/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080324.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 58 Headlines ALABAMA: Sued Over Racial Discrimination in Tax System AUCTION (KOREA): Lawsuits Over Personal Information Leakage Loom BEAR STEARNS: Faces ERISA Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit in N.Y. BEAR STEARNS: Wolf Popper LLP Files ERISA Fiduciary Breach Suit ELRON ELECTRONICS: Faces Lawsuit Over Given Imaging Rejection EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y. Federal Court FIDELITY NATIONAL: Ill. Court Denied Class Certification Motion FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Litigation in Texas Over Recording Fees FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Purchasers' Suits FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Suits Over Title Insurance "Premiums" FIDELITY NATIONAL: Kans. Court Dismisses Recording Fees Lawsuit FLORIDA: Archer Aids Dismal High School Graduation Rates Suit GETTY IMAGES: Brian Felgoise Announces Suit Filing in Washington HANNAFORD BROS: Consumers File ME Lawsuit Over Card Data Loss INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in W.Va. INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit INDIANA: Marion County CIB Faces Suit Over Use of Auction Funds LIVE NATION: Appeals Class Certification of CA Antitrust Lawsuit LOUISIANA: Gulf Coast Citizens Sue Over Toxic Relief Trailers MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward PHARMION CORP: Settles Del. Litigation Over Celgene Corp. Merger PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED: Faces LASIC Policyholders' Suit in FL STERLING JEWELERS: Cohen Milstein Files Gender Bias Suit in N.Y. TOWN SPORTS: Still Faces N.Y. Suits Alleging Labor Violations UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: CalPERS Stock-Options Lawsuit Certified WASHINGTON: Chelan PUD Settles Overtime Lawsuit with Workers New Securities Fraud Cases DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Holzer Announces Fla. Securities Suit Filing SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit TD AMERITRADE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. WACHOVIA CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY WELLPOINT INC: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in IN WELLPOINT INC: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* ALABAMA: Sued Over Racial Discrimination in Tax System ------------------------------------------------------ Jim Blacksher, Esq., a civil rights attorney, filed a lawsuit contending that Alabama's lowest-in-the-nation property taxes were rooted in racial discrimination a century ago and still harm black students in disproportionate numbers, the Associated Press reports. According to AP, the suit -- filed in Alabama's northern district federal court March 14, 2008, on behalf of some Lawrence and Sumter county public school students -- seeks an order for the governor and Legislature to restructure Alabama's tax system across the board to sufficiently fund K-12 schools. It also seeks class-action status that could impact all public schools in the state. AP relates that Mr. Blacksher earlier told The Birmingham News that the suit, if successful, would require the state to confront tax reform, including sales taxes that hit the poor hardest. "Local school systems in Alabama cannot raise funds for their schools that come anywhere near the support the school needs," Mr. Blacksher had said. "Property taxes are taxes on wealth. Sales taxes are not." Mr. Blacksher, according to AP, is a lead attorney in Alabama's long-running college desegregation case, which raised in 2004 the issue of how Alabama's property tax system affects minority students. U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy found that the property tax system is a vestige of discrimination, but said it would need to be raised in a separate case. "This is the case," Mr. Blacksher said. Robert Hunter, Esq., who represented the state in the higher education case, said he was disappointed that the issue was raised in federal court and not left to the legislative process and Alabama residents. The suit, which names Gov. Bob Riley and Revenue Commissioner Tim Russell as defendants, contends that the 1901 constitution first set out racially discriminatory property tax restrictions that force local governments to fund public schools primarily through regressive sales taxes while letting large landowners pay little in property taxes. It also cites what is known as the "lid bill," a 1973 constitutional amendment that sets limits on property tax collections. "The current ad valorem tax structure is a vestige of discrimination inasmuch as the constitution provisions governing the taxation of property are traceable to, rooted in, and have their antecedents in an original segregative discriminatory policy," the suit adds. AUCTION (KOREA): Lawsuits Over Personal Information Leakage Loom ---------------------------------------------------------------- Korea's largest online shopping mall, Auction, who has some 18 million subscribers, could face class action suits from members in connection with a leak of their personal information, the Digital Chosunilbo reports. Attorneys Kim Hyun-sung, of law firm Sangsun, and Park Jin-shik, of law firm Next Law, told Chosunilbo that they will separately file for damages in early April against Auction. The two lawyers are now recruiting litigants online. Chosunilbo writes that as of March 19, Mr. Kim had recruited some 3,200 litigants and Mr. Park about 1,700 for their respective suits. Legal insiders share with Chosunilbo that they predict each of the litigants could get between KRW200,000 (US$1=KRW1,009) and KRW1 million in compensation. The report recalls that on Feb. 4, 2008, Auction admitted that in the wake of an attack by Chinese hackers on its computer security system, files of subscribers' residence registration numbers, names, telephone numbers, and personal refund information had been leaked. Chosunilbo relates that in November 2007, a court ordered Kookmin Bank to pay KRW200,000 to each victim of the bank's leak of customer personal information. In another case, a court ordered LG Electronics to pay KRW700,000 to each victim of a leak of personal information in jobseekers' applications. BEAR STEARNS: Faces ERISA Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed the first lawsuit of its kind with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the federal law governing employee benefit plans. The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of the Plan and its aggrieved participants, losses in connection with the unprecedented devaluation of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., common stock held by Plan participants between December 14, 2006, and the present. This case epitomizes the danger of concentrating hundreds of millions of "retirement eggs: in one basket -- employer stock -- even for employees of an institution like Bear Stearns." The plaintiff alleges that Bear Stearns, like too many others, has inflicted long-term harm on its most precious resource -- its workers. Pursuant to ERISA, the defendants-fiduciaries of the Plan were obligated to ensure that the Plan's assets were prudently invested. The Complaint alleges that the defendants utterly failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties and, as a result, the Plan's participants have suffered tremendous losses to their retirement savings. The Complaint generally alleges that Bear Stearns and certain of its officers and directors allowed the imprudent investment of the Plan's assets/participants' retirement savings in Bear Stearns equity throughout the Class Period, despite the fact that they clearly knew or should have known that such investment was imprudent due to, among other things: (a) the