/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080506.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 89 Headlines ALABAMA: R.C. Case Against Dept. of Human Resources Has Ended ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Lawsuit Over 10% Drink Tax Launched AMERICAN AIR: To Appeal Ruling in Skycaps' $2-Per-Bag Fee Suit ARAMARK CORP: Employees Sue in Philadelphia Over Wage Issues ARKANSAS: Little Rock School Board Faces Discrimination Raps BELL CANADA: Clients Seek Refund for Internet Hijacking Fees BLOOMBERG LP: Number of Women with Discrimination Claims Rises BRIGHT HORIZONS: Settles Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Hard-Drive Media Player Capacity DAN FRAZIER: Couple Wants to Expand T-Shirt Suit to Class Action FLORIDA INSURANCE: Policy-Owners Sue Over June Claims Deadline FORCE PROTECTION: May 9 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline GEORGIA NATURAL: Faces Ga. Suits for Overcharging of Customers INTERNET GOLD: Subsidiary Sued Over International Calling Cards LEE PUBLICATIONS: CA Suit Alleges Misclassification of Workers MAT FIVE: Coughlin Stoia Files PPM-Related Lawsuit in New York PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Bouder" PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Court Mulls "Badain" Certification Motion RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Natural Gas Prices SCIELE PHARMA: Expects Approvals for $4.7M Settlement in 2008 SMART DOCUMENT: Sued Over Medical Record Copying Service Fees SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: California Lawsuit Claims Lemonade Is "Fake" SPRINT NEXTEL: Sales Reps Seek Certification of Suit in Kansas TIME WARNER: 9th Circuit Dismisses "Slamming" Lawsuit in Calif. WARNER MUSIC: Faces Copyright Infringement Lawsuit in California WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Kansas Court Decision in Royalties Lawsuit WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Still Stayed YARD HOUSE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in Calif. New Securities Fraud Cases ARBITRON INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in New York BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y. CANDELA CORP: Brualdi Law Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts CREDIT SUISSE: Brualdi Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit WENDY'S INTL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Ohio ********* ALABAMA: R.C. Case Against Dept. of Human Resources Has Ended ------------------------------------------------------------- Litigation in the long-running R.C. case, which placed the Alabama Department of Human Resources under federal oversight from 1991 to January 2007, has ended, Lisa Osburn writes for the Birmingham News. According to the report, the plaintiffs' attorney, James Tucker, Esq., said they will not pursue a full review of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the 2007 removal of the federal oversight. "Twenty years of class action litigation has been ended by federal courts and we respect the decision of the courts," he said. Birmingham News recounts that DHR entered into the so-called R.C. consent decree in 1991 to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of children in the state's child welfare system. The child at the core of the case was known by his initials, R.C. In January 2007, a U.S. district judge terminated the decree, finding that after 18 years of supervision, "the Alabama child welfare system had undergone radical changes and was on secure footing to continue its progress in the years to come, without court supervision." The plaintiffs appealed that decision, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the district court's decision. Mr. Tucker told Birmingham News that the plaintiffs still have serious concerns about the department's ability to provide permanency for children in its care on a timely basis. However, after consulting with other attorneys, they decided not to pursue further litigation in the R.C. case. They will continue their role as advocates for foster children and state families, he said. DHR Commissioner Page Walley heard of the plaintiffs' recent decision, and said, "I am pleased and believe that the plaintiffs should take great satisfaction in the fact that they were a vital element of the radical improvements in Alabama's child welfare services." ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Lawsuit Over 10% Drink Tax Launched ----------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit has been filed over Allegheny County's 10% drink tax, according to WPXI Pittsburgh. The report relates that the lawsuit includes all of Allegheny County's 1,900 liquor license holders and claims that the tax is unlawful and discriminates against the hospitality industry. WPXI Pittsburgh says that opponents of the drink tax have been fighting to have it repealed or reduced since its inception in January 2008. One opposing establishment, the Church Brew Works, hopes that a court action or even a voter referendum in November this year might end the controversial tax. Church Brew Works Supervisor Bill Pawlikowski told WPXI Pittsburgh, "The Church, as a body and a staff, have been against it from the get-go. With rising prices on everything, the 10 percent tax is hurting not only our tip, but on the number of people coming in." "I'll fight them all the way. We're going to keep this county competitive. We're going to keep property taxes down. We're not raising them for transit," Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato replied. Mr. Onorato explained that the only alternative to the drink tax would be a raise in property taxes like all other counties in Pennsylvania. Currently, only Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have 10% drink taxes, the report says. AMERICAN AIR: To Appeal Ruling in Skycaps' $2-Per-Bag Fee Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on April 9, 2008, that a federal jury has awarded more than $325,000 to nine Logan International Airport skycaps for American Airlines who claimed that they lost tips when the airline instituted a $2 fee for checking a bag at curbside. The report noted that American Airlines had earlier explained its decision to impose the baggage fee in 2005 was an attempt to bolster its finances after it lost $821 million in 2004. The fee is split between the airline and the contractor it hires to operate its curbside check-in service. In the suit, skycaps had complained that many passengers were confused and thought the $2 fee was going to them as a tip, while others saw the new fee as a forced tip and therefore were not willing to give them a gratuity on top of that. In an update, Annette Santiago of Aviation Week writes that American Air plans to appeal the jury decision. Moreover, the report notes that American Air had also announced it would immediately implement a no-tipping policy for skycaps at Logan Airport. The airline has posted signage at the airport stressing "tipping is prohibited for all assistance with baggage" and that "no portion of [American's $2 per bag curbside check-in fee] will go to service personnel," American spokesman Tim Smith told Ms. Santiago. To offset the potential for lost wages, G2 services, which provides the airline with skycap and other staff, is raising the hourly wages it pays the skycaps to between $12 and $15 per hour, Aviation Week points out. Skycaps were previously paid below minimum-wage -- $5.15 an hour -- because of the tip-based nature of their jobs. According to the