/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 113 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Norvir Case AETNA INC: Settles N.J. Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Lawsuit ASTRAZENECA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit CLEAR CHANNEL: Appeals Class Certification of Antitrust Lawsuits CLEAR CHANNEL: Still Faces Lawsuits Over BT Triple Crown Merger DELL INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex. DELL INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Texas E*TRADE BANK: Faces California Suit for Allegedly Kiting Checks ENERGY TRANSFER: Seeks Dismissal of Texas Natural Gas Price Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Rio Grande" Natural Gas Lawsuit in Texas GENERAL MOTORS: Aug. 29 Hearing Set for "Dex-Cool" Settlement HOME EQUITY: Sued for Disregarding Underwriting Guidelines HOOPER HOLMES: Completes $1.2M Calif. Examiners' Labor Suit Deal INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JOSEPH J. SAKER: July 16 Hearing for $6.9MM N.J. Suit Settlement NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: July 8 Hearing Set for "Summerfield" Deal PETSMART INC: Settles Two California Labor-Related Lawsuits PETSMART INC: Reaches Settlement for Suits Over Pet Food Recalls PETSMART INC: Fla. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in "Blaszkowski" RESTORATION HARDWARE: Discovery Ongoing in Catterton Merger Suit SHELL OIL: Reaches $1.10-Billion Settlement in "Cox" Litigation SOLVAY AMERICA: July 23 Hearing Set for $46M Antitrust Agreement SPRINT SPECTRUM: Sued Over Phones Incompatible with Network USA MERCHANT: Faces Texas Suit Over Internet-Based Businesses VERISIGN INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gambling Violations Suit WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Lawsuit in D.C. Over Alleged Bid Rigging YAHOO!: Shareholder Suit Over Failed Microsoft Takeover Unsealed New Securities Fraud Cases FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Suit HEALTHWAYS INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Tennessee Securities Suit JP MORGAN CHASE: Curtis Trinko Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. NEXCEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit TRM CORP: Stoll Berne Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Oregon WALGREEN CO: Stull & Brody Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Norvir Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion seeking class certification of the consolidated litigation entitled, "In re Abbot Laboratories Norvir Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-01511-CW." The consolidated class action suit filed on behalf of individual consumers John Doe 1 (filed in April 2004), and third party payors Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare Fund (filed in October 2004), generally alleges antitrust violations in connection with the 2003 Norvir re-pricing. Ritonavir is manufactured as Norvir by Abbott Laboratories. It is an anti-retroviral drug from the protease inhibitor class used to treat HIV infection and AIDS. Specifically, the suit claims that Abbott unlawfully raised the wholesale price of Norvir by 400% in an attempt to restrict competition in the market for protease inhibitors. It asks the Court to award money damages and injunctive relief. The company argues that the current price of Norvir is appropriate given its valuable use as a booster. Abbot also denies that the price increase had any negative impact on competition. For more details, contact: Norvir Litigation Administrator c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC P.O. Box 24784 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Phone: 1-877-625-9425 Web site: http://www.NorvirClassAction.com/ Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 800-516-9926 415-433-3200 Fax: 415-433-6382 e-mail: law@bermanesq.com Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/ Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 888-753-2796 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 e-mail: info@labaton.com Web site: http://www.labaton.com/ AETNA INC: Settles N.J. Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc. has agreed to give parity treatment to eating disorder claims for people already enrolled in Aetna insurance plans, as well as pay $250,000 in reimbursements to New Jersey policyholders after denying their claims for eating disorder- related treatments, Kristin Gunderson Hunt writes for Business Insurance. According to the report, the Hartford, Conn.-based insurer agreed to settle the class action lawsuit in late May. The settlement is awaiting preliminary approval by U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg on June 16. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2008, the class-action lawsuit was allowed by Judge Hochberg to proceed under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when she denied Aetna's motion to dismiss the suit. The judge did not buy the company's argument that the coverage dispute should be handled by the New Jersey Department of Banking & Insurance or its own internal appeals procedures. Business Insurance recounts that Nagel Rice L.L.P. brought the lawsuit in November 2006 on behalf of two individuals attempting to gain the same benefits for anorexia and bulimia that are available to those with biologically based mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Bruce Nagel, Esq., a senior partner with the firm, pointed out that coverage for those illnesses is often unlimited, or at least covers multiple hospitalization and outpatient therapy treatments, among other treatments. Eating disorders, however, have not typically been classified as biologically based mental illnesses by Aetna, and coverage has been limited to 20 outpatient visits per calendar year and 30 days for inpatient benefits. Mr. Nagel told Business Insurance that if the settlement deal is approved, approximately 100 families who have had eating disorder claims denied in the last seven years for exceeding the plans' maximum benefit for non-biologically based mental illnesses would receive reimbursements worth an estimated total of $250,000. Additionally, people enrolled in Aetna insurance would be given parity treatment for their eating disorder claims. Those policyholders also would have the opportunity to have all claims denied on the basis of medical necessity between August 2008 and August 2012 reviewed by an eating disorder specialist. Finally, under the agreement, Aetna would pay up to $350,000 in legal fees to Nagel Rice, as well as the cost of eating disorder arbitrators for future appeals. The two leading plaintiffs -- Francis DeVito and Jeff Meiskin -- would also each receive $10,000, according to the settlement. "It's a landmark settlement and I hope the other carriers in the country will follow suit with this," Mr. Nagel shared with Business Insurance. In a statement, Aetna said the settlement is "consistent with Aetna's goal of providing comprehensive, affordable coverage and service for all of its members." ASTRAZENECA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a shareholders' class action lawsuit claiming that AstraZeneca Inc. and four of its officers and board members manipulated the price of its stock, CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit was a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of AstraZeneca between April 2, 2003, and Sept. 10, 2004. The plaintiffs assert claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and Securities and Exchange Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section 240.10b-5. The complaint, which was later amended, alleged that during the class period, the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning one of its drugs that was in late-stage clinical trials. The complaint alleged that these misrepresentations artificially inflated the company's stock, and in turn caused the plaintiffs to suffer losses when the Food and Drug Administration failed to recommend the drug for approval and the price of AstraZeneca stock declined. The defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15 USC Section 78u-4 et seq. The defendants contended that the U.S. securities laws do not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court to consider the claims of foreign purchasers who acquired shares of AstraZeneca in foreign stock markets. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs do not and cannot plead facts giving rise to a viable securities fraud claim -- particularly facts demonstrating scienter. In an update, the court held that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over foreigners who purchased AstraZeneca stock on foreign exchanges, and dismissed the action against those members of the putative class. The suit is "In Re AstraZeneca Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ. 2688(TPG)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. CLEAR CHANNEL: Appeals Class Certification of Antitrust Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and Live Nation, Inc., are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider an earlier ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that certified several lawsuits filed against the two companies. In general, the suits allege that anti-competitive practices for concert promotion services by the company caused artificially high-ticket prices. Initially, Clear Channel was named a co-defendant with Live Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005) in 22 putative class action complaints filed by different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country. These actions generally assert that the defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for live rock concerts in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs are claiming that they paid higher ticket prices for rock concerts as a result of the defendants' conduct. They are seeking damages in an undetermined amount. On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multi-district Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in five template cases involving five regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver. The district court subsequently issued its decision certifying the class for each regional market. On Nov. 4, 2007, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court then stayed all proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the company's request to appeal. On Feb. 19, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition to appeal, and the company filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court's