/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080407.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 68 Headlines ACE LTD: Policyholders Appeal Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Suit ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit AIR PHILIPPINES: Minors in Plane Crash Settlement to Get Annuity ALBERTSONS LLC: EEOC Launches 2nd Racial Bias Lawsuit ARKANSAS: Appeal Panel Says Lawyers' Case Belongs in State Court BELO: Circulation Overstatement Suit Denied Class-Action Status BRUSH WELLMAN: June 17 Trial Slated for "Marin" Beryllium Case BRUSH WELLMAN: Responds to Third-Party Complaint Over Beryllium CALPINE CORP: Calif., N.Y. Courts Yet to OK ERISA Suit Agreement CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Lawsuit CIGARETTE MAKERS: Appeals Court Throws Out Smokers' Lawsuit CIGNA CORP: Conn. Court Ruling in ERISA Case Favors Both Sides FERRO CORP: Pa. Court Approves $5.5M Antitrust Suit Settlement GLOBAL HORIZONS: Judge Clears Yakima Valley Growers in Farm Suit H&R BLOCK: Pa. Sup. Ct. to Again Hear Appeal Over Refund Program ILLINOIS UNION: Mass. Litigation Over B Quotes Remains Stayed INVESCO LTD: Reaches $9.8M Settlement in Consolidated M.D. Case INVESCO LTD: Faces Suit Over Funds Susceptible to Market Timing NEW YORK: Court Allows Strip-Search Suit vs. Nassau County OLD DOMINION: Faces Ga. Suit Over LTL Shipment Fuel Surcharges WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles Currency Conversion Fee Case in N.Y. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles N.Y. Suit Over American Express Cards WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Still Faces N.Y. Interchange Fee Litigation WYETH: Still Faces Suit in W.Va Over PREMPRO, PREMARIN Products New Securities Fraud Cases ARTHROCARE CORP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in Florida DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Shareholder Lawsuit DEUTSCHE BANK: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files NY Shareholder Suit FORCE PROTECTION: Berger & Montague Files S.C. Securities Suit HUMANA INC: Strauss & Troy Files Shareholder Suit in Kentucky MF GLOBAL: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates NY Shareholder Suit PMI GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files California Shareholder Suit ********* ACE LTD: Policyholders Appeal Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Policyholders who brought several federal putative nationwide class action suits against ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. ACE USA, and a number of insurers, are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the dismissal of several claims in the matter, according to ACE Ltd.'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 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the policyholders' cases for coordinated proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints, one concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee benefit plans. The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE has been dismissed subsequently. In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE, ACE INA Holdings, ACE USA, ACE American Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America. They allege that certain brokers and insurers, including certain ACE entities, conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions. In addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants received additional income by improperly placing their clients' business with insurers through related wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between the broker and insurer. The plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance broker subsidiaries. The complaint asserts the following causes of action against ACE: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. On Nov. 29, 2005, ACE and other property and casualty insurer defendants filed motions to dismiss the commercial insurance complaint. On Feb. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class in the commercial insurance case (this motion has been fully briefed and is pending). On Oct. 3, 2006, the Court ruled on the defendants' motions and held that the McCarran Ferguson Act did not apply as a defense to the allegations, but the Court also held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged an antitrust conspiracy or a RICO enterprise and directed plaintiffs to submit supplemental pleadings. The plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings on Oct. 25, 2006. On Nov. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. On April 5, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' renewed motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under either the Sherman Act or the RICO statutes. The Court, however, permitted the plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead and an amended complaint was filed on May 22, 2007. The amended complaint purported to add several new ACE defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc., Westchester Fire Insurance Co., INA Corp., INA Financial Corp., INA Holdings Corp., ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Co., and Pacific Employers Insurance Co. The plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., ACE, and other insurers based on the same allegations as the other claims but limited to excess casualty insurance. At the defendants' request, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice on Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 28, 2007, respectively. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice. On Oct. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the antitrust and RICO rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 19, 2008. ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- is a Bermuda-based holding company. ACE and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and reinsurance organization, servicing the insurance needs of commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries and jurisdictions. The company operates through four business segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance. ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action suit against ACE, Ltd. ACE was named in four putative securities class actions on Oct. 14, 2004, following the filing of a civil suit against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Mr. Spitzer charged the insurance brokerage arm of Marsh & McLennan with price fixing and collusion. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the four suits with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants. The plaintiffs assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control person liability). They also allege that the company public statements and securities filings should have revealed that insurers, including certain company entities and brokers, allegedly conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions and that the company's revenues and earnings were inflated by these practices. On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and that defendants could not be held liable for any failures to disclose information. The defendants also argued that the individual defendants could not be held liable for statements they did not make that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled scienter, and that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss causation. The plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains pending. ACE Ltd. reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Timothy J. Savage presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tor Gronborg, Esq. (torg@lerachlaw.com) Udoka Nwanna, Esq. (udokan@lerachlaw.com) Debra J. Wyman, Esq. (debraw@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 AIR PHILIPPINES: Minors in Plane Crash Settlement to Get Annuity ---------------------------------------------------------------- The minor survivors of passengers who died in an Air Philippine Flight 541 flight are set receive their benefits when they turn 21 years old, Joseph G. Lariosa writes for the Asian Journal. David J. Gubbins, Esq., guardian ad litem (legal guardian), told Mr. Lariosa that the 30 minors, who will benefit from the $165-million court-supervised settlement, will get the compensation in annuity. This means the compensation will be released to them in lump sum or once a year until they reach the age of 30 or for the next nine years. "This is tax-free," he said. However, Mr. Gubbins said that if these minors would need the compensation for emergency, such as for education and medical expenses, he will petition the court about the need and the court will make a ruling whether to grant the request or not. Asian Journal says that the minor beneficiaries are survivors of those relatives, who were among the 131 passengers and crews, who died in the crash of Air Philippines Flight 541 off the hilly Samal Island near Davao City about eight years ago. A minor will receive approximately $1.5 million each, less the attorney's fees of around 30%. The 21 other