/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080715.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 139 Headlines ANB FINANCIAL: Ex-Directors Face Mismanagement Suit in Arkansas BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Auction Rate Suit Awaits Certification BAYER AG: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for $18.5MM N.Y. Suit Settlement CHAMPION PARTS: Faces Insurance Claim Lawsuit by Employees CHIRON CORP: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $30MM Calif. Suit Settlement EDSCHA AG: Faces Lawsuit Over Lifetime Retiree Medical Insurance EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Faces Royalties Lawsuit in Kentucky FIRST DATABANK: Reaches $1M Settlement in Massachusetts AWP Suit FRANKLIN BANK: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Aug. 5 FREDDIE MAC: Initial Distribution of $410MM Settlement Begins ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Land Payments INDIANA: Elected Township Assessor Files Lawsuit Over Abolition INDIANA: Judge Says State Law vs. Sex Offenders Unconstitutional INDYMAC BANCORP: Federal Seizure Will Not Impede Investor Suit INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles 2006 Derivative Suit in California JP MORGAN: Ill. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary OK NEXCEN BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is July 28 OHIO: Lawyers Seeks Class Certification for Suit Over Trash Fees OIL COMPANIES: Lawsuit in Ontario Over Gas Pumps Looms PARMALAT: Court Clarifies Settlement Class in Securities Suit PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles R&G-Related Suit for $12 Million SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling in Early-Termination Fees Suit SUFFOLK CORRECTION HOUSE: Toilet Access Suit Allowed to Proceed SUN LIFE: Judge Awards $4,000 to Plaintiff in Insurance Case VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Early-Termination Fees Suits for $21MM New Securities Fraud Cases FIMALAC SA: Howard Smith Files New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Brualdi Law Files California Securities Suit MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit SSGA YIELD: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass. WACHOVIA CORP: Howard Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ANB FINANCIAL: Ex-Directors Face Mismanagement Suit in Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- Seven former directors of ANB Financial NA are facing a purported class action lawsuit before the Benton County Circuit Court in Arkansas, Worth Sparkman writes for Arkansas Business Online. The suit, which is seeking class action status, was filed by Benton County resident Ralph Clift on July 10, 2008. Mr. Clift is represented in the matter by Paul Byrd, Esq., of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton LLP. The suit claims that ANB was closed by regulators on May 9, 2008, due to negligent mismanagement by the directors. The directors named in the suit are: -- Charles Brannan, -- Eric Brown, -- Harry Brown, -- Dan Dykema, -- Blake Evans, -- Vick Evans, and -- Deborah Jackson. Arkansas Business notes that in a statement issued by the firm, Mr. Byrd wrote "[The] filing is based on our belief that the defendants negligently managed the bank's assets, including monies on deposit from bank customers. By failing to properly manage ANB's deposits, monies and assets, the defendants did not exercise prudence in their banking practices." Mr. Byrd further wrote, "It is our belief that as many as 75 percent of ANB's loans were in construction and development, which is an unreasonably high percentage of their loan portfolio to be committed to those types of projects. It appears that most of the financial problems that led to ANB's closure are the result of loans in commercial real estate and construction loans made in Arkansas, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming." He adds, "This type of negligence and mismanagement of the bank's monies, deposits, investments, and assets by ANB's leadership has directly resulted in an incredible monetary loss to the people we are representing in this case." For more details, contact: Paul Byrd, Esq. Metropolitan National Plaza 4220 N. Rodney Parham Rd., Suite 250 Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 501-225-5500 877-225-6312 Fax: 501-225-5501 Web site: http://www.hwnn.com/ BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Auction Rate Suit Awaits Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Two class action lawsuits filed against Bank of America, Banc of American Investment Services, and Banc of America Securities are awaiting class certification by the federal court. The cases are "Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, No. 08-CV- 2599, No. 08-2599 (N.D. Calif.)" and "Bearnman v. Bank of America Corporation, No. 08-CV-115 (S.D. Calif.)