ruling on class certification, which motion is still pending, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other. It owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network operating in the United States, and also owns or operates approximately 195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces and approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising display faces. In addition it had equity interests in various international radio broadcasting companies. CLEAR CHANNEL: Still Faces Lawsuits Over BT Triple Crown Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Clear Channel Communications, Inc., continues to face several purported class action lawsuits in relation to its merger agreement with BT Triple Crown companies. The company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with BT Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc.; B Triple Crown Finco, LLC; and T Triple Crown Finco, LLC. Initially, eight putative class action complaints were filed before the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, in 2006 in connection with the merger. Of the eight suits, three have been voluntarily dismissed and five are still pending. The pending suits are: 1. "Teitelbaum v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17492" (filed Nov. 14, 2006); 2. "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17660" (filed Nov. 16, 2006); 3. "Levy Investments, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17669" (filed Nov. 16, 2006); 4. "DD Equity Partners LLC v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI7914" (filed Nov. 22, 2006); and 5. "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH v. L. Lowry Mays, et al." (filed Dec. 7, 2006). The five suits were consolidated into one proceeding and all raise substantially similar allegations on behalf of a purported class of the company's shareholders against the defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of the merger. Three other lawsuits filed in connection with the merger are also still pending: 1. "Rauch v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 2006-CI17436" (filed Nov. 14, 2006); 2. "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.," (filed Jan. 30, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas); and 3. "Alaska Laborers Employees Retirement Fund v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et. al., Case No. SA-07- CA-0042" (filed Jan. 11, 2007). These lawsuits raise substantially similar allegations to those found in the pleadings of the consolidated class action lawsuit. On Sept. 25, 2007, approximately 10 months after the filing of the first merger-related lawsuit, Clear Channel's shareholders approved the merger, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other. It owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network operating in the United States, and also owns or operates approximately 195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces and approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising display faces. In addition it had equity interests in various international radio broadcasting companies. DELL INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dell, Inc., and several of its current and former directors and officers continue to face a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially, four putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Dell and certain of its current and former officers. These complaints have been consolidated as "In re Dell Inc. Securities Litigation" and Judge Sam Sparks named Union Asset Management Holding AG as lead plaintiff in the matter. The lead plaintiff has asserted claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions regarding our financial statements, governmental investigations, known battery problems, business model, and insiders' sales of our securities. The action also includes the company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant. The company reported no further development in the matter in its June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2008. The suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court of for the Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James M. Hughes, Esq. (jhughes@motleyrice.com) Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. (lantonino@motleyrice.com) Motley Rice LLC P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: 843-216-9000 Fax: 843-216-9290 DELL INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Dell, Inc., is facing a consolidated class action suit entitled, "In Re Dell, Inc. ERISA Litigation" which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, according to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2008. Initially, several putative class action suits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the the Western District of Texas by purported participants in the Dell 401(k) Plan. These actions were later consolidated and lead plaintiffs have been appointed by the court. The lead plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA based on allegations that Dell and certain current and former directors and officers imprudently invested and managed participants' funds and failed to disclose information regarding its stock held in the 401(k) Plan. Dell, Inc. -- http://www.dell.com/-- is a technology company, which offers a range of product categories, including desktop personal computers (PC), servers and networking products, storage, mobility products, software and peripherals, and services. The Company designs, develops, manufactures, markets, sells, and support a range of products that in many cases are customized to individual customer requirements. E*TRADE BANK: Faces California Suit for Allegedly Kiting Checks --------------------------------------------------------------- E*Trade Bank is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the company kites checks, charges undisclosed fees on electronic transfers, and cheats customers of interest, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Maria Guadagno brings this class action on behalf of all those similarly situated consumers who, as subscribers to an electronic bill payment service owned and operated by defendant, lost the use of their money and were not paid interest on that money as they should have been. According to the complaint, the plaintiff believes that, for each check she authorized E*Trade Bank to make on her behalf and which E*Trade Bank actually made on her behalf, while the designated funds were immediately debited from the plaintiff's account, the funds were not immediately paid to the designated transferees and the plaintiff was not credited with any interest on the subject funds during the period between which the funds were debited from the plaintiff's account and the time when such funds were actually credited to the designated payees. The plaintiff further believes that E*Trade Bank intentionally employed policies and practices that were designed to enable E*Trade Bank to kite or otherwise improperly earn interest on the use of the plaintiff's funds, and to avoid paying interest to the plaintiff, under the BPS [bill paying service], all without disclosure. The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) on behalf of all persons who were charged fees or charges in violation of EFTA, the form of lost interest on their funds on deposit with defendant and who were deprived of interest on monies in their accounts with the defendant to the extent alleged. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether E*Trade Bank developed and implemented a scheme to intentionally charge plaintiff and the class fees and other charged and entities for such accounts; (b) whether pursuant to the policies and practices described in the complaint, defendant made "electronic transfers" from the accounts of class members without first obtaining written authorization; (c) whether E*Trade Bank violated 15 USC Section 1693e with respect to the class members; (d) whether E*Trade Bank's conduct constituted unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. as alleged; (e) whether E*Trade Bank has been unjustly enriched as a result of its conduct, as alleged; (f) whether plaintiff and members of the class have sustained damages as a result of E*Trade Bank's conduct, and, if so, what is the appropriate measure of damages; and (g) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to punitive damages, and, if so, in what amount. The plaintiff asks the court: -- for an order certifying the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the class; -- for restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief as the court deems proper; -- that, pursuant to Section 17203 of the Business and Professions Code, defendant be permanently enjoined from performing or proposing to perform any of the aforementioned acts of unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices; -- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all others similarly situated as a result of defendant's unlawful acts and conduct; -- for statutory damages under 15 USC Section 1693m; -- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from engaging in the conduct and practices complained of; -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees; and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Maria Guadagno et al v. E*Trade Bank, Case No CV08- 03628 MRP(JCx)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. (jwesterman@milberg.com) Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq. (mfurukawa@milberg.com) Milberg LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900 Phone: 213-617-1200 Fax: 213-617-1975 ENERGY TRANSFER: Seeks Dismissal of Texas Natural Gas Price Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a consolidated class action lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the company over the alleged manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and options contracts. The lawsuit alleges that the company engaged in intentional and unlawful manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The suit further alleges that during the class period from Dec. 29, 2003, to Dec. 31, 2005, the company had the market power to manipulate index prices, and that it used this market power to artificially depress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs, including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit the company's natural gas physical and financial trading positions and intentionally submitted price and volume trade information to trade publications. The action