/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080429.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 84 Headlines 5-STAR TRUCK DRIVING: Settlement Reached in 2003 Class Lawsuit ALBERTSON'S INC: CA Court Considers Settlement in "Ward" Case BOEING CO: Ninth Circuit Favors Firm in Employment Bias Lawsuits BOEING CO: Parties File Class Certification Briefs in ERISA Suit CERTEGY CHECK: Settlement Notification in Data Breach Case Out CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE: Babbitt Files Citigroup-Falcon Suit in FL EVANSTON NORTHWEST: Accused of Antitrust Price Fixing in IL Suit GEORGIA: Judge Allows Dougherty County Tax Revaluation Suit HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Egg Toys Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach LIGGETT GROUP: Ill. Court Mulls Class Certification of "Cleary" LIGGETT GROUP: No Hearing Set on Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Lawsuits Stemming From NYAG Case MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Still Ongoing in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit MARSH & MCLENNAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Md. ERISA Suit MERCHANT MEDIA: Recalls Puzzles for Lead Paint Standard Breach NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Amended Complaints Filed D.C. Surcharges Suits PACIFIC STEEL: Appeal of Court Decision in Nuisance Case Begins PENNSYLVANIA: $35MM Settlement Reached in Bridgeport Fire Suit PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces Suit Over Exposed Customers' Information PLAN TOY INC: Recalls Toy Penguins Due to Laceration Hazard PRAXAIR INC: Still Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes QIAO XING: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in NY for $2.4 Million SUNVEST COMMUNITIES: Faces Nev. Suit Over Poorly Built Condos SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Lawsuit in Calif. SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Mulls Settlement in Labor Litigation VALERO ENERGY: Reaud Morgan Launches Suit Over Overtime Payment WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces CA Suit Over Adjustable Rate Mortgages WELLPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Face Calif. Hospitals' Litigation WELLPOINT: Settles Certain Insurance Suits; Still Faces Others XEROX CORP: "Carlson" Securities Suit Settled for $750 Million New Securities Fraud Cases AGRIA CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. AGRIA CORP: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* 5-STAR TRUCK DRIVING: Settlement Reached in 2003 Class Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement agreement has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of former students of 5-Star Truck Driving School in Middletown, Middletown Journal relates, citing a release issued April 23 by the Dayton-based Advocates for Basic Legal Equality Inc. Middletown Journal recounts that students of 5-Star alleged in a 2003 lawsuit filed in Butler County Common Pleas Court that the school falsely guaranteed to get them jobs that would pay off the high-interest loans for the Commercial Driver's License; used unqualified instructors and inadequate hours of instruction; and that a state CDL examiner pleaded guilty following a probe to falsifying test results, which led to the the revocation of more than 200 CDLs of former students by the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles. Without admitting any wrongdoing, the lenders and driver's license test site agreed to settle the claims to end the cost and uncertainty of litigation, according to the release. A hearing is scheduled on May 23, 2008, to review the fairness of the settlement terms, which calls for former students' loan debts voided and partial refunds of payments. The truck school, owned by the defunct Franklin Career Services LLC of Louisville, Ky., is not party to the settlement, the report says. The former 5-Star students are represented by Equal Justice Foundation of Columbus and the Dayton ABLE office, which will administer the collection of forms and claim payment. For information, call (866) 837-8832. ALBERTSON'S INC: CA Court Considers Settlement in "Ward" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California has yet to approve the proposed settlement in the matter, "Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.," which was filed against Albertson's Inc., an entity owned by Supervalu, Inc. The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and its subsidiaries -- Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores -- paid terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely manner. The suit sought statutory penalties. On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action. In December 2007, however, the parties agreed to settle the matter, subject to court approval, according to the Supervalu's April 23, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 23, 2008. Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. BOEING CO: Ninth Circuit Favors Firm in Employment Bias Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the The Boeing Co. in an appeal that affects two employment discrimination class action suits filed against the company in Washington and Illinois. Williams Litigation In the Williams racial discrimination class action, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the company prevailed in a jury trial in December 2005. The plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial dismissal of compensation claims. Calendar Litigation In the Calender racial discrimination class action, which was filed with the U.S. Northern District of Illinois -- a spin-off from Williams -– the plaintiffs dropped their promotions claim on June 6, 2006, and put their compensation claims on hold pending the outcome of the Williams appeal. On Feb. 27, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Boeing on the Williams appeal, which is expected to conclude both the Williams and Calender class actions, according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/ -- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems, Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems, and Boeing Capital Corp. BOEING CO: Parties File Class Certification Briefs in ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a consolidated class action suit against The Boeing Co., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, have filed their respective briefs on the certification of a class in the matter, which is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class action suit asserting allegations that Boeing is obligated to provide vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to the plaintiffs and all class members. The plaintiffs alleged that the announced changes to medical plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor- Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA. The lawsuit also alleged that the collective bargaining agreements and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class members. On Sept. 15, 2006, Boeing filed a lawsuit with the Northern District of Illinois against the International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants, seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that the company has the legal right to make changes to these medical benefits. On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee directed the case to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007. The UAW filed a Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 26, 2007, in which it sought to drop the retirees claim for vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective bargaining agreements and instead allege that the current collective bargaining agreement is the sole alleged source of rights to retiree medical benefits. The company opposed the motion. On Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend the complaint on the condition that the lifetime retiree benefits claims are to be dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs' counsel is now considering whether to accept the condition or withdraw the amended complaint. In addition, both parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16, 2007, and filed briefs on class certification on Feb. 28, 2008, according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/ -- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems, Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems, and Boeing Capital Corp. CERTEGY CHECK: Settlement Notification in Data Breach Case Out -------------------------------------------------------------- A notification program began in the United States and Puerto Rico, as ordered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to alert people who: -- had a credit card; -- paid by check for an online or phone purchase; -- got cash at a casino; or -- had a check that bounced or was returned, about a proposed settlement reached with Certegy Check Services, Inc., and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., in a class action lawsuit about stolen personal and financial information. The Class includes anyone in the United States and Puerto Rico whose credit card, debit card, checking or demand deposit account numbers or information was included in multiple databases. This includes millions of