/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080326.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 60 Headlines ADVANTAGE FINANCIAL: Faces IL Suit Over Alleged "Rescue" Fraud AQUILA INC: Mo. Court Approves $10M Settlement for ERISA Lawsuit BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Suit Over Role in Damji Investment Scam BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files Suit Citing ERISA Violations BURNET REALTY: Faces Minn. Suit Over Unlicensed Sales Associates COLORADO SPRINGS: Settles Police Overtime Lawsuit for $5.25 Mln COMPUTER SCIENCES: Due Process Argument Prevails in "Colossus" DORCHESTER MINERALS: Okla. Court Nixes Appeal in Royalties Suit DUKE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Overcharge Lawsuit FEDEX GROUND: Faces LA Lawsuit Over Mistreated De Facto Workers FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Charge Taxes GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Pa. Court Concludes Hearing for Settlement H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary HERTZ CORP: Discovery to Commence in Nev. Concession Fee Lawsuit HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Order in Tex. Suit Over Service Charge HERTZ CORP: Okla. Court Dismisses Consumer Litigation Over FSC HERTZ CORP: Nev. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Service Charge HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of CA Price-Fixing Antitrust Lawsuit HERTZ CORP: Faces Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Antitrust Suit HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Violations Suit Remanded to Kansas Court HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges ILLINOIS: Lawsuit vs. Silence Law Expanded to Class Action IMERGENT INC: UT Court Grants Final Approval to $2.8M Settlement MCKESSON CORP: Mass. Court Grants Certification to RICO Lawsuit MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over $2.2BB Buyout by Parent NEUROMETRIX INC: Says Securities Suit is Without Merit PAYPAL: Canadian Naturists to File Suit Over Canceled Service POSSIS MEDICAL: Minn. Shareholders' LAwsuit Dismissed on Appeal POZEN INC: N.C. Court Appoints Co-Lead Plaintiffs in "Johnson" POZEN INC: N.C. Court Approves $11M Securities Suit Settlement SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Sets March 31 Hearing for $40M Deal STERLING TRUST: Arbitration for Several Tex. Suits Still Abated TRIPACK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Violations of the Labor Code UNITED NATURAL: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations UNITED WESTERN: No Hearing Set on Appeal in "Munoz" Litigation WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. New Securities Fraud Cases CHARLES SCHWAB: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing MF GLOBAL: Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Securities Suit Filing ORION ENERGY: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* ADVANTAGE FINANCIAL: Faces IL Suit Over Alleged "Rescue" Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois accuses Advantage Financial Group aka Essence Financial of running a foreclosure "rescue" fraud, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Hermila Gonzalez brings the action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who reside in the State of Illinois: (1) who entered into a loan transaction with the defendant utilizing loan papers substantially similar or identical in substance to the papers used in the plaintiff's transaction; and (2) where the defendant did not provide the consumer with a notice of the three-day right of rescission. The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order: -- awarding actual and punitive damages pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a; -- awarding injunctive and declaratory relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a, declaring that the transaction at issue was an equitable mortgage and was void or voidable; -- awarding attorneys' fees and costs as provided for by the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a; and -- enjoining the defendant, during the pendency of the action and permanently thereafter, from instituting, prosecuting or maintaining foreclosure or forcible entry and detainer proceedings against the plaintiff. The suit is "Hermila Gonzalez et al. v. Advantage Financial Partners, LLC et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiff are: Lance A. Raphael, Esq. Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. Allison Krumhorn The Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C. 180 W. Washington St., suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-5808 AQUILA INC: Mo. Court Approves $10M Settlement for ERISA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri approved a proposed $10.5-million settlement of the consolidated class action, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation." A lawsuit was filed on Sept. 24, 2004, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company and certain members of the company's board of directors and management. The suit alleged that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and were responsible for losses that participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock held in the 401(k) plan. A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in violation of ERISA by concealing information and misleading employees who held the company's common stock through the company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the company. The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On Jan. 26, 2005, the court ordered that all of these lawsuits be consolidated into a single case captioned, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation." The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March 2005, largely repeating each of the allegations in the first complaint. The case has been certified as a class action. In April 2007, the company settled the case for $10.5 million, which will be paid by its insurance carrier. The settlement agreement was approved by the court in November 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 "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv- 00865-DW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Dean Whipple presiding`. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael Jaffe, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 - and - Bruce Keplinger, Esq. (bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com) Norris & Keplinger, LLC 6800 College Blvd., Suite 630 Overland Park, KS 66211 Phone: (913) 323-3185 Fax: (913) 663-2006 Representing the company is: Stanley Daryl Davis, Esq. (sddavis@shb.com) Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Fax: (816) 421-4066 BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Suit Over Role in Damji Investment Scam --------------------------------------------------------------- Investors who were duped by Salim Damji, who went to jail six years ago for a CDN$100-million fraud, are suing Bank of Montreal, alleging that it made mistakes that allowed one of Canada's largest investment scams to happen, Financial Post reports. According to FP, the lawsuit was filed with the Ontario Superior Court on March 13, 2008, by members of Toronto's Ismaili community. The suit, which is seeking class action status, asks for at least $55 million in damages, FP notes. Damji's Fake Company The FP report points out that Mr. Damji fleeced thousands of people in the tight-knit Muslim community by selling phony shares in a non-existent company with a "revolutionary" tooth- whitening product. Moreover, Mr. Damji also claimed that Colgate-Palmolive was ready to buy the rights to the whitening product for CDN$400 million, which would mean a huge payoff for investors. While Colgate quickly denied any investment plan, investor complaints had sparked a probe by police and the Ontario Securities Commission, FP recounts. Mr. Damji subsequently pleaded guilty to fraud in 2002 and received a seven-year prison sentence. BMO Turns a Blind Eye The complaint against BMO accuses the bank of "closing its eyes" to Mr. Damji's eye-popping account deposits. FP relates that the 33-page statement of claim said that "BMO willfully shut its eyes to, abetted and even actively enabled Damji's illegal and/or wrongful conduct." Moreover, BMO "willingly and recklessly failed to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable person would make." In their claim, the investors allege that the bank should have raised its eyebrows when Mr. Damji, who was unemployed at the time, made multi-million-dollar deposits that were inconsistent with his earlier banking activity. At least CDN$46 million was deposited into Mr. Damji's accounts between September 2000 and January 2002, the claim alleges. Some of the cheques made out to Mr. Damji also went into an account for a cheque-cashing and payday loans business, which helped him launder investor money, the claim adds. "As early as, if not earlier than, Oct. 25, 2000, BMO had reason to be concerned about and suspicious of Damji's deposits of the cheques from his fraud victims," the claim reads. "A few hours of investigation would have uncovered Damji's fraud or at the very least prevented the [investors] from suffering the $46-million or so of damages and losses." The claim further alleges that when branch-level employees told BMO senior executives about the vast sums of money flowing in and out of Mr. Damji's accounts, the executives were slow to react. In addition, the claim asserts that Mr. Damji instructed the bank to wire about CDN$26 million worth of investors' money to gambling organizations in Jamaica and Costa Rica. The claim also contends that the bank "refused or failed to conduct itself in accordance with common sense, accepted banking industry procedures and its own policies." At first, Mr. Damji said he didn't solicit investors out of greed, but from worries about threats from organized crime figures who "forced" him to buy luxury homes and vehicles while funneling them millions of dollars. Yet, he later admitted that the money fueled a gambling addiction. Mr. Damji, who was released on parole in 2006, was arrested again in 2007 on fraud and conspiracy charges stemming from the deposit of a stolen cheque, police said. BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files Suit Citing ERISA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of The Bear Stearns Companies current and former employees, claiming the company violated ERISA laws concerning the management of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan from December 14, 2006, through the present. The complaint claims that Bear Stearns, headquartered in New York, failed to provide due diligence in the management of the employee stock ownership plan and violated sections of ERISA law. Specifically, the complaint claims the Company failed to prudently manage the Plan's investments in Bear Stearns stock and continued to maintain Bear Stearns stock as the Plan's sole investment when it was no longer prudent for participants' retirement savings. The lawsuit also claims the Plan's fiduciaries failed to provide participants with complete and accurate information, and failed to properly monitor participants on the fiduciary board. The lawsuit claims as a result of these actions, Plan participants suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement savings and anticipated retirement income. The complaint states that Bear Stearns heavily invested in the sub-prime mortgage market, including CDOs and other mortgage-backed securities and by some accounts was the biggest packager of residential U.S. mortgage-backed securities from 2004 until 2007. Eventually Bear Stearns had tens of billions of dollars invested in sub- prime loans and hedge funds heavily invested in bonds backed by sub-prime mortgages. This combination created not only an unacceptable and imprudent risk for anyone invested in Company stock, but also an incredibly unstable amount of debt, which couldn't be sold. Throughout 2007, the cards began to fall and the Company's profits fell 90 percent, including a loss of $859 million in the fourth quarter alone. In early 2008, reports of inquiries into the Company's hedge funds collapse and dropping stock prices didn't deter Bear Stearns and it continued to make inaccurate statements that the company remained strong. In mid-March 2008, the Company approached JPMorgan and the Federal Reserve to bail the company out