." Both of the class action complaints allege that Bank of America deceived investors about the suitability, safety and liquidity of auction rate securities. If certified by the courts, members of the two class actions could include any Bank of America customer who purchased and continued to hold auction rate securities. The two class actions cover ARS purchases made between May 2003 and February 2008. For millions of consumers, participating in a class action is an almost effortless process. Class members are seldom required to do much more than submit a proof of claim and wait for their share of the recovery. The primary disadvantage is that, even though class action settlements can be considerable, they must be distributed to a large class of customers. As a result, individual recoveries are relatively small. Another option that is frequently overlooked is "opting out" of the class action and pursuing an independent claim. Customers who decide to opt out of a class action usually have a very short window of time in which to notify the court of their election to opt out. "Customers that have suffered substantial investment losses could recover significantly more by pursuing their own private claim," says Brett Alcala, Esq., a San Mateo, California attorney who specializes in representing investors in securities arbitration claims. For example, Mr. Alcala obtained a $60,000 arbitration award for a SmithBarney customer who elected to "opt out" of a class action settlement that involved SmithBarney's Guided Portfolio Management services. According to Mr. Alcala, "had his client simply participated in the class action, she would have recovered only a small fraction of her actual damages." Mr. Alcala cautions, however, that only customers that can prove that their financial advisor put them in inappropriate investments given the customer's age or risk tolerance will fare better in arbitration. Mr. Alcala is representing a customer who is pursuing an arbitration claim against Bank of America Investment Services in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities to finance student loans. To contact Mr. Alcala: Brett A. Alcala, Esq. Alcala Law Firm 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: 650-343-4424 BAYER AG: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for $18.5MM N.Y. Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 26, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., to consider final approval of the proposed $18,500,000 settlement by Bayer AG in the matter "In re Bayer AG Securities Litigation, Case No. 03 CV 1546 (WHP)." The hearing will be held before Judge William H. Pauley, III, at Courtroom 11D of the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in New York, New York. Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made by Aug. 20, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on Nov. 25, 2008. Case Background The class includes all persons or entities who or which from Aug. 4, 2000, through and including Feb. 21, 2003: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares of Bayer AG on the U.S. over-the-counter market or Purchased American Depository Receipts of Bayer AG on the New York Stock Exchange, regardless of the purchaser's country of residence at the time of purchase; or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares or ADRs of Bayer AG on any other stock exchange and the purchaser, or beneficial owner, was a resident or citizen of the United States at the time of purchase. The second amended complaint in this case alleged that from Aug. 4, 2000, to Aug. 8, 2001, the defendants publicly misrepresented the prospects for Bayer's cholesterol-lowering drug, Baycol, while failing to disclose serious health risks, which led Bayer to withdraw Baycol on Aug. 8, 2001. The lead plaintiff also alleged that from Aug. 8, 2001, to Feb. 21, 2003, Bayer misrepresented its prior knowledge of Baycol's dangers and understated its potential liability for claims from users and purchasers of Baycol. The lead plaintiff claimed that as a result of these alleged material misrepresentations and omissions, the market price of Bayer securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. The lead plaintiff further alleged that the market price for Bayer securities fell following publication of an article in the New York Times concerning Baycol on Feb. 22, 2003, causing investors to incur losses due to violations of the federal securities laws. The parties eventually agreed to settle the suit. For more details, contact: Bayer AG Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Analytics, Incorporated Claims Administrator P.O. Box 2003 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2003 Phone: 1-877-797-5732 Web site: http://www.bayeragsecuritieslitigation.com CHAMPION PARTS: Faces Insurance Claim Lawsuit by Employees ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Texarkana for recovery of insurance benefits from the former owners of Champion Parts, Inc., and the company's insurance claims service, Ken McLemore writes for Hope Star Online. The lawsuit names two corporate defendants: Champion Parts, Inc., and its predecessors, and Ceridian Corp. -- doing business as Ceridian Benefits Services. The defendant-companies have been served with a notice of the lawsuit through registered agents. The suit also names as individual defendants Raymond G. Perelman, W. Jason Guzek, and Barry L. Katz, who have each waived the legal requirement for service notice. According to Hope Star, the plaintiffs were required by the court to file affidavit of service of lawsuit notices to the defendants within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint for the lawsuit to remain before the court without otherwise showing good cause for dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each defendant was also required to file an original answer to the complaint. The lawsuit, filed by four Champion Parts employees in April, seeks federal class action status in its claim against Messrs. Perelman, Guzek, and Katz for failing to have insurance premium payments forwarded to Ceridian. The suit