consumers who were previously notified by their financial institution or Certegy that their personal and financial information was stolen. Case Background In July 2007, Certegy, which provides check verification services to major retailers, revealed that a former senior database administrator stole data and sold the information to marketing firms. The company has filed a civil suit against the former employee. In October, a suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida by the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP on behalf of customers whose info was sold to direct marketers by a former employee (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 5, 2007). Specifically, the defendants in the suit are: Certegy Check Services, Inc.; Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.; William G. Sullivan; and S&S Computer Services, Inc. Initially, Certegy said about 2.3 million consumer records were at issue, but later said an ongoing investigation determined 8.5 million consumer records were stolen. The company reiterated though that it has found no evidence that the information was used for anything other than marketing purposes. Settlement In March, Certegy offered to settle the class action lawsuit over lost personal financial information of millions of Americans last fall in an insider-related data breach (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2008). The proposed settlement offers only partial help to some of the 8.4 million customers whose personal information was stolen by a Certegy employee over a five-year period. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Certegy would also offer: * credit and bank account monitoring, * identity theft reimbursement capped at $4 million, * reimbursement of some credit monitoring fees, and * enhanced security. Moreover, the settlement calls for Certegy to give consumers a free one-year subscription to Experian's Triple Alert, which is a $4.95 monthly service that monitors credit reports for evidence of fraudulent activity. According SCMagazine, the plan limits those eligible to about 1.25 million consumers whose credit card or debit card information was stolen. The settlement further calls for Certegy to monitor bank accounts for evidence of fraud over a two-year period. Roughly 4.25 million consumers whose account data were stolen would qualify for this. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court on March 21, 2008. The U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida will hold a final approval hearing August 22, 2008. The suit is "Sellers v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2007-cv-01020" filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan and Senior Judge Howell W. Melton, presiding, with referral to Judge Thomas E. Morris. Court appointed counsel are: Ben Barnow, Esq. Barnow and Associates, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Phone: 312-621-2000 Fax: 312-641-5504 Lance A. Harke, Esq. Harke & Clasby LLP 155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-536-8220 Fax: 305-536-8229 - and - Ralph K. Phalen, Esq. Law Office of Ralph K. Phalen Kansas City, Missouri CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE: Babbitt Files Citigroup-Falcon Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A., of West Palm Beach, Fla., announces that Robert Zeff TTEE FBO A. Robert Zeff Revocable Living Trust U/A/D 10-15-97 has filed a class action lawsuit on April 4, 2008, with the United States District Court Southern District of Florida on behalf of the Trust and all others similarly situated against Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, Citigroup, Inc. and Falcon Strategies Two B LLC. The Complaint alleges that Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, Citigroup, Inc. and Falcon Strategies Two B LLC violated laws pertaining to fraud, negligent misrepresentation, 12(A)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act and Florida Blue Sky Laws in the sale and management of the Falcon Strategies Two B Fund. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Falcon Strategies Two B was marketed to investors as an investment option with capital preservation principals, low volatility and as an alternative to other income providing investments. However, despite these assertions, the Complaint alleges that the Fund managers implemented high-risk investment strategies that were counter to the profile portrayed to investors. These high-risk investment strategies resulted in substantial losses to the investors. The Complaint alleges that anyone who purchased Falcon Strategies Two B between September 30, 2005, and January 8, 2008, is a member of the putative class and has a potential claim against the Defendants. For more information, contact: Joseph A. Osborne, Esq. Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A. 1450 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-684-2500 EVANSTON NORTHWEST: Accused of Antitrust Price Fixing in IL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed on April 24, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Nothern Disttrict of Illinois alleging it has raised and fixed prices for health care at three North Shore hospitals - Evanston, Glenbrook and Highland Park, CourtHouse News Service reports. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased inpatient and outpatient healthcare services directly from defendant, its wholly-owned hospitals, predecessors, or controlled subsidiaries and affiliates from at least Jan. 1, 2000, to the present. The plaintiffs allege that during the class period, ENH engaged in illegal monopolization of the market for inpatient and outpatient healthcare services in the geogrphic triangle formed by ENH's three wholly-owned hospitals: -- Evanston Hospial -- Glenbrook Hospital and -- Highland Park Hospital. Moreover the merger of these hospitals substantially lessened competition in the relevant market. The plaintiffs claim that in August 2007, the Federal Trade Commission affirmed its 2004 complaint and the decision of an administrative law judge that the 2000 merger between ENH and Lakeland Health -- which led to ENH's acquisition of Highland Park Hospital, formerly a competitor -- was immediately followed by substantial prices increases and price fixing. Because of ENH's unlawful conduct, as alleged, the plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for healthcare services and, as a result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether ENH has exercised monopoly power in the sale of healthcare services in the relevant geographic market; (b) whether ENH's alleged conduct violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (c) whether ENH's alleged conduct violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act; (d) whether the conduct of ENH, as alleged, caused injury to the business and property of the plaintiffs; (e) the effect of ENH's exercise of monopoly power on the prices of healthcare services sold by ENH and its wholly-owned hospitals during the class period; and (f) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiff and the other members of the class. The plaintiffs ask the court to: -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- adjudge that ENH has engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 2; -- adjudge that ENH has engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 USC Section 18; -- enter judgment for plaintiffs against ENH for three times the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- permanently enjoin ENH, its wholly-owned hospitals, its affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, from, in any manner continuing or maintaining the unlawful exercise of monopoly power alleged and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; -- order the divestiture of Highland Park Hospital, and associated assets, in a manner that restores Highland Park Hospital as a viable, independent competitor in the relevant market; and -- grant any other relief appropriate to correct or remedy the anticompetitive effects of ENH's acquisition of Highland Park Hospital or to restore Highland Park Hospital as a viable, independent competitor in the relevant market. The suit is "Steven J. Messner et al. v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp., Case No. 08CV2343," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Guzman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mary Jane Fait, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 984-0001 GEORGIA: Judge Allows Dougherty County Tax Revaluation Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 25, 2008, that about 15 property owners in Dougherty County, Georgia, filed a purported class action lawsuit with the Dougherty County Superior Court seeking equitable relief from a countrywide tax revaluation. Calling the action "unconstitutional, illegal, null and void," the plaintiffs are asking the court to reinstate property values based on the county's 2006 tax digest. The lawsuit, which named Dougherty County Tax Director Denver Hooten and members of the Board of Tax Assessors as defendants, was assigned to Judge John Crosby, senior judge with the Tifton Judicial Circuit. Tax Director Hooten said that last year's countywide reassessment of property values was the first since 1963 and it boosted Dougherty's