report, the no-tipping policy is a pre-emptive strike of sorts. Massachusetts currently requires full restitution plus 12% annual interest on tips accepted, distributed or retained in violation of the state law. But, as American Air points out, an amendment that becomes effective July 13, 2008, will triple damages for those violations. "Our concern is that the Massachusetts state law is complex and is made more complex by the amendment," Mr. Smith said. Implementing a no-tips policy and raising wages will get the airline out from under the tipping law, he added. Aviation Week further notes that Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., who brought the case on behalf of the Boston skycaps, is moving for an injunction against American Air's new tipping policy. She said the airline is retaliating against the skycaps for winning their case and called the appeal a "direct response" to the verdict. "It's a red herring" to argue the verdict should be overturned because American Air did not directly employ the skycaps, she said, explaining that Massachusetts state law requires anything understood to be a tip, gratuity, or service charge to be paid directly to the person doing the service. According to Ms. Santiago, Ms. Liss-Riordan is bringing similar cases on behalf of skycaps against United Airlines, U.S. Airways and JetBlue at Logan and is seeking to have all four lawsuits certified as class action cases. "Given the way the evidence was presented in trial, we think we've got a good chance of getting the cases certified," Ms. Liss-Riordan told Ms. Santiago. ARAMARK CORP: Employees Sue in Philadelphia Over Wage Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ Two employees of the Pennsylvania Convention Center have filed a lawsuit with the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court against their employer, Philadelphia-based Aramark Corp., alleging violations of state and federal labor and wage laws, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. According to the report, the employees are backed by their union -- Service Employees International Union. The union, a spokeswoman told Philadelphia Inquirer, hopes to see the suit granted with class-action status to include other Aramark workers. The suit alleges that the international food service company violated provisions of (i) the federal Labor Standards Act, (ii) Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and (iii) the Pennsylvania Wage Payments and Collections Act on several occasions since Jan. 1, 2005. Aramark, according to the report, denied to comment on the suit. ARKANSAS: Little Rock School Board Faces Discrimination Raps ------------------------------------------------------------ The Little Rock School District Board of Education (Arkansas) is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging it racially discriminated in a district-wide reorganization that eliminated jobs predominantly held by black employees, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Michelle Bonds brings this action on behalf of those African American employees who were employed by the Little Rock District on of before May 1, 2005, whose positions were adversely affected as a consequence of recommendations of the Little Rock District Reorganization Audit of 2005. The plaintiff asks the court that: -- after an appropriate hearing, the court certify this matter as a class action and designate the plaintiff to be the appropriate class representative; -- after the court rules with respect to the plaintiff's timely motion for class certification, it enter a declaratory judgment and order granting relief to plaintiff and the class which enjoins the defendant School District from continuing to engage in unlawful practices; -- back pay and compensation for rejected African American applicants and deterred applicants be awarded; -- mandatory injunctive relief which affords the plaintiff and the class retroactive seniority and any other benefits of employment which they lost due to the School District's discriminatory practices be granted; and -- class damages as authorized by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964 be awarded. The suit is "Michelle Bonds et al v. The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, et al., Case No. 4:08-CV-0372," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Representing the plaintiff is: John W. Walker, Esq. (johnwalkeratty@aol.com) John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Phone: (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 BELL CANADA: Clients Seek Refund for Internet Hijacking Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Bell Canada is facing a class action lawsuit filed by Quebec customers who want refunds for being victims of Internet hijacking, CJAD.com reports. According to CJAD.com, the lawsuit was given the go-ahead by the Quebec Superior Court last month. The fraud victims contend that without their knowledge or consent their computers downloaded a hidden program which caused their computers to place expensive, long distance phone calls. The report notes that one plaintiff's computer had been programmed to dial up New Zealand and Sao Tome, a tiny island off the coast of west Africa. Guy Lachapelle never heard of it until he got his phone bill which reflected an amount of over CDN$500. CJAD.com relates that the class action suit seeks refunds plus damages and CDN$200 compensation per plaintiff plus interest for the hassles they went through. The suit covers the period from March 10, 2003, until April 30, 2008. Lawyers noted in the complaint that there could be thousands of Quebeckers included in the class action. The report notes that Bell Canada has argued that customers -- even victims -- must pay the bills. However, the plaintiffs' lawyers countered that the company has known about the modem dialing scam for at least four years but continued to collect for the overseas calls, arguing it has no choice under international agreements. Bell's lawyers argued that the company makes a profit on all of the calls -- whether they're legitimate or not. The judge authorizing the class action ruled that as soon as a subscriber is billed for long distance charges made without their knowledge, they have to evaluate the responsibility of those issuing the bills. BLOOMBERG LP: Number of Women with Discrimination Claims Rises -------------------------------------------------------------- The number of women accusing Bloomberg LP of discrimination has risen from three to 58, with more likely to be added, the Associated Press notes, citing a lawyer telling a judge on May 1, 2008. This disclosure, AP relates, widens the scope of a lawsuit against the financial data and news service company founded by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission senior trial attorney Raechel Adams, Esq., told a judge presiding over the case that the number of women joining the class-action lawsuit will rise as the EEOC continues to interview 478 women at the Bloomberg agency who have gone on maternity leave since 2002, AP writes. The EEOC contended that New York-based Bloomberg, which has about 9,000 employees, engaged in a pattern of demoting women, diminishing their duties and excluding them from job opportunities after they disclosed they were pregnant. AP says that the company, however, has argued that the allegations are without merit. Bloomberg lawyer Anna Conlon Aguilar, Esq., told AP that the company has turned over to the EEOC more than a million pages of data related to Bloomberg employees over