also alleges that both the owners and Ceridian failed to warn or notify Champion employees of the fact in violation of federal fiduciary responsibilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. Mr. Perelman, was chairman of Champion's board of directors, and beneficially owned about 35.5% of Champion's stock through his control of RGP Holding, Inc., which had control of the 1.29 million shares of stock that it represents, Hope Star notes, citing Champion's Dec. 31, 2006 Form 10-K filing before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Guzek became chief executive officer of Champion on June 13, 2007, and at that time was a vice president of RGP Holding, and had served as a director of Champion at Mr. Perelman's request since 2003, the company's June 13, 2007 Form 8-K filing before the SEC stated. Meanwhile, Mr. Katz was senior vice president of Champion from Dec. 16, 1992, to Jan. 19, 1993, and he became president and general counsel for RGP Holding in 1993, and served as a director of Champion at Mr. Perelman's request, according to the 2006 SEC filing. Alleging that none of the plaintiffs or other such class members were warned or informed of the changes, the lawsuit seeks certification of all affected Champion employees as an eligible class to recover the insurance benefits, the report says. The lawsuit further alleges a liability of the company and its owners of $110 per day to each class member since the violations allegedly occurred in August 2007. It also asserts a liability of the company and its owners for medical bills incurred that would have been paid under COBRA, as well as future medical bills that would have been paid under COBRA. Aside from class status, the complaint asks the court to appoint plaintiffs Gene Leslie, James Shepard, and Buckley and Tammy Nichols as representatives of the class. It also seeks an order of payment for medical expenses incurred in the past, that will be incurred in the future, and all other benefits under the health care benefit program to which the class is entitled, as well as benefits due the COBRA subclass and an order finding that the company and its owners breached fiduciary duties under ERISA and are liable to the plan, its participants and beneficiaries. Moreover, the suit wants the court to order restitution of all damages suffered by the Plan and its participants, to award prejudgment interest, and to award attorneys' fees, civil penalties, costs and other appropriate relief. The report relates that Champion declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in 2007, and in later converted that filing to Chapter 7. The company's assets were sold to a California-based holding company, which has since sought to restructure Champion under the new ownership. CHIRON CORP: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $30MM Calif. Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 2, 2008, at 100:00 a.m., to consider final approval of the proposed $30,000,000 settlement by Chiron Corp, now known as Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., in the matter, "Richard Gregory, et al. v. Chiron Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-CV-04293." Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made by Aug. 18, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on Nov. 1, 2008. Between October 2004 and December 2004, five securities class action complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of Chiron securities for class periods ranging from July 23, 2003, through Oct. 13, 2004. The suits named the company and certain of its officers as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008). Four of the suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. One complaint was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to join the other suits. In March 2005, the Court named a lead counsel and lead plaintiff, who, in April 2005, filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements from July 23, 2003, through Oct. 5, 2004, concerning the amount of FLUVIRIN vaccine that the company projected to produce and its historical and forecasted financial results. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief from all defendants. The parties subsequently agreed to resolve the case and reached a settlement deal. For more details, contact: In re Chiron Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator Post Office Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Phone: 800-447-7657 Web site: http://www.chironlitigation.com/ The suit is "Richard Gregory, et al. v. Chiron Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-CV-04293," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. (jwesterman@milberg.com) Milberg Weiss LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-617-1200 Fax: 213-617-1975 - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 Representing the defendants is: Amy S. Park, Esq. (apark@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Palo Alto, California 94301 Phone: 650-470-4500 Fax: 650-470-4570 EDSCHA AG: Faces Lawsuit Over Lifetime Retiree Medical Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Pitt McGehee Palmer Rivers & Golden has filed a class action lawsuit in a District Court in Michigan alleging the company used deception and other unlawful tactics to keep eligible employees at the Jackson plant from receiving their lifetime retiree medical insurance, The Flint Journal-MLive.com reports. The firm filed the suit on behalf of 27 former long-time employees