Company's failure to disclose material adverse facts about its financial well-being including its ability to continue as a going concern; (b) the foreseeable deleterious consequences to the Company resulting from its substantial entrenchment in the subprime mortgage market; (c) the fact that, as a consequence of the above, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated; and (d) the fact that heavy investment of retirement savings in Company stock would therefore result in significant losses to the Plan, and consequently, to its participants. Specifically, the plaintiff's complaint alleges that Bear Stearns stock was an inherently imprudent Plan investment vehicle because the Company: (1) was grossly over-exposed to the potential for substantial losses as conditions in the subprime industry deteriorated; (2) actively concealed the ominous dangers it faced; (3) failed to take accurate and timely write-downs for losses resulting from the collapse of the subprime market; and that the (4) Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. For more information, contact: Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com BEAR STEARNS: Wolf Popper LLP Files ERISA Fiduciary Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Popper LLP has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, for violations of the federal pension law in connection with the loss in value of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. common stock acquired and held by present and former employees of Bear Stearns through the Plan. The goal of this litigation is to recover damages sustained by the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. The complaint can be viewed on Wolf Popper's website or obtained from the Court. According to Marian Rosner, who represents the plaintiff, "Bear Stearns has acted with gross disregard to its fiduciary duties under ERISA and once again employee retirement savings are left to disintegrate while company insiders reaped tens of millions of dollars from their sales of company stock." The complaint alleges, among other things, that Bear Stearns, and certain of its officers and directors, allowed the imprudent investment of the Plan's assets in Bear Stearns common stock despite the fact that they knew or should have known that such investment was unduly risky and imprudent due to the Company's serious mismanagement and improper business practices including, among other practices: (a) causing Bear Stearns to spend billions of dollars purchasing subprime loans despite increasing delinquency rates among subprime borrowers; (b) failing to adequately disclose Bear Stearns's subprime loan loss exposure to investors, including the Plan's participants; (c) operating without the requisite internal controls to determine appropriate loan loss provisions; (d) understating loan loss provisions that did not properly reflect the risk facing Bear Stearns; and (e) subjecting the company to billions of dollars in liabilities from civil and criminal lawsuits, all of which caused Bear Stearns's financial statements to be misleading and which artificially inflated the value of shares of Bear Stearns stock. In short, the company was seriously mismanaged and faced dire financial crisis due to such mismanagement, which rendered Bear Stearns stock an imprudent investment. Bear Stearn's actions have caused the Plan to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars. For more information, contact: James Kelly-Kowlowitz Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel.: 212.451-4635 Toll Free: 877.370.7703 Fax: 212.486.2093 Toll Free Fax: 877.370.7704 e-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com ELRON ELECTRONICS: Faces Lawsuit Over Given Imaging Rejection ------------------------------------------------------------- Elron Electronic Industries (Nasdaq: ELRN; TASE: ELRN) is facing a class action suit over its failure to disclose material information and to issue an immediate report regarding a material issue, Globe Online reports. The plaintiffs claim that the delay in the disclosure of the FDA rejection of Given Imaging's PillCam was misleading. Globe Online says that the class action suit, which was filed on March 20, 2008, with the Tel Aviv District Court, notes that Elron has a material holding in Given Imaging (Nasdaq: GIVN; TASE: GIVN), which is dual-listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) and Nasdaq. EXPEDITORS INT'L: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y. Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is facing a purported antitrust class action lawsuit in New York, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Jan. 3, 2008, the Company was named as a defendant, with seven other of the largest European and North American-based global logistics providers, in a federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in New York. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of customers (which has not yet been certified), alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-competitive practices. Seattle-based Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. -- http://www.expeditors.com/-- is engaged in the business of providing global logistics services. The Company offers its customers an international network supporting the movement and positioning of goods. Its services include the consolidation or forwarding of air and ocean freight. In each U.S. office and in many overseas offices, the Company acts as a customs broker. It also provides additional services, including distribution management, vendor consolidation, cargo insurance, purchase order management and customized logistics information. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Ill. Court Denied Class Certification Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division denied a motion seeking class-action status for two lawsuits, which allege that Fidelity National Financial, Inc. violated the Illinois Title Insurance Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and has been unjustly enriched through the practice of paying Illinois attorney’s agency fees. The suits, each filed on May 11, 2006, are captioned: -- "Chultem v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Chicago Title and Trust Company and Ticor Title Insurance Company;" and -- "Colella v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Chicago Title and Trust Company and Ticor Title Insurance Company." The complaint alleges the payments are in exchange for the referral of business and the attorneys do not perform any "core title services." Although the Company's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were granted, the plaintiffs were permitted to and did amend their complaints. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied on Feb. 22, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a provider of title insurance, specialty insurance and claims management services. The Company also provides flood insurance, personal lines insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty insurance subsidiaries. FNF has two business segments. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Litigation in Texas Over Recording Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial Inc. is facing a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas over allegations the company overcharged for recording fees in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 24, 2006 by Rosa Maria Arevalo. It seeks to recover the recording fees for the class that was overcharged, interest, and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Company's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are under submission. The suit is "Arevalo, et al. v. Fidelity National Financial, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00265-OLG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Orlando L. Garcia presiding. Representing plaintiff are: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Diab & Bock 20 N. Wacker Drive Suite 1741 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 334-1970 Fax: (312) 334-1971 - and - Vic Feazell, Esq. The Law Offices of Vic Feazell PC 6300 Bridgepoint Pkwy. Bridgepoint II, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730 Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 Representing the defendants is: Tricia R. DeLeon, Esq. Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800 Dallas, TX 75202-2711 Phone: (214) 758-1074 Fax: (214) 468-3888 e-mail: tricia.deleon@bracewellgiuliani.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Purchasers' Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc., along with several of its affiliates, face several purported federal class actions that filed on behalf of purchasers of title insurance in New York, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance Co., and Ticor Title Insurance Co. (Fidelity Affiliates). The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates. The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization which is also named as a defendant. Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York State statutory and common law claims. The complaints seek monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief. The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, are in their preliminary stages. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a provider of title insurance, specialty insurance and claims management services. The Company also provides flood insurance, personal lines insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty insurance subsidiaries. FNF has two business segments. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Suits Over Title Insurance "Premiums" -------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc. faces several purported class actions, alleging improper premiums were charged for title insurance, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suits are: -- "Dubin v. Security Union Title Insurance Company, filed on March 12, 2003, in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio;" -- "Patterson v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of New York, filed on Oct. 27, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;" -- "O'Day v. Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida, filed on Oct. 18, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;" -- "Cohen v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, filed on Jan. 27, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;" and -- "Guizarri v. Ticor Title Insurance Company, filed on Oct. 17, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These cases allege that the named defendant companies failed to provide notice of premium discounts to consumers refinancing their mortgages, and failed to give discounts in refinancing transactions in violation of the filed rates. In Dubin, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is under submission and trial is scheduled for early 2008. In Patterson, the court sustained the Company's motion to dismiss all counts except counts for fraud and for violation of a consumer protection law. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining two causes of action and the plaintiff’s motion for class certification are under submission. The Company's motions to dismiss were denied in the Cohen, O'Day, and Guizarri cases, and classes have been certified. The parties are proceeding with discovery. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fntg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a provider of title insurance, specialty insurance and claims management services. The Company also provides flood insurance, personal lines insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty insurance subsidiaries. FNF has two business segments. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Kans. Court Dismisses Recording Fees Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed a purported class action against Fidelity National Financial Inc. over allegations that the company overcharged for recording fees. The suit is "Doll v. Chicago Title Insurance Company," was filed on Sept. 28, 2006, alleging that the Company charged consumers more than the County Recorder charges to record their documents in conjunction with closing transactions. The plaintiff's motion to certify the class was denied. This action has been dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Doll et al v. Fidelity National Title Group, Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02416-JWL-JPO," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Phillip G. Greenfield, Esq. Rouse Hendricks German May PC One Petticoat Lane Bldg. 1010 Walnut St., Ste. 400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-471-7700 Fax: 816-471-2221 e-mail: philg@rhgm.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Feazell & Tighe, LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway Bridgepoint 2, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730 Phone: 512-372-8100 Fax: 512-372-8410 Representing the defendants are: Richard N. Bien, Esq. Lathrop & Gage, LC 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2800 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: 816-460-5520 Fax: 816-292-2001 e-mail: rbien@lathropgage.com - and - Amii N. Castle, Esq. Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile & Rhodes, LLC 903 E. 104th Street, Suite 610 Kansas City, MO 64131 Phone: 816-941-7600 Fax: 816-941-6666 e-mail: acastle@dfrglaw.com FLORIDA: Archer Aids Dismal High School Graduation Rates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- New York Law School Professor Deborah N. Archer, Director of the Law School's Racial Justice Project, is one of the attorneys in the class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Florida against the Palm Beach County School District, which charges that low high school graduation rates demonstrate a violation of students' constitutional rights to high quality education. "Our public education system must at least provide students with a meaningful opportunity to graduate from high school," Professor Archer said. "In Florida this is a constitutional right that cannot be denied because of race, gender or socio- economic status. By not graduating a third of its students, Palm Beach County is failing to provide the high quality education mandated by the Florida constitution." The lawsuit claims that the Palm Beach County School District violates the state constitution's declaration of the "fundamental value" of educating children and the right that free public education be "uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality" (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2008). It is estimated that as many as one in three Palm Beach County students does not graduate on time with a regular diploma, placing well below state and national averages. There is also a significant disparity between the graduation rates of African- American and Hispanic students compared to white students. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of parents and students in the district, and seeks for the school district to improve graduation rates without pushing students out of the school system. American Civil Liberties Union on the net: http://www.aclu.org GETTY IMAGES: Brian Felgoise Announces Suit Filing in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., announced that a class action has been commenced the Superior Court of Kings County, Washington on behalf of shareholders of Getty Images, Inc. in connection with the offer by an affiliate of the private equity firm, Hellman & Friedman, LLC to acquire all of the outstanding shares of GYI. The suit is filed against certain officers and directors. The goal of the lawsuit is to seek the highest possible offer for the public shares. For more information, contact: Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. 