asserts that the unlawful depression of index prices by the company manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff and all other members of the putative class who purchased or sold natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during the class period. Initially two class action suits were filed against the company. Following the consolidation order, the plaintiffs who had filed the two earlier cases filed a consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs have requested certification of their consolidated suit as a class action, unspecified damages, court costs and other appropriate relief. On Jan. 14, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit on the grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated class action complaint. In response to this new pleading, on May 5, 2008, the company again requested that it be dismissed, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com) Labaton & Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-883-7527 Craig Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com) Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-822-5100 Fax: 202-822-4997 - and - Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq. Attorney at Law 1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave. Galveston, TX 77550 Phone: 409-762-5393 Fax: 409-762-0538 Representing the defendants is: Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com) Skadden Arps 1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-655-5160 Fax: 888-329-2286 ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Rio Grande" Natural Gas Lawsuit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., is facing a purported class action lawsuit entitled, "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc v. Energy Transfer Partners LP et al, Case No. 4:2008-cv-00857," according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 17, 2008, as a class-action complaint. This action alleges that the company engaged in unlawful restraint of trade and intentional monopolization and attempted monopolization of the market for fixed-price natural gas baseload transactions at the Houston Ship Channel from December 2003 through December 2005 in violation of federal antitrust law. The complaint further alleges that during this period, the company exerted monopoly power to suppress the price for these transactions to non-competitive levels in order to benefit from its own physical natural gas positions. The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested certification of the suit as a class action and seeks unspecified treble damages, court costs and other appropriate relief. The suit is "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc v Energy Transfer Partners LP et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00857," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com) Labaton & Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-883-7527 - and - Robert A Chaffin, Esq. (robert@chaffinlawfirm.com) Chaffin & Stiles 4265 San Felipe, Ste 1020 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: 713-528-1000 Fax: 713-952-5972 Representing the defendants is: Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com) Skadden Arps et al 1000 Louisiana, Ste 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-655-5160 Fax: 888-329-2286 GENERAL MOTORS: Aug. 29 Hearing Set for "Dex-Cool" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court for Alameda County will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 29, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., to consider the proposed settlement in several purported class action lawsuits against General Motors Corp. in state and federal courts across the United States involving "Dex-Cool" extended- life engine coolant. The hearing will be held before Judge Robert B. Freedman, in Department 20 of the California Superior Court for Alameda County, County Administration Building, 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, California 94612. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of owners of General Motors vehicles, which were factory-filled with "Dex-Cool" coolant (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008). In general the lawsuits alleges: -- that Dex-Cool in the vehicles listed below caused problems with the vehicles' engines or cooling systems, and -- that certain engine components, such as the nylon/silicone lower intake manifold gaskets equipped in certain vehicles, were defective. Specifically, the lawsuits alleged that Dex-Cool coolant caused damage to certain vehicles' engines, and that in certain other vehicles, Dex-Cool formed a rusty sludge, which clogged the vehicles' cooling systems, causing them to overheat. According to the complaints, Dex-Cool failed to protect the vehicle engines and cooling systems as was represented by the manufacturer. General Motors asserted that Dex-Cool protected engines for a longer period than traditional coolants, caused less wear on certain engine parts than traditional coolants, and provided environmental benefits. It also argued that the alleged problems with the vehicles' engines or cooling systems were caused by the owners' failure to follow the manufacturer's maintenance instructions for their vehicles and other outside factors. General Motors recently agreed to a settlement of all the lawsuits. It will reimburse class members up to a specified amount for certain repair costs they paid during the first seven years or 150,000 miles of vehicle ownership or lease, whichever is earlier. Under the proposed settlement, current and former owners and lessees of certain 1995-2004 model year GM vehicles with 3.1- liter, 3.4-liter, 3.8-liter or 4.3-liter engines will be eligible to receive reimbursement for Dex-Cool related engine repairs that occurred within 7 years or 150,000 miles (whichever is earlier) of original vehicle purchase; these repairs include intake manifold gasket replacements, cooling system flushes, and heater core repairs. Vehicle owners or lessees who paid for a qualifying repair will be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to $400 per repair made within the first five years of the vehicle's life, up to $100 per repair made in the sixth year, and up to $50 per repair made in the seventh year. Those who paid for multiple covered repairs may be eligible to receive multiple cash reimbursements. In addition, those vehicle owners or lessees who had more expensive repairs as a result of internal coolant leaks, will be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to $800. For more details, contact: Dex Cool Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 9239 Dublin, OH 43017-4639 Phone: 1-866-245-4291 e-mail: info@dexcoolsettlement.com Web site: http://www.dexcoolsettlement.com/ HOME EQUITY: Sued for Disregarding Underwriting Guidelines ---------------------------------------------------------- Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-5 and Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities are facing a class-action complaint before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, for allegedly disregarding underwriting guidelines in issuing $784 million in Series 2006-5 Pass-Through Certificates, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought by the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund alleging violations of Sections 1 1 , 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77a et seq., on behalf of purchasers of Home Equity Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates who purchased the Certificates, backed by a pool of primarily fixed-rate subprime second-lien residential mortgage loans, pursuant to or traceable to the $784,000,100 Offering of Series 2006-5 Pass-Through Certificates on or about October 30, 2006, issued by Home Equity Mortgage. The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired the Certificates pursuant and traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Offering from the effective date through the date of the filing of this action. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: a) whether the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 were violated by the Defendants as alleged herein; b) whether the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially untrue statements or omitted statements of material fact; and c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages pursuant to the statutory measure of damages. The plaintiff asks the court for an order: -- determining that this action is a proper class action under CPLR Article 9; -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of the paintiff and the other class members against all the defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and -- awarding the plaintiff and the class the reasonable costs and expenses they incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees. The suit is "New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et al. v. Home Equity Mortgage TRust 2006-5, et al., Case No 08601670," filed in the Supreme court of the State of New York, County of New York. Representing the plaintiff are: Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. Joel P. Laitman, Esq. Christopher Lometti, Esq. Jay P. Saltzman, Esq. Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Daniel B. Rehns, Esq. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-964-0046 Fax: 212-267-8137 HOOPER HOLMES: Completes $1.2M Calif. Examiners' Labor Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hooper Holmes, Inc., completed the $1.2-million settlement reached in a class action suit filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, that alleges violations of the state's wage and hour laws. On Jan. 25, 2005, Sylvia Gayed, one of the company's examiners in California, filed the suit, alleging that the company failed to pay overtime wages and to provide meal and rest periods and reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations. The company currently employs around 400 examiners in California and have employed in excess of 1,400 examiners in California over the past 60 months. Following mediation on Dec. 6, 2006, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which the company will pay $1.2 million to the class members in full settlement of the matter. The court granted final approval of the settlement on July 16, 2007. Payment of $0.7 million was made on Oct. 3, 2007, and the balance of the settlement was paid in March 2008, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. Hooper Holmes, Inc. -- http://www.hooperholmes.com/-- provides outsourced risk-assessment services to the life and health insurance industry and medical evaluation, and claims management services to the automobile insurance industry and the workers� compensation industry. The Company provides paramedical and medical examinations, independent medical examinations, personal health interviews and record collection, and laboratory testing, which help life insurance companies evaluate the risks associated with underwriting policies, and help property and casualty claims handlers evaluate physical injuries for claims management. Hooper Holmes also conducts wellness screenings for wellness companies, disease management organizations and health plans. The Company operates in two business segments: Health Information Division and Claims Evaluation Division. