/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080417.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 76 Headlines ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Session Begins in Del. Securities Lawsuit ALFA CORP: Settles Del. & Ala. Suits Over Alfa Mutual Offer ALFA CORP: May 28, 2008 Hearing Set for "Hagler" Suit Settlement ALFA MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims in Ala. Case BEAR STEARNS: Employees and Investors Dealt Another Setback CARROLS CORP: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismissal in "Seever" COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces New Allegation in Pending N.Y. Suit DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Calif. Securities Suit DOLE FOOD: Fla. Court Approves Banana Antitrust Suit Settlement HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in RESPA Suit MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 12 OCCAM NETWORKS: May 19, 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Litigation PIXELPLUS CO: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. Tentatively QUIKSILVER INC: Faces Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations RAYTHEON INC: Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over Alleged Toxic Pollution RCN CORP: N.J. Court Approves ERISA Violations Suit Settlement SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Ala. Over "Illegal Flying" WILLIAM LYON: Del. Supreme Court Remands Case to Chancery Court WILLIAM LYON: Calif. Litigation Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed WURLD MEDIA: Suit Says Company Failed to Pay Employees * McGlinchey Stafford's CAFA Law Blog Celebrates Milestone New Securities Fraud Cases AGRIA CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in New York BLACKSTONE GROUP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit BLACKSTONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brower Piven Commences Ma. Securities Suit INVERNESS MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit ISTAR FINANCIAL: Abraham Fruchter Files NY Securities Fraud Suit ISTAR FINANCIAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Suit Filing in N.Y. SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Susman Godfrey Files CA Securities Fraud Suit ********* ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Session Begins in Del. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A mediation session has begun in a consolidated securities class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Adams Golf, Inc. Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class actions was filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public offering. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the company's initial public offering. In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading in at least two areas. The plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the company's long-term profits. They also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on sales. The operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and it alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the company's long-term profits and that the company engaged in questionable sales practices (including double shipping and unlimited rights of return), which threatened post- IPO financial results. Discovery closed on Aug. 11, 2006. On Nov. 21, 2006, all summary-judgment briefing was completed. On Dec. 13, 2006, the company learned that the judge from the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware for whom the case was set before was elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. On Dec. 15, 2006, the company was notified that its case was assigned to the vacant judicial position. All proceedings have been postponed until a new judge is confirmed, and there is no trial date set at this time. On Feb. 7, 2008, the company was notified that its case has been reassigned to Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet. There has been no scheduling conference set yet, and there is no trial date set at this time. A mediation has been scheduled for April 8, 2008, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Kent A. Jordan presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com) Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess Citizens Bank Center Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Phone: (302) 656-4433 Representing the defendants are: Kevin G. Abrams, Esq. Abrams & Laster, LLP Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 778-1000 Fax: (302) 778-1001 Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. (moyer@rlf.com) Richards, Layton & Finger One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 651-7700 - and - John E. James, Esq. (jjames@potteranderson.com) Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP 1313 N. Market St, Hercules Plaza 6th Flr, PO Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 Phone: (302) 984-6000 ALFA CORP: Settles Del. & Ala. Suits Over Alfa Mutual Offer ----------------------------------------------------------- Alfa Corp. reached tentative settlement for two consolidated class action suits filed in Delaware and Alabama over a plan to privatize the company, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Case Background On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co., which collectively own a majority of its common stock, for a transaction that would result in the privatization of the company. The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently owned by the Mutual Group. Subsequent to the end of the second quarter, nine purported class actions, seven in the Delaware Chancery Court and two in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, have been brought against the Company, the Mutual Group (composed of Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co.), and directors and officers on behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, to enjoin the defendants from causing the Company to enter into an agreement to be acquired by the Mutual Group, among other allegations. On Aug. 16, 2007 and on Aug. 29, 2007, orders were entered that consolidated the actions filed in Delaware into "In Re Alfa Corporation Shareholders Litigation," in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 3104-VCP. On Oct. 29, 2007, an order was entered that consolidated the actions filed in Alabama into "In Re Alfa Corporation Shareholder Litigation," in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, CV-07-900485. Alabama Settlement On Nov. 7, 2007, the counsel to the parties in the above referenced Alabama consolidated action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle such action, subject to approval of the court. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Mutual and Fire agreed to pay $22.00 per share to acquire the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company that are not currently owned by them. As further consideration, lead counsel to the Alabama consolidated action was provided an opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary proxy statement. The Alabama MOU also provided for confirmatory discovery, which has been completed. On or about Feb. 7, 2008, a preliminary hearing was held in the consolidated matter, "In Re Alfa Corp. Shareholder Litigation," in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, where the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and the court entered a Scheduling Order that, among other things, set a final hearing to determine approval of the class action settlement for April 14, 2007. The court also authorized the form of a Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action to be sent to all members of the class, as defined in the Notice. On or about Feb. 12, 2008, the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action describing the settlement in the matter, "In Re Alfa Corp. Shareholder Litigation," was mailed to members of the class. Delaware Settlement On Dec. 20, 2007, the counsel to the parties in the above referenced Delaware consolidated action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle such action, subject to approval of the court. Under the terms of the Delaware MOU, counsel to the Delaware consolidated action will be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary proxy statement. The parties to the Delaware litigation subsequently intervened in "In Re Alfa Corporation Shareholder Litigation" in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, for the purposes of participating in confirmatory discovery and for participating