survivors, who did not join the class action suit of the 110, opted to receive $20,000 to $25,000 offered by Air Philippines to settle court action shortly after the plane crash, the report notes. ALBERTSONS LLC: EEOC Launches 2nd Racial Bias Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a second lawsuit against the Albertsons LLC grocery chain for racial bias at its Aurora distribution center, according to The Denver Post. The suit, filed on March 28, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, claims that Albertsons intentionally retaliated against employees who opposed discriminatory practices. The EEOC asserts that Albertsons denied workers medical care; rejected promotions and transfers; and taunted, disciplined and terminated employees who spoke out, among other practices. The class action suit names 22 claimants and more could be added, EEOC trial attorney Andrew Winston, Esq., told Denver Post. "We have seen a marked increase in the number of retaliation complaints," he said. The report relates that the recent lawsuit follows the EEOC's first one against Albertsons, filed in 2006, which alleged racial and ethnic harassment at the Aurora distribution center. The 2006 suit said that black and Latino workers were given less desirable jobs than their colleagues and said Albertsons did not respond to racist drawings and racial slurs around the distribution center. Albertsons spokeswoman Christine Wilcox told Denver Post that the company does not comment on pending legislation. ARKANSAS: Appeal Panel Says Lawyers' Case Belongs in State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the 8th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis has affirmed a special judge's decision to remand to state court a case in which Little Rock lawyers R. S. McCullough and Darrell Brown Sr. are challenging their disciplinary hearings, Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports. The panel said that U.S. District Judge David S. Doty of Minnesota was right to send the case back to state court because the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that their civil rights would be denied or unenforceable in state court. The report recounts taht Judge Doty was appointed to the federal case after all U.S. district judges in Arkansas recused Mr. McCullough is awaiting a special master's determination as to whether he will be disbarred for violating professional rules such as failing to file timely responses to court documents, failing to appear for court hearings, failing to pay unused portions of legal fees and failing to keep $ 100, 000 paid to a client from Medicare separate from his own property. Mr. Brown was disbarred on March 8, 2007, after he failed to challenge allegations of "serious misconduct," including that he converted or misappropriated funds from clients. Mr. McCullough and Mr. Brown, who are both black, claimed in federal court that racial discrimination permeates the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct, which is behind the disbarment actions, the report notes. Before Judge Doty remanded their federal allegations to state court, Mr. McCullough and Mr. Brown asked that the case be granted class-action status so they could represent all Arkansas lawyers who were subject to maltreatment by the committee. They alleged that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which the committee found that they violated, violate due-process and equal-protection laws. BELO: Circulation Overstatement Suit Denied Class-Action Status --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sidney Fitzwater has denied class-action certification in a 2004 shareholder lawsuit against Belo Corp. over a circulation overstatement at The Dallas Morning News, Brendan Case writes for the newspaper. According to the report, Judge Fitzwater's ruling amounts to good news for the Dallas-based media company. "We are gratified by the court's decision," Russ Coleman, Esq., Belo's general counsel, said. "Although we recognize that the lead plaintiff may appeal or seek to reverse the decision in further proceedings, we intend to defend against any such actions vigorously." The report relates that the plaintiff, a union pension fund based in Pittsburgh -- Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66) -- could ask the judge to reconsider his opinion or appeal the ruling to a higher court. A law firm representing the lead plaintiff vowed to fight on. "Because the scheme to intentionally overstate circulation figures allowed the defendants to fraudulently extract higher incentive payments from advertisers, as well as defraud investors by artificially inflating the stock value, we will continue our vigorous pursuit of justice on behalf of victimized investors," Dan Newman, a spokesman for the law firm, San Diego- based Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, said. The report recounts that on Aug. 5, 2004, Belo said a voluntary internal investigation had found that its largest newspaper had been overstating the number of papers it was selling. Correcting for the overstatement would cause the newspaper's circulation to fall by 1.5% during the week and by 5% on the next Sunday, Belo said at the time. Circulation would decline further because of two other causes, the company had said. One was a change in the methodology The News used to calculate its statewide circulation, the other was a lower circulation volume, part of a nationwide trend of lower readership of newspapers. All told, the newspaper's circulation would decline by 5% during the week and 11.5% on Sunday, Belo said. The next day, Belo's stock fell 7% in heavy trading volume. In his recent ruling, Judge Fitzwater determined that the lead plaintiff had failed to show that its losses were due solely to Belo's announcement of the circulation overstatement, as opposed to other causes of The News' circulation declines that Belo also detailed on Aug. 5, 2004. Belo owns 20 television stations including WFAA-TV (Channel 8). The company spun off The News and its other newspapers earlier this year to A.H. Belo Corporation, which also owns The Press- Enterprise of Riverside, Calif., The Providence (R.I.) Journal and the Denton Record-Chronicle. BRUSH WELLMAN: June 17 Trial Slated for "Marin" Beryllium Case -------------------------------------------------------------- A June 17, 2008 trial is slated for a purported class action suit in California over the hazards of beryllium that names Brush Wellman, Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., as one of the defendants. The suit is "Marin et al. v. Brushman Wellman Inc., Case No. BC299055." It was filed with the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County on July 15, 2003. The named plaintiffs in the suit are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry and Susan Perry. The defendants are: -- Brush Wellman, -- Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and -- Doe Defendants 1 through 100. A first amended complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming five additional plaintiffs. The five additional named plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and John Kesselring. The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the Boeing Co. The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium. The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately 250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their spouses. They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability -- design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair business practices. The suit seeks injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and punitive damages. Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses. Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was dismissed on May 5, 2005. The case is set for trial on June 17, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets. BRUSH WELLMAN: Responds to Third-Party Complaint Over Beryllium --------------------------------------------------------------- Brush Wellman, Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., filed its responses to an amended third-party complaint in a purported class action with regards to the hazards of beryllium-containing products. The matter, "Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp., Inc., et al., Case No. 000525" is a purported class action, which Brush Wellman faces in relation to beryllium. It was filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 7, 2006. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4, 2006. The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are: -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp., Inc.; -- Admiral Metals Inc.; -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and -- Cabot Corp. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. He seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for indemnification and contribution. The company moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush again sought to dismiss. The Court denied the dismissal motion on Sept. 28, 2007. Brush filed its answer to the amended third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 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. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets. CALPINE CORP: Calif., N.Y. Courts Yet to OK ERISA Suit Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York have yet to approve the proposed settlement in the purported class action "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA." Two nearly identical class action complaints against Calpine alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act were filed: -- "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al.;" and -- "Lenette Poor-Herena v. Calpine Corporation et al." These suits were later consolidated with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA." The consolidated complaint, which names as defendants Calpine, the members of Calpine's Board of Directors, the 401(k) Plan's Advisory Committee and its members, signatories of the 401(k) Plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002, an employee of a consulting firm hired by the 401(k) Plan, and unidentified fiduciary defendants, alleged claims under ERISA on behalf of the participants in the 401(k) Plan from Jan. 5, 2001, to the present who invested in the Calpine unitized stock fund. The consolidated complaint alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by permitting participants to buy and hold interests in the Calpine unitized stock fund. All claims were dismissed with prejudice by the Northern District Court. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court fo Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, as a result of Calpine's Chapter 11 filings, the appeal was automatically stayed with respect to the company. In addition, Calpine filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants. The plaintiff opposed the motion and a hearing was scheduled for June 5, 2006; however, prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to allow the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed. If the Northern District Court ruling is reversed, the plaintiff may then seek leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to proceed with the action. The plaintiff's opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 6, 2006. Further briefing on the appeal was then stayed pending completion of the parties' participation in the Ninth Circuit's alternative dispute resolution program. On March 21, 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of the plaintiff and the purported class in return for a payment of $4 million by Calpine's fiduciary insurance carrier, the net proceeds of which will ultimately be deposited into individual plan members' accounts. The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Northern District Court, according to Calpine Corp.'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 "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM) Green Welling LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 - and - Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. (jigarjianlaw@gmail.com) Jigarjian Law Office 128 Tunstead Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Phone: 415-341-6660 Representing the defendants is: Robert Leonard McKague, Esq. Morrison & Foerster LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650/813-5600 Fax: 650-494-0792 CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., a unit of Chesapeake Energy Corp., along with several other defendants in the purported class action captioned "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," are appealing to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals a $404.3-million judgment handed down by a West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County jury in the matter. In the matter, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," Chesapeake Appalachia, formerly known as Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, is a defendant. The class action was filed with the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia in 2003 by royalty owners, who allege that Columbia Natural underpaid royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs, failing to pay royalty on total volumes of natural gas produced and not paying a fair value for the natural gas produced from their leases. The plaintiff class consists of West Virginia royalty owners receiving royalties after July 31, 1990, from Columbia Natural. Chesapeake acquired Columbia Natural in November 2005, and the seller acquired Columbia Natural in 2003 from NiSource, Inc. NiSource, a co-defendant in the case, has managed the litigation and indemnified Chesapeake against underpayment claims based on the use of fixed prices for natural gas production sold under certain forward sale contracts and other claims with respect to Columbia Natural's operations prior to September 2003. On Jan. 27, 2007, the Circuit Court jury returned a verdict against the defendants of $404 million, consisting of $134 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages. Most of the damages awarded by the jury relate to issues not yet addressed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, although in June 2006 that Court ruled against the defendants on two certified questions regarding the deductibility of post- production expenses. The jury found fraudulent conduct by the defendants with respect to the sales prices used to calculate royalty payments and with respect to the failure of CNR to disclose post-production deductions. On June 28, 2007, the Circuit Court sustained the jury verdict for punitive damages, and on Sept. 27, 2007, it denied all post- trial motions, including the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. On Dec. 5, 2007, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to stay the judgment pending appeal conditioned upon filing an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $50 million. The irrevocable letter of credit was filed Jan. 4, 2008. On Jan. 24, 2008, the defendants filed a Petition for Appeal with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, according to Chesapeake'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 "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed with the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, Judge Thomas Evans III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marvin Masters, Esq. 181 Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Timothy Miller, Esq. 400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St. P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25326 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 CIGARETTE MAKERS: Appeals Court Throws Out Smokers' Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan has thrown out a class action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who ever smoked a "light" cigarette, the New York Sun reports. According to NY Sun, the lawsuit had sought $800 billion in damages on behalf of 50 million smokers. NY Sun relates that a three-judge appellate panel halted the lawsuit on April 3 by reversing a district judge's decision to certify a class of "light" cigarette smokers who could pursue several tobacco companies collectively. The Associated Press recounts that the case against the cigarette makers was first filed in 2004. The three-judge panel knocked down U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein's 2006 ruling in Brooklyn that granted the class-action status. According to The New York Times, Judge Weinstein's ruling represented the first time that a so-called lights case received class-action certification in federal court. At the time, the ruling was viewed as potentially opening the door to a major legal threat against the industry, exposing cigarette companies to large damages for their marketing of light cigarettes. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs had claimed that cigarette manufactures -- including the American Tobacco Co., Altria Group, Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Liggett Group Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. -- deceived them into believing that "light" cigarettes, which have been advertised as providing less nicotine and tar, were less unhealthy than other cigarettes. The plaintiffs allege that smokers who enjoy "light" cigarettes unknowingly end up receiving just as much tar and nicotine because they inhale more frequently or smoke more cigarettes to compensate. AP notes that the defendants had preferred trying each case on its own, saying circumstances for each smoker vary widely. NY Sun says that the appeals court found it was possible that smokers of "lights" had chosen them for reasons other than the alleged health benefits. The decision, written by Judge John Walker, noted that some smokers may have "preferred the taste of Lights, or chose Lights as an expression of personal style." The existence of smokers who chose "light" cigarettes for those other reasons means that there can be no single class action, the decision stated. The 2nd Circuit's ruling requires each individual plaintiff to prove that he or she had picked the product because of the perceived health benefits. While that requirement does not end the prospect of individual lawsuits based on "light" cigarettes, it does end the possibility of a class action, according to NY Sun. If the case had been allowed, it would have become the largest class action in American history, Theodore M. Grossman, Esq., of Jones Day, a lawyer for the tobacco companies, said. Mr. Grossman said that the number of plaintiffs in the proposed class and the amount of money being sought was "astronomical" and "unprecedented in American jurisprudence." The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michael Hausfeld, Esq., told NY Sun that individual plaintiffs would push forward with their claims with the district court in Brooklyn, before Judge Weinstein. He said there were several class actions on behalf of "light" cigarette smokers in state courts that were pending. "It's far from over," Mr. Hausfeld, of the firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, said. CIGNA CORP: Conn. Court Ruling in ERISA Case Favors Both Sides -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a decision finding in favor of CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims with regards to a purported class action filed against CIGNA over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that: -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not adequately disclosed to plan participants; and -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees. The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20, 2002. They seek equitable relief. A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11-15, 2006. Due to the court's schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was completed on Jan. 25, 2007. On Feb. 15, 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims. The court has ordered the parties to file simultaneous briefs on March 17, 2008 regarding the relief, if any, to be awarded to the plaintiffs on the claims on which the plaintiffs prevailed, and to file responsive briefs on March 31, 2008. The suit is "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv- 02361-MRK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net) 805 15th St., NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-289-1117 Fax: 202-371-0121 - and - Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com) Moukawsher & Walsh Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-278-7000 Fax: 860-548-1740 Representing the defendants are: Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com) Robinson & Cole 280 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Phone: 860-275-8209 Fax: 860-275-8299 - and - Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq. (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Phone: 215-963-5258 Fax: 215-963-5001 FERRO CORP: Pa. Court Approves $5.5M Antitrust Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a proposed $5,500,000 settlement by Ferro Corp. in the matter, "In Re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 03-CV2038 and MDL Docket No. 1684." Case Background The case is a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of plastics additives (including, but not limited to, impact modifiers, heat stabilizers, and processing aids) between Jan. 1, 1990, and Jan. 31, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 21, 2007). Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to enhance the quality of those resins. Among the principal plastics additives are heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and processing aids. Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal degradation and to enhance the flexibility and stability of the end product. Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the finished plastics products to stress and improve the strength of plastics. Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical resistance, tensile strength, and stress rupture of plastic compounds. Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be processed at lower temperatures thereby eliminating heat degradation and ensuring quality, as well as providing greater control over the flow of melted plastic. The plaintiffs allege a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy among 16 companies to fix prices of plastics additives in order to raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for plastics additives above the level where they otherwise would have been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy began in or around Jan. 1, 1990, and ended around Jan. 31, 2003, when it was announced that these companies were being investigated by U.S., European, and Japanese law enforcement and antitrust investigators for participating in an international cartel to fix the prices of plastics additives. The suit sought to recover, among other things, treble damages on behalf of itself and others who purchased plastics additives from the defendants and others during the class period. Settlement In 2007, the company entered into a verbal agreement with regards to the case. A definitive written settlement agreement was reached in July 2007 that amounted to $5,500,000. The settlement agreement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December 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. For more details, contact: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 1-800-290-1952 212-687-1980 Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/ Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-238-1700 Fax: 215-238-1968 e-Mail: info@kohnswift.com Web site: http://www.kohnswift.com/ Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP Phone: 800-778-1822, e-mail: info@gbcslaw.com Web site: http://gbcslaw.com - and - Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 150 East 52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 838-7797 Fax: (212) 838-7745 Web site: http://www.cmht.com GLOBAL HORIZONS: Judge Clears Yakima Valley Growers in Farm Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Robert Whaley has cleared two Yakima Valley growers of liability in a racial discrimination case filed by local Latino workers who claimed they were displaced by laborers brought in from Thailand, the Associated Press reports. However, Judge Whaley upheld a jury's verdict from September 2007 that found labor contractor -- Global Horizons Inc. -- who brought in the workers, did discriminate against them. AP recounts that the Latino farm workers contend that Global Horizons violated the Farm Labor Contractors Act by failing to provide jobs promised to local workers. They also said the company discriminated against local workers based on race by failing to hire them or by firing them and replacing them with workers brought from Thailand under the federal H-2A guest- worker program in 2004. The program, AP explains, allows growers to import foreign farm workers based on a showing that the local labor force was inadequate. A jury had agreed with the farm workers, awarding $317,000 in damages for discriminating against workers and violating federal labor laws. AP recalls that the case was previously certified as a class action, qualifying an estimated 600 workers for any damages. According to AP, Global Horizons, based in Los Angeles, had sought a jury trial, while the two Yakima Valley growers -- Green Acre Farms of Harrah and Valley Fruit of Wapato -- had their case heard directly by Judge Whaley. Judge Whaley ruled in Green Acre and Valley Fruit's favor on March 27, 2008, but upheld the jury ruling against Global Horizons. Still to be decided are damage amounts for individual plaintiffs. In a press release posted on its Web site, Global Horizons congratulated the two growers, but expressed dissatisfaction with the judge's decision to uphold the jury verdict. The company said it was considering an appeal. H&R BLOCK: Pa. Sup. Ct. to Again Hear Appeal Over Refund Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will once again hear an appeal in a class action suit filed in 1993 over the way H&R Block worked its rapid refund program, Gina Passarella writes for The Legal Intelligencer. The court granted allocatur in "Basile v. H&R Block Inc.," limiting the grant to two main issues. The justices will decide whether the Superior Court misapplied the aggrieved party doctrine by requiring H&R Block to cross-appeal from an earlier class certification order despite the fact that summary judgment was later entered in the company's favor. The court will also examine whether the Superior Court erred in rejecting the trial court's ruling that H&R Block's claims could be tried on a classwide basis. Legal Intelligencer recounts that in June 2007, an en banc panel of the Superior Court led by Judge John L. Musmanno recognized that Rules 501 and 511 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a nonaggrieved party -- in this case H&R Block -- to file a cross-appeal to ensure certain issues are preserved in the event the matter is reversed by an appellate