261 Old York Road, Suite 423 Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 Phone: (215) 886-1900 HANNAFORD BROS: Consumers File ME Lawsuit Over Card Data Loss ------------------------------------------------------------- On March 19, 2008, the law firm of Berger & Montague, PC filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on behalf of all consumers in the United States whose credit card or debit card data was stolen from the computer network of Hannaford Brothers Co. supermarkets. The complaint alleges that Hannaford was negligent for failing to maintain adequate computer data security of customer credit and debit card data, which was accessed and stolen by a computer hacker. On March 17, 2008, Hannaford announced on its website that there was a "data intrusion into its computer network that resulted in the theft of consumer credit and debit card numbers." The stolen data included "credit and debit card numbers and expiration dates," which were accessed from Hannaford's computer system "during transmission of card authorization." The intrusion affected all Hannaford stores located throughout the North Eastern U.S., as well as Sweetbay stores in Florida. Published news reports indicated that 4.2 million unique credit and debit card numbers have been exposed to potential fraud. To date, there have been approximately 1,800 cases of reported credit and debit card fraud stemming from the breach. Reportedly, the breach began on December 7, 2007, and was not contained until March 10, 2008. Hannaford stated that it became aware of the breach on February 27, 2008. However, Hannaford did not publicly announce the breach until almost three weeks later, on March 17, 2008. Because of Hannaford's inadequate data security, its customers have had their personal financial information compromised, have been exposed to the risk of fraud, have incurred and will continue to incur time to monitor their accounts and dispute fraudulent charges, and have otherwise suffered damages. For more information, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. (ssavett@bm.net) Michael T. Fantini, Esq. (mfantini@bm.net) Jon J. Lambiras, Esq. (jlambiras@bm.net) Berger & Montague, PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA, 19103 Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 Fax: 215-875-4604 Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in W.Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- International Coal Group, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Jan. 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class action lawsuit against the company, and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration statements filed in connection with the company's November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 public offering of common stock. In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's public statements regarding its operating condition and safety record. The suit is "Saratoga Advantage Trust v. ICG, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00011," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Troy N. Giatras, Esq. The Giatras Law Firm Suite 400 118 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304/343-2900 Fax: 304/343-2942 e-mail: troy@thewvlawfirm.com - and - Mark L. Knutson, Esq. Finkelstein & Krinsk Suite 1250 501 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/238-1333 Fax: 619/238-5425 e-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Bronson J. Bigelow, Esq. Jones Day 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017-6702 Phone: 212/326-3939 Fax: 212/755-7306 e-mail: bjbigelow@jonesday.com - and - Edward D. McDevitt, Esq. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love P. O. Box 1386 Charleston, WV 25325-1386 Phone: 304/347-1100 Fax: 304/343-3058 e-mail: emcdevitt@bowlesrice.com INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a purported class action against International Coal Group, Inc., which is accusing it of misleading investors about its operations when it made an initial public offering of stock in late 2005. On April 5, 2007 a class action was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that our registration statements filed in connection with its initial public offering contained false and misleading statements, and that investors relied upon those securities filings and suffered damages as a result. The court ordered certain plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and, as a result, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2007. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on Sept. 28, 2007, and that motion remains pending. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. ICG, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00226," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. presiding. Representing plaintiffs is: Mark W. Carbone, Esq. Carbone & Blaydes 2442 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304/342-3650 Fax: 304/342-3651 e-mail: wvjustice@aol.com Representing the defedants are: Bronson J. Bigelow, Esq. Jones Day 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017-6702 Phone: 212/326-3939 Fax: 212/755-7306 e-mail: bjbigelow@jonesday.com John R. Hoblitzell, Esq. Kay Casto & Chaney P.O. Box 2031 Charleston, WV 25327-2031 Phone: 304/345-8900 Fax: 304/345-8909 e-mail: j.hoblitzell@kaycasto.com - and - Edward D. McDevitt, Esq. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love P.O. Box 1386 Charleston, WV 25325-1386 Phone: 304/347-1100 Fax: 304/343-3058 e-mail: emcdevitt@bowlesrice.com INDIANA: Marion County CIB Faces Suit Over Use of Auction Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- An Indianapolis law firm has filed a lawsuit to prevent money from an online auction of RCA Dome memorabilia from going to the Indianapolis Colts Foundation and the Indiana Sports Corporation, the Associated Press reports. The plaintiffs say that proceeds from the sale of public property should go to taxpayers rather than to the two private non-profit organizations. The lawsuit, specifically filed against the Marion County Capital Improvement Board -- which owns and manages the stadium -- is seeking class action status. According to AP, the CIB is selling seats, pieces of turf and the fabric roof, and even urinals to the public in an online auction. The RCA Dome will be demolished and replaced in time for the start of the 2008 NFL season by Lucas Oil Stadium. LIVE NATION: Appeals Class Certification of CA Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation, Inc. filed a motion with U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for reconsideration of its Oct. 22, 2007 order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a consolidated antitrust lawsuit filed against the company. The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert promotion services by the company caused artificially high- ticket prices. Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class actions filed by different named plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts throughout the country. The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged. The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied liability. On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the above-listed actions and any similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an Order to stay all proceedings in the case pending the Court's ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certifying a class in the Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional markets. On Nov. 5, 2007, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Order Granting Class Certification with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At a status conference conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the U.S. District Court extended its stay of all proceedings pending further developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On Feb. 