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tacoma-based long-haul trucking company Interstate Distributor is sued by its drivers for failing to pay them legally required overtime wages when they drove more than 40 hours a week, The News Tribune reports. According to News Tribune, the suit, filed in Pierce County Superior Court by former driver Larry Westberry, claims that Interstate Distributor should have paid its drivers 11/2 times their normal per-mile rate when they drove more than 40 hours a week. The suit seeks to become a class action on behalf of all Interstate drivers in similar situations. The report relates that the suit was filed on Mr. Westberry's behalf by the Seattle law firm of Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong. The suit claims that Washington law, as interpreted in a 2007 state Supreme Court case, requires that drivers be paid overtime for hours worked over the normal 40 even if that time is logged out of state. The trucking industry appealed this state court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court refused to consider it. Renee Trueblood, the company's senior vice president of human resources and corporate counsel, told News Tribune that the company had just been served with the suit. "This is still very new to us. We're still evaluating it," Ms. Trueblood said. The report points out that Interstate, which provides truckload transportation services to the lower 48 states and Canada, employs some 3,200 workers. The company is owned by the McLean family. JOSEPH J. SAKER: July 16 Hearing for $6.9MM N.J. Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division: Monmouth County, will hold a fairness hearing on July 16, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the proposed $6.9-million settlement in the matter, "Alan Kahn v. Joseph J. Saker, et al., Civil Action No. C-214-06." The hearing will be held at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, Chancery Division, Hall of Records, in 1 East Main Street, Freehold, New Jersey. Case Background The case was brought as a class action suit in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to, or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties to, the public shareholders of Foodarama Supermarkets, Inc. common stock in connection with the Going-Private Transaction. Named as defendants are Joseph J. Saker, Richard J. Saker, Joseph J. Saker Jr., Thomas A. Saker, Gloria Saker, Nadine Saker Mockler, Denise Saker Marder, Richard James Saker, Joseph Saker Family Limited Partnership L.P., Charles Parton, Albert Zager, Robert Hutchins, Saker ShopRites Inc., successor in interest to Foodarama, Saker Holdings Corp., and FSM-Delaware Inc. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants violated the provisions of the New Jersey Shareholders' Protection Act. He challenged the fairness of the price paid to the public shareholders and the process employed to effect the Going- Private Transaction, and alleged that the defendants' public statements regarding the Going-Private Transaction omitted and misrepresented information necessary for Foodarama's public shareholders to decide whether to tender their shares For more details, contact: Foodarama Shareholder Litigation c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP P.O. Box 58216 Philadelphia, PA 19102-8216 Phone: 1-800-335-2852 Web site: http://www.hrsClaimsadministration.com/ NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: July 8 Hearing Set for "Summerfield" Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, will hold a fairness hearing on July 8, 2008, at 11:15 a.m. for the proposed settlement of the matter, "Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 07CH 16315." The hearing will be held at the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 West Washington St., in Chicago, Illinois, in Judge Rita M. Novak's Courtroom, Room 2402. Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before June 24, 2008. Case Background The company entered into a merger agreement on June 19, 2007, for the acquisition of Nuveen Investments, Inc. by a corporation formed by a group of investors led by Madison Dearborn, which merger will be presented to the shareholders of Nuveen Investments, Inc. for the their approval at a shareholders' meeting expected to be held in the third quarter of 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2007). The plaintiffs, shareholders of Nuveen Investments, Inc., filed the purported class action suit against the company's board of directors. The action arose out of the acquisition of Nuveen by an investor group, Windy City Investments, Inc., led by Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC. The suit alleged, inter alia, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Nuveen stockholders by improperly pursuing a sale of the company. Settlement On Sept. 4, 2007, Nuveen Investments, Inc., and other named defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, consolidated under the caption, "Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 07CH 16315." Under the terms of the MOU, Nuveen Investments, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the litigation. Nuveen Investments and the other defendants deny the allegations in the actions and deny having committed, or having aided and abetted, any breach of fiduciary duty or other violation of state or federal law in connection with the entry into the merger agreement. The settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to members of the proposed settlement class. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all claims that were or could have been brought on behalf of the proposed settlement class in the actions being settled, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. In addition, as part of the proposed settlement, the company has agreed to pay $1,000,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and expenses, subject to final approval of the settlement and such fees by the court. The merger may be consummated prior to final court approval of the settlement. For more details, contact: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. (elleng@csgrr.com) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 619-231-1058 800-449-4900 Fax: 415-288-4534 PETSMART INC: Settles Two California Labor-Related Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- PetSmart, Inc., settled two labor-related class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, according to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2008. In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in California State Court, on behalf of putative classes of current and former California employees. The first suit, "Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 3, 2006," wherein the plaintiff is a former dog groomer, alleges claims on behalf of other non-exempt hourly workers as to whether the employees received their required meal and rest breaks. The second suit, "Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 12, 2006," seeks principally to represent employees providing pet grooming services, for alleged meal and rest period violations, and to represent a class of employees whose paychecks were allegedly not compliant with the California Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the California Labor Code, restitution, attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle both of these matters for an amount which the company says will not be material to its business and has been accrued for. The parties expect to seek approval of the settlements from the court later this year. PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North America. The Company has identified a group of pet owners that the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets and consider their pets family members. PETSMART INC: Reaches Settlement for Suits Over Pet Food Recalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- PetSmart, Inc., has reached a settlement for several purported class action lawsuits arising from the pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers beginning in March 2007, according to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2008. The named plaintiffs have sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the respective jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The cases in which the company is currently a defendant are: -- "Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL," (filed 3/23/07); -- "Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN," (filed 4/9/07); -- "Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA," (filed 4/23/07); -- "Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA," (filed 4/10/07); -- "Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL," (filed 4/23/07); -- "Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO," (filed 4/11/07); -- "McBain v. Menu Foods, et al.," Judicial Centre of Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07); -- "Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al.," Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07); -- "Esau v. Menu Foods, et al.," Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07); -- "Ewasew v. MenuFoods, et al.," Supreme Court of British Colombia (filed 3/23/07 ); -- "Silva v. Menu foods, et al.," Canada Province of Manitoba (filed 3/30/07); -- "Powell v. Menu Foods, et al.," Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed 3/28/07); By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl, Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi- district litigation, under the caption, "In re Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867." The Canadian cases have not been consolidated. On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the matter, "In re: Pet food Product Liability Litigation," and the Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for court approval. The settlement, if approved by the U.S. and Canadian courts, will resolve all of these cases and would not have a material adverse impact on the company's financial statements. PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North America. The Company has identified a group of pet owners that the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets and consider their pets family members. PETSMART INC: Fla. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in "Blaszkowski" -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a motion by PetSmart, Inc., that sought the dismissal of the purported class action, "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21221-CMA." The suit was filed against companies having a combined approximate 70% of the market share in the $16-billion-a-year pet food industry (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2007). The defendants in the suit are: -- Mars Inc. -- Proctor and Gamble Co. -- Colgate Palmolive Company -- Del Monte Foods, Co. -- Nestle U.S.A. Inc. -- Nurto Procucts Inc. -- Menu Foods, Inc. -- Menu Foods Income Fund -- Publix Supermarkets, Inc. -- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. -- Pet Supermarket, Inc. -- Petsmart Inc. -- Target Corp. -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The plaintiffs -- Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia Davis -- allege that the defendant-companies have spent $300 million a year in making false and misleading marketing statements regarding the contents of their pet food to the dog and cat loving American public. While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them, plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible" slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood. The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and additives. Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed in the mix, the plaintiffs contend. The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all. The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold by any of the defendants which lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including, but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural," "balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained ingredients that were not represented in the defendants' marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never disclosed to the plaintiffs/class representatives or the class prior to purchase. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat, euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts in advertising; (b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts; (c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food products that were, including but not limited to, safe, healthy balanced and complete for pets of the plaintiffs and class members when in fact such pet food was not safe, healthy, balanced or complete; (d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food products; (e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any express warranty on these pet food products; (f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied warranty on these pet food products; (g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet its essential purpose; (h) whether defendants' intended that the products be purchased by the plaintiffs and the class members or others; (i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed the products to their pets; (k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or processing the pet food products; (l) whether the purchase and use of pet food to feed cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to the plaintiffs and the class; (m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs and the class; (n) whether the plaintiffs and the class suffered damages; (o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic substances, and was not nutritionally complete as advertised; (p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and (q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of the consumer. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ask the court: -- for an order awarding actual consequential damages; -- pursuant to Section 501.2075, $10,000 for each violation of willfully using a method, act, or practice declared unlawful under Section 501.204; -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as allowed by law; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees; -- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the court and such other relief the court deems just and proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment; -- for an order awarding punitive damages; and -- for an order granting such other and further relief as allowed by law. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2008. The defense group then filed its consolidated motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended class action complaint. The court denied this dismissal request on April 8, 2008, according to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2008. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36 The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. (cmacivor@mflegal.com) Maltzman Foreman PA 2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-1803 Phone: 305-358-6555 Fax: 374-9077 RESTORATION HARDWARE: Discovery Ongoing in Catterton Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action suit in California over the merger between Restoration Hardware, Inc. and certain affiliates of Catterton Partners, according to Restoration's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2008. On Nov. 28, 2007, a stockholder complaint was filed by Richard Hattan as a purported class action suit on behalf of all of Restoration's stockholders against: -- the company, -- each of the company's directors, -- Catterton Partners, -- Glenhill Capital LP, -- Vardon Capital Management LLC, -- Palo Alto Investors LLC, and -- Reservoir Capital Management LLC The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Marin, under Case No. CV 075563. The plaintiff amended his complaint on March 7, 2008. The plaintiff alleges that he is an owner of the company's common stock. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by pursuing a process for the sale of the Company that was not reasonably likely to maximize stockholder value. In particular, the amended complaint alleges that the directors did not deal appropriately with Sears. The amended complaint also alleges that the company's disclosures with respect to the transaction were inadequate or incomplete, rendering the disclosures materially misleading. The amended complaint alleges that the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. It seeks, among other things, to enjoin the company, its directors and the other defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and an injunction changing or supplementing the disclosures made by the company. Discovery has been proceeding in the case. On May 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to delay the vote and prohibit the closing of the merger. The motion is expected to be heard on June 11, 2008. Corte Madera, California-based Restoration Hardware, Inc. -- http://www.restorationhardware.com/-- is a specialty retailer of hardware, bathware, furniture, lighting, textiles, accessories and gifts. SHELL OIL: Reaches $1.10-Billion Settlement in "Cox" Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Shell Oil Co. has reached a $1.103-billion settlement in the matter, "Cox, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et ano., Civil Action No. 18,844," which was filed in the Chancery Court for Obion County, at Union City, Tennessee. Case Background Named plaintiff Tina M. Cox and others brought the lawsuit as a class action, alleging that, among other things, Shell Oil Co. and Hoechst Celanese Corp. supplied raw materials used by other entities in the manufacture of polybutylene plumbing. The plaintiffs further alleged that polybutylene plumbing is defective. In the suit, they sought money damages for, among other things, the cost of replacing plumbing systems and repairing property damage associated with leaks. Polybutylene Plumbing Polybutylene plumbing inside a structure (PB In-House Plumbing) is a potable water supply system containing polybutylene pipe and either acetal (plastic) or metal insert fittings (such as tees and elbows). PB pipe is a non-rigid, sometimes curved, usually gray (or possibly silver or black) plastic pipe. When used in the underground service from the water company to a structure (Yard Service Line), PB pipe is blue, gray, or black. PB pipe is not used for drains, waste, or vent pipe. "PB Plumbing" refers to both PB In-House Plumbing and Yard Service Line. It does not include yard sprinkler systems, irrigation systems, fire sprinkler systems, sewer lines, faucets, or fixtures. Insert fittings are used to join pieces of PB pipe. The insert fitting is inserted into the pipe and clamped with a metal (aluminum or copper) crimp ring over the outside of the pipe. Metal insert fittings are either copper or brass. Acetal insert fittings are hard gray or white plastic. They are not black. Insert fittings are not grabber, flare, or compression fittings which are often threaded and use a plastic or metal nut to secure the seal. Settlement Class The Settlement Class is composed of those who: -- own real property or structures in the U.S. in which there was installed between Jan. 1, 1978, and July 31, 1995, PB Plumbing with acetal insert or metal insert fittings or PB Yard Service Line; -- own or previously owned such real property or structures and have already incurred any cost or expense, by reason of leakage from, or from failure, repair, or removal of, all or any portion of such PB Plumbing which was installed between Jan. 1, 1978, and July 31, 1995; or -- will own such real property or structures during term of entitlement to relief under the Settlement. For more details, contact: Consumer Plumbing Recovery Center P.O. Box 869006 Plano, TX 75086-9006 Phone: 800-392-7591 Web site: http://www.pbpipe.com/ SOLVAY AMERICA: July 23 Hearing Set for $46M Antitrust Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on July 23, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., to consider a proposed $46,000,000 settlement by Solvay America, Solvay Chemicals Inc., and Solvay S.A. in the matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682." The hearing will be held before Judge Stewart Dalzell in Courtroom 