court. Judge Musmanno found, however, that H&R Block did not file its motion to decertify the class in a timely manner. The panel was hearing the case on remand from the Supreme Court with the instructions to look at how Rules 501 and 511, as well as Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1710(d) and two footnotes in prior case law, apply to "Basile." The court went against H&R Block, ruling its motion for class certification was untimely under all of the points the panel was told by the Supreme Court to examine. According to Judge Musmanno's opinion, the trial court granted in January 1996 an order in Sandra Basile's favor to assume the existence of an agency relationship in considering whether to certify the class. In May 1997, the class was certified. The different court panels agreed, according to the opinion, that H&R Block could not have appealed those interlocutory orders until they became appealable when the court granted summary judgment in H&R Block's favor in December 1997. At that time, H&R Block did file a cross-appeal but only of the January 1996 order and not of the May 1997 order certifying the class, according to the opinion. "Accordingly, at that time, [H&R Block] should have also challenged the May 1997 order granting class certification in their cross-appeal," Judge Musmanno said. "To permit otherwise would allow piecemeal litigation of appellate issues." A motion to decertify the class was not filed until some time in late 2003 and was granted in January 2004, Judge Musmanno said. A prior en banc panel of the Superior Court, in 2006, reversed the decertification, ruling it was improperly made after the court ruled on the merits of the case in its summary judgment order, according to the opinion. Superior Court Judge Maureen Lally-Green wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Judge Joan Orie Melvin. She said she recognized an appealable order generally subsumes any prior interlocutory orders in a case. "However, this simply means that the losing party may challenge the final adverse order, as well as any prior nonfinal orders that were also adverse to the losing party," Judge Lally-Green said. "It does not mean that even the winning party must file a protective cross-appeal, under penalty of waiver, simply because the trial court may have at one point ruled against the winning party before later granting a complete victory." Judge Lally-Green also said she thought the motion to decertify was timely because the merits of the case hadn't been decided. There was still another claim existing outside of the summary judgment order filed in H&R Block's favor, she said. According to opinions filed in the case, Sandra Basile had claimed in her 1993 complaint that the "rapid refunds" Block had promised her when she hired them to prepare her tax returns in the early 1990s were actually short-term, high-interest loans. A class was certified as to Basile's breach of fiduciary duty claim in 1997. Several months later, however, Philadelphia Common Pleas Senior Judge Stephen E. Levin ruled in favor of a Block motion for summary judgment. On appeal, a 1999 Superior Court panel reversed Judge Levin's decision as to summary judgment. But in 2000, the state Supreme Court concluded it had not been proved that H&R Block had been acting as the plaintiffs' agent for the purposes of the transactions in question, but sent the case back down for resolution of other challenges to the plaintiffs' claims. On remand, a Superior Court panel found in 2001 that the class members had presented prima facie evidence of a confidential relationship between themselves and Block and remanded back down to Levin for further proceedings on that issue. It was at this point in the case that Judge Levin allowed h&R Block to file a decertification motion, which he granted in January 2004. In December 2004, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed. In March 2006, an en banc panel of the Superior Court had ruled 6-3 that Judge Levin should not have decertified the class in Basile since the defense did not challenge the original class certification order immediately after summary judgment proceedings in the case caused that order's status to shift from interlocutory to appealable. In granting H&R Block's appeal of the March 2006 ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the order, in essence decertifying the class. The Superior Court, in the June 2007 opinion, once again reversed the trial court's order decertifying the class. William H. Lamb, Esq., of Lamb McErlane in West Chester, Pa., and a former interim justice of the state Supreme Court represented H&R Block along with the firm's appellate team. He said the entire team is delighted the court decided to accept the appeal once again. "Our group takes this as a significant step in the right direction," Mr. Lamb said, adding the issue of cross-appeals and nonaggrieved parties is a very important one. He also said this decision is "the test" and will affect several other cases across the commonwealth. Steven E. Angstreich, Esq., of Levy Angstreich Finney Baldante Rubenstein & Coren of Philadelphia represented Basile. He was unavailable for comment by press time. ILLINOIS UNION: Mass. Litigation Over B Quotes Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The state court class action, "Van Emden Management Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al.," which names Illinois Union Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ACE Ltd., as defendant, remains stayed, pending resolution of a consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit is Case No. 05-0066A, filed with the Superior Court of Massachusetts on Jan. 13, 2005. The allegations in this case are similar to the allegations in a consolidated class action pending against ACE, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., and ACE USA, Inc., in the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs allege that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and brokers conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions. In addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants received additional income by improperly placing their clients' business with insurers through related wholesale entities that act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer. The plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance broker subsidiaries. In the commercial insurance consolidated complaint, plaintiffs assert these causes of action against ACE: Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until further order of the court ACE Ltd. reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- is a Bermuda-based holding company. ACE and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and reinsurance organization, servicing the insurance needs of commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries and jurisdictions. The company operates through four business segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance. INVESCO LTD: Reaches $9.8M Settlement in Consolidated M.D. Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Invesco Ltd. settled for $9.8 million a putative shareholder class action complaint and a derivative complaint that were filed against it in a consolidated lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, 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. Following the industry-wide regulatory investigations, multiple lawsuits based on market timing allegations were filed against various parties affiliated with Invesco. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, together with market timing lawsuits brought against affiliates of other mutual fund companies, and on Sept. 29, 2004, three amended complaints were filed against company-affiliated parties: -- a putative shareholder class action complaint brought on behalf of shareholders of AIM funds formerly advised by INVESCO Funds Group, Inc.; -- a derivative complaint purportedly brought on behalf of certain AIM funds and the shareholders of such funds; and -- an ERISA complaint purportedly brought on behalf of participants in the company's 401(k) plan. On Sept. 15, 2006, the court dismissed the ERISA lawsuit with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Oral argument was held on Dec. 5, 2007. The company and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement in principle of the shareholder class action and derivative lawsuits. The proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval, calls for a payment by the company of $9.8 million, recorded in general and administrative costs in the 2007 Consolidated Statement of Income, in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all pending claims. In addition, under the terms of the proposed settlement the company may incur certain costs in connection with providing notice of the proposed settlement to affected shareholders. Invesco Ltd. -- http://www.invesco.com/-- is an independent global investment management company. The Company's worldwide investment management capabilities include AIM, Atlantic