tax digest by some 20%, though local governments later lowered their millage rates slightly. However, the lawsuit asserted that the reassessment was fundamentally flawed. The firm hired to conduct the reassessment, Tyler CLT Division, used a "mass appraisal" methodology, considering only square footage and age to determine a home's value, ignoring comparable sales and other relevant factors such as use, while agricultural property was valued at a flat per-acre price, the suit alleged. Of some 34,000 parcels reassessed, Dougherty officials have reported that "slightly over 5,400 taxpayers filed appeals" of the new values. According to the complaint, the county also neglected to provide a "nontechnical" explanation for increases of 15% or more as required by Georgia law, then discouraged taxpayers during the appeals process, scheduling hundreds of hearings at the same time and stacking three adjunct boards of equalization with members "disinclined to support the reduction of appraised values." In an update, Albany Herald On-line relates that the Dougherty taxpayers scored a legal victory last week when Judge Crosby refused to dismiss the case. The report recounts that Tax Director Hooten and the board of tax assessors filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the taxpayers had adequate remedies at law through the appeals process and in superior court, and denying many of the plaintiffs' factual allegations. In an order filed April 22, Judge Crosby denied the defendants' motion to dismiss any of the complaint's 18 counts. "We're just thrilled to death," Richard Thomas, a plaintiff in the case and member of taxpayers' group Concerned Citizens of Dougherty County, told Albany Herald. "The community will realize that we have a voice now," he said. According to Albany Herald, though Dougherty’s tax digest has been approved by the Department of Revenue, tax bills have been mailed and many paid. If the plaintiffs win the suit in a likely jury trial, many taxpayers will be due refunds. A Dougherty grand jury that convened in December also recommended the values be set aside and taxpayers be billed at 2006 values. The non-profit taxpayers' group has paid many legal fees through donations, and needs $30,000-$40,000 more to continue the litigation, Mr. Thomas further said. HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Egg Toys Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., of Oklahoma City, Okla., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,000 Camouflage Eggs and Spinning Egg Top Toys. The company said the paint on the toys contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries were reported. The Camouflage Easter Egg Treat Containers have Item #1031 printed on the front of the packaging and are white, brown and green camouflage colors, sold in a package of eight eggs. "Made in China for Tony Development and Mfg Ltd; TST, Kin, HK" and UPC code number 43078 01031 are printed on the back of the packing. The Easter Spinning Egg Tops have Item # 1054 printed on the front of the packaging and are multi-colored and come in packages of a single egg and a rip cord. "Made in China for Tony Development and Mfg Ltd. TST, Kin, HK" and UPC code number 43078 01054 are printed on the back of the packaging. These Camouflage Eggs and Spinning Egg Top Toys were manufactured in China and are being sold at Hobby Lobby Stores nationwide from January 2008 through March 2008. The camouflage egg sold for about $2.50 and the Spinning Top sold for about $2. A picture of recalled Camouflage Easter Egg Treat Containers is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08229.jpg Consumers should immediately take the recalled Camouflage Eggs and the Spinning Egg Tops away from children and contact Hobby Lobby to receive a $3 exchange card that can be used toward the purchase of any other products sold at Hobby Lobby stores. For additional information, contact Hobby Lobby toll-free at (800) 326-7931 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at: http://www.HobbyLobby.com LIGGETT GROUP: Ill. Court Mulls Class Certification of "Cleary" --------------------------------------------------------------- An Illinois state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking for class certification of the matter, "Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc.," which names Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., as a defendant, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit was filed in June 1998 with the Illinois state court. It was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been injured by: -- the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants allegedly concealed material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine; -- the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and marketing to minors; and -- the defendants' claimed breach of the public's right to defendants' compliance with laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 each, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs. In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. A class certification hearing occurred in September 2007 and the parties are awaiting a decision. Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc. Vector Group is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC, which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC. Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area. LIGGETT GROUP: No Hearing Set on Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court has yet to set a hearing on a petition for review with regards to the purported class action, "Brown v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., as a defendant. In April 2001, in "Brown v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc.," a California state court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes "during the applicable time period" and who were exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. In March 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was granted in November 2006. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, 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. Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc. Vector Group is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC, which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC. Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Lawsuits Stemming From NYAG Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and its subsidiary, Marsh Inc., continue to face several purported class action suits that stem from a lawsuit filed by the New York State Attorney General in 2004, which lawsuit has been settled. NYAG Lawsuit In January 2005, MMC and Marsh entered into an agreement with the NYAG and the New York State Insurance Department to settle a civil complaint filed in New York State court by NYAG in October 2004 and a related citation issued by the Insurance Department. Among other things, the NYAG Lawsuit and the citation had alleged that Marsh's use of market service agreements with various insurance companies entailed fraudulent business practices, bid-rigging, illegal restraint of trade and other statutory violations. Following the filing of the NYAG Lawsuit, numerous private party lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more of its subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit. New Jersey Litigation Various putative class action suits purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders have been consolidated into two actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (one on behalf of a purported class of "commercial" policyholders and the second on behalf of a purported class of "employee benefit" policyholders). The actions alleged a variety of legal theories, including those related to state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, federal and state antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act theories, and sought a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages, treble damages, disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The court has dismissed with prejudice all of the federal antitrust and RICO claims and has dismissed without prejudice all of the state law claims asserted in both actions. The plaintiffs have appealed. Florida & New York Litigation In July 2007, two putative class actions against MMC, Marsh, certain insurers and other insurance brokers purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders were filed with the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York. These actions relate to the same practices alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit, but with respect to insurance coverage placed with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. These actions have been transferred to the District of New Jersey. State Court & Canadian Litigation Four class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders are pending in state courts. Two putative class actions and an individual policyholder action are pending in Canada. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud class action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. The suit was brought on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or acquired MMC's publicly traded securities during the purported class period of Oct. 14, 1999, to Oct. 13, 2004. The plaintiffs' pending complaint in this action names MMC, Marsh, MMC's former chief executive, and one former Marsh officer as defendants. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MMC artificially inflated its share price by making misrepresentations and omissions relating to Marsh's market service agreements and business practices. They allege that MMC also failed to disclose alleged anti-competitive and illegal practices at Marsh, such as "bid-rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes. The complaint includes factual allegations similar to those asserted in the New York Attorney General Lawsuit, as well as factual allegations concerning alleged misconduct at MMC's subsidiaries, and alleged conflicts of interest associated with MMC's former private equity subsidiary, MMC Capital. The complaint includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on MMC's allegedly false or incomplete disclosures. MMC has responded to the complaint and discovery in this matter has commenced. MMC reported no further development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8144," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 800-217-1522 e-mail: info@bernlieb.com Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com/ - and - Grant & Eisenhofer PA 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE, 19801 Phone: 302-622-7000 Fax: 302-622-7100 e-mail: info@gelaw.com Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/ MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Still Ongoing in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in the class action "In re Marsh ERISA Litigation, Case No. 04-8157," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. The proceeding, which consolidated 20 purported class actions that were filed against MMC and other fiduciaries of the Marsh & McLennan Stock Investment Plan, was brought on behalf of plan participants and beneficiaries who invested in MMC common stock at any time between July 1, 2000, and Jan. 31, 2005 The consolidated class action complaint names MMC and various current and former employees, officers and directors as defendants and alleges, among other things, that in view of the purportedly fraudulent bidding activity and the receipt of contingent commissions pursuant to market service agreements, the defendants knew or should have known that the investment of the Plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent. The consolidated complaint also asserts that certain defendants failed to provide the Plan's participants with complete and accurate information about MMC stock, that certain defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring other fiduciaries did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and that MMC knowingly participated in other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of Plan assets invested in MMC stock at Oct. 13, 2004, (immediately prior to the announcement of the New York Attorney General Lawsuit) was approximately $1.2 billion. The consolidated complaint alleges that during the purported class period, which extends from July 1, 2000, until Jan. 31, 2005, MMC's stock price fell from $52.22 to $32.50. In December 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss filed by MMC and the other defendants. Discovery is underway in this matter. MMC reported no further development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Walsh v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-08157-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram. Representing the plaintiffs are: T. David Copley, Esq. (dcopley@kellerrohrback.com) Keller Rohrback 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, Washington 98101-3052 Phone: 206-224-7557 Fax: 206-623-3384 - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. (lgrant@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Web site: http://www.cmht.com Representing the defendants are: William Joseph Sushon, Esq. (wsushon@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 728-5693 Fax: (212) 326-2061 - and - Pamela Rogers Chepiga, Esq. Allen & Overy LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 610-6300 (212) 756-1125 Fax: (212) 610-6399 MARSH & MCLENNAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Md. ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in one of two purported class action suits pending in Maryland against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., and Putnam Investments Trust, which was purchased by Great-West Lifeco, Inc. from MMC, are appealing the dismissal of their case, according to MMC's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Aside from MMC and Putnam, certain of the two companies' current and former officers, directors and employees were named defendants in purported class actions, one brought by participants in an MMC retirement plan and the other brought by participants in a Putnam retirement plan, which are generally alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to plan participants. Both actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief. In September 2006, the action regarding the Putnam plan was dismissed against all defendants; the plaintiff is appealing the decision. The action regarding the MMC plan has been stayed. Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MERCHANT MEDIA: Recalls Puzzles for Lead Paint Standard Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Merchant Media Corp., of Framingham, Mass., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 198,000 Toy Puzzle Vehicle Sets. The company said, the surface paints on the puzzle pieces and components contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The recall includes the 16 piece Puzzle Track Play sets also known as Battery Operated Puzzle Vehicle sets. QVC item number T16876 is printed on the exterior of the brown box packaging. The sets have plastic puzzle pieces that when put together form a track with a battery operated train, fire engine or school bus vehicle designed to run on the track. Miniature street signs, traffic cones, and a battery for the vehicle are also included in the sets. These recalled Toy Puzzle Vehicle Sets were manufactured in China and were being sold by QVC televised shopping programs, Web page, toll-free number, and Studio store from September 2002 through December 2007 for about $20. A picture of the recalled Toy Puzzle Vehicle Sets is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08551.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy puzzle sets away from children and return to QVC for a full refund including shipping and handling. Consumers who purchased the recalled set from QVC's television program or at QVC.com were sent a package by mail containing return information. Consumers who purchased the recalled set at the QVC Studio store should return the product to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact QVC at (800) 367-9444 between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. ET or visit the firm's Web site at: http://www.qvc.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Amended Complaints Filed D.C. Surcharges Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated amended complaints were filed in several putative class actions against Norfolk Southern Corp., and several other major U.S. railroads that were consolidated in the District of Columbia and are alleging that the individual railroads conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class actions have been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1 railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008). On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation. With respect to the antitrust class actions consolidated on Nov. 6, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against NS and three other railroads on April 15, 2008. The complaints allege violations of Federal antitrust laws and other laws with regard to the railroads’ fuel surcharge programs, according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S. and parts of Canada. PACIFIC STEEL: Appeal of Court Decision in Nuisance Case Begins --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Steel Casting's appeal of a small claims court decision in November 2007 which went against the company has began and is expected to go on for the next two months, a spokesperson for the steel foundry told the Berkeley Daily Planet. Daily Planet recounts that the West Berkeley-based steel foundry filed an appeal on Dec. 6, 2007, with the Alameda County Superior Court against an earlier order awarding $35,000 in damages to a group of West Berkeley neighbors who sued Pacific Steel for loss of use and enjoyment of their property and mental distress. "The company disagreed with the decisions made by the judge," said Elisabeth Jewel, of Aroner, Jewel and Ellis, the public relations firm representing Pacific Steel. "They will be appealing all of the judgments in each of the small claims cases." Daily Planet recalls that Judge Dawn Girard ruled at the November hearing that nine of the 19 plaintiffs who filed the small claims case in August 2006 would each get between $2,100 and $5,100 because of the "private nuisance created by Pacific Steel," and "a real and appreciable invasion of the plaintiffs' interests." A majority of the plaintiffs had complained of a burnt copper- like smell which they believed could be toxic. Lead plaintiff Tom McGuire had called the November judgment "a victory for the small guys." Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jacquelyn Tabor heard only Mr. McGuire's case on April 23, 2008, to determine how the remaining eight cases would proceed. "I think PSC is grasping at straws, sucker punching, anything to put up the facade of a case to wipe the toxic egg off their face," Mr. McGuire told Daily Planet. "There is so much evidence that foul odors and noxious emissions are and have been emanating from their smokestacks that to deny it or try to defend it is folly." Since the defendants' expert witness in small claims would not be available for the trial, Mr. McGuire said the group had brought in local activist LA Wood. "We're going to have to win this case based on our own strong and compelling testimony," he said. Judge Tabor is retired and is returning to court only for this particular case. The hearing will take longer than usual since she will be working on the case only on Wednesdays, Ms. Jewel told Daily Planet. Berkeley-based attorney Tim Rumberger, Esq., intends to file a class action lawsuit against Pacific Steel on behalf of "thousands of neighbors," according to a press release his office faxed to the Daily Planet late afternoon on April 21. The lawsuit will seek an injunction to require the foundry to "reduce its off-site toxic emissions impact to safe levels or relocate from this neighborhood," and demands a "compensation to the thousands of neighbors affected daily by the noxious odors and toxins." Daily Planet points out that Pacific Steel settled a lawsuit with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and installed a $2 million carbon absorption unit on Plant 3 to reduce emissions and odor last year. It also settled a lawsuit with Communities for a Better Environment which required it to install an air filtration system. PENNSYLVANIA: $35MM Settlement Reached in Bridgeport Fire Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A multi-million-dollar settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving the largest fire in Montgomery County's history, according to KYW News Radio 1060. KYW News relates that after almost five years, the last of 16 defendants in the case settled on April 23, 2008, following a five-week trial that had reached the jury deliberation stage. The report recalls that the 2001 fire destroyed the Continental Business Center in Bridgeport (Montgomery County), Pa. Shanin Specter, Esq., who represented the plaintiffs, said that an investigation found that the fire had started in an electrical circuit breaker panel. "Those circuit breakers had gotten wet in a flood two years earlier, and those breakers had not been replaced. And over the course of the next two years they had corroded, and arcing occurred within the breaker box. The box caught on the fire, the fire spread from outside the box," Mr. Specter said. Mr. Specter stated that the blame lies with those who didn't fix the breaker, and tenants who had materials stored in an improper way, which allowed the fire to spread. More than 500 firefighters fought the blaze over three days, the report recounts. More than 100 businesses and individuals suffered losses in the massive fire seven years ago. The settlement, KYW News relates, has been valued at $35 million. Mr. Specter calls it a good outcome, saying "Our economic expert testified in the case that the businesses and individuals who lost their property in the fire and lost income, lost between 30 and 41 million dollars." PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces Suit Over Exposed Customers' Information --------------------------------------------------------------- New Haven-based law firm Stratton Faxon dove into the fray over People's United Bank's alleged failure to protect customers' information from Dumpster divers, Rob Varnon writes for the Connecticut Post. Michael Stratton, Esq., partner and founder of Stratton Faxon, told Connecticut Post that he notified an attorney for People's United of his intention to seek class action status for a suit filed on behalf of five customers who are worried that their information could have been exposed to identity theft by the bank's alleged failure to properly dispose of private information. "Some People's Bank customers were pretty upset," Mr. Stratton said after reading a Connecticut Post report that Fairfield resident James Hastings had spent months pulling many unshredded papers listing private information, including account and Social Security numbers, from trash bins at branches in Fairfield County. According to Connecticut Post, the bank did not know about Mr. Hastings' activities until he showed up at its headquarters with a video depicting him rummaging through the trash and pulling out documents. Mr. Hastings still has documents he culled from branch Dumpsters, although police raided his home and seized some documents. The bank is suing Mr. Hastings and the case began last week in Bridgeport Superior Court. The bank alleges in its lawsuit that Mr. Hastings, as part of a shakedown, asked to be hired as a security consultant. Mr. Hastings, who maintains he did this to expose a security flaw at the bank so it could fix them, said he did ask for a consultant position. As with the proposed class action suit, Mr. Stratton said that his firm would seek punitive damages, attorneys fees and credit protection and monitoring services for the class of consumers affected, or, if the case is not certified, for his firm's clients. The bank has promised credit monitoring for up to a year for anyone whose information fell into Mr. Hastings' hands. "We took a really hard look at it before proceeding," Mr. Stratton said. After a conversation with Mr. Hastings' lawyer, which revealed Mr. Hastings could have information on as many as 1,500 customers, Mr. Stratton said he decided to move forward with the lawsuit. Mr. Stratton told Connecticut Post that the five customers his firm represents have not been contacted by the bank as being exposed by Mr. Hastings' trash digging. However, Mr. Stratton said the real concern is whether such disposal practices at People's had been going on for years and if it was a statewide problem. The bank has more than 155 branches in Connecticut, according to its Web site. According to Mr. Stratton, he was shocked by the lapse in security and even wrote in a news release, "It is obscene in the day and age of identity theft for People's United to have no system of shredding or incinerating documents." Mr. Stratton added that he will be seeking documents on what exactly People's procedures were prior to this scandal emerging. People's Chief Executive Officer and President Philip Sherringham told investors during the bank's quarterly report that he was horrified by the problem and it violated the bank's security procedures. He added that the bank was investing in new shredders. PLAN TOY INC: Recalls Toy Penguins Due to Laceration Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Plan Toy Inc., of Mountain View, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,000 Toy Penguin Figures. The company said the head of the penguin toy can detach, exposing connectors with sharp points, presenting a laceration hazard to consumers. Plan Toys has received one report of the head of a penguin toy detaching. No injuries have been reported. The wood penguin-shaped toy has a black head with rubber fins, a yellow nose and a white body with red on the base. The toy is round-shaped and creates a soft bell jingle when spun. The toy measures about 3 inches in height and about 3 inches in diameter. "PLAN TOYS" and UPC number 084543521109 or EAN number 8854740052117 are printed on the outside of the packaging of the toy. These recalled Toy Penguin Figures were being manufactured in Thailand and were being sold at specialty toy stores nationwide and on-line from May 2007 through February 2008 for between $15 and $20. A picture of the recalled Toy Penguin Figures is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08230.jpg Consumers should immediately take the penguin toys away from children and return them to the store where purchased to receive a refund. Consumers also can contact Plan Toys to receive instructions on returning the penguin toys via mail for a refund. For additional information, contact Plan Toys toll-free at (866) 517-7526 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.plantoys.com PRAXAIR INC: Still Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes ------------------------------------------------------------- Praxair, Inc., continues to be a co-defendant with many other companies in 427 lawsuits alleging personal injury caused by manganese contained in welding fumes, according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The company has never manufactured welding consumables. Such products were manufactured prior to 1985 by a predecessor company of Praxair. There are a total of 2,246 individual claimants in these cases. The cases are pending in several state and federal courts. The federal cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages. In the past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts. There