and on March 15, 2008 the Company was sold to JPMorgan for $2 per share -- a total of $236 million. The reported rise in JPMorgan's offering price to $10 a share does little to recoup the massive losses suffered by Plan participants. During the class period the Company stock experienced a tremendous decline -- starting at $157.89 per share on Dec. 14, 2006, and closing with a 98 percent drop on March 17, 2008, at only $3.17 before moving up to the $10 range today on news of JPMorgan's increased offering price. During the time of negotiations and the sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan, employees watched helplessly as stock prices continued to drop. For more information, contact: Reed R. Kathrein 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 BURNET REALTY: Faces Minn. Suit Over Unlicensed Sales Associates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Burnet Realty dba Coldwell Banker Burnet is facing a class- action complaint filed on March 13, 2008, with the Fourth Judicial District in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin alleging it sold insurance without a license to its more than 3,000 sales associates, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Timothy B. Allen brings this action pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.01 and 23.02 on behalf of all persons who, at any time within six years of the service of this action, were sales associates with CB Burnet in Minnesota and paid money to CB Burnet for participation in the E&O Program and the LA Program. The E&O Program is a program sponsored by CB Burnet that provided defense and indemnification for claims made against Mr. Allen by third parties arising out of his activities as a CB Burnet sales associate. Under the Legal Administration Program, CB Burnet agreed to provide Mr. Allen with defense and indemnification for certain "Covered Disputes" involving claims made against him by third parties arising out of his activities as a CB Burnet sales associate. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the E&O Program and the LA Program are policies of insurance; (b) whether the semi-annual payments made by sales associates for participation in the E&O Program and the LA Program are insurance premiums; (c) whether CB Burnet, by soliciting participation in the E&O Program and the LA Program, and by billing and collecting semi-annual payments for participation in the E&O Program and the LA Program, is an insurance producer; (d) whether CB Burnet, by agreeing to provide defense and indemnificaton under the E&O Program and the LA Program, is an insurance company; (e) whether CB Burnet made a uniform misrepresentation or misleading statement or engaged in a deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon, in connection with the solicitation and sale of the LA Program, by affirmatively stating to Mr. Allen and the other class members that the LA Programs "is not an Errors and Omissions policy;" and (f) whether Mr. Allen and the other class members are entitled to restitution of all semi-annual payments made to CB Burnet in connection with the E&O Program and the LA Program. The plaintiff requests that the court: -- certify the class pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 23; -- approve Mr. Allen as the class representative and his attorneys as lead counsel for the class; -- award to Mr. Allen and other class members damages and restitution to the extent allowed by law; -- award to Mr. Allen and other class members their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses; -- award to Mr. Allen and other class members pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; and -- award to Mr. Allen and the other class members such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. The suit is "Timothy B. Allen et al. v. Burnet Realty, LLC," filed with the Fourth Judicial District in the State of Minnesota, county of Hennepin. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark J. Briol, Esq. Morgan R. Smock, Esq. Briol & Associates, PLLC 3700 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 337-8410 Fax: (512) 317-5151 COLORADO SPRINGS: Settles Police Overtime Lawsuit for $5.25 Mln --------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Colorado Springs will pay police officers $5.25 million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit over claims that the city failed to pay officers who worked extra hours, the Associated Press reports. Colorado Wire recounts that the police officers had sought $35 million in compensation when they filed the lawsuit in April 2007. The group's attorney had said, however, that they were mostly concerned with policy changes. According to AP, the settlement outlines 12 policy changes for the department, including paying officers for time needed to don police uniforms or gear, clean their leather boots and gear and allowing them to return to the station 20 minutes before their shift ends to "complete work tasks." COMPUTER SCIENCES: Due Process Argument Prevails in "Colossus" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 24, 2008, that Computer Sciences Corp. continues to face a class action lawsuit with the Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas) claiming that the company as well as other defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software products licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims. The suit, entitled, "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al.," was filed as a putative nationwide class action on Feb. 7, 2005. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff Georgia Hensley, individually and as a class representative, against Computer Science Corporation's software Colossus, Insurance Services Office's software COA, Claim IQ Inc.'s software Injury IQ and those insurance companies which use that software. The software companies and insurance companies describe the program as a way to provide consistent estimates of bodily- injury claims through the data inputs of insurance adjusters. Using the data input, Colossus, COA and Injury IQ calculate a suggested value range for the claim settlement. Insurance adjusters state these calculations are only one of many factors an adjuster can use and do not replace the adjusters' education, training and experience. Court Postpones Hearing In an update, the Southeast Texas Record relates that during the March 17 hearing of the Arkansas Colossus class action suit, the plaintiffs' attorneys were expected to argue that the crime- fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege would require public disclosure of an inadvertently disclosed document written between defendant United Services Automobile Association's attorneys and employees. The crime-fraud exception can render the attorney-client privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are used to further a crime or fraud, the report points out. However, ST Record recounts, the defendants had argued that continuing with the hearing would violate their constitutional due process. This argument, according to the report, appeared to prevail over the plaintiffs' arguments as Circuit Court Judge Kirk Johnson postponed the hearing until April 1. Attorney-Client Privilege ST Record recounts that the plaintiffs' attorneys had requested the hearing for a ruling on whether the accidentally produced USAA document should fall under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. USAA argues that the privileged document was inadvertently disclosed and is not discoverable as it is protected communication. In October, the court privately reviewed the document and held that the document was protected and had scheduled a final hearing on the issue for March 17. The defendants contend that days before the recent hearing, the plaintiffs changed their argument with an amended brief that included an additional 272 exhibits. Other defendants claimed they did not receive a copy of the plaintiffs' amended brief and protested the timing of the hearing. The plaintiffs stated that it did not provide the briefs because a court ruling on the crime-fraud exception would affect only USAA. While maintaining that the contested document is protected communication, USAA also argued that holding this type of hearing before a ruling on the issue of class certification and other pending motions would be a violation of their constitutional due process. According to ST Record, various defendants have filed numerous motions, such as motions to dismiss, motions to sever and motions on the issue of class certification that have lain dormant for more than two years, as Judge Johnson has refused to provide a ruling. Although an Arkansas rule on class action states, "at an early practicable time after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained," both parties believe Judge Johnson justifies the lack of ruling with an Arkansas law that states, "the court may not inquire into the merits at the certification stage." USAA argued that deciding on a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is inquiring into the merits of the case -- fraud. Other defendants joined USAA arguing the urgent need for a ruling on class certification and the lack of plaintiffs' responses to discovery. The Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure allow for limited discovery and state that it may be a good reason for delaying the class certification decision. Judge Johnson has allowed both parties to request significant amounts of information from each other. ST Record says that the defendants believe the extensive amount of discovery requests are efforts to force settlement and as evidence of their argument, many defendants have settled instead of facing the rising costs of producing information in an uncertified class action. However, pursuant to the judge's orders, the remaining defendants have produced millions of documents but according to the defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys have not turned over one. After arguing for more than an hour at the hearing, the judge held a brief recess and upon return announced April 1 as the next hearing date. Judge Johnson told the plaintiffs to give the amended brief to the other defendants to allow for their response. The defendants maintain that the plaintiffs will continue attempts to publicly release this document with thousands of other "privileged" documents to force the remaining defendants into settlement. The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Seeking less than $75,000 per person, the plaintiffs are asking for a declaratory relief for defendants to cease the use of the named software, an injunctive relief for defendants to "disgorge ill gotten profits realized from their undervaluation of claims," and seek "restitution from defendants in an amount equal to the amount that should have been paid." The suit is "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al., Case No.: CV-2005-0059-3," filed in Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas), under Judge Kirk Johnson. Representing the plaintiff are: John Goodson, Esq. Matt Keil, Esq. Keil & Goodson, P.A. 611 Pecan Street Texarkana, AR 71854 Phone: (870)772-4113 Representing certain defendants are: Mark Burgess, Esq. 2301 Moores Lane P.O. Box 6297 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 (Bowie Co.) Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com Jason Horton, Esq. Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P. Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 Phone: 903-838-6123 Fax: 903-832-8489 2301 Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com - and - Lynn Pruit, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Phone: (501) 688-8800 Fax: (501) 688-8807 DORCHESTER MINERALS: Okla. Court Nixes Appeal in Royalties Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in connection to a purported class action filed against Dorchester Minerals, L.P. (operating partnership) that was recently dismissed by the Texas County District Court, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Jan. 27, 2006, the operating partnership was sued for underpayment of royalty. The suit is seeking class action certification. On Oct. 1, 2007, the Texas County District Court granted the operating partnership's motion for summary judgment finding no royalty underpayments. Subsequently, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and, on Jan. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 3, 2008, the appeal was dismissed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court pending resolution by the District Court of the operating partnership's counterclaim. Dorchester Minerals, L.P. -- http://www.dmlp.net/-- is the owner of producing and non-producing natural gas and crude oil royalty, net profits, and leasehold interests in 573 counties and 25 states. DUKE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Overcharge Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK) has asked the court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that contends the company has overcharged tens of thousands of residential and business customers in the Midwest, Charlotte Business Journal reports. According to BizJournal, the lawsuit was filed by Randy Freking and Stan Chesley in federal court early this year. It accuses Duke Energy and its predecessor companies, Cinergy Corp. and Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., of funneling kickbacks to corporate customers in exchange for their withdrawal of opposition to rate increases that the companies sought from Ohio regulators. In its dismissal motion, Duke Energy asserts that "[t]here is no basis for any claim under federal or state law" for the suit. "This matter has already been reviewed by regulators and the Ohio Supreme Court, and our rates have been upheld," Mark Manly, group executive and chief legal officer for Duke Energy, told BizJournal. FEDEX GROUND: Faces LA Lawsuit Over Mistreated De Facto Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Ground package Systems, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on March 13, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accusing it of mistreating de facto employees as independent contractors, to duck taxes and expenses, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Ryan Boudreaux and Timothy Bellow claim that FedEx used false promised to induce them to buy and maintain delivery trucks. The class plaintiffs are Louisiana truck and van drivers engaged in package delivery for the defendant. They claim FXG "fraudulently induced the named Plaintiffs and Class members . . . to purchase a delivery truck, to insure and maintain that truck, to purchase a 'business support package'" and other items required by FXG, and to deliver packages for FXG, all the while representing to them that they are or would be "independent business owners" and "business partners" with FXG, and that they had or would have proprietary interests in the delivery routes for which they contracted. These representations were false. In reality, FXG micro- manages, and retains the right to micro-manager Plaintiffs' activities in such a manner that the plaintiffs are de facto employees of FXG and the routes that Class members purchased thus have no value. The action is brought on behalf of all persons who worked for defendant at its Ground Division and Home Delivery Division terminals in Louisiana, from Feb. 8, 2002, to the time of trial as package delivery drivers and package pick-up drivers, and who were signatory to an operators agreement with defendant. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether FXG's drivers are improperly classified as independent contractors instead of employees; (b) whether FXG misled class members into believing they were acquiring an independent business and were independent contractors; (c) whether the contractor drivers are actually employees based upon FXG's level of control of their work; (d) whether FXG unlawfully forced plaintiffs to pay for business expenses that rightfully should have been paid for by FXG; (e) whether FXG was unjustly enriched by failing to compensate the class as employees, to provide employment benefits and emoluments of employees, by evading employment taxes, and by wrongfully benefiting from its requirement that the class pay for FXG's business expenses; (f) whether FXG unlawfully failed to provide workers' compensation insurance benefits to the class members; (h) whether FXG unlawfully failed to pay the employment portion of all employment taxes that would have been due if it accurately classified plaintiffs as employees instead of independent contractors; (i) whether injunctive and declaratory relief are proper; (j) whether the agreement permitting FXG to shift the burden of employment expenses, taxes and insurances is illegal and therefore void; and (k) whether the defendants' actions violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs request for compensatory damages, punitive damages, an accounting, consequential damages, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, plus costs, counsel fees, pre- and post judgment interest and further relief as may be just and proper. The suit is "Ryan Boudreaux et al v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Case No. 08-1264," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marc L. Frischhertz, Esq. Lloyd N. Frischhertz, Esq. Frischhertz & Associates 1130 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-523-1500 Fax: 504-581-1670 FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Charge Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------- Fry's Electronics, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on March 14, 2008, with the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, alleging that it illegally charges sales tax on its service contracts, CourtHouse News Service reports. Fry's is one of the largest dealers of electronics and appliances in the State of California. Named plaintiffs Melanie and Cark Luckner brings this class action on behalf of all persons who purchased, in California, Performance Service Contracts from Fry's, and paid a Sales Tax Reimbursement to Fry's. The California law imposes a Sales Tax on the sale of tangible personal property sold to California residents and domiciles and allows a retailer to recoup this sales tax by collective Sales Tax Reimbursement from its customers. Performance Service Contracts, however, are not tangible personal property and are therefore not subject to Sales Tax. The plaintiffs allege causes of action under: -- the unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; -- Negligent Misrepresentation - Deceit Civ. Code Sections 1709, 1710 and 1711; -- Actual Fraud, Civ. Code Section 1572; -- Constructive Fraud, Civ. Code Section 1573; -- Common Count of Money Paid; and -- the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether Fry's represents to PSC purchasers that it is collecting from the purchaser Sales Tax Reimbursement calculated on the basis of items for which it is legally required to remit Sales Tax to the SBE; (b) whether such representations by defendant were false, deceptive or misleading under the circumstances; (c) whether defendant collected from class members monies denominated as a "tax" on the purchase of Performance Service Contracts; (d) whether defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; (e) whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff class for negligent misrepresentation; (f) whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff class for actual or constructive fraud; (g) whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff class under the common count of money paid; (h) whether defendant is liable to the consumer members of the plaintiff class under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; (i) the existence, duration, and illegality of course of conduct alleged; (j) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by plaintiffs and each member of the plaintiff class and the appropriate type and/or measure of damages; (k) whether the members of the plaintiff class are entitled to restitution as a result of defendant's wrongdoing and, if so, what is the proper measure and appropriate formula to be applied in determining such restitution; and (l) the appropriate nature of class wide equitable relief. The plaintiffs ask the court: -- to enter an order certifying the classes as defined and designating plaintiffs and their counsel as representatives of these classes; -- to decree as unlawful the defendant's actions, including without limitation, their collection of amounts as a purported "Sales Tax" on the purchase of Performance Service Contracts; -- to direct the defendant to make restitution to each plaintiff and each member plaintiff class due the unlawful conduct; -- to award damages suffered by plaintiffs under their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, actual fraud, and constructive fraud and the common law count of money paid, in an amount according to proof at trial; -- to award exemplary punitive damages; -- for injunctive and equitable relief; -- for attorney's fees as provided by law; and -- for costs of suit. The suit is "Melanie Luckner et al v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-2008-00079984-CU-AT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel J. Mogin, Esq. Chad M. McManamy, Esq. Noah D. Sacks, Esq. The Mogin Law Firm, PC 110 Juniper Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 687-6611 Fax: (619) 687-6610 GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Pa. Court Concludes Hearing for Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, concluded a fairness hearing regarding the settlement of a purported class action suit filed against GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc., according to GTC's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2007. On Nov. 13, 2001, two employees of one of the company's former subsidiaries filed the action seeking damages, declaratory relief and certification of a class action relating primarily to their GTC stock options. The claims arose as a result of the company's sale of Primedica Corp. to Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. in February 2001, which plaintiffs believe resulted in the termination of Primedica employees' status as employees of GTC or its affiliates and the termination of their stock options. The plaintiffs contended that the sale of Primedica to Charles River did not constitute a termination of their employment with GTC or its affiliates for purposes of the company's equity incentive plan and, therefore, that the company breached the company's contractual obligations to them and other Primedica employees who had not exercised their stock options. The complaint demands damages in excess of $5 million, plus interest. The court certified the case as a class action, with the class including employees of Primedica who, at the time GTC sold it, had GTC options that had not been exercised. On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed to settle these claims under terms, which provide that the company's insurer will pay $175,000 in cash, and the company will deliver $225,000 of its common stock. On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed to settle these claims under terms which provide that the company's insurer will pay $175,000 in cash and the company will deliver $225,000 of its Common Stock. The company accrued this settlement as of Dec. 31, 2006. The company issued 225,000 shares of Common Stock in the settlement at $1.00 per share in 2007. The number of shares of Common Stock which were issued was determined based on the per share market value of the Common Stock on the date of issue after the Court concluded a fairness hearing regarding the settlement. GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.gtc-bio.com-- is engaged in the development and production of human therapeutic proteins through transgenic technology that enables animals to produce a recombinant form of a specified human protein in their milk. Using this technology, the Company is developing a portfolio of recombinant blood proteins to treat a range of genetic and acquired blood deficiencies, including hemophilia and other blood coagulation disorders. It has also initiated the development of a portfolio of monoclonal antibodies (MAb�s), for use as potential follow-on biologics targeted at several market products. Its first product ATryn, its recombinant form of human antithrombin, validated its transgenic production technology�s capability. In February 2008, it announced that ATryn had met the statistical requirements for the primary endpoint in its trial to support its filing of a Biologics License Application, for the use of ATryn in U.S. H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed with the California Superior Court, Orange County regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc. The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 06 CC00137," filed on July 11, 2006. The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified damages, restitution and equitable relief (Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2007). The company is in the early stages of discovery in this case, according to its March 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. HERTZ CORP: Discovery to Commence in Nev. Concession Fee Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is set to commence in a suit against The Hertz Corp. that was brought on behalf of all persons who rented cars from the company or Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. at airports in Nevada and who were charged airport concession recovery fees. On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a suit against Hertz and Enterprise Rent-A-Car in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Ms. Sobel purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at airports in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport concession recovery fees. The complaint alleged that the airport concession recovery fees violate certain provisions of Nevada law, including Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from quoting or charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law. The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without prejudice. In January 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which motion was denied by the court. The company thereafter filed a motion for certification seeking to have the interpretation of Nevada Revised Statutes Section 482.31575 certified to the Nevada Supreme Court or, in the alternative, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's motion for certification. Discovery will commence in 2008, according to The Hertz Corp.'s March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and Lydia Lee, et al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00545-LRH-VPC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral to Judge Valerie P. Cooke. Representing the plaintiffs is: G. David Robertson, Esq. (gdavid@nvlawyers.com) Robertson & Benevento 50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-329-5600 Fax: 775-348-8300 Representing the defendants are: Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq. (dbowen@lionelsawyer.com) Sawyer & Collins 50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-788-8666 - and - Matthew K. Narensky, Esq. (matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com) Heller Ehrman, LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415 772-6000 HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Order in Tex. Suit Over Service Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corp. is appealing the class certification order issued by the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in the case, "Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation." The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge by the company or all Texas residents who were charged an FSC by the company. The complaint alleges that the FSC is an unlawful penalty and that, therefore, it is void and unenforceable. In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff has filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi Licensee. A new cause of action was also added for conversion. After some limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2004. That motion was denied in January 2005. The parties are engaged in more extensive discovery. On Aug. 3, 2006, a hearing was held on the plaintiff's amended motion for class certification with no decision rendered to date. After the hearing, the plaintiff filed a fifth amended petition seeking to further refine the putative class as including all Texas residents who were charges an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000. In October 2006, the judge entered a class certification order, which certified a class of all Texas residents who were charged an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000. The company is appealing this order. The Hertz Corp. reported no further development in the matter in its March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately 7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The Company has a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S. and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and Spain, as well as through its international licensees. HERTZ CORP: Okla. Court Dismisses Consumer Litigation Over FSC -------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of the purported class action styled, "Keith Kochner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation." The suit purports to be a class action, this time on behalf of Oklahoma residents who rented from the company and incurred the company's Fuel and Service Charge. The petition alleges that the imposition of the FSC is a breach of contract and amounts to an unconscionable penalty or liquidated damages in violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code. In March 2005, the trial court granted the company's motion to dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to re-plead. In April 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended class action petition, alleging that the company's FSC violates the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and that the company have been unjustly enriched, and again alleging that the company's FSC is unconscionable under Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code. In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action petition. In October 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by the end of October, which the plaintiff did. After the parties engaged in some limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary judgment in August 2007. In February 2008, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in the company's favor on all of the remaining claims, according to The Hertz Corp.'s March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately 7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The Company has a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S. and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and Spain, as well as through its international licensees. HERTZ CORP: Nev. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Service Charge --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismisses a purported Fuel and Service Charge class action against The Hertz Corp., according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Jan. 10, 2007, Marlena Guerra, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, filed the suit against . The Hertz Corp. with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of all individuals and business entities who rented vehicles at the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and were charged a FSC. The complaint alleged that those customers who paid the FSC were fraudulently charged a surcharge required for fuel in violation of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff also alleged the FSC violates the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code since it is unconscionable and operates as an unlawful liquidated damages provision. Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the company breached its own rental agreement-which the plaintiff claims to have been modified so as not to violate Nevada law-by charging the FSC, since such charges violate the UCC and the prohibition against fuel surcharges. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including the return of all FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual costs, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In March 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss. In July 2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss and ordered the plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice. The suit is "Guerra v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00023-PMP- GWF," filed with the U.S. District Court of Nevada, Judge Philip M. Pro presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard L. Kellner, Esq. (RLK@KBKLAWYERS.COM) Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. (austin@feazell-tighe.com) Feazell & Tighe LLP 6300 Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730, U.S. Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 Representing the defendants are: Denise Barton, Esq. (dab@morrislawgroup.com) Morris Pickering & Peterson 900 Bank Of America Plaza 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 474-9400 Fax: (702) 474-9422 HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of CA Price-Fixing Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action suit over alleged fixing of prices on rental cars at California airports. On Nov. 14, 2007, a purported class action was commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned "Michael Shames, Gary Gramkow, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A- Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline Beteta." The suit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at a California situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a 2.5% assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by consumers -- rather than the rental car defendants -- to the California Travel and Tourism Commission. The complaint also alleges that the defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee had previously been required to be included in the rental car defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base rates. Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law, and seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The complaint also asserts separately against the California Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Beteta, the Commission's Executive Director, alleged violations of The California Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. In January 2008, Hertz filed a motion to dismiss, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No. 07CV 2174 H BLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq. Ed Howard, Esq. Center for Public Interest Law University of San Diego School of Law 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 260-4806 Fax: (619) 260-4753 e-mail: cpil@sandiego.edu Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com) Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel 550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, California 62101 Phone: (619) 233-4100 Fax: (619) 231-4372 - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com) Hulett Harper Stewart LLP 550 West "C" Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1133 Fax: (619) 338-1139 HERTZ CORP: Faces Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit, captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," over California's Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Comiskey Litigation On Dec. 13, 2007, a purported class action was commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, titled "Thomas J. Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Dale E. Bonner." The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007. The complaint alleges that California's Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program, as included in the California Tourism Marketing Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and First Amendment, both directly and in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and Article XIX, Section 2 of the California Constitution. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, that all unspent assessments collected and to be collected be held in trust, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Cohen Litigation On Dec. 