. 30, 2004; and -- names as an additional defendant the company's first chief financial officer. In September 2006, the company and certain of the individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in this action. Briefing with respect to these motions is now complete. The company provided no development in the matter in its Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Christopher F. Droney presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Erin Green Comite, Esq. Scott & Scott 108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860-537-5537 Fax: 869-537-4432 w-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz & Nobel One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-493-6292 Fax: 860-493-6290 e-mail: nancy@snlaw.net Representing the defendants are: David M. Bizar, Esq. Day, Berry & Howard Hartford, CT 06103-3499 Phone: 860-275-0648 Fax: 860-275-0343 e-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com - and - Alan R. Friedman, Esq. Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-715-9100 e-mail: afriedman@kramerlevin.com UNITED RENTALS: Enters Settlement MoU for 2004 Accounting Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- United Rentals, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding with lead plaintiff's counsel to settle three purported class action lawsuits that were filed following the August 2004 announcement of an SEC inquiry concerning the company's historical accounting practices. The memorandum of understanding provides that the claims of the plaintiff class will be settled for a cash payment of $27.5 million. The contemplated settlement is subject to the prior satisfaction of a number of conditions, including definitive settlement documentation and court approval. In addition, the settlement is contingent upon United Rentals and its insurance carriers finalizing agreements on the portion of the settlement to be funded by the carriers, as well as the amounts that the carriers will reimburse United Rentals for defense costs concerning the shareholder actions and related inquiries and matters that have previously been expensed by the company. The company currently expects, taking into account anticipated settlement funding and defense cost reimbursements from its insurance carriers, that the contemplated settlement will not have a material effect on its results of operations or cash flows for any period. The memorandum of understanding provides that United Rentals and the individual defendants will each receive a release from the members of the purported plaintiff class, which consists of persons who purchased United Rentals securities from Feb. 28, 2001, to Aug. 30, 2004. The contemplated settlement is without any admission of liability or fault by the company or any of the other defendants. United Rentals noted that the contemplated settlement does not affect the SEC inquiry of the company, which is still ongoing. The company is continuing to cooperate fully with the SEC. Founded in 1997, United Rentals Inc. (NYSE: URI) -- http://www.unitedrentals.com/-- is an equipment rental company with more than 700 rental locations throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Their diverse customer base includes construction and industrial companies, utilities, municipalities, and homeowners. The company is comprised of 4 principle divisions: General Rentals, Aerial, HVAC/Pump & Power, and Trench Safety. UNITED WATER: West Nyack Residents File Lawsuit for Negligence -------------------------------------------------------------- About 30 West Nyack (New York) residents and business owners filed a class-action lawsuit with the state Supreme Court in New City, against United Water New York for negligence during April nor'easter, Amisha Padnani of The Journal News reports. According to the report, during a nor'easter in April, a large volume of water was released from United Water's reservoir and allegedly flooded yards, basements, garages and streets. The residents allege the company was negligent when it released a torrent of water into the surrounding neighborhood during a heavy rainstorm. In the past, when asked why the company hadn't released water in advance of the storm but instead chose to open the dam during the nor'easter, representatives said they could not always rely on weather forecasters' predictions, the report recounts. "Every time it rains, they hold their breath and hope their basements don't get flooded," said Kevin Mulhearn, the Orangeburg-based attorney representing the group. "That's no way to live." According to the 75-page complaint, the group is asking for $30 million in property and punitive damages. A United Water spokesman told the Journal News that the company could not comment until officials were served with the lawsuit. To contact Mr. Mulhearn: Kevin T. Mulhearn 12 Prel Plaza Orangeburg Rd, NY 10962 Phone: (914) 398-0361 VALERO ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Dismissal Motion v. Fuel Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion that seeks for the dismissal of several consumer class actions over fuel temperature, some of which names Valero Energy Corp. as a defendant. As of Feb. 1, 2008, the company was named in 22 consumer class action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature. The complaints, filed with federal courts in several states, allege that because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who purchased fuel in various locations. They seek an order compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as well as associated monetary relief. In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 1840). In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen). VALERO ENERGY: Ill. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Rosolowski" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois Appellate Court has heard oral arguments on Feb. 20, 2008, in connection to the plaintiff's appeal of a decision by Judge Cheryl A. Starks of Cook County Circuit that effectively vacates a $120-million judgment that was won against the owners of the former Clark Oil refinery in Blue Island to appeal The suit is "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703." Valero Energy, Inc. assumed this class action after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement on Sept. 1, 2005. The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery on Oct. 7, 1994. The release resulted in the temporary evacuation of certain areas near the refinery. The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of which received a sizeable jury verdict. That class consisted of local residents who claimed property damage or loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a period of several years. In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages. However, following the company's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the jury's award and decertified the class. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the $120 million judgment and decertify the class. Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal were heard before the state appeals court on Feb. 20, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen). New Securities Fraud Cases CAMTEK LTD: Jacob Sabo Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Jacob Sabo has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Camtek Ltd. between Nov. 22, 2005, and Dec. 20, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint charges Camtek and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Camtek's business and prospects caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Camtek Ltd. engages in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of automated optical inspection systems and related products which are utilized in the printed circuit board and semiconductor industries to optically inspect various types of electronic product components for manufacturing defects. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Camtek shares by issuing statements touting positive trends in the PCB and semiconductors markets and the strength of Camtek's business and financial performance, but that defendants: (i) knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public that the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and (ii) misrepresented the Company's business and future prospects. Thus, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its financial results, and as a result, defendants' Class Period statements concerning the Company's business and future prospects were, at minimum, reckless. The Complaint further alleges that defendants were further motivated to engage in this course of conduct in order to generate proceeds from a private placement with institutional investors in April 2006 whereby the Company garnered approximately $15 million in proceeds. On December 21, 2006, Camtek issued a press release announcing The Company's preliminary financial results for fourth quarter 2006. The Company announced that fourth quarter revenue and earnings were expected to be lower than anticipated "due to lower revenues in the semiconductor segment." This news shocked the market, causing shares of Camtek to plummet $1.28 per share -- a more than 22% drop from the previous day's closing price of $5.77 per share -- to close on December 21, 2006, at $4.49 per share on unusually heavy volume of more than 1.4 million shares traded. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jacob Sabo, Esq. (sabolaw@inter.net.il) The Law Office of Jacob Sabo The Tower No. 3 Daniel Frisch Street, 15th Floor Tel Aviv, Israel 64731 Phone: (011) 972-3-6078888 ENERNOC INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio filed a class-action complaint on March 4, 2008, with the U.S. District of Massachusetts against EnerNOC, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENOC) accusing the company of securities law violations, CNNMoney.com reports. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws and remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The class action was filed on behalf of all investors who acquired EnerNOC securities from November 1, 2007, through and including February 27, 2008, and purchasers of EnerNOC common stock pursuant to Prospectus on Form 424B4 between November 13, 2007, through and including February 27, 2008. The lawsuit claims that EnerNOC and a number of individual defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b) and 78t(a) and Rules 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements about EnerNOC's financial results during the Class Period, some contained in SEC filings. In particular, the complaint says that: (a) defendants knew, but failed to adequately reveal to the investing public, that expenses were rising faster than revenues, creating a negative trend; and (b) that the increasing number of megawatts under management involved prolonged lags in the Company's ability to recognize revenue. As a result, the plaintiff and other members of the class acquired EnerNOC common stock at artificially inflated prices during the class period. With executive offices in Boston, EnerNOC develops and provides demand response and energy management solutions to utilities and other commercial clients. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 5, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Leslie R. Stern, Esq. Bryan A. Wood, Esq. Berman DeValerio One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (800) 516-9926 e-mail: law@bermanesq.com FORCE PROTECTION: Coughlin Stoia Files SC Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Force Protection, Inc. common stock during the period between August 14, 2006, and February 29, 2008. The complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture of ballistic and blast protected vehicles. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, financial results and prospects. Specifically, defendants continually boasted Force Protection's dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates. However, in a report dated June 27, 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without competitive bidding. Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force Protection announced it would have to delay the release of its 2007 Form 10-K and restate its Form 10-Q for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007. On this news, Force Protection's stock collapsed to close at $3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 13% and an 88% decline from the Class Period high of $30.27 per share, prior to when Force Protection's problems began to be revealed. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) as a result of the Company's ongoing problems in meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company would have trouble competing in the MRAP market; (b) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had been critical of the Company's finances and financial accounting system, which threatened the Company's eligibility to compete for government contracts; (c) the Company's accounting department suffered from material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the necessary staff and resources to perform its required functions; (d) contrary to the representations contained in the Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls were inadequate and easily manipulated; (e) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its financial reporting process, required to enable it to properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's future financial and operational performance; and (f) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at least its third quarter 2007 financial results. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Force Protection common stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 MF GLOBAL: Weiss & Lurie Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Weiss & Lurie announced that on March 6, 2008, it filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of MF Global, Ltd., in its initial public offering on July 19, 2007, and on the open market through February, 28, 2008. The complaint asserts claims against defendants MF, Man Group Plc, Kevin R. Davis, Amy S. Butte, Alison J. Carnwath, Christopher J. Smith, Christopher Bates, Henri J. Steenkamp and Edward L. Goldberg for violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially false and misleading. For more information, contact: Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. James E. Tullman, Esq. Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Weiss & Lurie The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10176 Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- March 12, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS RISK TRANSFER Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 12, 2008 MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE TELECONFERENCE: COVERAGE ISSUES ARISING FROM SUBPRIME LENDING Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 13, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: REINSURANCE/ARBITRATION Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 13, 2008 MEALEY'S NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES CONFERENCE WHO'S SUING, WHO'S RESTORING AND CAN THEY DO BOTH? Mealeys Seminars Loews Philadelphia Hotel Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 13-14, 2008 PRIVACY LAW: DEVELOPMENTS, PLANNING, AND LITIGATION ALI-ABA Washington DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 26, 2008 MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 27-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION ALI-ABA Scottsdale AZ Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 31 - April 1, 2008 FDA BOOT CAMP American Conference Institute New York Web site: https://www.americanconference.com Phone: 1-888-224-2480 April 2, 2008 LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE HARD CONVERSATIONS Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 3-4, 2008 MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 9-12, 2008 MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 10-11, 2008 Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar Mass Torts Made Perfect Wynn, Las Vegas Phone: 1-800-320-2227 April 14-15, 2008 MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES Mealeys Seminars The MGM Grand, Las Vegas Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 15, 2008 LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 16, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 16, 2008 LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING, NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT Mealeys Seminars The Gleacher Center, Chicago Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 30 - May 1, 2008 ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT American Conference Institute New York Web site: https://www.americanconference.com Phone: 1-888-224-2480 April 30 - May 1, 2008 WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION American Conference Institute Miami Web site: https://www.americanconference.com Phone: 1-888-224-2480 May 1-2, 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES ALI-ABA Boston, MA Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 5-6, 2008 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 7, 2008 LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8, 2008 LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING, NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA) Mealeys Seminars The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 13-14, 2008 D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York Web site: https://www.americanconference.com Phone: 1-888-224-2480 May 15, 2008 LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 19-20, 2008 MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY Mealeys Seminars The Westin Grand, Washington, DC Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 20-21, 2008 MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 29-30, 2008 MASS LITIGATION ALI-ABA Charleston, SC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 June 23-24, 2008 MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 25, 2008 LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING, NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK) Mealeys Seminars The Harvard Club, New York Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 10-11, 2008 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 July 30, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute Chicago Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 October 23-24, 2008 Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar Mass Torts Made Perfect Bellagio, Las Vegas Phone: 1-800-320-2227 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ December 13, 2008 MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Phone: 800-285-2221 e-mail: abacle@abanet.org ********* 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, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. 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 * * *