Trust, Invesco, Perpetual, PowerShares, Trimark and WL Ross. Invesco provides an array of enduring solutions for retail, institutional and high-net-worth clients around the world. INVESCO LTD: Faces Suit Over Funds Susceptible to Market Timing --------------------------------------------------------------- Invesco Ltd., and company-affiliated parties were named as defendants in an Illinois lawsuit alleging that one or more of the company's funds inadequately employed fair value pricing, and thereby made such funds more susceptible to market timing, 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 lawsuit is a purported class action seeking unspecified monetary damages. It is now pending in the State court in Madison County, Illinois after a series of removals to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and remands back to the State Court. Invesco Ltd. -- http://www.invesco.com/-- is an independent global investment management company. The Company's worldwide investment management capabilities include AIM, Atlantic Trust, Invesco, Perpetual, PowerShares, Trimark and WL Ross. Invesco provides an array of enduring solutions for retail, institutional and high-net-worth clients around the world. NEW YORK: Court Allows Strip-Search Suit vs. Nassau County ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley ruled that a class-action lawsuit against Nassau County in New York could go forward in its attempt to gain damages for alleged unfair strip searches conducted by county authorities, United Press International reports, citing Newsday. Robert L. Herbst, Esq., who represents the more than 23,000 plaintiffs in the suit, said that his clients were subjected to unfair searches between 1996 and 1999. "All these years have subjected people with misdemeanors to this disgusting procedure for no reason," Mr. Herbst told UPI. "There are now only two possibilities -- we either go on to trial or we settle the case," he added. UPI says that Judge Hurley's ruling on the case, which has also been granted class-action status by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, could prompt additional litigation. The report relates that the recent ruling has made it possible for thousands of people to file lawsuits for being strip-searched in Nassau County. OLD DOMINION: Faces Ga. Suit Over LTL Shipment Fuel Surcharges -------------------------------------------------------------- Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., and other less-than-truckload carriers are facing a consolidated class action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, which accuses it and other LTLs of conspiring throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges on LTL shipments. On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of themselves and other plaintiffs, filed the putative class action lawsuit against the Company and other companies engaged in the LTL trucking business with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2007). The other named defendants in the complaint are: 1. Arkansas Best Corp., 2. Averitt Express, 3. Con-Way, Inc., 4. Fedex Corp., 5. Jevic Transportation, Inc., 6. Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC, 7. New England Motor Freight, Inc., 8. R+L Carriers, Inc., 9. Saia, Inc., 10. United Parcel Service, Inc., 11. YRC Worldwide Inc., 12. Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc. Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply, contend that the practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2007). They assert that the carriers agreed to impose identical or nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003, through the conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2007). The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed for LTL services sold in the United States; (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy; (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint and the nature and character of the acts performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the Sherman Act; (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co- conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused injury to the business and property plaintiffs and other members of the classes; (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of LTL services sold in the United States during the class period; and (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiffs and other members of the damages class. The plaintiffs pray that: -- the court determines that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co- conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the damages class against defendants for three times the amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- defendants and their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner: (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging in any other contract, combination or conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the manufacture, distribution or sale of any product except to the extent necessary in connection with a bona fide sales transaction between the parties to such communications; and -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Subsequent to this original complaint, similar complaints have been filed against the defendants and other LTL motor carriers, each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates. On Dec. 20, 2007, these cases were consolidated with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and are now in the process of being transferred to that court, 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. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. -- http://www.odfl.com/-- is a less-than-truckload (LTL) multi-regional motor carrier providing timely one- to five-day service among five regions in the United States, and next-day and second-day service within these regions. The Company offers its products and services through four branded product groups: OD-Domestic, OD-Expedited, OD- Global and OD-Technology. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles Currency Conversion Fee Case in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., along with other defendants, reached a $336-million settlement in the matter, "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 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. In and around February 2001, a number of cardholder class actions were filed against the MasterCard and Visa associations, and several member banks alleging, among other things, that they had conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the price of currency conversion services for credit card purchases made in a foreign currency by U.S. cardholders. Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant. Pursuant to orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the cases were consolidated or coordinated for pretrial purposes, under the caption, "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)." In July 2006, the parties agreed to settle the case for $336 million. The Company's share of the settlement, which has been paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing reserves. The Court has set the hearing on the entry of Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal for March 31, 2008. A Web site -- http://www.ccfsettlement.com-- has been created to provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to allow class members to file their claims on-line. This Web site contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning the settled litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008). Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer and small business banking company with operations in U.S. markets. The Company is a savings and loan holding company. It owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non- bank subsidiaries. The Company operates in four segments: the Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets activities. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Settles N.Y. Suit Over American Express Cards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., along with select defendants, reached a $2.25-billion settlement deal with plaintiffs in the matter, "American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 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. American Express filed the antitrust class action lawsuit against the defendants on Nov. 15, 2004, alleging, among other things, that the defendants jointly and severally implemented and enforced illegal exclusionary agreements that prevented member banks from issuing American Express cards. Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant. On Nov. 7, 2007, American Express issued a press release announcing that it had reached an agreement with Visa Inc., Visa USA and Visa International to drop Visa and five of its member banks, including the company, as defendants in the American Express Litigation. The settlement amounts totaling $2.25 billion due to American Express under the agreement will be paid directly by Visa. In November 2007, the company announced that it would recognize a charge of $38 million for its share of the settlement. The suit is "American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al, Case No. 04-Civ-08967," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Barbara S. Jones presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Edward Allan Baker, Esq. (ebaker@bsfllp.com) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 26 South Main Street Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: (603)-643-9090 Fax: (603)-643-9010 Representing the defendants are: Eric John Sinrod, Esq. (ejsinrod@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris LLP One Market, Spear Tower, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415)-371-2219 Fax: (415)-371-2201 - and - Amy Lynn Barton, Esq. (abarton@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 373-3285 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Still Faces N.Y. Interchange Fee Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., continues to face a purported class action entitled, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.)," according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On June 22, 2005, a group of retail merchants filed the purported class action against the Associations and several member banks alleging, among other things, that the defendants conspired in violation of the antitrust laws to fix the level of interchange fees. Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant. Since then, approximately 48 similar complaints have been filed on behalf of merchants against the card Associations and, in some cases, against member banks including the Bank. On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order coordinating the cases for pretrial proceedings, under th caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation, MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.)," which was pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Master Docket No. 1:05- md-01720-JG-CLP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge John H. Gleeson presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: William Jay Blechman, Esq. (wblechman@kennynachwalter.com) Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-373-1000 Fax: 305-372-1861 W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. (wjbruckner@locklaw.com) Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 - and - Morissa Robin Falk, Esq. (mfalk@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0833 Fax: 212-818-0477 WYETH: Still Faces Suit in W.Va Over PREMPRO, PREMARIN Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Wyeth successfully defended itself against several purported class action suit over PREMPRO or PREMARIN, two of the company's hormone therapy products, but continues to face one such litigation in West Virginia. The company has been involved in various other legal proceedings involving allegations of injuries caused by the company's pharmaceutical products. These cases include individual lawsuits and putative class actions in state and federal courts in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions involving allegations of injuries caused by PREMPRO or PREMARIN. The putative class actions from users of PREMPRO or PREMARIN are seeking medical monitoring and purchase price refunds, as well as other damages. While most of the putative class actions have been dismissed or withdrawn, a motion for class certification was recently denied without prejudice in a California statewide refund class action, and a hearing in a similar case in West Virginia is set for later this year, 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. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women�s healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. New Securities Fraud Cases ARTHROCARE CORP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of ArthroCare Corporation (Nasdaq:ARTC) between August 4, 2006, and January 23, 2008, inclusive. The action is pending with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida at docket number 9;08-cv-80343. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that ArthroCare and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial results during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that ArthroCare's reported financial results were materially false, misleading and overstated as a result of: (i) ArthroCare's improper recognition of revenue from transactions with DiscoCare, Inc., which were contingent in nature; and (ii) ArthroCare's improper recognition of revenue from transactions with Device Reimbursement Services, an undisclosed, related party. The Complaint further alleges that these material misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of ArthroCare stock, causing the price of ArthroCare to trade as high as $64.84 per share during the Class Period. As a result of adverse news stories and partial disclosures concerning the accuracy of the Company's reported financial results and its business dealings with DiscoCare and DRS, the price of the Company's stock fell to approximately $38.11 by January 25, 2008. The Complaint alleges that Defendants' conduct constitutes violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those who purchased ArthroCare common stock during the Class Period, may, no later than June 3, 2008, request for the Court's appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more information, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nkulesa@snlaw.net) Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. (wboulton@snlaw.net) Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com/ DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Shareholder Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: DRI: 34.41, -0.54, -1.54%) between June 19, 2007, and December 18, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Darden and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Darden owns and operates nearly 1,400 Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones, Capital Grille, Longhorn Steakhouse and Seasons 52 restaurants. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company's food costs were rising at a higher rate than the Company admitted; (2) that same-store sales at the Company's restaurants were experiencing negative trends; (3) that the Company's restaurants were underperforming; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On December 18, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that its earnings for the quarter fell below expectations. Further, the Company announced that it expected diluted net earnings per share in 2008 to be 2% to 4%, in stark contrast to the 10% to 12% projection the Company gave in August 2007. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $7.74 per share, or 21.3%, to close on December 19, 2007, at $28.60 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Members of the class may, not later than May 12, 2008, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files NY Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of auction rate securities from Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., between March 17, 2003, and February 13, 2008. The lawsuit alleges that Deutsche Bank violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements about the risks associated with certain of its auction rate securities and the auction market in general. Shareholders that purchased auction rate securities from Deutsche Bank during the Relevant Period with questions concerning their legal rights are invited to contact: Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/ Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. FORCE PROTECTION: Berger & Montague Files S.C. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of Force Protection, Inc. (NASDAQ:FRPT) common stock between August 14, 2006, and March 17, 2008. This represents an extension of the end of the Class Period asserted in the complaints currently on file from February 29, 2008, to March 17, 2008, the date Force Protection announced that it would delay for a second time filing its 2007 Form 10-K due to the "scope of the work" involved in identifying accounting errors and restating its prior financial statements. As a result of this new announcement, Force Protection's stock price dropped an additional 23.5% to $1.37 per share. Force Protection is a manufacturer of ballistic- and blast- protected vehicles. Investors who purchased Force Protection common stock during the Class Period may move the Court to appoint them as lead plaintiff, no later than May 9, 2008. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, financial results and prospects. Specifically, defendants continually boasted that Force Protection�s dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates. However, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, in a report dated June 27, 2007, questioned both of these claims and also criticized the awarding of contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis without competitive bidding. Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force Protection announced it would delay the filing of its 2007 Form 10-K and restate its financial statements for the three- and nine-month period ended September 30, 2007. On this news, Force Protection's stock collapsed to close at $3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 12.9%. On March 17, 2008, Force Protection announced that it would delay filing its 2007 Form 10-K a second time, causing an additional 23.5% stock price drop. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were: (a) Force Protection was having persistent problems meeting contractual delivery deadlines, which made it likely that the U.S. Government would purchase fewer MRAPs from Force Protection in the future; (b) the Company maintained an inadequate financial system of accounting, which also made it likely that the U.S. Government would do less business with Force Protection in the future; (c) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls contrary to the representations in its SEC filings; (d) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; and (e) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report its financial results at least for the three- and nine-months ended September 30, 2007. The case is: "Jeffrey Norman v. Force Protection, Inc., et al., No. 2:08-cv-01207-CWH." For more information, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-875-3000 1-888-891-2289 e-mail: investorprotect@bm.net Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/ HUMANA INC: Strauss & Troy Files Shareholder Suit in Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Strauss & Troy have filed a lawsuit seeking class action status with the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Humana, Inc. (NYSE: HUM) between February 4, 2008, and March 11, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Humana and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose adverse facts in regard to the operation of the business and the financial performance of the company. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's operations, financial viability and performance. As a result of these materially false and misleading statements and omissions, the plaintiffs allege that the price of Humana common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. On March 12, 2008, Humana announced that it would be revising its earnings estimates, following this announcement shares of Humana fell $6.50 per share, or approximately 13.7%. Strauss & Troy seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those that purchased or otherwise acquired Humana common stock during the Class Period. Members of the class may, no later than May 26, 2008, move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of the class members. For more information, contact: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. Joseph J. Braun, Esq. Matthew R. Chasar, Esq. Strauss & Troy 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: 800-669-9341 (513) 621-2120 e-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com MF GLOBAL: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates NY Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock pursuant or traceable to MF Global Ltd.'s Initial Public Offering on or about July 19, 2007. The Complaint charges MF and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. MF is a broker of exchange-listed futures and options. It provides execution and clearing services for exchange-traded and over- the-counter derivative products as well as for non- derivative foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market. The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO, defendants failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company lacked adequate risk management systems; (2) specifically, that the Company's order-entry systems were not operating in an efficient manner such that they were deemed ineffective; and (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. Since the time of its IPO, MF represented to investors and financial analysts that it had extensive and sufficient risk management procedures and internal controls. On February 28, 2008, however, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would incur a $141.5-million loss as a result of unauthorized trades by one of its traders, later identified as Evan "Brent" Dooley. The Company admitted that a failure in one of its retail order entry systems permitted the rogue trader to establish significant positions in his own account which were liquidated later that morning. The following day, it was reported in The Wall Street Journal that the internal controls of the Company's systems were sometimes turned off at the Memphis office and possibly other locations in order to speed trades. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $8.09 per share, or 27.63%, to close on February 28, 2008, at $21.19 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's shares continued to fall the following day, declining an additional $3.64 per share, or 17.18%, to close on Feb. 29, 2008, at $17.55 per share. This closing price represented a cumulative loss of $12.45, or over 41%, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months prior. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP Phone: 1-888-299-7706 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/ PMI GROUP: Schiffrin Barroway Files California Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of The PMI Group, Inc. (NYSE: PMI) between November 2, 2006, and March 3, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges PMI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PMI provides credit, capital, and risk transfer services. Through its wholly and partially owned subsidiaries, PMI offers residential mortgage insurance and credit enhancement products, financial guaranty insurance, and financial guaranty reinsurance. One such entity that PMI has an equity stake in is Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, which is an insurance holding company whose wholly owned subsidiary, Financial Guaranty Insurance Corporation, provides credit enhancement on infrastructure finance and structured finance securities worldwide. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that FGIC had exposure to defaults on mortgage-backed securities and was materially impaired as a result; (2) that the Company failed to properly account for its investment in FGIC and in doing so overstated its financial results; (3) that the Company engaged in improper underwriting practices in its book of business related to insurance; (4) that the Company had far greater exposure to defaults and losses in regard to its book of business related to insurance than it disclosed; (5) that the Company would have to stop writing insurance policies to borrowers, which would have a negative result on future business; (6) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. Beginning in July 2007 and continuing through the end of the Class Period, the Company began to issue a series of disclosures, where it acknowledged its exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to the housing and credit crisis. According to PMI, those losses and defaults were caused by the Company's failure to engage in proper underwriting practices. Additionally, PMI announced losses that were related to large increases in defaults and its investment in FGIC. At the same time, ratings agencies such as Fitch Ratings downgraded the Company's stock. By October 2007, Standard & Poor's announced that it placed PMI on negative CreditWatch with negative implications. Throughout this time, the Company continued to make denials and misrepresentations about the true nature of its finances and prospects, even as the artificially inflated price of its stock began a slow but steady decline. On March 3, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that its 2007 Annual Report would be filed late, and that the Company's U.S. Mortgage Insurance Operations had reported a net loss of $236 million in the fourth quarter. The Company's quarterly loss was the result of an increase in default inventory, higher claim rates and higher average claim sizes. Additionally, the Company reported that its Federal Guarantee segment would report a significant net loss for the fourth quarter and full year 2007, driven by equity losses of FGIC, which resulted from unrealized mark-to-market losses and loss adjustment expenses at FGIC. The Company further disclosed that it was still trying to determine whether the value of its investment in FGIC was impaired as of December 31, 2007. That same day, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC, wherein it revealed that it was unable to file its Annual Report for 2007 on time. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit http://www.sbtklaw.com/ Members of the class may, not later than May 12, 2008, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com ********* 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 * * *