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California a complaint virtually identical to that filed in "Comiskey." Consolidation In February 2008, the court consolidated "Comiskey" and "Cohen," and captioned the consolidated action "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation," and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a single consolidated class action complaint. The plaintiffs have not yet filed the consolidated complaint. The suit is "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. (jcohen@weisslurie.com) Weiss and Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue Suite 1600 New York, NY 10176 Phone: 212-682-3025 - and - Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants are: Michael F. Tubach, Esq. (mtubach@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers 275 Battery St, Ste 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Phone: 415-984-8700 - and - Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 300 S. Grand Ave Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144 Phone: 213-687-5000 HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Violations Suit Remanded to Kansas Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action against Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. -- the heavy equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- which was originally pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, was remanded to the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. On May 3, 2007, "Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation," was commenced with the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The suit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fun Services purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile messages of material advertising the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express permission for sending the faxes. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law conversion. The plaintiff is seeking damages and costs of suit. In June 2007, the company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately 7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The Company has a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S. and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and Spain, as well as through its international licensees. HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action that was filed over the Loss Damage Waiver charge of Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. -- the heavy equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., filed the suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge. The complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and unconscionable as a matter of law under pertinent sections of New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid, declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff, Texas-resident Miguel V. Pro, as well as new claims relating to HERC's charging of an "Environmental Recovery Fee." Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added. In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties. The Hertz Corp. reported no development in the matter in its March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Scott A. George, Esq. (sgeorge@sheller.com) Sheller, Ludwig & Sheller, P.C. One Greentree Ctr., Rte. 73 & Greentree Rd., Suite 201 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 988-5590 Representing the defendant is: Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com) Latham & Watkins, LLP One Newark Center, 16th Floor Newark, NJ 07101-3174 Phone: (973) 639-7293 ILLINOIS: Lawsuit vs. Silence Law Expanded to Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert Gettleman said he would broaden the challenge against the Illinois law requiring a moment of silence at the start of the school day into a class-action suit that could include students and school districts across the state, Chicago Tribune reports. The report relates that currently, the lawsuit is limited to Township High School District 214 in the northwest suburbs. However, with Judge Gettleman granting the motion to expand the suit, students and districts across Illinois will be able to join the legal battle. Chicago Tribune says, however, that the move stopped short of expanding an injunction to prevent districts from enforcing the law pending further discussions on how the decision would affect districts across the state. Another hearing is set for March 28. The report recalls that Judge Gettleman previously barred Arlington Heights-based District 214 from enforcing the silence law after Rob Sherman, a longtime atheist activist, sued the district and the state superintendent on behalf of his daughter, a freshman at Buffalo Grove High School. Mr. Sherman's attorney had argued that the statute, called the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, is unconstitutional because it amounts to a government endorsement of religion. According to Chicago Tribune, lawmakers in Springfield have moved to reverse the moment-of-silence requirement, and Judge Gettleman said he hoped for a legislative resolution before a judicial one. IMERGENT INC: UT Court Grants Final Approval to $2.8M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah approved the settlement of all claims related to a consolidated class action litigation against iMergent, Inc., a leading provider of eCommerce software for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Case Background On March 8, 2005, an action was filed by Elliott Firestone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Company, certain current and former officers, and certain current and former directors, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2:05cv00204 DB. Additional complaints were then filed against the Company alleging similar claims. The court ordered that the cases be consolidated and on Nov. 23, 2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws" against the Company, certain current and former officers, and certain current and former directors, together with the former independent auditors for the Company, Grant Thornton LLP, as defendants. The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were responsible for making material misleading statements and omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and failing to make proper disclosures which required the Company to restate its financial results. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including attorneys' fees and costs. Although the action was determined by the court to be the "consolidated action," a separate complaint was filed in October 2005 by Hillel Hyman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Company, certain current and former officers, certain current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP. This group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the "accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should be determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as it properly alleges a class period consistent with timing necessary to raise a claim based upon the restatement of financial results announced by the Company. The second complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the Company and Grant Thornton LLP. The Company disputes the allegations raised in both actions, but has not filed substantive responsive pleadings. On February 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference," the court determined that the complaint filed by the accounting restatement group should be substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint. On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff. Settlement On Sept. 19, 2007, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding settlement of all claims in the litigation. The Company and the plaintiffs have filed a stipulation of settlement seeking court approval of the terms. The MOU provides, in part, that: -- within 15 business days following the court's preliminary approval of the settlement, defendants and their insurers shall pay $2,800,000 to the plaintiffs (the settlement payment is within policy limits of the directors and officers insurance policy maintained by the Company); -- the court order will include a provision dismissing the Company and individual defendants from the litigation with prejudice; -- the court order will include a provision that bars and enjoins Grant Thornton LLP from prosecuting any claims against the Company and individual defendants arising out of, or based upon, or related to the facts alleged in the complaint or that could have been alleged in the litigation; -- the Company and individual defendants shall assign to the plaintiffs any and all claims or causes of action that they now have against Grant Thornton LLP, including, but not limited to, any claims or causes of action for accounting malpractice or breach of contract; -- the Company and individual defendants shall cooperate with the plaintiffs in the continuing prosecution of the litigation against Grant Thornton LLP; and -- the Company is required to provide documentary evidence supporting the claims against Grant Thornton LLP to the plaintiffs. The failure of the court to approve the terms, or the parties not abiding by the terms of the MOU, will render the settlement without any effect. The court has preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed settlement and claims forms have been mailed to all affected members of the class. At the March 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah approved the settlement of all claims related to a consolidated class action litigation against the company filed on March 8, 2005 and subsequently certified a class action by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Court approved the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered on September 19, 2007. The Order of Approval of Plans of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds and Final Approval Order and Judgment settlement provide for the following: (i) iMergent, through its directors and officers insurance policy, will pay $2.8 million to the class plaintiffs; (ii) A provision dismissing the company and individual defendants from the litigation with prejudice; (iii) A provision that bars and enjoins Grant Thornton from prosecuting any claims against the company and individual defendants arising out of, based upon or related to the facts alleged in the complaint or that could have been alleged in the litigation; (iv) The company and individual defendants assign to the plaintiffs any and all claims or causes of action that they now have against Grant Thornton, including, but not limited to, any claims or causes of action for accounting malpractice or breach of contract; (v) The company and individual defendants shall cooperate with the plaintiffs in the continuing prosecution of the litigation against Grant Thornton; and (vi) The company is required to provide documentary evidence supporting the claims against Grant Thornton to the plaintiffs. The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861- DAK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball. Representing the plaintiffs are: C. Richard Henriksen, Jr., Esq. Henriksen & Henriksen 320 S. 500 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: (801) 521-4145 e-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com - and - Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmslaw.com) Kirby Mcinerney & Squire 830 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 317-6600 Representing the defendants is: Jacqueline Benson, Esq. (bensonj@howrey.com) Gary F. Bendinger, Esq. (bendingerg@howrey.com) Howrey, LLP Phone: (713) 654-7693 (801) 533-8383 MCKESSON CORP: Mass. Court Grants Certification to RICO Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Last week, Judge Patti B. Saris of the District of Massachusetts certified a nationwide class-action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation that could become the largest class action in the United States, potentially totaling $7 billion in damages for consumers and third-party payers. Case Background The suit was originally filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 2006 by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2007). It was brought on behalf of consumers and third-party payers alleges that McKesson entered into a secret agreement to artificially inflate the reported average wholesale price of thousands of drugs, a benchmark used by Medicaid and insurance plans to determine payment to pharmacies. Class Certification Issues On Aug. 27, 2007, the court issued its ruling on the plaintiffs' petition for class certification. The court certified a class of third party payors for purposes of liability and equitable relief, but declined to certify such a class for purposes of a damages award. The court did certify a class of percentage co-pay consumers on issues of both liability and damages. Subsequently, at a Nov. 13, 2007 hearing, the court requested supplemental briefing on class certification issues. Supplemental briefing has been completed, but the court has not yet issued any order modifying its Aug. 27, 2007 class certification order. New Class Sought On Oct. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to add a new class made up of uninsured purchasers of branded drugs who paid what is known as the Usual and Customary price, and plaintiffs also sought to add federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of the existing classes and the proposed new U&C class. On Nov. 6, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to add antitrust claims, allowed the amendment to add a class of U&C consumers and indicated that the U&C class claims would be put on a different schedule from that of the two classes addressed in the August 2007 class certification order. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint which included the U&C class, and the court has subsequently set a trial date of Jan. 26, 2009, for claims by that class. No other trial date has been set in these matters. Dismissal of RICO Claims Sought On Dec. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claims on which the U&C class claims were based, and the company also moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the RICO claims supporting the two original classes. No hearing date has been set for argument of those motions. Certification Ruling In her ruling, Judge Saris cited internal documents where McKesson boasted that by the end of 2004 nearly "99%" of all brand-name drugs were set at a higher price as a result of the scheme. The order also noted that pharmacy benefit managers benefited from the scheme and cited a top secret Express Scripts document where an executive cautioned to "put a lid on" the financial benefit ESI was receiving from the price increase. Attorneys estimate that damages on behalf of consumers could total from $200 to $800 million and damages on behalf of third- party payers will exceed $5 billion. The judge's ruling allows the case to move forward on behalf of two classes: consumer purchasers, which includes anyone who made a co-payment for prescription medication from August 1, 2001 through May 15, 2005, and all third-party payers that made a payment or reimbursement based on the inflated average wholesale price during the class period. "We have been fighting this battle on behalf of smaller groups for years," said Hagens Berman managing partner and lead attorney Steve Berman. "With this ruling we now have the opportunity to represent millions of Americans nationwide who have been affected by McKesson's unlawful practices." The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris. Representing the plaintiffs are: George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com) Barret Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601 Phone: 615-244-2202 Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. (jfc@wtwlaw.us) The Wexler Firm, LLC, 2000 One LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-346-2222 Fax: 312-346-0022 Barbara Mahoney, Esq. (barbaram@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 - and - Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 Fax: 215-496-6611 e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com Web site: http://www.srk-law.com MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for Windows Vista users are asking Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington 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. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit against Microsoft which alleges that the company unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating system, called "Vista Home Basic." According to a separate CAR report on March 13, 2008, Microsoft challenged the court's decision affording class action status to the Vista lawsuit, stating that the court had made "errors" in allowing the case to be opened up as a class action as it exposed the company to potentially huge numbers of complaints that had little relevance. The CAR report also said that Microsoft separately asked for the case's trial to be temporarily halted to prevent the further disclosure of the e-mails that have proved "highly embarrassing" for the company. Seattlepi.com recalls that 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. AP says that 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 did not immediately comment on the plaintiffs' latest assertions. AP relates that 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 suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com/ NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over $2.2BB Buyout by Parent ------------------------------------------------------------- Nationwide Financial Services Inc. was sued by investors who contend that a planned $2.2-billion buyout by its parent company, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., undervalues the company's shares, Bloomberg News reports. According to Delaware Online, the Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual, which is the sixth-largest U.S. home and auto insurer, offered on March 10, 2008, to pay $47.20 in cash for each Class A share of Nationwide Financial, a 24% premium at the time. "The offer is grossly inadequate in light of the company's recent trading history," as high as $65.52 a share on Aug. 1, stockholder Robert Friedman said in one of two similar complaints filed on March 13, 2008, with the Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington. Nationwide Mutual owns all the unit's Class B shares, with 95.2% of the voting rights, the complaint noted. Bloomberg relates that Mr. Friedman is asking a judge to: -- give the suit class-action status on behalf of all outside shareholders, -- stop the buyout, -- award damages, and -- force Nationwide Financial's board "to structure the offer in a procedurally fair manner." Nationwide Financial said that it appointed a special committee of independent directors to evaluate the offer, according to Delaware Online. The case is "Friedman v. Shisler and Nationwide Financial Services Inc., CA3613," filed with the Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington. NEUROMETRIX INC: Says Securities Suit is Without Merit ------------------------------------------------------ As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 25, 2008, Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NeuroMetrix Inc. between October 27, 2005, and March 6, 2007. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities and causing class members to overpay for the securities. RTT News, however, relates in an update that NeuroMetrix contends the claims in the class action suit are without merit. The company says it plans to defend the case vigorously. The plaintiffs are represented by: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-003 or 410-986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com PAYPAL: Canadian Naturists to File Suit Over Canceled Service ------------------------------------------------------------- After four years of processing subscription payments for Going Natural magazine, PayPal has abruptly canceled service to its publisher, the Federation of Canadian Naturists. Attempts to get an explanation as to how the magazine violates PayPal's "acceptable use" policy have been met with generic e- mails from faceless and implacable customer-service personnel. Those e-mails falsely claim the magazine is pornographic, and sells "sexually oriented goods or services involving minors" or "services for which the purpose is to facilitate meetings for sexually oriented activities." Going Natural magazine is devoted to naturism (or nudism), a social movement over a hundred years old and unrelated to sexual activity. The practices the magazine has portrayed for over 20 years have been shown to benefit people of all ages, especially naturist children. In several scientific polls, millions of people in Canada and the USA report engaging in naturist activities such as skinny-dipping. The FCN is not the first naturist organization to be rejected by PayPal, which arbitrarily denies service to persons or organizations it alone deems socially unacceptable. "PayPal's decision about Going Natural and its claims about the FCN are unfounded embellishments born of ignorance," notes Judy Williams, Government Affairs Director for the FCN. PayPal has become synonymous, world-wide, with the convenience of online payments. As stated on its website, "PayPal has quickly become a global leader in online payment solutions with more than 153 million accounts worldwide." "Organizations such as PayPal with near monopolies in their industries are duty-bound to be objective and fair," says Ms. Williams. "PayPal also has a responsibility to avoid making arbitrary and narrow judgements, as well as issuing wildly untrue and offensive statements about clients." The FCN Board of Directors is considering a class action lawsuit. It wouldn't be the first against PayPal, which paid out over $9 million in 2004 to settle such a suit. Any organization which believes it has been refused service by PayPal because of political, social, or religious views should contact the FCN. Finally, Ms. Williams points to PayPal's hypocrisy for accusing the FCN of sexually immoral and even illegal activities, when PayPal itself supports transactions for "certain sexually oriented physical goods," as detailed on its Web site. For further information, contact: Judy Williams (judyw@fcn.ca) Government Affairs Director Federation of Canadian Naturists Phone: (604) 856-9598 Cellular phone: (604) 308-6336 POSSIS MEDICAL: Minn. Shareholders' LAwsuit Dismissed on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's dismissal of a shareholder against Possis Medical, Inc., and two of its executive officers. The company was served with a shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 5, 2005, alleging that Possis Medical, Inc. and named individual officers violated federal securities laws. The suit had alleged that Possis Medical violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting material information about the Company's AngioJet(R) Rheolytic(TM) Thrombectomy System prior to the August 2004 public disclosure of the results of the Company's AiMI clinical trial. The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages. It was dismissed with prejudice by order of the Court on Feb. 1, 2007. Subsequently, plaintiffs have filed an appeal from the Court's order (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2007). Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the Federal District Court's dismissal of the shareholder lawsuit. "We are very pleased that the appellate court has dismissed this case. Although we have always been firm in our conviction that this suit was without merit, it confirms our confidence in the judicial process to have the court take this action," commented Robert G. Dutcher, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Possis Medical Inc. The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum, with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. (g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com) Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-287-2100 Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nkulesa@snlaw.net) Schatz & Nobel, PC 20 Church St., Ste. 