the last 10 years. She said the company also planned to turn over e-mails related to women who went on maternity leave. Attorney William J. Dealy, Esq., who represents the original plaintiffs, said his clients were pleased that other women were coming forward. "They're encouraged because in unity there's strength," he said. AP notes that the next hearing on the matter was set for September 2008. According to AP, the suit became a distraction for Mayor Bloomberg during his second term. AP recounts that Mr. Bloomberg resigned as chief executive officer of Bloomberg LP to run for mayor in 2001. He retains a 68% stake in the company, though. AP further recalls that before he became mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was the target of a lawsuit by a female sales executive who accused him of sexual harassment while he was Bloomberg's chief executive officer. It also claimed that Mr. Bloomberg and other male managers at the company made "repeated and unwelcome" sexual comments, overtures and gestures, contributing to an offensive, locker- room culture. The suit also alleged that he displayed a discriminatory attitude toward pregnant women and new mothers and that this culture was fostered at the company. Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied the accusations, and the suit was later settled in 2000. BRIGHT HORIZONS: Settles Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., reached a tentative settlement for the consolidated class action suit filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts over the proposed merger between the company and Bain Capital Partners, according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In connection with the proposed merger between the company and affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, the company has been named as a defendant, along with the company's Board of Directors, and Bain, in putative class action suits filed with the Massachusetts state court. The suits are: -- "Aaron Solomon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-0214," filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court; and -- "William Smith, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated shareholders, v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08- 0467," filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court. On Feb. 26, 2008, the Massachusetts state court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the merger is the product of a flawed process and that the consideration to be paid to the company's stockholders is unfair and inadequate. The lawsuits further allege that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, ignoring certain alleged conflicts of interest of one of the special committee's financial advisors, taking steps to avoid a competitive bidding process, and improperly favoring a merger over other potential transactions. The lawsuits further allege that Bain aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, among other things, class certification, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, and monetary relief. A Memorandum of Understanding dated April 24, 2008, has been agreed to with plaintiffs' counsel. The MOU reflects an agreement-in-principle to settle and provide a complete release of all claims asserted in the litigation on the basis of certain disclosures which were made in the definitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2008. It provides that plaintiffs' counsel will not seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees and expenses above a certain amount. It also provides that any settlement and payment of attorneys' fees and expenses is contingent upon, among other things, the closing of the Merger and approval by the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Business Litigation Section, for Middlesex County. Watertown, Massachusetts-based Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.brighthorizons.com/-- is a provider of workplace services for employers and families. Workplace services include center-based child care, education and enrichment programs, elementary school education, back-up care, before and after school care, summer camps, vacation care, college preparation and admissions counseling, and other family support services. CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Hard-Drive Media Player Capacity --------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action suit was filed against Creative Technology Ltd. regarding the advertised capacity of its hard-drive based media players, Slippery Brick reports. The report relates that the suit could potentially result in a huge settlement for anybody who bought a device between May 5, 2001, and April 30, 2008. However, Creative denies any wrong- doing. According to Slippery Brick, the suit alleges that Creative knowingly misled users by promising 7% more capacity from their PMPs than was actually even possible, and that they exaggerated the number of songs and the total length of playback in hours. The report says that nothing has hit court yet, but if customers can prove they bought a Creative hard-drive based player in the seven year period, will be eligible for either a 50% discount on the price of a new 1GB PMP, or 20% off a single item bought from Creative's U.S. online store. DAN FRAZIER: Couple Wants to Expand T-Shirt Suit to Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A couple whose soldier son was killed in Iraq want to expand their lawsuit against an Arizona-based online merchant of anti- war T-shirts to cover more than 4,000 casualties and seek more than $40 billion in damages, the Associated Press reports. According to AP, an amended complaint filed on behalf of Robin and Michael Read of Greeneville, Tennessee, seeks to make the lawsuit against Dan Frazier of Flagstaff a class-action case. The amended suit seeks to cover the heirs of all U.S. service members killed in the Middle East since Sept. 11, 2001, and seeks $4 billion of compensatory damages and $36.5 billion of punitive damages, the report relates. AP says that the Read couple's original lawsuit named only themselves as plaintiffs and sought $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The report points out that Mr. Frazier's "Bush lied - They died" T-shirts list Iraq war casualties' names, and Mr. Frazier contends that he is covered by First Amendment free-speech protections. "We think it will be clear that this is political expression and not done for profit," Lee Phillips, Esq., who represents Mr. Frazier, told AP. The amended complaint, filed on April 29, 2008, with the federal court in Tennessee, says that Mr. Frazier has no right to make a profit from commercial sale of products using the casualties' names without permission. Once served with the suit, Mr. Frazier will ask it be transferred to the federal court in Arizona, which has already begun considering his challenge to an Arizona law barring use of slain service members' names for commercial purposes without permission, Mr. Phillips said. A federal judge in Arizona said in a preliminary ruling that a portion of the Arizona law making violations a misdemeanor crime violates the First Amendment, AP recounts. Arizona is among several states that have enacted similar laws. Mr. Phillips further expressed that though it would be as hard for the Reads to have their case decided in Arizona as it would be for Mr. Frazier to have it heard in Tennessee, it makes sense for the Arizona court to handle the case because of related work done on the