in the settlement of the action. Alfa Corp. -- http://www.alfains.com/-- is a financial services holding company headquartered that offers property casualty insurance, life insurance and financial services products through its wholly owned subsidiaries Alfa Insurance Corp., Alfa General Insurance Corp., Alfa Vision Insurance Corp., Alfa Alliance Insurance Corp., Alfa Life Insurance Corp., Alfa Financial Corp., The Vision Insurance Group, LLC, Alfa Agency Mississippi, Inc., Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc., and Alfa Benefits Corp. Alfa Corp. is affiliated with Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co. ALFA CORP: May 28, 2008 Hearing Set for "Hagler" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A May 28, 2008 final approval hearing is slated for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Mr. and Mrs Prince Hagler et. al. v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., et. al., No. CV-07-408," which names Alfa Corp. as a defendant. On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co., which collectively own a majority of its common stock, for a transaction that would result in the privatization of the company. The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently owned by the Mutual Group. On Nov. 21, 2007, certain policyholders of the Mutual Group filed the purported class action and derivative action against the Company, the Mutual Group and certain of their officers and directors in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama. In "Hagler," the policyholders contended that transaction was not in the best interest of the policyholders of the Mutual Group and would unjustly enrich the defendants. The Plaintiffs asserted purported claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the proposed acquisition, other injunctive relief, and unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On Dec. 21, 2007, some of the defendants filed a motion to transfer said litigation to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. On or about Jan. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs served discovery requests on the defendants, seeking production of documents purportedly related to the transaction. On Feb. 23, 2008, counsel for the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle such action, subject to approval of the court. On March 4, 2008, the Walker County court conditionally approved the settlement and set a final approval hearing for May 28, 2008, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Alfa Corp. -- http://www.alfains.com/-- is a financial services holding company headquartered that offers property casualty insurance, life insurance and financial services products through its wholly owned subsidiaries Alfa Insurance Corp., Alfa General Insurance Corp., Alfa Vision Insurance Corp., Alfa Alliance Insurance Corp., Alfa Life Insurance Corp., Alfa Financial Corp., The Vision Insurance Group, LLC, Alfa Agency Mississippi, Inc., Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc., and Alfa Benefits Corp. Alfa Corp. is affiliated with Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co. ALFA MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims in Ala. Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "Preston M. Wright v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., No. CV-07-900070," voluntarily dismissed the policyholder class action allegation against the defendants, according to Alfa Mutual's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co., which collectively own a majority of its common stock, for a transaction that would result in the privatization of the company. The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently owned by the Mutual Group. On Nov. 9, 2007, a policyholder of Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. filed the purported class action and derivative action against Mutual in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. The policyholder contended that Mutual's and Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co.'s acquisition of the outstanding stock of Alfa Corp. was not in the best interest of the policyholders of Mutual and Fire. The plaintiffs asserted purported claims for the alleged impairment of Mutual's assets. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the proposed acquisition, other injunctive relief, and unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believed that this action was without merit. On or about Dec. 19, 2007, the defendants in the above-described Macon County litigation filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer, requesting that the court sever the class action allegations related to the transaction from unrelated individual insurance fraud allegations contained in the Complaint. The motion requested that, once severed, the class action allegations be transferred to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the defendants' motion to sever and transfer in the Macon County litigation was denied by the trial court. The Defendants then filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking to have the trial court's denial of defendants' motion reversed. On or about Feb. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Macon County litigation voluntarily dismissed the policyholder class action allegation against defendants. Alfa Corp. -- http://www.alfains.com/-- is a financial services holding company headquartered that offers property casualty insurance, life insurance and financial services products through its wholly owned subsidiaries Alfa Insurance Corp., Alfa General Insurance Corp., Alfa Vision Insurance Corp., Alfa Alliance Insurance Corp., Alfa Life Insurance Corp., Alfa Financial Corp., The Vision Insurance Group, LLC, Alfa Agency Mississippi, Inc., Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc., and Alfa Benefits Corp. Alfa Corp. is affiliated with Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General Insurance Co. BEAR STEARNS: Employees and Investors Dealt Another Setback ----------------------------------------------------------- Employees and investors of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. (NYSE:BSC) were dealt another setback on news that profit fell 79% in the company's fiscal first quarter and that there would likely be impairment charges taken by the company in the second quarter. Last week, after the market closed, Bear Stearns disclosed that it will incur about $288 million in charges in the second quarter tied to write-downs in goodwill and losses tied to a municipal bond program. Bear Stearns stock price closed at $10.11 per share. Just one year ago, Bear Stearns stock traded at just under $160 per share. Class action litigation has commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan and all plan participants against Bear Stearns for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The lawsuits allege that Bear Stearns, as plan fiduciary, allowed imprudent investment of plan assets into Bear Stearns common stock despite the fact that the company knew that such investment was unduly risky and no longer appropriate for Bear Stearns employees. In the wake of the company's liquidity problems and subsequent sell-off, the Bear Stearns ESOP has suffered substantial losses. The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. on the net: http://www.bearstearns.com. CARROLS CORP: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismissal in "Seever" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted Carrols Corp.'s motion to dismiss a purported class action against the company, according to Carrol's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2007. The lawsuit, captioned "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp.," was filed on Nov. 30, 2002, by four former hourly employees of the company. The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws by requiring employees to work without recording their time and by retaliating against those who complained. The plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief. They also seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting of current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked or are working for Carrols. As a result of a status conference on July 21, 2005, the parties agreed to withdraw the plaintiff's motions to certify and for national discovery, and defendant's motion to disqualify counsel and related motions, to allow both sides limited additional discovery. Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration. On Jan. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed their motions to certify the action and for national discovery. Carrols opposed both requests. Carrols has also moved to disqualify the plaintiffs from representing the class and to strike the purported evidence presented in support of their certification motion. On Dec. 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for notice and class certification and granting the company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims, other than certain nominal claims relating to orientation and managers meetings. The Court instructed the parties to confer, in good faith, and settle those nominal claims. Subject to settlement of the amounts for orientation and managers meetings and possible appeal by the plaintiffs, the case is concluded. The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No. 6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York under Judge David G. Larimer, with referral to Judge Marian W. Payson. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrick J. Solomon, Esq. (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 Fax: 585-272-0574 Representing the defendants is: Helen N. Baker, Esq. (hbaker@freebornpeters.com) Freeborn & Peters 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-360-6256 Fax: 312-360-6995 COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces New Allegation in Pending N.Y. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- New allegations have been added to a class action suit pending against Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC) and which was filed by New York state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, New York City comptroller William Thompson Jr. and New York City Pension Funds. The suit is intended to compensate investors who were allegedly misled by the California-based mortgage lender. The company's stock plummeted last fall after it was revealed that it had made material misstatements and omissions regarding its lending practices and other aspects of its business and finances. The stock, which a year ago was at $36 a share, closed April 11 at $5.26 a share. The complaint has been amended to include allegations that Countrywide distorted industry definitions of prime and subprime borrowers and mortgages to mislead uninformed investors about the nature of its business. The suit also contends that Countrywide executives engaged in insider trading, selling shares while simultaneously encouraging other investors to buy or hold the stock. Shares of Countrywide fell 40 cents, or 7.60 percent, to close at $4.86. Based in Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial Corporation (NYSE: CFC) -- http://www.countrywide.com/-- is a diversified financial services provider and a member of the S&P 500, Forbes 2000 and Fortune 500. Through its family of companies, Countrywide originates, purchases, securitizes, sells, and services residential and commercial loans; provides loan closing services such as credit reports, appraisals and flood determinations; offers banking services which include depository and home loan products; conducts fixed income securities underwriting and trading activities; provides property, life and casualty insurance; and manages a captive mortgage reinsurance company. DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Calif. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed against Ditech Communications Corp. are appealing the dismissal of their case. On June 14, 2005, a lawsuit filed by Richard E. Jaffe against Ditech Communications, Timothy K. Montgomery, and William J. Tamblyn (Case No. C 05 02406) was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Ditech's stock between Aug. 25, 2004, and May 26, 2005. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its former chief executive officer and chief financial officer. Several similar lawsuits were filed. All of them were later consolidated into a single action, captioned, "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406- JSW." A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 2, 2006. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and by order dated Aug. 10, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The defendants filed their Second Amended Complaint on Sept. 11, 2006. They again moved to dismiss, and by order dated March 22, 2007, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on April 23, 2007. On May 14, 2007, the defendant again moved to dismiss. By order dated Oct. 11, 2007, the court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. On Nov. 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The suit is "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. (cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C. 425 California Street, Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/433-3200 Fax: 415-433-6382 Representing the defendants is: William S. Freeman, Esq. (freemanws@cooley.com) Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155 Phone: 650 843-5000 Fax: 650 857-0663 DOLE FOOD: Fla. Court Approves Banana Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered final judgment orders approving the settlement of two consolidated class actions filed by direct and indirect banana buyers against Dole Food Co. Inc. Initially, a number of class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the company and three of its competitors. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants and have now been consolidated into two separate class actions: -- one by direct purchasers (customers); and -- another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased bananas from customers). Both consolidated class actions allege that the defendants conspired to artificially raise or maintain prices and control or restrict output of bananas. On May 17, 2007, and June 26, 2007, Dole entered into settlement agreements resolving these putative consolidated class actions filed by the direct purchasers and indirect purchasers, respectively. The Court entered final judgment orders approving the settlement agreements on Nov. 21, 2007. The direct purchaser settlement is now completed. The indirect purchaser agreement is currently under appeal by a single party, according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. Dole Food Co. Inc. -- http://www.dole.com/-- is a producer and marketer of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and fresh-cut flowers, and markets a line of packaged foods. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.; its chief financial officer J. Larry Sorsby; and its chief executive officer and president, Ara K. Hovnanian, are facing a consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The class-action complaint was originally filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 14, 2007, accusing Mr. Sorsby of inflating the home builder's share price through false and misleading statements (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2007. Named plaintiff, and later court-appointed lead plaintiff, Herbert Mankofsky, brought this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Hovnanian between Dec. 8, 2005, and Aug. 13, 2007. The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1934. It also alleges that during the class period, the defendants issued a materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects. According to the suit, as a result of these misleading statements, Hovnanian stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a high of $54.29 per share in Jan. 2006. However, as a direct result of the market learning of defendants' wrongdoing, the price of Hovnanian shares declined and the plaintiff and the class suffered a loss on their investment in Hovnanian. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendant; (b) whether the defendant omitted and misrepresented material facts; (c) whether defendant's statements omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (d) whether defendant knew or deliberately disregarded that his statements were false and misleading; (e) whether the price of Hovnanian common stock was artificially inflated; and (f) the extent of damage sustained by class members and the appropriate measure of damages. The plaintiff prays for judgment: -- declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class, damages, including interest; -- awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On Feb. 19, 2008, the action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, captioned, "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation," alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and future prospects with respect to the Company's acquisition and operation of First Home Builders of Florida in violation of federal securities laws. The suit is "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Susan D. Wigenton. Representing the plaintiffs is: William C. Cagney, Esq. (wcagney@windelsmarx.com) Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP 120 Albany Street Plaza New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Phone: (732) 846-7600 Representing the defendants is: Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com) Lowenstein Sandler P.C. 65 Livingston Ave. Roseland, NJ 07068-1791 Phone: (973) 597-2500 HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in RESPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The suit, "Mark W. Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al.," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 30, 2007. It accuses Hovnanian of taking kickbacks and unearned fees by requiring homebuyers and sellers to use a specified title insurance company, in violation of RESPA. Named plaintiffs Mark W. Mellar and Margaret Ann Liguori bring this action on behalf of residential mortgage borrowers who: -- purchased a home from Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.; -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was originated, processed and brokered by K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC; and -- brought title insurance for such home purchase from a title company designated by and affiliated with Hovnanian, wherein the borrowers were required by the literal terms of their real estate purchase agreement with Hovnanian to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain title insurance through a Hovanian-affiliated title company, or else forfeit various discounts off of the purchase price and closing costs for their new home. By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and to obtain title insurance through a Hovnanian-affiliated title company, under the direct threat of having to otherwise pay more money for their new home, defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for exemption as an affiliated business arrangement and, consequently, have violated RESPA's prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees. Additionally, Hovnanian, as a seller of property, has allegedly violated Section 9 of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular title insurance company. The defendants are accused of engaging in a uniform, systematic pattern and practice of requiring the use of Hovnanian Mortgage for the financing of home purchases from Hovnanian and the use of a Hovnanian-affiliated title company for the provision of title insurance for such home purchases, in violation of Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA. Plaintiffs' Transaction with Hovnanian On or about March 30, 2007, the plaintiffs entered into a Terms and Conditions Purchase Agreement with Hovnanian, pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to purchase a new home from Hovnanian, located in its "Byers Station" community, in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania. Subsequently, the plaintiffs entered into an Amendment to Purchase Agreement, dated April 5, 2007, which amended the purchase price to $427,366.44. This Amendment is valid only if K. Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor's Abstract Co. are used. On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Price Reduction Addendum, which purported to reduce the price of the plaintiffs' home in the amount of $14,041.78. This price reduction was, once again, conditioned upon Plaintiffs' agreement to, inter alia, "use K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC, an affiliate of Seller, to obtain a mortgage loan and purchase the home with a loan made by K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC" and "use Governor's Abstract Co., Inc., an affiliate of the Seller, to obtain title insurance to complete the purchase of the home." On or about April 7, 2007, the plaintiffs entered into a Decorator Selection Credit Addendum, which purported to issue the plaintiffs a "Decorator Selection Credit" at closing in the amount of $55,958.22. This credit was, once again, conditioned upon the plaintiffs' agreement to use Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor's Abstract for the financing and title insurance of their new home. As a direct result of the requirement placed upon them by Hovnanian to either use Hovnanian Mortgage for financing and Governor's Abstract for title insurance, or pay an additional $70,000.00 in order to purchase their home, the plaintiffs financed their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtained title insurance through Governor's Abstract. The plaintiffs closed on their purchase on April 26, 2007. By "requiring" the use of Hovnanian Mortgage and the affiliated title company, under the threat of charging buyers thousands of dollars more for their homes, Defendants, however, fail to meet the prerequisites for the affiliated business arrangement exemption. 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(c). The plaintiffs and the class ask the court for: -- an order certifying this action may be maintained as a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); -- an order appointing the plaintiffs as representatives of the class; -- an order appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; -- an order directing that reasonable notice of the class action be provided to all members of the class at the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive motions have been resolved; -- an order finding that the company violated RESPA and is therefore liable as a matter of law to each member of the class for treble damages; -- declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining the defendants from continuing the unlawful practices; -- reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and statute; -- pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in an amount according to proof at trial; -- an award of costs and expenses incurred in this action; and -- such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court on March 4, 2008 without prejudice, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208f The suit is "Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:07-cv-02196-AB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Anita B. Brody presiding. Representing plaintiffs is: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. (glynch@carlsonlynch.com) Carlson Lynch Ltd 36 N. Jefferson Street P.O. Box 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 Phone: 724-656-1555 Fax: 724-656-1556 MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., the law firm that filed the first securities class action lawsuit against Michael Baker Corporation, reminds investors that the deadline to move the Court for lead plaintiff appointment is May 12, 2008. In March, the law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Michael Baker Corporation between March 19, 2007, and February 22, 2008, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2008). The Complaint charges that MBC and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements inflating reported revenue from the Company's energy business segment. After the close of the market on February 22, 2008, the Company announced that it would be filing a restatement of its first, second and third quarter 2007 financial statements to correct errors in MBC's revenue recognition practices in the energy business segment. The Company's February 22, 2008 disclosure revealed, inter alia, that the amount of the restatement might exceed the total earnings reported for the energy business segment for the first nine months of the 2007 fiscal year -- the business segment that accounted for almost 70 percent of the Company's total earnings for that period. Furthermore, the February 22, 2008 announcement disclosed that the Company was still evaluating whether it would need to restate earnings for fiscal year 2006 financial statements. Following the issuance of the Company's February 22, 2008 press release, the price of the Company's common stock dropped from a closing price of $36.10 on February 22, 2008, to a closing price of $27.57 at the end of the next trading day. For more information, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com OCCAM NETWORKS: May 19, 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- A May 19, 2008 hearing is set for the consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Occam Networks, Inc. On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class action complaints were filed with the district court against the company and certain of its officers. The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the Company's financial statements and internal controls with respect revenue recognition. The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount. On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated these actions into a single action, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund -- The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel. On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. This consolidated complaint adds as defendants certain of the company's current and former directors and officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006, and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the company. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that required restatement. The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount. On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. A hearing on the motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint is currently set for May 19, 2008, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Christina A. Snyder. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.687.1980 Fax: 212.687.7714 e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com PIXELPLUS CO: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. Tentatively --------------------------------------------------------------- Pixelplus Co., Ltd. disclosed that it reached a tentative settlement resolving a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit against it and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The suit was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2006. The Complaint charges Pixelplus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2006). More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Pixelplus failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the Company incorrectly accounted for sales to its consolidated subsidiary, Pixelplus Technology Inc.; -- that as a result of this improper accounting, the Company's revenues were materially overstated throughout the Class Period; -- that the Company's financial statements were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. Under the terms of the tentative settlement, Pixelplus continues to dispute the merits of the lawsuit, but has approved a compromise payment of US$1.0 million. The settlement provides a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit and full releases for the Company and the named officers and directors from all allegations made in the lawsuit. The settlement further provides no presumption or admission of fault, liability or wrongdoing by the Company or the directors or officers. The compromise payment will be funded by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance. Given available insurance and other factors, the Company presently believes this compromise payment will not have a material impact on Pixelplus' financial position or results of operations. "We are satisfied that is a fair settlement and believe it is in the best interests of Pixelplus and its shareholders, as the settlement will allow us to avoid further prolonged litigation, expense, and distraction. Given this major accomplishment, we are eager to move the Company forward and focus all of our energies on executing our strategy of technology innovation and leadership and of returning to profitability to build shareholder confidence and value," said Dr. S.K. Lee, founder and chief executive officer of Pixelplus. The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final Court approvals and notice to class members. Pixelplus is a South Korea-based developer of high-performance, high-resolution, and cost-effective CMOS image sensors for use primarily in mobile camera phones. In addition to mobile phones, Pixelplus provides CMOS image sensors and SoC solutions for use in webcams and notebook embedded cameras, toys and games, and security and surveillance system applications. As a fabless semiconductor company, Pixelplus is focused on creating proprietary design technologies to develop CMOS image sensors with sharp, colorful and enhanced image quality, size efficiency, and low power consumption. QUIKSILVER INC: Faces Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Quiksilver, Inc. is facing a class action suit that alleges willful violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The FACTA allegations are based upon certain of the Company's retail stores' alleged electronic printing of receipts on which appeared more than the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card number and/or the expiration date of such customers' credit or debit card. Quiksilver, Inc. -- http://www.quiksilverinc.com/-- is a globally diversified company that designs, produces and distributes branded apparel, wintersports equipment, footwear, accessories and related products. Its products are sold in over90 countries in a range of distribution channels, including surf shops, ski shops, skateboard shops, snowboard shops, its Boardriders Club shops, other specialty stores and select department stores. The Company has three operating segments, the Americas, Europe and Asia/Pacific. The Americas segment includes revenues primarily from the U.S., and Canada. The European segment includes revenues primarily from Western Europe. The Asia/Pacific segment includes revenues primarily from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Indonesia. RAYTHEON INC: Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over Alleged Toxic Pollution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raytheon Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, alleging that the company has polluted St. Petersburg water for years with toxic and carcinogenic dioxane, trichloroethene, dichloroethene and vinyl chloride, which also cause birth defects, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Nancy Sher brings the action on behalf of those who currently own, or who on or after April 1, 2008, have owned private realy property located at, on, or adjacent to the Raytheon Facility in the area north, south, east and west of the Raytheon Facility bordered by 22nd Ave. North to the north 66th Street North to the east, South Central Ave. to the south and Boca Ciego Bay to the westl and those who currently reside, or who at any time in the past have resided at, on, or adjacent to the Raytheon Facility in the are north, south, east and west of the Raytheon FAcility bordered by 22nd Ave. North to the north, 66th Street North to the east, South Central Ave. to the south and Boca Ciega Bay to th west. The plaintiff claims Raytheon and its predecessors have known of their deadly pollutants for more than 20 years but lied about it, "fraudulently, negligently and/or knowingly suppressing the nature and extent of the contamination which has migrated off their property," and falsely claiming to have contained the plume of toxins from its storage facility. The toxic plume originates from Raytheon's 500,000-square-foot plant in St. Petersburg, which employs 1,300 people, the complaint states. The plaintiff also sues Craig Pethe, environmental engineer at the Raytheon plant. Ms. Sher claims that Raytheon has known of the carcinogenic pollution for years but decided not to contain it properly to save money. Ms. Sher wants the court to rule on: (a) whether, and to what extent, defendants are responsible for the plume of contamination flowing on, under and around plaintiffs' properties; (b) whether, and to what extent, the actions and operations of defendants have resulted in a trespass on plaintiffs' properties; (c) whether, and to what extent, the actions and operations of defendants have annoyed and disturbed the free use, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' properties so as to constitute a private nuisance; (d) whether, and to what extent, defendants have fraudulently suppressed material facts and information which should have been provided to plaintiffs; (e) whether defendants engaged in abnormally dangerous activities for which they are strictly liable; (f) whether plaintiffs and other class members were injured by defendants' actions and operations and, if so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages; and (g) whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to medical monitoring relief. The suit is "Nancy Sher et al. v. Raytheon, Inc. et al, Case No. 08-5332-C1-19," filed with the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Representing the plaintiffs are: J. Michael Papantonio, Esq. Brian H. Barr, Esq. Neil E. McWilliams, Jr., Esq. Amanda R. Slevinki, Esq. Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32591 RCN CORP: N.J. Court Approves ERISA Violations Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the settlement reached in the consolidated class action suit filed against RCN Corp. which alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Case Background In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries of the former RCN Savings and Stock Ownership Plan asserted claims against the company and its current and former directors, officers, employee administrators, and managers for alleged violations of ERISA. The plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage and monitor the Savings Plan in light of the drop in the trading price of the company's then-outstanding common stock, which comprised of a portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings Plan. In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted the filing of a consolidated class action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its current and former directors, officers, employee administrators, and managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would not be permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in excess of any applicable RCN insurance coverage. The class action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005. In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to all defendants, except for: -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings Plan; and -- certain individuals who comprised the former administrative committee of the Savings Plan with respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty occurred. Discovery with respect to these remaining defendants commenced in September 2006. On March 14, 2007, the company reached a tentative settlement for the matter. The settlement agreement was executed on July 19, 2007, and is subject to judicial and other related approvals. The court approved the settlement on Dec. 17, 2007, according to the company's March 11, 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: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com) Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 Representing the company is: Edward Cerasia, II, Esq. (ecerasia@proskauer.com) Proskauer Rose, LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5211 Phone: (973) 274-3200 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Ala. Over "Illegal Flying" --------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging it ducked FAA -- Federal Aviation Administration -- maintenance and inspection regulations for nearly a year, sending customers on 59,000 flights on planes that were "flying illegally," CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs say that Southwest failed to comply with FAA regulations on 59,000 flights between June 2006 and March 2007. The planes allegedly did not undergo inspections for fuselage cracks. After planes failed inspection, Southwest sent planes on another 1,451 flights without proper repairs, the complaint states. "Further, according to the investigation completed by the US Department of Transportation Inspector General, in March of 2007, Southwest Airlines had 21 key inspections which were overdue for at least five years," the complaint states. The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased tickets with Southwest Airlines and traveled with Southwest Airlines between Jan. 2002 and March 2008, on airplanes which were not in compliance with the laws and governmental regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether airplanes operated by Southwest Airlines were in compliance with governmental safety regulations and guidelines, including airworthiness directives issued by the FAA; (b) whether Southwest Airlines received monies through ticket sales in exchange for transporting individuals on airplanes which were not in compliance with governmental safety regulations and guidelines; (c) whether plaintiffs and members of the class purchased tickets with Southwest Airlines and flew on airplanes which were not in compliance with governmental safety regulations and guidelines; (d) whether Southwest Airlines is refusing to reimburse plaintiffs and the members of the class for the cost of the airline tickets; (e) whether Southwest Airlines' failure to comply with all governmental safety regulations and guidelines constitutes a breach of contract with persons purchasing tickets; (f) whether Southwest Airlines was negligent in its duty to inspect maintain, and operate its airplanes in accordance with all laws and governmental regulations; (g) whether Southwest Airlines misrepresented to plaintiffs and members of the class that its airplanes were in compliance with all laws and governmental regulations; (h) whether Southwest Airlines' suppressed information with regard to whether its airplanes were in compliance with all laws and governmental regulations; (i) whether Southwest Airlines has been unjustly enriched; and (j) whether plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to relief. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- damages in the amount of monies paid for travel on airplanes which were not in compliance with government regulations and rescission of the sales contract; -- actual damages, statutory damages, nominal damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other relief as provided by law; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; -- appropriate attorney fees and costs and expenses incurred in connection with the litigation of this matter; -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (b)(2) and (b)(3), and appointment of plaintiffs as class representatives and plaintiffs' counsel of record as class counsel; and -- an order declaring Southwest Airlines' conduct unlawful, with respect to its operating airplanes which were not in compliance with the applicable laws and governmental regulations. The suit is "Richard Cusick et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. CV-08-RMP-0650-S," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs are: W. Lewis Garrison, Jr. Gayle L. Douglas Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Phone: (205) 326-3336 Fax: (205) 326-3332 WILLIAM LYON: Del. Supreme Court Remands Case to Chancery Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Supreme Court referred and remanded the matter, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County for further proceedings regarding the fee award to the plaintiff's counsel, according to William Lyon's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Case Background On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not already owned by the principal holder. Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share. Initially, two purported class actions were filed on behalf of the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender offer and challenging related actions of the company and the directors of the company. The suits are: 1. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and 2. "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21, 2006. Both suits were filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. On March 21, 2006, the plaintiff in the "Brown" action filed a first amended complaint. The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as defendants. They allege, among other things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related corporate activities. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to the litigation. On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had appointed a special committee of independent directors who are not members of the company's management or employed by the company to consider the tender offer. The members of the Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and Dr. Arthur Laffer. The company also announced that the Special Committee had retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel. Consolidation and Settlement On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N." On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's approval. Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended Schedule Tender Offer. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class." The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and tender their shares. Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to April 28, 2006. Certification & Dismissal On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the class. On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument, and, on July 19, 2007, referred the matter for consideration by the Court en Banc, which heard oral argument on Sept. 19, 2007. On Dec. 21, 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee award to the plaintiff's counsel. Under the appealed award, the Company has no expected liability for the plaintiffs' counsel fees, which are expected to be paid by General Lyon. William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com-- is primarily engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada. The Company offers a range of homes designed to meet the specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets. WILLIAM LYON: Calif. Litigation Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action that challenges a tender offer by one of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders continue to be stayed. On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not already owned by the principal holder. Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share. On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was filed with the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Orange. On April 5, 2006, the plaintiff in the Alaska Electrical action filed an amended complaint. The complaint in the California Action names the company and certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders. The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to the litigation. On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender Offer. The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the company filed a motion to stay the California Action. On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's motion to stay the California Action. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com-- is primarily engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada. The Company offers a range of homes designed to meet the specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets. WURLD MEDIA: Suit Says Company Failed to Pay Employees ------------------------------------------------------ Saratoga Springs-based Wurld Media -- a now-defunct Internet start-up that offered peer-to-peer software -- and its leaders are now facing a class-action lawsuit and a criminal investigation over its alleged failure to pay employees and dipping into their retirement accounts, Drew Kerr of Glens Falls Post-Star reports. The suit claims that the company owes the employees wages since March 2008. It also claims the company kept money from the employees' paychecks that was for a 401(k) plan. But Wurld Media Chief Executive Officer Gregory Kerber argues that the court does not have jurisdiction over the claims because the employees signed an agreement in 2005 that all legal disputes with the company would be resolved through "final and binding arbitration." The agreement reads "This agreement is important because it confirms and creates certain obligations which are binding on the employee, and provides a mechanism for resolving legal disputes between the company and the employee; it should be read completely and carefully before being signed." Shaun-Paul Manore, who began as a quality assurance director for Wurld in 2003, is one of a number of past employees facing financial woes since the ignominious downfall of the company. "I accept the responsibility for staying without pay," the Rexford resident said. "Maybe it was wide-eyed optimism. But, eventually, I just ran out of energy and wherewithal." * McGlinchey Stafford's CAFA Law Blog Celebrates Milestone ---------------------------------------------------------- Stafford's CAFA Law Blog -- http://www.cafalawblog.com-- the authoritative source for information, case analyses and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act, disclosed an impressive milestone of 250 original case summaries posted on its Web site. The CAFA Law Blog was created in 2005 by McGlinchey Stafford class action defense lawyers Anthony Rollo and Hunter Twiford with the mission to serve as the leading on-line repository for information concerning CAFA. Since the blog's inception, it has received accolades such as recognition on TechnoLawyer's list of the nation's 77 most influential legal blogs in 2007, and feature stories in the National Law Journal and other publications as a national leader in law firm blogging. "We are very proud of CAFA Law Blog and the growing success we've achieved by timely providing CAFA related information to our readers, and by using an informal, entertaining approach to presenting that information," said Anthony Rollo, CAFA Law Blog founder and Class Action Defense Partner with McGlinchey Stafford PLLC. Since the CAFA Law Blog was started, its team of authors who create, write and edit the blog's original content have used a non-legalistic, creative writing style to report on the cutting- edge developments arising under CAFA. Their objective from inception has been for its growing audience to keep up with complex CAFA developments while also having fun reading the blog, and to distinguish themselves from the pack through their entertaining and sometimes humorous analyses of these legal issues. In addition to posting summaries of new court decisions and law review articles to the blog, the editors also scout out CLE opportunities, lectures and conferences and provide this information to CAFA Law Blog readers as well. The editorial staff of the CAFA Law Blog is comprised of McGlinchey Stafford attorneys Anthony Rollo and Hunter Twiford, co-editors; Michael Ferachi, senior editor; Jay O'Brien, managing editor; John Rouse, assistant editor; and case analysts Lance Bowling, Angie Christina, Kyle Ferachi, Rose Marie Fiore, Stephanie John, Heather LaSalle, Stephen Masley, Lisa Munyon, Ravi Sangisetty, Jamie Seymour, Julie Skipper, Kaye Templet, Stephanie Tolson, James Wertheim and Jonathan Wilbourn. McGlinchey Stafford PLLC publishes the CAFA Law Blog � http://www.cafalawblog.com/-- an interactive web site found, is the leading online resource for the Class Action Fairness Act. Virtually every case involving CAFA issues decided anywhere in the country is available on the blog, with commentary and analysis of the decisions. In its efforts to provide "one-stop CAFA shopping," the blog also highlights law reviews and other scholarly articles on CAFA topics, information about relevant seminars, "guest posts" by professors and other practitioners, vendors offering CAFA-related services, and other resources. McGlinchey Stafford -- http://www.mcglinchey.com -- is a national full-service commercial and defense law firm with approximately 170 attorneys in eight locations in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and New York. The firm is recognized nationwide for its extensive practice in the field of class action defense, and has represented Fortune 500 companies across the country in hundreds of consumer class actions in state, federal, and bankruptcy courts, arbitration proceedings, and Multi-District Litigation. McGlinchey Stafford's class action defense attorneys have represented clients in class action matters across a wide array of fields, including class actions involving consumer financial services, banking, labor and employment, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices, advertising, product liability, insurance, telecommunications, environmental, mass tort, healthcare, and public utilities claims and issues. New Securities Fraud Cases AGRIA CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Agria Corporation and various individuals on behalf of purchasers of Agria securities who purchased pursuant or traceable to an Initial Public Offering on November 6, 2007 . The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and misleading statements to the public related to the IPO and Registration Statement. For more information, contact: 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, GA 30338 Phone: (888) 508-6832 BLACKSTONE GROUP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007. The complaint charges Blackstone and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset management and financial advisory services worldwide. According to the complaint, on or about June 21, 2007, Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about June 25, 2007, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of Blackstone's common stock were sold to the public at $31 per share, thereby raising more than $4 billion. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were not performing well and were of declining value. As a result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners in its funds. On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007. Among other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million. As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock traded in a range of $17.00-$17.50 per share, approximately 45% below the IPO price of $31.00 per share. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of all those who purchased the common stock of Blackstone pursuant and traceable to the Company's IPO on or about June 25, 2007. For more information, contact: Jack Fruchter, Esq. Arthur Chen, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, New York 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 BLACKSTONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint charges Blackstone and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act. Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset management and financial advisory services worldwide. According to the complaint, on or about June 21, 2007, Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about June 25, 2007, a prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of Blackstone's common stock were sold to the public at $31 per share, thereby raising more than $4 billion. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were not performing well and were of declining value and, as a result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners in its funds. On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007. Among other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million. As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45% below the IPO price of $31.00 per share. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of all those who purchased the common stock of Blackstone pursuant and traceable to the Company's IPO on or about June 25, 2007. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman,Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 e-mail: djr@csgrr.com FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brower Piven Commences Ma. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The First Marblehead Corporation between August 10, 2006 and April 7, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and a number of individual defendants 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. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com INVERNESS MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Inverness Medical Innovations Inc., in the Company's secondary public offering on or about November 14, 2007. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Inverness Medical. Based in Waltham, Massachusetts, Inverness Medical Innovations Inc. (AMEX: IMA) -- http://www.invernessmedical.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets in vitro diagnostic products for the over-the-counter pregnancy and fertility/ovulation test market and the professional rapid diagnostic test markets. For more information, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 ISTAR FINANCIAL: Abraham Fruchter Files NY Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of iStar Financial Inc. pursuant and traceable to the Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13, 2007. The complaint charges iStar Financial and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. iStar Financial operates as a finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry. According to the complaint, on or about October 9, 2007, iStar Financial filed a Form S-3 Shelf Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On or about December 13, 2007, iStar Financial filed a Prospectus Supplement to the Shelf Registration Statement with respect to the secondary offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, and more than 8 million shares of iStar Financial common stock were sold to the public at $28.41 per share, thereby raising more than $227 million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement negligently failed to disclose that the Company was then being negatively impacted by the adverse conditions in the credit markets and was failing to recognize more than $200 million of losses on its corporate loan and debt portfolio. On February 28, 2008, iStar Financial issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2007 and fiscal year 2007, the period ending December 31, 2007. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported a loss of ($78.7 million) or ($0.62) per share. The Company further reported that its fourth quarter financial results were impacted by $134.9 million of charges associated with the "impairment of two credits" and that the Company had increased its loan loss provisions by $113 million. In response to this announcement and subsequent analyst downgrades, the price of iStar Financial stock declined from $22.85 per share on February 27, 2008, to $13.98 per share on March 6, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of all those who purchased the common stock of iStar Financial pursuant and traceable to the Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13, 2007. For more information, contact: Jack Fruchter, Esq. Arthur Chen, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, New York 10119 Tel.: (212) 279-5050 ISTAR FINANCIAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Suit Filing in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of iStar Financial Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13, 2007. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of iStar Financial. Headquartered in New York, iStar Financial (NYSE: SFI) -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a publicly traded finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry. The company provides custom-tailored financing to high-end private and corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital, corporate net lease financing and equity. For more information, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-9 SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Susman Godfrey Files CA Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Schiffer Odom Hicks PLLC have filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased Schwab YieldPlus Fund Investor Shares or Schwab YieldPlus Fund Select Shares issued by an affiliate of Charles Schwab Corporation from March 17, 2005 to March 17, 2008. The complaint claims Charles Schwab Corporation -- headquartered in San Francisco, CA, the Fund's underwriter, investment advisers and officers and directors made false and misleading statements regarding the lack of diversification of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund and the extent of investments made in sub-prime mortgage-backed and related securities. The complaint alleges the Fund's registration statements and prospectuses contained untrue statements of material fact, and omitted important information regarding the Fund's investments. On Nov. 15, 2004, the Company began offering shares in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund through a registration statement and prospectus. The Schwab YieldPlus Fund is advertised by 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 defendants claimed the Fund was invested in a large, well-diversified portfolio, a seasoned team of taxable bond portfolio managers actively managed the Fund, and that investment in shares of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund would return higher yields on cash with only marginally higher risk. Today the Fund stands at an all-time low of $6.79. Based on values as of March 31, 2008, the Fund is down more than 19.8% percent from Jan. 1, 2008. The lawsuit claims the Fund was not well diversified, instead concentrated in a single risky industry with more than 50% of the Fund's assets invested in the mortgage industry. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the federal Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all Fund purchasers during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Harry P. Susman, Esq. (hsusman@susmangodfrey.com) Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Suite 5100, 1000 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002-5096 Phone: (713) 651-9366 Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com - and - Adam P. Schiffer, Esq. (aschiffer@sohlawfirm.com) Schiffer Odom Hicks PLLC Phoenix Tower 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2390 Houston, Texas 77027 Phone: (713) 357-5150 Web site: http://www.sohlawfirm.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 * * *