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-241-6116 - and - Andrei V. Rado, Esq. (arado@milbergweiss.com) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-946-4474 Representing the defendants are: Michelle S. Grant, Esq. (grant.michelle@dorsey.com) Bryan C. Keane, Esq. (keane.bryan@dorsey.com) James K. Langdon, Esq. (langdon.jim@dorsey.com) Roger J. Magnuson, Esq. (magnuson.roger@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600 Fax: 612-340-2807 and 612-340-8800 POZEN INC: N.C. Court Appoints Co-Lead Plaintiffs in "Johnson" -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has appointed co-lead plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action titled, "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00559," which was filed against POZEN, Inc., in relation to statements it made regarding its migraine drug candidate, Trexima. The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2007, by a holder of the company's securities against POZEN, its chairman and chief executive officer and one of its directors. The complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company concerning its migraine drug candidate, Trexima, during the purported class period, July 31, 2006 through Aug. 1, 2007. By order dated Feb. 15, 2008, the Court appointed joint co-lead plaintiffs, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00559," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Representing the plaintiffs is: James Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 - and - Marcus Angelo Manos, Esq. (mmanos@nexsenpruet.com) Nexsen Pruet, LLC POD 2426 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: 803-253-8275 Fax: 803-253-8277 Representing the defendants are: Pressly Mcauley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com) Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice POB 831 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: 919-755-2135 Fax: 919-755-6067 - and - Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. (nporritt@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20006-3817 Phone: 202-973-8807 Fax: 202-973-8899 POZEN INC: N.C. Court Approves $11M Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina gave final approval to the proposed $11,205,000 settlement of the matter "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-505," according to POZEN, Inc.'s March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Case Background Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class actions in 2004 against POZEN Inc. and Dr. John R. Plachetka, chairman, president and chief executive officer, alleging violations of securities laws. These actions were filed as a single consolidated class action complaint on Dec. 20, 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007). The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company and a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company concerning its product candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period. By order dated Nov. 4, 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 20, 2004. The defendants named in the amended complaint are Pozen and its chairman and chief executive officer, John R. Plachetka. The amended complaint requests certification of a plaintiff class consisting of purchasers of stock between Oct. 4, 2002, and May 28, 2004. On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which request was denied. On March 27, 2006, a motion for class certification was filed. The court granted the motion and certified the case as a class action on Feb. 28, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007). Settlement On July 10, 2007, the company announced that it had reached an agreement to amicably settle the consolidated class action, and on Dec. 10, 2007, the Court entered an order giving its final approval to the settlement agreement Under the settlement, defendants agreed to create a $11,205,000 cash Settlement Fund. The balance of this fund, after payment of court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs of claims administration, including the costs of printing and mailing the settlement notice and the cost of publishing notice, will be divided among all Class Members who submit valid claim forms. The suit is "In Re: Pozen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-505," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr. presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James E. McGovern, Esq. (jmcgovern@cmht.com) Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Matthew K. Handley, Esq. (mhandley@cmht.com) Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com) Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Harry H. Albritton, Jr. Esq. (harry@theblountlawfirm.com) Marvin Key Blount, Jr., Esq. (marvin@theblountlawfirm.com) The Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C. POD 58, Greenville, NC 27835-0058 Phone: 252-752-6000 Fax: 252-752-2174 - and - Richard A. Maniskas Esq. Marc A. Topaz, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 280 King Of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-822-0247 Representing the defendants is: Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com) Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: 919-755-2100 919-755-2135 Fax: 919-755-6067 SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Sets March 31 Hearing for $40M Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts set a March 31, 2008 final approval hearing for the proposed $40-million settlement in the purported class action, "In Re: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV- 10294." Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder class action complaints were filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and certain of its current officers and directors. On June 28, 2004, the court consolidated the claims. On Dec. 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated complaint asserted claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the company's restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued a series of false or misleading statements to the market concerning the company's revenues, earnings and financial condition. The plaintiffs contended that such statements caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004. On Jan. 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants. On June 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On Sept. 12, 2005, the defendants again filed motions to dismiss this amended complaint. On Dec. 10, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motions and took the matter under advisement. On May 10, 2006, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motions in part and denying the motions in part. The court dismissed the Section 12 (a)(2) claims against all the defendants and the Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims against the individual defendants. The court denied the motions as to the Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims against the company, and Section 15 claims against the individual defendants. The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification, which the defendants have opposed. The court held a hearing on Feb. 28, 2007, on the plaintiff's motion for class certification and took the matter under advisement. On Nov. 7, 2007, the company, and the plaintiff agreed to settle the litigation for $40.0 million. By order dated Jan. 18, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement subject to class notice and other conditions. The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court. The Court has scheduled a hearing for final approval on March 31, 2008, according to the company's March 6, 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: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-10294," filed with the U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105-2835 Phone: 800-778-1822 Fax: 415-777-5189 e-mail: info@gbcsf.com - and - Norman Berman, Esq. (NBerman@Bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-542-8300 Representing the defendants are: Mary P. Cormier, Esq. (mcormier@edwardsangell.com) Edwards & Angell, LLP 101 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-2225 Fax: 617-439-4170 - and - Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822 STERLING TRUST: Arbitration for Several Tex. Suits Still Abated --------------------------------------------------------------- Arbitration for several class actions against Sterling Trust Co., a unit of United Western Bancorp, Inc., which are pending with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas continue to be abated. The company was named as a defendant in several putative class actions instituted in November 2000 by one law firm in Pennsylvania. These suits are styled: -- "Douglas Wheeler, et al. v. Pacific Air Transport, et al.;" -- "Paul C. Jared, et al. v. South Mountain Resort and Spa, Inc., et al.;" -- "Lawrence Rehrig, et al. v. Caffe Diva, et al.;" -- "Merrill B. Christman, et al. v. Millennium 2100, Inc., et al.;" -- "David M. Veneziale, et al. v. Sun Broadcasting Systems, Inc., et al.;" and -- "Don Glazer, et al. v. Technical Support Servs., Inc., et al." All of the lawsuits were originally filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On April 26, 2001, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ordered that all of such cases be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas so that Sterling Trust could properly present its motion to compel arbitration. Sterling Trust filed separate motions to compel arbitration in these actions, all of which were granted. Each of the six plaintiffs timely filed arbitration demands with the American Arbitration Association. The demands seek damages and allege Sterling Trust breached fiduciary duties and was negligent in administrating each claimant's self-directed individual retirement account holding a nine-month promissory note. The arbitration actions were abated pending the outcome of the class action, captioned "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v. Sterling Trust Company, et al." United Western Bancorp, Inc., reported no development in the matter in its March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. United Western Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.uwbancorp.com/-- is a unitary thrift holding company that, through its subsidiaries, provides diversified financial services. The Company's core business operations are conducted through operating subsidiaries, including United Western Bank, Sterling Trust Company, Matrix Financial Services Corporation, First Matrix Investment Services Corp. and UWBK Fund Management, Inc. United Western Bank�s lending activities principally comprises originated community bank loans and purchased wholesale loans. Community bank loans consist of commercial real estate, residential and commercial construction and development, commercial and industrial (C&I), and consumer. United Western Bank offers a variety of deposit accounts with a range of interest rates and terms. United Western Bank�s core deposits consist of retail and institutional checking accounts, negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts, money market accounts, retail savings accounts and certificates of deposit. TRIPACK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Violations of the Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- California-based Tripack is facing a class-action complaint filed on March 18, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano alleging it works employees at its Benicia plant 12 hours a day without overtime, without legally required breaks, and without itemizing their pay rate or deductions, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring this action against defendants pursuant to California Labor Code Section 201-202 (timely payment of final wages), 203 (waiting time penalties), 226 (meal and rest periods), ll74 (employer recordkeeping duties), I194 (right of action for unpaid wages and attorneys' fees and costs), 1198 {manimum hours of work Industrial Welfare Commission. Wage Order 4-2001, California Business Professions Code Sections 17200e t seq., and CCP Sections J95 and 395.5 in that the defendants' residence and principal place of business is in the County of Solano, and that the contracts, real or implied, giving rise to this Complaint were made and performed in the County Solano, and the defendants' liability arises pursuant to their employment of the plaintiffs in the County of Solano. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedures 382, the plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who worked as packing workers not exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws and covered by Wage Order 8 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 1140 at any of the defendants' facilities located in Solano County, or elsewhere in California, at any time during the period beginning the year prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action to the present. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendants' pay practices conform to the requirements of the Cali. Labor Code; (b) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section l198 and the applicable Wage by miscalculating and failing to pay the overtime premiums owed to non-exempt who worked in excess of eight hours in one work day or six days in one work week; (c) whether the defendants failed to pay members of the the Plaintiff Class their full wages when due in violation of Labor Code Sections 201 and 202; (d) whether the defendants failed to pay minimum the Class for all hours worked, as required by Labor Code minimum wage provisions of Wage Order 4-2001; (e) whether the defendants failed to pay waiting time penalties for class members who have quit or been discharged during the relevant statutory period as required by Labor Code Section 203; (f) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section 9226.7 and the provisions of Wage Order 4001 by failing to provide adequate off-duty meal periods by failing to authorize and permit members of the Plaintiff Class to take all rest periods which they were entitled; (g) whether the defendants violated Labor Code $226.7(b) by failing to pay members of the Plaintiff Class the premium compensation mandated by that statute for missed meal rest periods; (h) whether the defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements members of the Plaintiff Class, as required by Labor Code Section 226; (i) whether the defendants violated Labor Code gll74 and the provisions of the applicable Wage Order by failing to keep accurate records of employees' hours of work and other required documentation; The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have routinely violated state labor laws by failing to pay them and other similarly situated current and former employees regular overtime wages when due; failing to provide, authorize and permit required rest and periods; and failing to maintain accurate time and payroll records on a workforce-wide basis. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' employment practices are unlawful, unfair, contrary to the public policies of the State of California. The plaintiffs allege that by violating state labor laws enumerated below, the defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition (Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.), causing injury to Plaintiffs and other current and former employees of Defendants. The plaintiffs pray for the following relief: -- Certification of the action as a class action on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff Class; -- An injunction requiring Defendants to immediately cease and desist from engaging the unlawful and unfair business practices complained of; -- Attorneys' fees, statutory costs and litigation expenses in an amount determined to be reasonable; and -- For such other and further relief as the court deems just, equitable, and proper. The suit is "Sergio Galloso-Rendon et al v. Tripack., Case No. FCS 031124," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano. Representing the plaintiffs is: Peter F. Samtel, Esq. (pfsamuel@samuellaw.com) Samuel & Samuel 5050 Sunrise Blvd., Suite C-l Fair Oaks, Ca 95628 Phone: (916) 966-4722 Fax: (916) 962-2219 UNITED NATURAL: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ United Natural Foods, Inc., and its subsidiary, Natural Retail Group, are defendants in a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 3, 2008. Filed on January 2008, the lawsuit alleges that the Company and Natural Retail Group violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing certain information on customer sales receipts for the Company's retail stores. The court has not set a discovery schedule in this early stage case. The parties will file class certification briefs in the spring and summer of 2008. The suit is "Yetter v. Natural Retail Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:08-cv-00038-JDW-MSS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge James D. Whittemore presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Stephen Richard Astley, Esq. (sastley@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP Suite 500 120 E Palmetto Pk Rd Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 Representing the defendants is: David Christopher Banker, Esq. (dbanker@bushross.com) Bush Ross, PA 1801 N. Highland Ave. PO Box 3913 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813/224-9255 Fax: 813/223-9620 UNITED WESTERN: No Hearing Set on Appeal in "Munoz" Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on oral arguments in an appeal regarding a ruling in the purported class action, "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v. Sterling Trust Co., et al.," has yet to be set, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In its appeal, the plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of United Western Bancorp, Inc., and certain other defendants in case, which was originally filed with the Superior Court of the State of California. The suit was filed in December 2001, and names Sterling Trust Co., United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc., as defendants. The complaint sought class-action status, requested unspecified damages and alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of Sterling Trust. In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted summary judgment as to all claims against it. In April 2006, the court granted a motion for summary judgment, dismissing Sterling Trust, United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. from the action. On Sept. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the California Superior Court. The plaintiffs filed their appellate brief with the California Court of Appeals on March 19, 2007, Sterling and the other defendants responsive brief is to be filed with the appeals court May 26, 2007. The pending appeal has been briefed, but oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. United Western Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.uwbancorp.com/-- is a unitary thrift holding company that, through its subsidiaries, provides diversified financial services. The Company's core business operations are conducted through operating subsidiaries, including United Western Bank, Sterling Trust Company, Matrix Financial Services Corporation, First Matrix Investment Services Corp. and UWBK Fund Management, Inc. United Western Bank�s lending activities principally comprises originated community bank loans and purchased wholesale loans. Community bank loans consist of commercial real estate, residential and commercial construction and development, commercial and industrial, and consumer. United Western Bank offers a variety of deposit accounts with a range of interest rates and terms. United Western Bank�s core deposits consist of retail and institutional checking accounts, negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, money market accounts, retail savings accounts and certificates of deposit. WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class in a securities fraud litigation against Warner Chilcott, Ltd. In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers, were named as defendants in the purported class action, "Albano v. Warner Chilcott Limited et al." Similar purported class actions have been filed subsequently. The complaints asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the Company's common stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and Sept. 26, 2006. A consolidated amended complaint, which adds as defendants the lead underwriters for the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning its planned transition from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of its new patented product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE). The Company and the individual defendants answered the complaint on June 18, 2007. The District Court certified the plaintiff class on Feb. 4, 2008, 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. The suit is "Angelo Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11515-WHP" filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H. Pauley III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs) 58 South Service Road Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com) Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP One Penn Plaza Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212)-279-5050 Fax: (212)-279-3655 Representing the defendants are: Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq. (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 373-3000 x3072 Fax: (212) 492-0072 - and - Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com New Securities Fraud Cases CHARLES SCHWAB: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Charles Schwab Corporation and various individuals on behalf of purchasers of Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares and Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares who purchased the Funds between March 17, 2005, and March 18, 2008. The lawsuit alleges the Company issued false and misleading statements to the public which overstated the level of diversification in the Funds and understated the actual risk relating to sub-prime mortgage backed and related securities. The lawsuit also alleges the Company misrepresented and omitted material information from its registration statements and prospectuses filed with the Securities Exchange Commission as to the Funds' levels of diversity and risk. For more information, contact: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com) Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 Telephone: (888) 508-6832 MF GLOBAL: Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been commenced with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MF Global, Ltd. common stock between July 19, 2007, 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 Company's IPO were materially false and misleading. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired MF Global common stock during the Class Period, which is between July 19, 2007, through February 28, 2008. For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 1-212-490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com Web site: http://www.ssbny.com ORION ENERGY: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Klafter & Olsen LLP announced that it has filed a securities class action complaint against Orion Energy Systems, Inc., and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Orion between December 18, 2007, through February 6, 2008. The complaint contains additional allegations -- not found in complaints filed by other law firms -- further supporting the claims made by plaintiffs. As described below, if you purchased Orion's common stock during the Class Period, you have until April 11, 2008, to move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading information in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Orion's initial public offering. Orion realized over $78 million in proceeds from the IPO, while Chief Executive Officer Neal R. Verfuerth and family sold 600,000 shares for proceeds of approximately $7 million. Orion and certain of its officers and directors are alleged to have made materially false and misleading statements and omitted the following material information in the Registration Statement and Prospectus: (i) that Orion was having to rapidly shift its focus from its core product of HIF lighting systems to its new Phase 2 and Phase 3 products which were untested in the marketplace; (ii) that as a result of this shift in focus, Orion's revenues would be negatively impacted by, among other things, having to retrain its sales force to market these new products; and (iii) that well before the IPO, the Company had commenced a major factory upgrade which would materially and adversely impact revenues, at a minimum, in Orion's fourth quarter. In a conference call with analysts held after the close of trading on February 6, 2008, during which, according to analysts, defendant Verfuerth gave "evasive" and "confusing" answers, Orion revealed that its revenues for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, would decline sequentially as the Company took aggressive measures to promote new technologies and a new business model. Shares of Orion fell from a close of $14.90 per share on February 6, 2008, to close at $8.51 the next day on extraordinary volume. After the conference call, the Company also revealed to an analyst that, before the IPO, Orion had begun major factory upgrade and that this retooling negatively impacted revenues in the fourth quarter. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 11, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. Klafter & Olsen LLP on the net: http://www.klafterolsen.com 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. For more information, contact: Reed R. Kathrein 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 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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 * * *