Frazier lawsuit. The Reads' attorney, Frank Santore, Esq., said in an e-mail to AP that court rules barred him from issuing comments. FLORIDA INSURANCE: Policy-Owners Sue Over June Claims Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Property owners who had policies with the now-bankrupt Poe Financial Group did not receive sufficient notice of a June 2008 deadline to dispute claims in court, the Associated Press notes, citing lawyers as arguing last week after filing a class-action lawsuit. According to AP, the class action suit names Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, a backup fund that temporarily handles policies for insolvent companies, and requests a one-year extension of the deadline. People typically have five years to file and settle claims for hurricane damage, said Alan Garfinkel, Esq., whose firm filed the suit in Palm Beach County on behalf of a Wellington couple whose house was damaged by Hurricane Wilma in 2005. But because Poe Financial Group became defunct in 2006, people had one year to file a claim and one year to file a lawsuit for any disputes. "My beef is, gosh, you just have to give notice for when the steps of the courthouse have closed," Mr. Garfinkel said. Mr. Garfinkel showed AP a letter from the association addressed to the Wellington couple, Richard and Judith Palma, that was incomplete, showing a blank line in the place where the deadline date was supposed to be noted. The association's deputy director Michelle Lovern agreed the form letter did fail to note the deadline, but she told AP that the company's records show the pages attached to it did mention the date. The law surrounding claims for insolvent companies has been on the books for 37 years, Ms. Lovern noted. "It's not like it's brand new," she said. "Most businesses aren't required to tell people the law over and over." Ms. Lovern also noted that the association has handled 48,000 claims for Poe customers since its insolvency -- 20,000 who had claims on file and another 28,000 who filed claims or reopened existing claims after the company went bankrupt. FORCE PROTECTION: May 9 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Pomerantz Firm reminds investors of Force Protection, Inc. (Nasdaq: FRPT) that the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment is on May 9, 2008. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, against the Company and certain officers of the Company. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company during the period from August 14, 2006, to February 29, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under. The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period, defendants continually boasted that Force Protection's dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates. In June 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without competitive bidding. The report noted that there were other U.S. companies that could have competed with Force Protections on both product capability and faster delivery schedules. The complaint further alleges the following facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the class period: (1) As a result of the Company's ongoing problems in meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company would have trouble competing in the MRAP market; (2) In audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had been critical of the Company's finances and financial accounting system, which threatened the Company's eligibility to compete for government contracts; (3) The Company's accounting department suffered from material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the necessary staff and resources to perform its required functions; (4) Contrary to the representations contained in the Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls were inadequate and easily manipulated, and, as a result, multiple areas of the Company's internal controls suffered serious deficiencies, including: (i) the financial closing process; (ii) accounting for inventory and the associated accounts payable expenses; (iii) stock-based compensation; and (iv) deferred tax balances; (5) The Company lacked effective internal controls in its financial reporting process, required to enable it to properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's future financial and operational performance; and (6) Defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at least its third quarter 2007 financial results. As a result of the defendants' false statements, Force Protection's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period and defendants were able to sell $87.4 million in Force Protection Stock. However, when the truth about the Company's operations and financial statements were revealed, the Company's shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down 88% from their Class Period high. Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture of ballistic and blast protected vehicles. The company is based in South Carolina. For more information, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: (888) 476.6529 (888) 4.POMLAW GEORGIA NATURAL: Faces Ga. Suits for Overcharging of Customers -------------------------------------------------------------- Georgia Natural Gas, which is owned by AGL Resources, Inc., faces two purported class action suits basically alleging that it overcharged customers, according to AGL's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In February 2008, a class action complaint was filed with the Superior Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against GNG containing similar allegations to those asserted by the Georgia Commission staff and seeking damages on behalf of a class of GNG customers. In March 2008, a second class action was filed against GNG in the State Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia, regarding monthly service charges. This lawsuit alleges that GNG arbitrarily assigned customer service charges rather than basing each customer service charge on a specific credit score. GNG asserts that no violation of law or Georgia Commission rules has occurred and that both lawsuits are without merit. AGL Resources, Inc. -- http://www.aglresources.com/-- is an energy services holding Company whose principal business is the distribution of natural gas in six states: Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia. It is involved in various related businesses, including retail natural gas marketing to end-use customers in Georgia; natural gas asset management and related logistics activities for its own utilities, as well as for non-affiliated companies; natural gas storage arbitrage and related activities, and the development and operation of high-deliverability underground natural gas storage assets. It owns and operates a small telecommunications business that constructs and operates conduit and fiber infrastructure within select metropolitan areas. It manages its businesses through four segments: distribution operations, retail energy operations, wholesale services and energy investments, and a non-operating corporate segment. INTERNET GOLD: Subsidiary Sued Over International Calling Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. reported that its subsidiary, 012 Smile.Communications -- a growth-oriented provider of communication services in Israel -- received a monetary claim and an application for permission to file a class action lawsuit against it, as well as against Netvision 013 Baraq Ltd. The claim was filed with the Petach Tikva District