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the company's Petition for Permission to Appeal. On Feb. 20, 2008, the company filed a Motion with the U.S. District Court for Reconsideration of its Oct. 22, 2007 order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. For more details, contact: [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 e-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com [Defendants] Paul Chalmers, Esq. Paul Chalmers Law Offices Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street NW #405 New York, NY 920036 Phone: 202-772-1834 - and - [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati 12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-999-5859 LOUISIANA: Gulf Coast Citizens Sue Over Toxic Relief Trailers ------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit that could include thousands of Gulf Coast citizens who have resided in allegedly toxic housing units distributed after the landfalls of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 was filed against the federal government and dozens of trailer manufacturers in New Orleans federal court. The lawsuit, which adds new claims to and consolidates several cases previously filed in Gulf Coast federal courts, names as defendants the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 62 manufacturers of government-distributed travel trailers, park models, and mobile homes, according to the seven-law firm plaintiffs' Steering Committee, which will seek to have the case certified as a class action. The Complaint, which names 55 representative plaintiffs, claims multiple violations of federal and Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama law. The lawsuit alleges that manufacturers failed to warn the federal government about the risks of formaldehyde used in particle board, fiberboard, plywood, glues, and adhesives used to manufacture the housing units and then "ignored or deliberately and fraudulently concealed" the risks. FEMA is accused in the lawsuit of distributing housing units well after undisclosed air sampling of housing units at government staging facilities showed formaldehyde levels that exceeded government standards; seeking to avoid comprehensive testing of the housing units after widespread health problems were reported by residents of the housing units; ignoring the scientific work and concerns of federal scientists familiar with formaldehyde issues; and manipulating governmental testing of the housing units by seeking to ensure that long-term formaldehyde exposure considerations would not be addressed in testing findings. Tony Buzbee, Esq., of the Buzbee Law Firm, in Houston, Texas, stated, "We contend that FEMA and the manufacturers knew or should have known of health hazards inherent in these housing units. Published medical studies -- and the government's own testing -- make it clear that the dangers of long-term formaldehyde exposure were no secret to either the federal government or the manufacturers. Our clients report a wide range of symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. The time is coming when the industry will be forced to explain why these housing units were so toxic to the displaced families living in them." Attorney Raul Bencomo, of Bencomo & Associates, in New Orleans, stated, "Until very recently, FEMA's handling of this health issue has been deplorable, but we do agree with the agency's position that responsibility for the safety of families living in the trailers also falls on the manufacturers. We are determined to have the government and the responsible manufacturers account for creating and prolonging this crisis. Because the government paid billions of taxpayer dollars for these housing units, we also urge the Congress to investigate this matter." Besides FEMA, the named defendants include: -- Coachmen Industries (NYSE: COA); -- Fleetwood Enterprises Inc. (NYSE: FLE); -- Thor Industries Inc. (NYSE: THO); -- Gulf Stream Coach, Inc; -- Forest River Inc.; -- Jayco Enterprises, Inc.; -- Monaco Coach Corporation; -- Pilgrim International, Inc.; -- Recreation By Design, LLC; and -- Starcraft RV, Inc. The case is "In Re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1873," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division. MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for Windows Vista users are asking U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman to let a lawsuit over a related marketing program advance toward trial even as Microsoft Corp. appeals a pivotal ruling in the case, seattlepi.com reports, citing court papers filed on March 17, 2008. The report relates that the filing follows Microsoft's request for Judge Pechman to freeze the case while the company asks the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review her ruling certifying it as a class action. The plaintiffs, who also plan to oppose that appeal, contend that Microsoft is trying to avoid the release of more internal e-mails showing the behind-the- scenes discussions about Windows Vista. Earlier e-mails revealed Microsoft officials' personal complaints about Windows Vista. They also showed internal wrangling over the company's decision to lower the standards for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation in an apparent attempt to appease chip maker Intel Corp. Microsoft's request for a stay "is driven by the realization that continued discovery and trial preparation will require it to produce even more documents that reveal the truth behind its Vista Capable program to a now astonished, disappointed and concerned public," lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in the filing. The filing noted that the plaintiffs have expanded their quest for documents, in part by issuing subpoenas to computer makers and retailers. They've also made another series of requests for internal documents and e-mails from Microsoft. Microsoft didn't immediately comment on the plaintiffs' latest assertions. Its March 6 request for a stay in the case cited factors including the high cost of finding and turning over related documents, a process that could be unnecessary if the appeals court rules in its favor. The lawsuit alleges that Microsoft misled consumers by allowing computers to be touted as "Windows Vista Capable" even in situations where the underlying hardware wasn't enough to run the operating system's best-known features. Microsoft disputes that assertion, saying that it considers the lower-end Windows Vista Home Basic a bona fide edition of the operating system, and a notable improvement over Vista's successor, Windows XP. PHARMION CORP: Settles Del. Litigation Over Celgene Corp. Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmion Corp. settled a purported class action lawsuit in Delaware over a merger agreement with Celgene Corp., according to Pharmion'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 Nov. 18, 2007, Pharmion entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Delaware-based Celgene Corp. and Cobalt Acquisition LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene. Under the terms of the Agreement, Celgene will acquire Pharmion by means of a merger, in which Pharmion will be merged with and into the Merger Sub. On Nov. 21, 2007, subsequent to the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, a purported class action was filed with the Court of Chancery in Delaware naming the company as defendants, as well as Celgene, the Merger Sub, and the company's directors -- Patrick J. Mahaffy, Brian G. Atwood, James Blair, M. James Barrett, Cam L. Garner, Edward J. McKinley, John C. Reed and Thorlef Spickschen. The complaint against Celgene and Merger Sub was subsequently dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice. The complaint, which was purportedly brought on behalf of the company's public stockholders (other than the defendants), in substance alleged that the terms of the Merger are unfair to the company's public stockholders because, in the view of the plaintiff, the value of our publicly held common stock is greater than the consideration being offered to the company's public stockholders in the Merger. The complaint asserted claims against the director-defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and against the company for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On Feb. 7, 2008, the complaint was amended. The amended complaint deleted the claim that the proposed Merger is unfair and asserts instead claims that the proxy statement/prospectus, dated Feb. 5, 2008, and mailed to the company stockholders on or about Feb. 6, 2008, relating to the special meeting of the company stockholders, scheduled to be held on March 6, 2008, to consider the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger, contains materially inaccurate, incomplete and misleading disclosures relating to the Merger. In its prayer for relief, the complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger. The action is captioned as follows, "Arthur Murphy v. Pharmion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 3367-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 21, 2007)." On Feb. 17, 2008, the company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Celgene, the Merger Sub and the plaintiff relating to a proposed settlement of the case. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties agreed that the plaintiff will seek an order of the Delaware Court of Chancery certifying the class for settlement purposes, dismissing the action with prejudice and releasing the defendants, Celgene and Merger Sub from any liability with respect to the claims asserted in the amended complaint, in exchange for the company's agreement to provide the company's stockholders with additional information concerning the Merger and related matters. In addition, the defendants have agreed not to object to an application by the plaintiff for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $450,000, such fees having been negotiated and agreed to by the parties after all other substantive terms of the settlement had been negotiated and agreed to. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, on or about Feb. 19, 2008, the company mailed to its stockholders a supplement to the proxy statement/prospectus, dated Feb. 19, 2008, containing additional information regarding the Merger and related matters. Pharmion Corp. -- http://www.celgene.com/acquisitionHome.aspx-- is a global pharmaceutical company that acquires, develops and commercializes products for the treatment of hematology and oncology patients. The Company has established its own research, regulatory, development and sales and marketing organizations in the U.S., the European Union, and Australia. PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED: Faces LASIC Policyholders' Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. faces a purported class in Florida over insurance policies issued by Liberty American Select Insurance Co., according to Philadelphia Consolidated'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. 26, 2008, the Company received a complaint filed on Feb. 14, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by seven individuals. These individuals purported to act on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons who had been issued insurance policies by Liberty American Select Insurance Co., formerly known as Mobile USA Insurance Company. The complaint, which is alleged to be a "class action complaint," was filed against Philadelphia Insurance and its subsidiaries, LASIC, Liberty American Insurance Co., and Liberty American Insurance Group, Inc. The complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages "in excess of $5,000,000," and equitable relief to prevent the defendants from committing what are alleged to be unfair business practices. The plaintiffs allege that from the period from at least as early as Sept. 1, 2003, through Dec. 31, 2006, they and other policyholders sustained property damage covered under policies issued by LASIC, and that LASIC improperly denied or paid only a portion of the policyholders' claims for which they were entitled to be reimbursed. The suit is "Appel et al v. Liberty American Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-20385-DLG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com) Aronovitz Jaffe 150 W. Flagler Street Suite 2700 Museum Tower Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-372-2772 Fax: 305-375-0243 - and - Michael H. Lax, Esq. (mhlax@laxpa.com) Michael H. Lax, P.A. 18001 Old Cutler Road Suite 409 Miami, FL 33157 Phone: 305-256-5529 Fax: 305-256-5597 STERLING JEWELERS: Cohen Milstein Files Gender Bias Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, filed a class action lawsuit with the federal court in the Southern District of New York on March 18, 2008, on behalf of 15 current and former female employees of Sterling Jewelers, the nation's largest chain of jewelry stores. Sterling Jewelers was charged with committing widespread sex discrimination against its female retail sales employees. Sterling Jewelers operates more than 1300 stores located in shopping malls and centers in every state in the nation. The stores operate under at least 12 retail brand names, including Jared The Galleria of Jewelry, Kay Jewelers, Belden Jewelers, JB Robinson Jewelers, Marks & Morgan Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers, Osterman Jewelers, Shaw's Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers, LeRoy's Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers and Friedlanders Jewelers. The suit was filed by 15 current and former female employees who have worked at stores located in New York, Florida, California, Texas, Indiana, Missouri, Massachusetts, Nevada and New Jersey. The suit claims Sterling Jewelers has engaged in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination by denying female retail sales employees equal opportunities to be promoted into and within management jobs, and by paying them less than men performing the same work, at the same levels, in the same stores and at the same time period. The suit seeks fundamental changes to Sterling's personnel policies, as well as awards of earnings and benefits lost because of discrimination and compensatory and punitive damages. "While Sterling Jewelers sold more than $ 1 billion in jewelry last year, it failed to pay the women behind the counter the same wages it paid men and failed to offer them the same chances for promotion," said Joseph M. Sellers, Esq., a partner in Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Co-lead counsel Sam J. Smith, Esq., of Burr & Smith, said, "It is outrageous that female employees with similar experience were hired for several dollars per hour less than male employees working in the same job in the same store." "Sterling treated female employees as second class citizens in their promotion practices as well and gave preferences to men who were significantly less qualified," added Tallahassee attorney and co-lead counsel Thomas A. Warren, Esq. After examining sworn charges of discrimination filed by the plaintiffs and reviewing statistical analyses of Sterling's workforce data, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause on January 3, 2008, to believe Sterling subjected its female retail sales employees throughout the company "to a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in regard to promotion and compensation." For more information, contact: Deborah Schwartz (deborah@mediarelationsinc.com) Media Relations, Inc. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 5818 Conway Road Bethesda, MD 20817 Phone: 301-897-8838 Fax: 301-897-9143 Mobile: 240-355-8838 TOWN SPORTS: Still Faces N.Y. Suits Alleging Labor Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports Club chains, continues to face two purported class actions in New York, alleging violations of various overtime provisions of state labor law. First Litigation The first suit is "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International, Inc.," filed on March 1, 2005, with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiffs are Sarah Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell of Forest Hills, New York. The plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely worked more than 40 hours in a week but did not earn overtime because the company deliberately misclassified them as managers. According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class- action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at 65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York City and on Long Island. The suit covers the past six years. It states that Ms. Cruz, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked 13- hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr. Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since 2002, has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. On or about Nov. 2, 2005, the lawsuit was stayed upon agreement of the parties pending mediation. On or about Nov. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs gave notice that they wished to lift the stay. On Feb. 7, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, which seeks to add to the purported class all New York hourly employees and alleged additional violations of the provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages. Second Litigation On June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against the Company with the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees. The company reported no development in the matters at its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. New York, New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an owner and operator of fitness clubs in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. It owns and operates 141 fitness clubs in the U.S., and Switzerland. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: CalPERS Stock-Options Lawsuit Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Chief District Judge James M. Rosenbaum has given class- action status to a lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group Inc. filed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System over the health insurer's past stock-option grant practices. In the order, Judge Rosenbaum certified the class as anyone who bought or otherwise acquired UnitedHealth Group's publicly traded securities between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006, including those buyers who also held UnitedHealth stock during the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 UnitedHealth proxy solicitations and those who acquired UnitedHealth's stock in or related to its Dec. 20, 2005 merger with PacifiCare Health Systems. The judge named CalPERS, the largest U.S. public pension fund, as well as the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust, as representatives of the class. In e-mailed comments, Karl Oestreich, a spokesman for UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) said the ruling is "an ordinary step in these kinds of cases, and was not unexpected, since classes are often certified in securities litigation." In June 2007, Judge Rosenbaum ruled the suit could move forward (BestWire, June 7, 2007). According to that ruling, in March 2006, a Wall Street Journal story reported that UnitedHealth executives received back-dated stock options, with "grant dates" designed to coincide with low points in the company's stock price. CalPERS, which sued in December 2006, charged that UnitedHealth and some of its officers and directors violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933 and parts of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (BestWire, June 7, 2007). In October 2006, UnitedHealth's chairman and chief executive officer, Dr. William W. McGuire, stepped down as chairman and director, and left the company Dec. 1 of that year after an independent report to the company's board found that many of his stock options likely were backdated. In his latest ruling, the judge also named the law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as the attorneys representing the class. To contact Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 WASHINGTON: Chelan PUD Settles Overtime Lawsuit with Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ The Chelan County PUD has agreed to pay $360,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit over overtime pay, Wenatchee World reports. The lawsuit was filed in November 2006 with the U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of 81 union employees. The employees, all dam-related mechanics, wiremen, systems operators and fish bypass operators, demanded double-time pay for the approximately 10- to 15-minute intervals they arrived early to be briefed by the previous shift members. Specifically, the employees demanded damages of $790,000 for wages owed since 2000, plus attorney fees. PUD lead attorney Carol Wardell, Esq., explained that the PUD had disputed the employees' claim because they earned fixed salaries and not hourly wages. According to the report, on March 17, 2008, commissioners approved the settlement, which is conceived to avoid a costlier legal battle in federal court. The settlement includes $155,000 in damages to employees and $205,000 to cover the employees' attorney fees, Mr. Wardell told Wenatchee World in a phone interview. Moreover, pursuant to the settlement, many of the employees agreed to stop arriving early for the shift-turnover briefing. Those who may continue to arrive early for the briefing agreed to document their extra time, Mr. Wardell further shared to Wenatchee World. The settlement, Wenatchee World notes, awaits court approval. "I'm relieved that this issue is going to be resolved and we can all go forward," said Steve Hendrickson, spokesman for Local 77 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which is the plaintiffs' labor union. New Securities Fraud Cases DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Holzer Announces Fla. Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Darden Restaurants Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 19, 2007, and December 18, 2007. The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Darden and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts and other information regarding the Company's financial condition during the Relevant Period. Specifically, the class action alleges that the defendants misrepresented Darden's financial condition with respect to its core restaurants, including Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and LongHorn. For more information, contact: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Toll-free: (888) 508-6832 SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares or Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares from Charles Schwab Corporation from March 17, 2005 to March 18, 2008. The complaint claims Charles Schwab Corporation headquartered in San Francisco, CA, the funds' underwriter, investment advisers and officers and directors issued untrue statements regarding the lack of diversification of these funds and the extent of investments assigned to sub-prime mortgage backed and related securities. The complaint alleges the funds registration statements and prospectuses contained untrue statements of material facts, and omitted important information regarding the funds' investments, ultimately misleading investors. On Nov. 15, 2004, the Company began offering the Schwab YieldPlus investment funds through a registration statement and prospectus. The YieldPlus funds are advertised by the defendants as 'a safe alternative to money market funds that preserve principal while being designed with your income needs in mind'. Throughout the Class Period the Company claimed the funds were investments in a large, well-diversified portfolio, a seasoned team of taxable bond portfolio managers actively managed the funds, and that investment in Schwab YieldPlus would return higher yields on cash with only marginally higher risk, a smart alternative. Since July of 2007, the share price for the funds began lowering, for a total loss of 18 percent. Today the funds stand at an all-time low of $7.96, down more than 11 percent from Jan. 1, 2008. The lawsuit claims the funds are not well diversified, instead concentrated in a single risky industry with more than 50 percent of the funds assets invested in the mortgage industry. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the 1933 Act on behalf of all fund purchasers during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Ave., Ste 202 Berkeley, CA, 94710 Phone: 510/725-3000 e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com TD AMERITRADE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate Securities from TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation and TD Ameritrade, Inc., formerly known as TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc., between March 19, 2003 and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008. The Complaint alleges that TD Ameritrade violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates. The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, TD Ameritrade offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by TD Ameritrade and other broker- dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of all major broker-dealers including TD Ameritrade to "withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set. The Complaint alleges that TD Ameritrade failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because TD Ameritrade and other broker- dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) TD Ameritrade and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) TD Ameritrade continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate securities would result. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Daniel C. Girard (dcg@girardgibbs.com) Jonathan K. Levine (jkl@girardgibbs.com) Aaron M. Sheanin (ams@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone number: (866) 981-4800 Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com WACHOVIA CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate Securities from Wachovia Corporation and Wachovia Securities, LLC., between March 19, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008. The class action is brought against Wachovia Corporation and its wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Wachovia Securities, LLC. The Complaint alleges that Wachovia violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates. The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, Wachovia offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash- management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by Wachovia and other broker-dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of all major broker-dealers including Wachovia to "withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set. The Complaint alleges that Wachovia failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because Wachovia and other broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) Wachovia and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Wachovia continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that it and other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate securities would result. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Daniel C. Girard (dcg@girardgibbs.com ) Jonathan K. Levine (jkl@girardgibbs.com) Aaron M. Sheanin (ams@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone number: (866) 981-4800 Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com WELLPOINT INC: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in IN -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc., between January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is pending before the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker. The complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws. WellPoint operates as a commercial health benefits company in the United States. Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning WellPoint's medical costs and medical enrollment levels. In addition, based on these false and misleading statements of current fact, defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. Additionally, during the class period, defendant Glasscock sold $6.6 million worth of WellPoint stock. In truth, the Company was experiencing significant increases in its medical costs and adverse reserve developments in 2008 which would require increases to WellPoint's medical cost reserve. WellPoint's membership growth was weighted more towards the less profitable self-funded products and enrollment in fully insured products was down. As a result of these known facts at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants provided earnings guidance which they knew WellPoint would not be able to achieve. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26, on volume of more than 54 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of WellPoint between January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building Juniper and Market Streets Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 561-3600 Toll Free: (866) 561-3600 Fax: (215) 561-3000 WELLPOINT INC: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announced that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc., between January 23, 2008, through March 10, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws. WellPoint operates as a commercial health benefits company in the United States. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements including failing to disclose material facts concerning WellPoint's medical costs and medical enrollment levels. In this regard, Defendants misled the market by, inter alia, issuing false and misleading earnings guidance. Additionally, during the class period, defendant Glasscock sold $6.6 million worth of his WellPoint stock. In truth, the Company was experiencing significant increases in its medical costs and adverse reserve developments in 2008 which would require increases to WellPoint's medical cost reserve. Moreover, WellPoint's membership growth was weighted more towards the less profitable self-funded products and enrollment in fully insured products was down. As a result of these known facts at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants provided earnings guidance which they knew the Company would not be able to achieve. When defendants disclosed the truth on March 10, 2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at $47.26, on volume of more than 54 million shares. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman Spector Roseman & Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (888) 844-5862 ********* 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 * * *