1-B, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, at 601 Market St., in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Case Background The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are those who purchased Hydrogen Peroxide (including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in the U.S. or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from any of these defendants: -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.; -- Akzo Nobel Inc.; -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf Atochem North America, Inc.); -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem S.A.); -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.); -- Degussa Corporation; -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.; -- FMC Corporation; -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.; -- Kemira Oyj; -- Solvay America; -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.; -- Solvay S.A.; and -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.). In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007). The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs from the defendants. For more details, contact: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation Settlement Administrator c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP P.O. Box 58309 Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309 Phone: 1-800-252-5745 http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/ Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com Web site: http://www.cmht.com/ - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. (rkaplan@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 805 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 800-290-1952 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/ SPRINT SPECTRUM: Sued Over Phones Incompatible with Network ----------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Spectrum LP, doing business as Sprint PCS Group, and SprintCom, Inc., are facing a class-action complaint filed on June 4, 2008, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff David Welles asserts claims for common law fraud and brings this action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., and the consumer fraud acts of each state in which either defendant does business. The complaint claims that after selling cell phones that are incompatible with its network, Sprint PCS failed to inform customers that a software upgrade could reduce their dropped calls and offered a monetary settlement and upgrade only if customers discovered the problem and its solution themselves, and demanded it. The plaintiff seeks class-wide relief for Sprint's failure to disclose to its customers the proper remedy for avoiding dropped calls -- calls that are involuntarily disconnected by the Sprint network. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 on behalf of all persons in Illinois, who entered into a service agreement with Sprint for personal communications services, selected a telephone that qualified for software upgrades, and experienced dropped calls. The plaintiff prays: -- that the court adjudge and decree that the present case may be properly maintained as a class action and appoint Bock & Hatch, LLC as class counsel; -- that the court award plaintiff and members of the class damages, injunctive relief plus pre-judgment and post- judgment interest; -- that the court award plaintiff and members of the class punitive damages, attorney fees and costs; and -- that the court award such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "David Welles, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum, LP et al., Case No. 08CH20123," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Representing the plaintiff are: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. Bock & Hatch, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-658-5500 Fax: 312-658-5555 USA MERCHANT: Faces Texas Suit Over Internet-Based Businesses ------------------------------------------------------------- USA Merchant Systems, A-1 Leasing, and StartUp Essentials are facing a class-action complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the companies cheat customers by claiming they can help them set up and run Internet-based businesses, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who were solicited by any of the Harris Companies and entered into a Lease with A-1. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: a. whether all defendants violated Tex. Bus. Comm. Code Section 17.41, et seq., by engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices; b. whether Bond Corporation is the alter ego of A-1; c. whether James One LP is the alter ego of USA Card and StartUp LLC; and d. whether Harris is liable for fraudulent transfers. The plaintiff prays that: -- the court certify the requested class, designate the plaintiff as representative of the class and Texas Subclass, and plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel for the class; -- the court award damages and treble damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; -- the court award declaratory and injunctive relief as specified; -- the plaintiff recover costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; -- the court award pre- and post-judgment interest; and -- cuch other and further relief as the court may deem necessary or appropriate. The suit is "Sharon Hubbard, et al. v. USA Merchant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08cv304," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Representing the plaintiff are: Stephen L. Hubbard, Esq. (slhubbard@hblawfirm.com) Robert W. Biederman, Esq. (rwbiederman@hblawfirm.com) David M. Grossman, Esq. (dmgrossman@hblawfirm.com) Hubbard & Biederman, LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 4700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-857-6000 Fax: 214-857-6001 VERISIGN INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- VeriSign, Inc., settled a purported consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California and accuses it of false and misleading advertisement with regard to the company's Internet-security software. On Feb. 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP, filed a putative class action suit in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the unfair competition laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment relating to the company's Secure Site Pro SSL certificates. The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 up to the present. On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and class notice was issued on May 21, 2007. In March 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks worldwide. VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gambling Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- VeriSign, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported consumer fraud class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged gambling laws violation by the company in its promotion of the "Deal Or No Deal" show. Also named defendants in the complaint are: -- Endemol USA, -- Verisign, Inc., -- M-Qube, Inc., and -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc. Named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million grand prize (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2007). At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold briefcase. The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to reveal that night's "Lucy Case." The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal gambling: consideration, chance and prize. Viewers of the program enter the promotion via text message for which they incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet. Potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random, and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes. The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show, plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against gambling. The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as follows: (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which offers the "Lucky Case Game"; (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its rules and conditions; (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which offers the "Lucky Case Game"; (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal"; (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the "Lucky Case Game"; (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message entries to the "Lucky Case Game"; (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by entrants in the promotion; (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the promotion; (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly select and contact the potential prize winner amongst the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case"; (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to winning entrants; and (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky Case Game." The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and as a representative of a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game," and who did not win a prize. The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual capacities, and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or incurred premium text message charges in connection with entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won any prize. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: 1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal gambling; 2. the extent of each defendants' participation in conducting the promotion; 3. whether defendants' conduct violated California Business and Professions Section 17200; 4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately caused injury to plaintiffs and the class; 5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages, restitution, disgorgement, or other monetary remedies; 6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws ch. 137, Section 1: 7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover the amount of premium text messages paid to enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and 8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing the "Lucky Case Game." The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying the class; -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution; -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages; -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages; -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion; -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling; -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the class as may be just and proper; and -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper. On Aug. 15, 2007, VeriSign filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07 3537FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com) 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Phone: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 William A. Pannell, Esq. (billpannell@mindspring.com) William A. Pannell, P.C. 3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404-353-2283 - and - Kevin T. Moore, Esq. (kaw30328@aol.com) Kevin T. Moore, P.C. 6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E. Building C, Suite 201 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 770-396-3622 WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Lawsuit in D.C. Over Alleged Bid Rigging ------------------------------------------------------------- Wachovia Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed on June 4, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging it conspired with 33 other banks to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers for municipal derivatives, CourtHouse News Service reports. The other defendants in the suit are: -- AIG Financial Products Corp.; -- Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; -- Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd.; -- Financial Security Assurance, Inc.; -- Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.; -- Trinity Funding Co. LLC; -- GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc.; -- Genworth Financial Inc.; -- Natixis SA; -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.; -- Piper Jaffrey & Co.; -- Societe Generale SA; -- AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.; -- UBS AG; -- Security Capital Assurance Inc.; -- XL Asset Funding Co. I, LLC; -- XL Life Insurance & Annuity Co.; -- Lehman Brothers Inc.; -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; -- Morgan Stanley; -- National Westminster Bank PLC; -- Natixis Funding Corp.; -- Investment Management Advisory Group, Inc.; -- CDR Financial Products; -- Feld Winters Financial LLC; -- Winters & Co. Advisors, LLC; -- First Southwest Co.; -- George K. Baum & Co.; -- Kinsell Newcomb & De Dios Inc.; -- PackerKiss Securities, Inc.; -- Shockley Financial Corp.; and -- Sound Capital Management, Inc. Lead plaintiff Central Bucks School District sued Bank of America separately because it is cooperating with the federal investigation. "This lawsuit arises out of an illegal agreement, understanding and conspiracy among providers and brokers of municipal derivatives to not compete and to rig bids for municipal derivatives sold to issuers of municipal bonds," the Wachovia complaint states. "The illegal agreement, understanding and conspiracy is based on per se illegal horizontal communications and conduct among providers of municipal derivatives. These providers have engaged in communications facilitating and conduct restraining competition such as rigging of bids, secret compensation of losing bidders, courtesy bids, deliberately losing bids, and agreements not to bid. Brokers have knowingly participated in this per se illegal conspiracy to limit competition by facilitating indirect communications among providers and have shared the wrongful profits form the illegal agreement to restrain competition." The plaintiff brings this action under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all state, local and municipal government entities, independent government agencies and private entities that purchased by competitive biding or auction Municipal Derivatives directly from the provider-defendant or Bank America, or through the broker-defendant, at any time from Jan. 1, 1992, through the present in the United States and its territories or for delivery in the United States and its territories. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, maintain or stabilize prices, and rig bids and allocate customers and markets of Municipal Derivatives; (b) the identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy; (c) the duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts carried out by defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1; (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co- conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused injury to the business or property of the plaintiff and the other members of the class; (f) the effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of Municipal Derivatives sold in the United States during the class period; (g) whether defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed the conspiracy's existence from the plaintiff and the other members of the class; and (h) the appropriate class-wide measure of damages. The plaintiff pray that: -- the court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-conspirators, be adjudged to have been per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1; -- judgment be entered for plaintiff and members of the class against defendants for treble damages sustained by plaintiff and the members of the class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- plaintiff and the class be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the complaint to the extent provided by law; and -- plaintiff and members of the class have such other, further or different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Central Bucks School District, et al. v. Wachovia Bank NA, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00956," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Representing the plaintiff are: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Richard A. Koffman, Esq. Megan E. Jones, Esq. Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 YAHOO!: Shareholder Suit Over Failed Microsoft Takeover Unsealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delaware Chancery Court Judge William Chandler unsealed a shareholder class action lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ:YOO) over its failed takeover talks with Microsoft Corp., New Mexico Business Weekly reports. Judge Chandler, in his ruling, said that the Sunnyvale, Calif.- based Yahoo! did not show good cause for keeping the suit sealed, the report relates. The suit alleges that Yahoo mishandled a $47.5-billion buyout attempt by Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT). It was commenced by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, which represents investors in the case. The Class Action Reporter reported on March 4, 2008, that since Feb. 11, 2008, three separate shareholder lawsuits have been filed against Yahoo! and the members of its board of directors. The three plaintiff groups are: 1. The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, 2. Ronald Dicke, and 3. The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The General Retirement System of the City of Detroit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert class claims on behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates. The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants -- most specifically Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang and co- founder David Filo -- breached fiduciary duties by rejecting Microsoft's Feb. 1, 2008 unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo! without fully informing them whether Microsoft would offer additional consideration and that the defendants are not acting in the best interests of shareholders and are seeking to entrench themselves. One of the Delaware Lawsuits alleges that the Board of Directors have pursued various blocking transactions, adopted an employee severance plan, and a shareholder rights plan in violation of fiduciary duties. The complaints in the Delaware Lawsuits seek unspecified damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On March 5, 2008, Chancellor Chandler entered an Order of Consolidation appointing co-lead counsel, consolidating the actions previously filed in the Court of Chancery, and designating the complaint filed by the Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and the General Retirement System of the City of Detroit as the operative complaint. On March 12, 2008, Chancellor Chandler entered an Amended Order of Consolidation providing that any future cases arising from the same facts will be consolidated as part of the Detroit Funds' consolidated class action. Business Weekly relates that, according to Bernstein Litowitz, Microsoft attempted to initiate merger discussions in late 2006 and early 2007, but was rebuffed, supposedly so Yahoo!'s management could implement existing strategic plans. None of those initiatives improved Yahoo!'s performance. On Feb. 1, 2008, over a year after its initial approach, Microsoft returned, offering to acquire Yahoo! for $31 per share, representing a 62% premium above the $19.18 closing price of the company's stock on Jan. 31, 2008. The law firm added that rather than consider Microsoft's offer in good faith, "Yahoo's board took various steps to defend against Microsoft, destroying or threatening to destroy shareholder value in the process . . . on May 3, 2008, Microsoft withdrew its bid, causing Yahoo's stock to plummet when markets reopened." New Securities Fraud Cases FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a class action suit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of individuals who purchased the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund within three years of the filing of this lawsuit, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company (FMR Co.) and certain related entities, among others, with violations of the Securities Act. FMR Co. is the investment advisor to the entire group of mutual funds under the Fidelity name. On or about August 23, 2002, defendants began offering shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund pursuant to an initial registration statement, filed with the SEC as a Form 485BPOS. The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund by making statements that described the Fund as a fund that: (i) seeks a high level of current income consistent with the preservation of capital; (ii) allocates its assets across different market sectors and maturities; (iii) has a similar overall interest rate risk to the Lehman Brothers(R) 6 Month Swap Index; and (iv) is geared toward the preservation of capital. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants did not adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund, including, for example, that the Fund was: (i) failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers(R) 6 Month Swap Index; and (ii) so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-backed securities. By June 11, 2007, defendants slowly began lowering the value of the share price for the Ultra-Short Bond Fund. Since then, the value of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund's share price has been precipitously lowered. By November 15, 2007, the value of the per-share price was reduced below $9. The shares were trading as low as $8.25 as of the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the shares of the Fund within three years of the filing of this lawsuit. 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 HEALTHWAYS INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Tennessee Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Healthways, Inc. common stock during the period between October 17, 2007, and February 26, 2008. The complaint charges Healthways and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Healthways provides disease management and wellness programs for health plans, hospitals and small businesses, helping members with diabetes, cancer and other diseases to coordinate care, keep up with treatment and maintain healthy behaviors. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects. According to the complaint, starting in 2005, Healthways, along with four other companies, became involved in the Medicare Health Support pilot program launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The MHS program was designed to improve quality of care and life for people with multiple chronic conditions, and to help the Medicare program and its beneficiaries save money. Under the plan's first three-year phase, patients were tracked to evaluate care, satisfaction and whether the plan achieved savings targets. Based on those results, CMS would decide whether to expand the program to a second phase. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Healthways failed to disclose that: (i) Healthways was not meeting the savings targets, among other requirements, set by CMS. As a result of Healthways' failure, CMS would not expand the MHS program to a second phase and the Company would be required to reimburse CMS for the fees they had already received through the program; (ii) Healthways was in danger of losing at least two existing contracts and was experiencing slower enrollment in an existing contract due to a decline in the need for the Company's services; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company had no reasonable basis for its revenues and earnings guidance for fiscal 2008. Then, on February 26, 2008, the Company announced that it was lowering its financial guidance for fiscal 2008 "due to slower- than-projected enrollment in a new Health Support program with one large health plan customer and the recent indication that two previously anticipated contracts will not materialize during this fiscal year." On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $13.42 per share, or approximately 30%, to close at $31.93 per share, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Healthways common stock during the Class Period. 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 JP MORGAN CHASE: Curtis Trinko Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, has commenced a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Auction Rate Securities from JP Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., between May 16, 2003, and February 1, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceptively offering for sale Action Rate Securities, and represented to investors that these securities were the equivalent of cash or money-market substitutes, and other short term investments that were highly liquid and could be purchased with a minimum investment of $25,000. Defendants were deceptive in that they failed to disclose to consumers that auction rate securities are long-term financial instruments with maturities of 30 years to perpetuity, and that such securities were only liquid due to Defendants and other broker-dealers creating an artificial market for auction rate securities by manipulating the auction process. On or about February 13, 2008, Defendants and other major broker-dealers withdrew their support of these securities, causing holders of auction rate securities offered by the defendants as being highly-liquid investments to be left with no means of liquidating their holdings. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com) Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-490-9550 Fax: 212-986-0158 NEXCEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of NexCen Brands, Inc., from May 10, 2007, through May 19, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges NexCen and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NexCen acquires and manages global brands, generating revenue through licensing and franchising. They currently own and license the Bill Blass and Waverly brands, as well as seven franchised brands. Two franchised brands -- The Athlete's Foot and Shoebox New York -- sell retail footwear and accessories. Five are quick-service restaurants -- Marble Slab Creamery, MaggieMoo's, Pretzel Time, Pretzelmaker, and Great American Cookies. 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 in order to finance its Great American Cookies acquisition, the Company agreed to an accelerated- redemption feature, which forced the Company to pay back half of the amount borrowed by a particular date; (2) that the Company could not comply with the accelerated- redemption feature; (3) that as a result, the Company would suffer a reduction in the amount of cash at its disposal; (4) that the Company was experiencing a continuous weakening in its financial condition due to its debt; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well- being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On May 19, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that its recently filed 10-K did not take into account factors that significantly changed the amount of cash available to the Company for general use. Such factors included the accelerated- redemption feature of its bank credit facility, in connection with the Company's acquisition of Great American Cookies. Moreover, the Company stated that there was substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The Company stated that it would undergo an independent review in order to make a determination. Finally, the Company announced that its prior financial guidance for 2008 was no longer applicable. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $1.95 per share, or 77.08 percent, to close on May 19, 2008, at $0.58 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 28, 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 TRM CORP: Stoll Berne Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Oregon -------------------------------------------------------------- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of TRM Corporation common stock during the period between March 16, 2006, and May 22, 2007. The complaint charges TRM and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides convenience ATM services to consumers in retail environments in the United States. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued positive statements about the Company's financial health and performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose: (a) that the Company's financial results were artificially inflated due to the failure to timely write down certain assets, which were materially overvalued in the Company's financial statements; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and procedures necessary to ascertain its true financial condition and worth; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to continue its operations and remain a going-concern was in serious doubt. At the end of the Class Period, the Company provided investors with details about the progress of its restructuring plan and announced new management positions. Following this disclosure, shares of the Company's stock declined dramatically. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of TRM common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from May 23, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gary M. Berne, Esq. (gberne@stollberne.com) David Rees, Esq. (drees@stollberne.com) Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Sclachter 209 SouthWest Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-227-1600 WALGREEN CO: Stull & Brody Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walgreen Co. between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Walgreen was experiencing a steady decline in the growth of its core business -- filling retail drug prescriptions. Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for the Company's generic prescription business and misled investors concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Walgreen's public shareholders, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest third-party providers of prescription drug benefits -- CVS Caremark. During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's reimbursement rates for a number of prescription drug plans located primarily in the upper Midwestern U.S., which were negatively impacting the Company's earnings. On October 1, 2007, prior to the market opening, Walgreen issued a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2006. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported net income $0.40 per share -- far below analysts' earnings expectations of $0.47 per share. In response to the announcement, the price of Walgreen stock declined from $47.00 per share to $39.96 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Then on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "[a]fter many months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement rates for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a pharmacy from the plans. Following this announcement, shares of Walgreen common stock declined to a new three-year low of $36.59 per share at the close of trading on November 30, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Walgreen's common stock during the Class Period, which is between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007. For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 ********* 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 S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F. Dy, and Peter A. 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 * * *