Court by a citizen of the Philippines who is employed in Israel, and who claims to have used the international calling cards of two international telephony companies to call abroad. The purported plaintiff claims that the two international telephony companies improperly calculated the length of the international calls in whole-minutes units rather than in one- second units. The purported plaintiff also alleges that he and others were over charged due to a longer call duration calculation than the actual duration of the calls and that he and others were not informed about the per-minute calculation policy. The purported plaintiff seeks court permission to file the claim as a class action lawsuit by virtue of Israel's Class Actions Law on behalf of groups of persons that include anyone who purchased calling cards distributed by one of the two international telephony companies during the seven year period prior to filing the claim or during the term of the proceedings. The purported plaintiff has alleged that the damages caused to all members of the purported class by both companies total approximately ILS158 million. The company has not had an opportunity to review the claims with its counsel and is unable to provide any comments at this time. Internet Gold is one of Israel's leading communications groups with a major presence across all Internet-related sectors. Its 72.4% owned subsidiary, 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., is one of Israel's major Internet and international telephony service providers, and one of the largest providers of enterprise/IT integration services. Its 100% owned subsidiary, Smile.Media Ltd., manages a growing portfolio of Internet portals and e- Commerce sites. LEE PUBLICATIONS: CA Suit Alleges Misclassification of Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Publications, Inc., and the North County Times are facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, claiming the newspaper misclassifies its newspaper delivery workers as independent contractors to avoid paying them overtime and to duck other obligations of the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 382. The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to: -- Labor Code Sections 201, 204, 226, 226.7, 1174, 1194, 1197, 1199, 2802 and 3751; and -- California Wage Order No, 1-2001 (8 Cal. Code Reg. Section 11010. The plaintiffs seek: (1) unpaid regular and overtime wages, (2) unpaid rest break and meal period compensation, (3) reimbursement of all illegal deductions made from their wages, (4) payment of all wages and tips earned, (5) reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred by them in discharging their duties, (6) payment of a minimum wage to all employees who failed to receive a minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period, (7) penalties, (8) injunctive and other equitable relief, and (9) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The suit is "Yvonne Dalton et al. v. Lee Publications, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-2008-00053545-CU-OE-NC," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: C. Keith Greer, Esq. Julie A. Lowell, Esq. Law Offices of Greer & Associates, APC 16787 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 14 San Diego, California 92128 Phone: (858) 613-6677 Fax: (858) 613-6680 MAT FIVE: Coughlin Stoia Files PPM-Related Lawsuit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that is has commenced a class action suit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MAT Five LLC (MAT Five) pursuant and traceable to a false and misleading Private Placement Memorandum on or about December 18, 2006, and its Supplements and who were damaged thereby. The complaint charges MAT Five, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the corporate and capital markets arm of Citigroup, Inc.'s Corporate and Investment Banking group), Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives and Reaz Islam with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Delaware law. MAT Five is a limited liability company that makes investments in limited liability company interests issued by Municipal Opportunity Fund Five National, a limited liability company that makes leveraged investments in fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal bonds. The complaint alleges that during late 2006 and continuing into early 2007, Citigroup, through CFIA and CAI, targeted many of its clients who were believed to be interested in fixed-income investments which would provide higher yields. One type of investment Citigroup promoted to its investors was municipal bond opportunities involving the arbitrage of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. These were actually very risky investments which could drop precipitously if the markets changed, or if the investments were not properly managed. Defendants caused the PPM and presentation materials for MAT Five -- the Selling Documents -- to be disseminated beginning in 2006 in connection with the issuance of hundreds of millions of dollars of shares. The Selling Documents were false and misleading in that the strategy to be employed would not protect investors as suggested by the ratings of the underlying investments and defendants did not have risk management practices in place to prevent employees of CAI from engaging in highly risky investment practices. On March 20, 2008, CAI wrote a letter to investors which stated that the recent credit crunch had rapidly accelerated and spread into the municipal bond markets. As a result, the cash positions and net asset values of the MAT Five fund had been severely impacted, and they were going to indefinitely suspend the fund's income distributions in an effort to preserve liquidity. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MAT Five pursuant and traceable to the PPM on or about December 18, 2006, and its Supplements and who were damaged thereby. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 619-231-1058 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Bouder" ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a class in the matter "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America." The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. In December 2006, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a nationwide class, according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had approximately $616 billion of assets under management. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement- related services and administration, asset management, banking and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Court Mulls "Badain" Certification Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a class in the matter, "Badain v. Wachovia Securities, et al.," which names Prudential Securities, a unit of Prudential Financial, Inc., as a defendant. The suit was originally filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2006 as a purported nationwide class action. It alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In December 2006, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In December 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class. The motion is still pending, according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had approximately $616 billion of assets under management. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement- related services and administration, asset management, banking and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Natural Gas Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Reliant Energy, Inc., is party to approximately 30 lawsuits, several of which are class action suits, in state and federal courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin. These lawsuits relate to Reliant's alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. They also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties. The plaintiffs are seeking treble or punitive damages, restitution and expenses in their respective cases, according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Reliant Energy, Inc. -- http://www.reliant.com/-- provides electricity and energy services to retail and wholesale customers through two business segments. Retail energy provides electricity and energy services to more than 1.8 million retail electricity customers in Texas, including residential and small business customers and commercial, industrial and governmental/institutional customers. It also serves commercial, industrial and governmental/institutional customers in the PJM Market, which primarily covers Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. Wholesale energy provides electricity and energy services in energy markets in the United States through its ownership and operation of or contracting for power generation capacity. SCIELE PHARMA: Expects Approvals for $4.7M Settlement in 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp., expects to receive preliminary and final approvals for the $4.7-million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action suit that was filed against the company. On Aug. 22, 2002, the company, certain former and current officers and directors were named as defendants in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the company issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market in connection with the company's public offering on April 24, 2002, and thereafter relating to alleged "channel stuffing" activities. The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class action. Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as permitted, but instead filed a motion asking the District Court to reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and to lift the condition that they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further amendment. On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay the defendants' fees and costs. Once again, the plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended complaint. Instead, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was a "shotgun pleading" that did not satisfy the pleading requirements under the federal rules. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered by the District Court. Instead of dismissing the Amended Complaint with a right to further amend if the plaintiffs paid the fefendants' fees and costs, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court should have ordered the plaintiffs to replead under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those claims sound in fraud. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's orders and remanded with instructions to order a repleading. On April 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On June 29, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which is currently pending. The parties recently engaged in a mediation that led to an agreement in principle to settle all of the claims in the class action for an amount up to $4.7 million. The settlement is to be entirely funded by the company's insurance carriers. The parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding certain terms of the settlement. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the U.S. District Court. The company expects to receive these approvals during fiscal year 2008, according to its May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge J. Owen Forrester presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Representing the defendants is: John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq. (pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com) King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 Phone: 404-572-5100 SMART DOCUMENT: Sued Over Medical Record Copying Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Miller, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against Smart Document Solutions with the Phillips County Circuit Court under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Michele Page writes for Helena Daily World. The report points out that Smart Documents is a Georgia-based company that provides medical record copying services for healthcare providers. After receiving a request for copies of medical documents, Smart Documents makes the copies and forwards the documents by mail to the requesting medical facility with an invoice attached. Ms. Miller's complaint alleges a "statewide deceptive practice and or scheme devised and implemented by the defendant to unlawfully charge and collect fees for copying medical records that are in excess of that allowed by Arkansas statue and common law." Helena Daily World notes that Arkansas code 16-46-106 says the cost for copying medical records shall not exceed $1 per page for the first five pages and 25 cents for each additional page. A minimum charge of $5 also is listed in the state code and charges may include a reasonable retrieval fee for stored records. Ms. Miller contends that Smart Documents keeps its records on- site in computers and she should not be charged a $10 retrieval fee. She also asserts that the company then overcharged its clients for postage. "(The) Defendants conduct of overcharging for medical record copies has resulted in ill-gotten and unlawful profits for the defendant at the expense of Arkansas consumers," the complaint states. Ms. Miller further claims that the company violated the ADTPA, and engaged in intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit. She asks for no more than $4,999,999 for damages, costs, restitution and attorney's fees. Helena Daily recounts that on Feb. 21, 2008, a protective order was granted, shielding certain exhibits to protect trade secrets, other confidential research, development and commercial documents and information. Two large sealed envelopes are contained in the files at the courthouse. Smart Documents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint citing jurisdictional matters and stated that "they were immune from suit overcharging patients." They further said, "there are no remedies available to Arkansas consumers who were overcharged for unlawful fees to access their medical records." Smart Documents additionally argued that Ms. Miller had insufficient facts to support "each and every count alleged" in her complaint. SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: California Lawsuit Claims Lemonade Is "Fake" -------------------------------------------------------------- Snapple Beverage Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming the company defrauds the public by selling Snapple Lemonade, marked as "all natural" and "made from the best stuff on Earth," though it contains less than 1% lemon juice, CourtHouse News Service reports. The class claims Snapple uses virtually no lemon in its "all natural" lemonade, but substitutes citric acid and corn syrup to make "all of their Fake Lemonade." The label is adorned with pictures of lemons and the cited phrases, and the phrase "juice drink with natural flavors. . . . An inconspicuous disclaimer about the 'Nutrition Facts' panel discloses