are seven proposed class actions seeking medical monitoring on behalf of welders. None of the class actions have been certified; the judge overseeing the federal cases recently denied a motion for a medical monitoring class action. Praxair, Inc. -- http://www.praxair.com/-- is an industrial gases supplier in North and South America, Asia, and has businesses in Europe. QIAO XING: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in NY for $2.4 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc. has settled a securities fraud suit filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proposed settlement provides for creation of a Settlement Fund in the amount of $2,400,000. The suit is filed on behalf of all persons and entities who: (1) purchased shares of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc. (Qiao Xing, a company traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market as XING) common stock between June 30, 2004 and July 16, 2007, both dates inclusive; (2) purchased Qiao Xing call options between June 30, 2004 and July 16, 2007, both dates inclusive; or (3) sold Qiao Xing put options between June 30, 2004 and July 16, 2007, both dates inclusive. The Complaint charged Qiao Xing and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2007). More specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net income for the years ended December 31, 2003, Dec. 31, 2004, and December 31, 2005; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial reporting controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The Company shocked investors on July 17, 2007 when it disclosed that it was forced to restate its previously issued financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2003, 2004, and 2005. The Company stated that "certain misstatements" were not detected due to multiple deficiencies in the Company's system of internal controls over financial reporting, including an insufficient complement of personnel with accounting knowledge, lack of an effective enterprise risk management system, lack of an effective anti-fraud program and whistleblower system, and lack of an independent and effective internal audit function. On this news, shares of Qiao Xing fell $2.93 per share, or 21%, to close on July 17, 2007, at $11.04 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Deadline to file for exclusions is on June 16, 2008. Deadline to file objections is on June 20, 2008. Deadline to file claims is July 21, 2008. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a hearing on July 11, 2008 at 3:00 p.m., before Judge Denise Cote. The suit is "In re Qiao Xing Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07 cv 7097 (DLC)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise Cote, presiding. For more information, contact: Brian Murray, Esq. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 682-1818 SUNVEST COMMUNITIES: Faces Nev. Suit Over Poorly Built Condos ------------------------------------------------------------- Sunvest Communities USA, is facing a class-action complaint filed on April 24, 2008, with the District Court in Clark County, Nevada alleging it fraudulently induced people to buy poorly built condos and mismanaged the Desert Shores Villas complex, a class action claims in Clark County Court, CourtHouse News Service reports. Also sued are: -- Desert Shores Holdings, -- Realty Management, -- Country Home Loans, and -- The Condo Store. This is a class action for damages in excess of the court's jurisdictional requirement. The plaintiffs asks the court: -- for damages in an amount jurisdictionally allowable by law; -- for punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000 or an amount to be determined at trial; -- for reasonable attorney's fees together with costs for bringing this action; and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Estate of William A. Forest et al. v. Sunvest Communities USA, LLC, Case NO. A561629," filed with the District Court for Clark County, Nevada. Representing the plaintiffs are: John A. Gurtas, Esq. Micheline N. Fairbank, Esq. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP 317 South Sixth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Lawsuit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc., continue to face a consolidated class action suit filed by assistant managers with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. Gardner Litigation In April 2000, a class-action complaint was filed against Albertson's, as well as its wholly owned subsidiaries -- American Stores Co.; American Drug Stores, Inc.; Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.; and Lucky Stores, Inc. -- with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. The suit, "Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al.," was filed by assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime based on allegations that they were improperly classified as exempt under California law. In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers. Rocher Litigation A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers and operating managers, was also filed in April 2000 against Sav-on Drug Stores with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. The suit, "Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.," was certified as a class action in June 2001 with respect to assistant managers and operating managers. The two cases were consolidated in December 2001. New Albertson's was added as a named defendant in November 2006. The plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break penalties, other statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Supervalu reported no development in the matter in its April 23, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 23, 2008. Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Mulls Settlement in Labor Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego has yet to approve the proposed settlement in a purported class action against Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc. The suit alleges that the defendants failed to pay wages for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees working in key carrier positions. Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint with the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego in August 2004. It was later certified as a class action. The lawsuit also alleges that Albertson's failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by California law and that Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned employees as required by California law. It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and penalties owed the members of the class certified, including compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period violations and wages for all time worked while employees were clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the premises during meal periods. It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for members of the class certified with interest from Aug. 6, 2000, to the time of trial. In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle the matter, subject to Court approval, according to the Supervalu's April 23, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 23, 2008. Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. VALERO ENERGY: Reaud Morgan Launches Suit Over Overtime Payment --------------------------------------------------------------- Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law firm launched a new class action suit against Valero Energy, alleging the oil giant circumvented paying its contractors overtime by classifying workers' wages as "per diem," Southeast Texas Record reports. The suit was filed on April 18, 2008, with the Jefferson County District Court on behalf of class representative Ruston Benoit. The suit also names Bay Ltd. as a defendant. According to Southeast Texas Record, the lawsuit alleges that Valero and Bay "wrongfully and artificially" classified Mr. Benoit's and other workers' weekly wages as a "per diem" or per- day pay to avoid paying them time-and-a-half. The report relates that Mr. Benoit worked for Bay as an electrical technician from March 31 through April 8 and, as claimed in the suit, he worked "in excess of 40 hours per week." According to the suit, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, those hours were overtime and subject to compensation at one and one- half times the worker's regular rate. "Defendant artificially and knowingly attempted to characterize a weekly payment as a 'per diem,' not subject to payment at a rate of time-and-a-half. Therefore, instead of paying full wages of time-and-a-half for overtime, Defendant was able to pay less than that amount through the artifice of paying a 'per diem,'" the suit says. "Bay's actions have amounted to a willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for which recovery is allowed under Federal Law." The suit also alleges that Bay agreed to pay $55.00 per day "per diem", but failed to do so. "Such failure constitutes a breach of contract," the suit says. Although Bay employed Mr. Benoit, the class representative contends in his complaint that Valero "planned the manner in which [he] was hired and the terms and conditions of his employment and the decision to improperly characterize wages as 'per diem' and failed to pay the promised per diem. . . . "As such, Defendant Valero is jointly and severally liable for the damages incurred by Plaintiff and the Class." Mr. Benoit and the class members claim they are entitled to their unpaid overtime wages at one-and-one-half times their true regular rate. "Plaintiffs are additionally entitled to an additional equal amount as liquidated damages resulting from Defendant's willful violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorney's fees, and pre-judgment and post- judgment interest on all damages," the suit adds. John Werner, Esq., of Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, is representing the class. The case has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd Judicial District. The action has been assigned Case No. E181- 622. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces CA Suit Over Adjustable Rate Mortgages --------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual Bank, FA is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging it failed to disclose that its adjustable rate mortgages may negatively amortize, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is an action pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USCA Section 1601, et seq., California's Business and Professions Code, Sections 17200, 17500, et seq., and other statutory and common law in effect. Named plaintiff, Veronica LaTrease Jordan, brings this action based on the defendant's failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose to plaintiff and the class, in defendant's Option Arm Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan documents and in three required disclosure statements accompanying the loans: (i) the actual interest rate on which the payment amounts listed in the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statements are (12 CFR Section 226.17); (ii) that, in contradiction to the terms set forth in the plaintiff and the class Notes, following the payment schedule as disclosed by the defendant in the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement will not pay both principal and interest and will result in negative amortization and the loss of equity in the borrower's home (12 CFR Section 226.19) and (iii) complete information regarding the various monthly payment choices the borrower would have and how the different options would affect the amount the borrower would pay for the life of the loan and the loss of equity in the borrower's home. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals who received an Option ARM loan through defendant on their primary residence located in the State of California. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant's acts and practices violate the Truth in Lending Act; (b) whether defendant's conduct violated 12 CFR Section 226.17; (c) whether defendant's conduct violated 12 CFR Section 226.19; (d) whether defendant had a duty to disclose to plaintiff and the class important material information concerning their loans, including but not limited to: (1) the fact that the payment amounts listed in the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement were insufficient to pay both principal interest; (2) the fact that the payment schedule was not based on the listed interest rate; and (3) the fact that negative amortization would occur if plaintiff and the class made the payments according to the schedule of payment defendant listed in the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement; (e) whether defendant, by and through their officers, employees, and agents concealed, omitted and otherwise failed to disclose information it was mandated to disclose under TILA; (f) whether defendant failed to disclose the true variable nature of interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage loans and adjustable rate home equity loans; (g) whether defendant failed to properly disclose the processes by which negative amortization occurs, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans; (h) whether defendant's marketing plan and scheme misleadingly portrayed or implied that the interest rate or payment rate on Option ARM loans was fixed; (i) whether defendant failed to disclose, and by omission, failed to inform plaintiff and the class that the payment schedule was not based on the interest rate disclosed in the Note and Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement; (j) whether defendant failed to disclose, and by omission, failed to inform plaintiff and the class that the payment amounts listed in the Note and Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement are insufficient to cover the principal and interest; (k) whether defendant failed to disclose, and by omission, failed to inform plaintiff and the class that the negative amortization was certain to occur if plaintiff and the class made the payments according to the payment schedule provided by defendant; (l) whether defendant had a duty to disclose to plaintiff and the class important material information regarding all of the payment options available under the Option ARM loan; (m) whether defendant engaged in unfair business practices aimed at deceiving plaintiff and the class before and during the loan application process; (n) whether defendant's failure to apply plaintiff and the class members payment to principal as promised in the Note constitutes a breach of contract, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (o) whether defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (p) whether the terms and conditions of defendant's Option ARM home loan are unconscionable, including but not limited to: (i) listing a payment amount and interest rate which bear no relation to each other; (ii) failing to state that negative amortization was certain to occur if the payment schedule provided by defendant was followed; and (iii) under the terms and conditions of these loans, the prepayment penalty provision; (q) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to declaratory relief, including but not limited to whether defendant's Option ARM loans violate the TILA; (r) whether plaintiff and the class are entitle to rescission under the TILA; (s) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to statutory damages under the TILA; (t) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to actual damages; (u) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to punitive damages; and (v) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to equitable relief, including but not limited to restitution and injunctive relief. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class; -- actual damages according to proof; -- actual damages as permitted by law; -- consequential damages as permitted by law; -- statutory damages as permitted by law; -- punitive damages as permitted by law; -- rescission; -- equitable relief, including restitution; -- restitutionary disgorgement of all profits defendant obtained as result of its unfair competition; -- interest permitted by law; -- declaratory relief; -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and -- such other relief as is just and proper. The suit is "Veronica LaTrease Jordan et al v. Washington Mutual, Case No. CV 08 2142," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steven M. Tindall, Esq. (steventindall@rhdtlaw.com) Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 725 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 421-1800 Fax: (415) 421-1700 WELLPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Face Calif. Hospitals' Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California, and BC Life & Health Insurance Co. continue to face a purported class action suit filed with a California state court. The suit was filed on behalf of hospitals over alleged wrongful rescission of individual health insurance policies. It seeks to recover for payment of claims denied where the member was rescinded. An amended complaint was recently filed adding the California Medical Association and the California Hospital Association as new plaintiffs in the suit. WellPoint, Inc. reported nofurther development in the matter in its April 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. WellPoint, Inc. -- http://www.wellpoint.com-- is a commercial health benefits company serving approximately 34 million medical members as of Dec. 31, 2006. WELLPOINT: Settles Certain Insurance Suits; Still Faces Others -------------------------------------------------------------- WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California, and BC Life & Health Insurance Co. managed to settle some lawsuits over the wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies, but continue to face several others. In various California state courts, WellPoint and its subsidiaries, Blue Cross and BC Life & Health, are defending a number of individual lawsuits and several purported class action suits alleging the wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies as well as breach of contract, bad faith and unfair business practices in a purported practice of rescinding new individual members following the submission of large claims. The parties have agreed to mediate most of these lawsuits and the mediation has resulted in the resolution of some of these cases, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s April 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. WellPoint, Inc. -- http://www.wellpoint.com-- is a commercial health benefits company serving approximately 34 million medical members as of Dec. 31, 2006. XEROX CORP: "Carlson" Securities Suit Settled for $750 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement of $750 million has been reached in the consolidated securities class action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A. Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril, Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach. On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot. According to the third consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased the company's common stock and bonds between Feb. 17, 1998, and June 28, 2002, and who were purportedly damaged thereby. The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims: -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the company's accounting and reporting practices and financial condition. The plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the investing public regarding the true state of the company's financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which, among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper. The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 13, 2005, the court denied the motion. On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered the complaint. On January 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On July 18, 2007, the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion. The plaintiffs have filed notices of withdrawal of proposed class representatives Sol Sachs, Leonard Nelson and Fernan Cepero. The Court has approved the plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of proposed class representative Fernan Cepero (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2007). The $750-million settlement ($670 million contributed by Xerox Corporation and $80 million contributed by KPMG LLP) has been proposed (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2008). Deadline to file exclusions and objections is on July 1, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on October 15, 2008. An approval hearing will be held before the Honorable Alvin W. Thompson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, at 3:00 p.m., on October 7, 2008. The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 800-217-1522 e-mail: info@bernlieb.com - and - Hurwitz & Sagarin 147 North Broad St., P.O. Box 112 Milford, CT 06460-0112, Phone: 203-877-8000. Representing the defendants are: Alfred U. Pavlis, Esq. (apavlis@dalypavlis.com) Daly & Pavlis, LLC, 107 John St., Southport, CT 06890 Phone: 203-255-6700 Fax: 203-255-1953 - and - Andrew N. Vollmer, Esq. Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M St. NW Washington, DC 20037-1420 Phone: 202-663-6000 New Securities Fraud Cases AGRIA CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the American Depositary Receipts of Agria Corporation pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about November 6, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint charges Agria and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act. The Company engages in the research and development and production and sale of upstream agricultural products in the People's Republic of China. Agria conducts substantially all of its operations in China through its contractual arrangements with a consolidated affiliated entity, Primalights III Agriculture Development Co., Ltd. (P3A), and a wholly-owned subsidiary in China, Aero-Biotech Science & Technology Co., Ltd. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were required to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was already running the risk of potentially damaging its relationship with P3A and losing a member of its management team, thereby adversely affecting its financial success. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased ADRs of Agria pursuant and traceable to the Company's IPO on or about November 6, 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 AGRIA CORP: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the American Depository Receipts of Agria Corporation pursuant or traceable to the Company's November 6, 2007 Initial Public Offering. The Complaint alleges that Agria and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. The Company engages in the research and development and production and sale of upstream agricultural products in the People's Republic of China. Agria conducts substantially all of its operations in China through its contractual arrangements with a consolidated affiliated entity, Primalights III Agriculture Development Co., Ltd. (P3A), and a wholly-owned subsidiary in China, Aero-Biotech Science & Technology Co., Ltd. According to the Complaint, the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were required to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was already running the risk of potentially damaging its relationship with P3A and losing a member of its management team, thereby adversely affecting its financial success. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 10, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, 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 FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action suit with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of The First Marblehead Corp. common stock during the period between August 10, 2006, and April 7, 2008. The complaint charges First Marblehead and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. First Marblehead packages student loans given by banks and then sells the packaged student loans as bonds. The Company makes money by charging fees for advising on the deals and helping funnel the payments from the students to the bondholders. The prices the bonds command and, in turn, the commissions First Marblehead charges, are boosted by a nonprofit organization called The Education Resources Institute. TERI promises to buy student loans that are in default, which rescues bondholders from losses. This makes the bonds safer and thus more appealing to investors. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (a) that the loans underlying the Company's bonds were experiencing increasing default rates; (b) that the guarantor of those loans -- TERI -- did not have the money to buy all of the loans that were in default; (c) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (d) that as a result of the foregoing, banks would look elsewhere to package their loans, which would have a negative impact on First Marblehead's business and operations. On November 26, 2007, Friedman Billings Ramsey downgraded the Company's stock citing the fact that TERI did not have enough cash to buy the loans from First Marblehead that were going to be in default. Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $2.90 per share, or approximately 10%, to close at $27.10 per share, on heavy trading volume. Then, on April 8, 2008, the Company announced that TERI had filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.16 per share, or 54%, over the next five trading days, as the investing public continued to digest the news of TERI's bankruptcy and its effect on the Company. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of First Marblehead common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. 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 ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action with the the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of iSTAR Financial Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Secondary Public Offering on December 13, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges iSTAR and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. iSTAR is a finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company was experiencing "material change" to its continuing operations; (2) specifically, the Company's ability to operate was being adversely impacted by negativity in the credit markets; (3) that the Company's corporate loan and debt portfolio showed more than $200 million in unrecognized losses; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 28, 2008, the Company announced that for the fourth quarter of 2007, it would report a loss of $78.7 million, or $0.62 per share. The Company stated that the results were impacted by $134.9 million of non-cash charges associated with the impairment of two credits in its corporate loan and debt portfolio. Finally, the Company stated that it increased its loan loss provisions by $113 million. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.66 per share, or 11.64 percent, to close on February 28, 2008 at $20.19 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Shares of the Company's stock continued to fall over the next several days, closing on March 6, 2008 at $13.98. This closing price on March 6, 2008 represented a cumulative loss of $14.43, or over 50 percent, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its SPO just months prior. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 13, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. 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 * * *