and admits that the product actually contains 'less than 1% juice.'" But, the complaint states, "Adding 'less than one percent' juice does not make this product 'lemonade,' a 'juice drink,' or an 'all natural' product. Indeed, there is no readily identifiable reason for adding 'less than 1% juice' except possibly to make a misleading claim that the Product is a juice drink." The class demands an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, unfair competition and violations of consumer law. Representing the plaintiffs is: Ray E. Gallo, Esq. Gallo and Associates 5757 West Century Boulevard Seventh Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 338-1114 Fax: (310) 338-1199 SPRINT NEXTEL: Sales Reps Seek Certification of Suit in Kansas -------------------------------------------------------------- On May 2, 2008, plaintiffs in the lawsuit "Sibley et al v. Sprint Nextel Corp. and Sprint/United Management Co., Court File No. 2:08-cv-02063," pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, filed a motion seeking to certify the case as a nationwide class action. The suit, filed on Feb. 7, 2008, was brought by current and former employees who either worked, or currently work, as sales representatives in Sprint Nextel's retail stores in Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2008). These employees assert that since the merger of Sprint and Nextel, the companies have failed to pay them all the commissions they were due because of computer issues Sprint Nextel failed to resolve. These employees claim they were shorted approximately $100 to more than $500 per month in commissions for products and services they sold for Sprint Nextel. The plaintiffs filed their claims in the Kansas District Court due to choice of law and venue provisions in their commissions contract that designated Kansas law and the State of Kansas. If the case is certified, the plaintiffs estimate that it will include thousands of Sprint Nextel retail employees across the country. They estimate the employees have been shorted anywhere from $100 to over $1,000 per month in commissions. The plaintiffs' attorney, Michele Fisher, Esq., stated, "A few hundred dollars per month may not seem like a lot of money to a large corporation like Sprint Nextel, but these shortages are detrimental to the hard working retail employees who need that money to pay their rent and their bills. We will do everything we can to help these people recover the commissions they earned." The suit is "Sibley et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Civ. No.2:08-cv-02063," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michele Fisher, Esq. (fisher@nka.com) Nichols Kaster & Anderson 4600 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth St. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Phone: 612-256-3229 TIME WARNER: 9th Circuit Dismisses "Slamming" Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The 9th Circuit dismissed a class action suit accusing Time Warner Cable of violating federal laws prohibiting racketeering and "slamming," CourtHouse News Service reports. "Slamming" is the practice in which a telecommunications carrier switches a consumer's telephone service without the consumer's consent. On March 19, 2007, named plaintiff K. Clark filed the complaint against TWC with the District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. Ms. Clark's complaint alleged that TWC violated 47 U.S.C. Section 258(a), the federal prohibition on "slamming." In addition, her complaint alleged that TWC violated California state law's prohibition of the same conduct, Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 2889.5, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962. Finally, Ms. Clark plead causes of action for fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligence. Upon TWC's motion, the district court dismissed Ms. Clark's complaint without prejudice. Noting that Section 258(a) applies only to "telecommunications carriers," and that the question of whether a VoIP provider meets this definition has never been resolved, the district court referred Ms. Clark's Section 258(a) claim to the Federal Communications Commission to consider the matter in the first instance. The district court further concluded that its referral of Ms. Clark's Section 258(a) claim to the FCC warranted a dismissal without prejudice of her remaining claims. In the alternative, it dismissed all such claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This appeal followed, which was likewise dismissed by the 9th Circuit recently. Affirming the lower court's decision, the federal appeals court agreed that the FCC was the right venue to address legal issues involving new technology. It turned the dispute over to the Federal Communications Commission to resolve the issues presented by digital phone technology. "Congress has specifically delegated responsibility to the FCC to define 'slamming' violations, and to prescribe the procedures for imposing the appropriate penalties," Judge O'Scannlain wrote. Time Warner Cable is one of the largest cable operators in the United States. Among other products and services, TWC markets "Digital Phone," a bundle of local and long distance calling services that utilize Voice over Internet Protocol technology. VoIP uses the Internet to transmit telephone signals rather than using the traditional public switched telephone network. As such, VoIP has the capacity to transmit voice and data streams simultaneously, whereas PSTN-based connections only have the capacity to transmit one signal at a time. WARNER MUSIC: Faces Copyright Infringement Lawsuit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jazz mandolinist David Grisman filed a class action copyright lawsuit with the Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming Warner Music and its affiliate Rhino Entertainment refused to pay him and others for digital versions of their copyrighted songs, CourtHouse News Service reports. Mr. Grisman says he contracted with Warner to sell "Dawgola," "Janice," "Dawg's Bull," "16/16," "EMD," "Blue Midnight," "Dawg's Rag," "Pneumonia," and "Ricochet" to digital service providers. He says other musicians have similar licensing contracts with Warner. Mr. Grisman claims the labels tried to "pick off" plaintiffs by paying prospective class members part of what it owed them, in an attempt to negate the class-action status. According to Mr. Grisman, Warner refused to pay licensing fees to him and others until he filed the class action. Then, Warner offered class members a portion of the fees it owed, to whittle down the lawsuit's class status. He demands damages and accounting. Representing the plaintiff are: Brian Strange, Esq. Mynd Corporation 10301 Wilson Blvd. Blythewood, SC 29016-9018 Phone: (803) 333-6919 Fax: (803) 333-5560 - and - Gretchen Arlene Carpenter, Esq. Strange & Carpenter 19th Floor, 12100 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120 Phone: (310) 207-5055 Fax: (323) 820-3210rt WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Kansas Court Decision in Royalties Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Cos., Inc., is awaiting a ruling from a Kansas state court regarding the class certification of a lawsuit over royalties, according to Williams' May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In 2001, fourteen of the company's entities were named as defendants in a nationwide class action in Kansas state court that had been pending against other defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified amount of damages. The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted all of our defendant entities except two Midstream subsidiaries. All remaining defendants have opposed class certification and a hearing on plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was held in April 2005. The company is awaiting a decision from the court. The Williams Companies, Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a natural gas company. The Company primarily finds, produces, gathers, processes and transports natural gas. Its operations are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf Coast and the Eastern Seaboard. Its activities are primarily operated through business segments, which include Exploration & Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids, and Gas Marketing Services. Exploration & Production produces, develops and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S. Gas Pipeline includes interstate natural gas pipelines and pipeline joint venture investments. Midstream Gas & Liquids includes natural gas gathering, treating and processing business. Gas Marketing Services manage its natural gas commodity risk. Other primarily consists of corporate operations. Other also includes the Company's interest in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Still Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- A suit filed against The Williams Cos., Inc., over calculation of oil and gas royalty payments to royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado continues to be stayed. In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit with the Colorado state court alleging that the company improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that the company received from the sale of gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. The plaintiffs claim that the class might be in excess of 500 individuals and seek an accounting and damages. The parties have agreed to stay this action in order to participate in ongoing mediation. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The Williams Companies, Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a natural gas company. The Company primarily finds, produces, gathers, processes and transports natural gas. Its operations are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf Coast and the Eastern Seaboard. Its activities are primarily operated through business segments, which include Exploration & Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids, and Gas Marketing Services. Exploration & Production produces, develops and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S. Gas Pipeline includes interstate natural gas pipelines and pipeline joint venture investments. Midstream Gas & Liquids includes natural gas gathering, treating and processing business. Gas Marketing Services manage its natural gas commodity risk. Other primarily consists of corporate operations. Other also includes the Company's interest in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. YARD HOUSE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Fakhimi & Associates, a litigation firm with experience in both defending and prosecuting class action lawsuits, has filed a representative Class Action lawsuit with the Orange County Superior Court against Yard House Bar & Grill, LLC (Case No. 30-2008-00045399). According to the complaint, Yard House has been implementing a policy of requiring its servers to pay $10 to other servers who cover for them on their breaks. The lawsuit alleges that this practice is illegal as it passes on the cost of doing business to employees without indemnifying them for their expenses. The lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation. For more information, contact: Houman Fakhimi, Esq. Fakhimi & Associates 3 Hutton Centre Dr., Suite 620 Santa Ana, CA 92707-8758 Phone: 888-529-2188 Web site: http://www.employmentlawteam.com New Securities Fraud Cases ARBITRON INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Arbitron, Inc., between July 19, 2007, and November 26, 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 Arbitron. 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-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased 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 alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Blackstone. 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-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com CANDELA CORP: Brualdi Law Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Candela Corporation (Nasdaq:CLZR) from February 1, 2006, through August 21, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Candela and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company was not able to remain competitive in the field; (2) specifically, the Company was not offering a competitive multi-configuration/multi-application device and was losing market share; (3) that the Company and Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. had exchanged various communications concerning the prospect of patent litigation by Palomar, which if commenced would increase costs; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 2, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. Candela manufactures and distributes clinical solutions that enable physicians, surgeons, and personal care practitioners to treat selected cosmetic and medical conditions using lasers, aesthetic laser systems, and other advanced technologies. For more information, contact: Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com) Director of Shareholder Relations The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1877 (toll free) (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com CREDIT SUISSE: Brualdi Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed 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 or acquired the American Depositary Receipts of Credit Suisse Group who purchased Credit Suisse stock between Feb. 15, 2007, and February 19, 2008. The Complaint charges that Credit Suisse and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to write down impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt. According to the Complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (i) that defendants failed to record losses on the deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized debt obligations on Credit Suisse's books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages included in the portfolio; (ii) that Credit Suisse's internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly; and (iii) that Credit Suisse's traders had put incorrect values on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the exposure the Company had to losses. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 20, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com) Director of Shareholder Relations The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone (toll free): (877) 495-1877 (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com WENDY'S INTL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed with the Common Pleas Court of Franklin, Ohio on behalf of the shareholders of Wendy's International, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company's officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the sale of the Company to Triarc Companies, Inc. 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-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.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 * * *