at the company, which made automotive door hinges, convertible roof systems and driver controls. "Some had been there since the 70s and this is what they were counting on," Beth Rivers, Esq., a partner at the law firm, said. Edscha AG -- http://www.edscha.com/-- is engaged in products and components for vehicle manufacturers. The company primarily operates in Germany and has a presence in Asia, Europe and the US. It is headquartered in Remscheid, Germany and employs about 6,460 people. EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Faces Royalties Lawsuit in Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------- Equitable Production Co. is facing a purported class action lawsuit in Kentucky over claims that the company has underpaid royalties to landowners by more than $5 million, Russ Cassady of The Appalachian News-Express reports. The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by Appalachian Land Co. on July 8, 2008. It specifically claims that the natural gas producer has been incorrectly paying the required royalties to landowners from which it leases. According to the lawsuit, Equitable is obligated, under lease, to pay royalties of one-eighth of the market price at the well of all gas produced on the lessor's land, and are allowed to include severance taxes in the market price. However, the lawsuit pointed out that neither marketing or production costs nor the severance taxes are permitted to be subtracted from the market price before calculating the royalties. The lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by Appalachian News- Express, states, "Equitable has breached its obligations under the Oil and Gas Leases, because in calculating and paying royalties to (Appalachian Land Company and the others involved in the class action), it has deducted from the market price at the well, severance taxes and, moreover, it has subtracted from the market price at the well, costs of producing and marketing gas." Due to those subtractions, Equitable has used an "artificially low price" and it failed to pay Appalachian Land Co., and the others the royalties to which they were entitled, according to the suit. The suit further states that the amount of royalties owed exceeds $5 million, and that there are at least 150 entities that have not been paid full royalties because of Equitable's actions. Appalachian News-Express notes that the lawsuit is asking for damages and prejudgment interest. The suit is "Appalachian Land Company v. Equitable Production Company, Case No. 7:08-cv-00139-KKC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. (abarnett20@hotmail.com) 144 W. 72nd Street, #3D New York, NY 10023 Phone: 212-362-6174 Fax: 917-591-5227 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. (gmason@masonlawdc.com) The Mason Law Firm 1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-429-2290 Fax: 202-429-2294 FIRST DATABANK: Reaches $1M Settlement in Massachusetts AWP Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- First DataBank has agreed to pay $1 million to settle a purported class action lawsuit over allegations that it conspired with McKesson Corp. to manipulate the average wholesale price (AWP) of drugs, according to FDAnews Drug Daily Bulletin. On June 2, 2005, a civil class action complaint was filed against FDB and McKesson Corp. before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The named plaintiffs were several health benefit plans (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2008). The complaint alleges that in late 2001 and early 2002, McKesson and co-defendant FDB conspired to improperly raise the published AWP of certain prescription drugs, and that this alleged conduct resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of third party payors who paid any portion of the price of certain prescription drugs based upon the AWPs published by FDB during the period Jan. 1, 2002, to March 15, 2005. The complaint also asserts claims against the company based on the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c); California's Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500, and common law civil conspiracy, and seeks injunctive relief, as well as actual, punitive and treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, in an unspecified amount. The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com) Barret Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601 Phone: 615-244-2202 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101-1090 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 Representing the defendants are: Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbaum@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: 212-735-3000 Fax: 212-735-2000 - and - James P. Bennett, Esq. (jbennett@mofo.com) Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94107-2406 Phone: 415-268-7000 Fax: 415-268-7522 FRANKLIN BANK: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Aug. 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced an August 5, 2008 deadline for interested parties to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common or preferred stock of Franklin Bank Corp. between April 26, 2007, and May 1, 2008. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Franklin Bank's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Franklin Bank stock. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ FREDDIE MAC: Initial Distribution of $410MM Settlement Begins ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered an initial distribution of the $410,000,000 settlement in the matter, "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System Of Ohio, et al. v. Freddie Mac f.k.a. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Leland C. Brendsel, Vaughn A. Clarke, David W. Glenn, and Gregory J. Parseghian, MDL-1584, Lead Case No. 03-CV-4261 (JES)." The case covers all persons and entities that purchased shares of common stock of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation during the period from July 15, 1999, through and including Nov. 20, 2003. Freddie Mac announced on Jan. 22, 2003, that it would need to restate certain of its previously issued financial statements. The Securities Action stems from: -- Freddie Mac's announcement on June 9, 2003, reporting the retirement, resignation or termination of Freddie Mac's three top executive officers, and -- alleged misapplications of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and employee misconduct. On June 9, 2003, the price of Freddie Mac's common stock dropped to $50.26 per share, from a class period high of $70.79 per share. On Nov. 21, 2003, Freddie Mac announced the final results of the restatement of its financial statements for 2000, 2001 and 2002, revealing, among other things, that Freddie Mac had overstated its net income for 2001 by approximately $1.4 billion, and that the net cumulative effect of the restatement through December 31, 2002, was an increase to the company's net income of $5 billion. Multiple securities class action complaints were filed against Freddie Mac and certain of its officers alleging that the Securities Defendants knowingly or recklessly made misstatements concerning Freddie Mac's reported financial results in order to artificially inflate the price of its common stock. Several shareholder derivative actions were also filed alleging that Derivative Defendants had breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in corporate waste and were unjustly enriched. On Jan. 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint for violation of the Federal Securities Laws alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by knowingly or recklessly making materially false and misleading statements regarding Freddie Mac's financial results in press releases, analysts' conference calls and public financial reports during the Class period to artificially inflate the value of Freddie Mac common stock, thus causing damages to Lead Securities Plaintiffs and the other Class Members who purchased Freddie Mac common stock during the Class period. By Order dated March 17, 2004, the court consolidated the securities cases into the Securities Action, appointed Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiffs, and approved Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. as lead counsel and Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann LLP, and Barrett & Weber, L.P.A. as co-lead counsel. On April 1, 2004, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims asserted against them in the Securities Action. The Lead Securities Plaintiffs opposed that motion. Oral Argument was held on July 19, 2004, and, by Order dated July 19, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The lead securities plaintiffs then conducted extensive discovery in the Securities Action. The lead securities counsel requested or subpoenaed documents from 47 persons or entities, including all defendants, the previous and current auditors of Freddie Mac, and numerous counter-parties to transactions with Freddie Mac. The Lead Securities Plaintiffs moved for class certification on June 15, 2005, and oral argument was heard on March 31, 2006. By order dated April 4, 2006, the court granted the Lead Securities Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but adopted the position as to class definition advanced by Freddie Mac in its papers in response to the motion, and certified the Securities Action to proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Freddie Mac common stock during the period from July 15, 1999, through and including November 20, 2003, and who allegedly were damaged thereby (excluding the Securities Defendants and certain other persons), and certifying the Lead Securities Plaintiffs as the class representatives. In Oct. 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York scheduled an Oct. 26, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed $410,000,000 settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006). Pursuant to the Court's Order dated May 23, 2008, an initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund in the Freddie Mac securities litigation class action recently has been made to all Class Members who qualified as Authorized Claimants. The suit is "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System Of Ohio, et al. v. Freddie Mac f.k.a. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Leland C. Brendsel, Vaughn A. Clarke, David W. Glenn, and Gregory J. Parseghian, MDL-1584, Lead Case No. 03-CV-4261 (JES)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John E. Sprizzo, presiding. For more details, contact: Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. (schesley@wsbclaw.com) James R. Cummins, Esq. (jcummins@wsbclaw.com) Melanie S. Corwin, Esq. (mcorwin@wsbclaw.com) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-0267 Fax: 513-621-0262 Max W. Berger, Esq. (max@blbglaw.com) Darnley D. Stewart, Esq. (darnley@blbglaw.com) Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq. (jeffl@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-554-1400 Fax: 212-554-1444 - and - Freddie Mac Securities Litigation Settlement c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 9078 Dublin, OH 43017-0978 Phone: 1-800-460-3971 e-mail: http://www.gardencitygroup.com ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Land Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Illinois Central Railroad, now part of Canadian National Railway Co., settled a 16-year-old class-action lawsuit over payments it received from land it did not own, Janeen Burkholder of The Clinton Daily Journal reports. The suit was filed in 1992 by Darrell A. Woolums, Esq., of Decatur, Illinois, who represented some 400 claimants including individuals, agencies and municipalities along the ICC line from Freeport to Centralia who paid the railroad for land it didn't own. The railroad had received the land free through a federal land grant, according to The Clinton Daily Journal. Specifically, the case stemmed from a discrepancy that Mr. Woolums discovered while serving as attorney for the city of Maroa. Mr. Woolums said that the claimants will share a total of $5,805,000. He added that each claimant will receive all the money originally paid the railroad, plus interest. The Clinton Daily Journal relates that one beneficiary of the settlement is the DeWitt County Friendship Center, which will receive more than $4,000. Another is The City of Wapella, which will receive a check for nearly $13,000. Mr. Woolums pointed out that there are other individuals in DeWitt County who will benefit. For more details, contact: Darrell A. Woolums, Esq. Samuels, Miller, Schroeder, Jackson & Sly, LLP 225 North Water Street, Suite 301 P.O. Box 1400 Decatur, IL 62525-1400 Phone: 217-429-4325 Fax: 217-425-6313 e-mail: law@smsjslaw.com Web site: http://www.smsjslaw.com/ INDIANA: Elected Township Assessor Files Lawsuit Over Abolition --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed in the Circuit Court of Huntington County, Indiana over state law enacted this year to phase out elected township assessors, The Associated Press reports. The suit which claims that the new law is unconstitutional, was filed Joan Stoffel, the elected assessor for Huntington Township in northeastern Indiana's Huntington County. Ms. Stoffel is represented in the case by Indianapolis attorney John R. Price. It names several county officials and some state agencies as defendants, and seeks class-action status on behalf of 139 township assessors across the state, according to The Associated Press. The suit argues that when voters elected their township assessors, a contract was agreed to that the officials would serve four-year terms, performing statutory duties and getting paid for doing so. According to the lawsuit, some township assessors already have been told they have no job, or will not be paid any salary or other compensation for the rest of 2008. For more details, contact: John R. Price, Esq. 9000 Keystone Crossing Indianapolis, IN 46240-2118 Phone: (317) 844-8822 Fax: (317) 844-7766 INDIANA: Judge Says State Law vs. Sex Offenders Unconstitutional ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton in Indianapolis has ruled that a recently passed state law to monitor the computer habits of sex offenders long after they have served their sentences is unconstitutional, Evansville Courier & Press reports. According to Evansville Courier, Judge Hamilton ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit that was brought on April 3, 2008, by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The ACLU had challenged as unconstitutional a law the Legislature passed this year, Senate Enrolled Act 258. It was supposed to take effect on July 1 and would have required convicted sex offenders, who already have to sign Indiana's sex- offender registry, to also provide authorities with their e-mail addresses and Internet usernames. Offenders also would have had to sign a consent form allowing police to search their computers or other Web-ready devices at any time, and to install software that monitored such activity, the state law said. Evansville Courier says that the ACLU sued on behalf of two convicted sex offenders, one in Marion County and one in Scott County. The suit named all 92 county prosecutors as defendants. Then in a recent 52-page ruling, Judge Hamilton wrote, "The new law forces an unconstitutional choice upon these plaintiffs. They must choose now between committing a new crime by refusing to consent and giving up their Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and security in their homes, their 'papers,' and their effects." "The unprecedented new law, however well-intentioned it may be, violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class, who have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation, parole, or any other kind of court supervision," the judge added. Judge Hamilton issued a declaratory judgment stating the consent to search requirements may not be applied to convicted sex offenders. The state could appeal the ruling to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the report notes. INDYMAC BANCORP: Federal Seizure Will Not Impede Investor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In what federal regulators are calling the second-largest U.S. bank failure in history, mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp, Inc.'s operations have been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the regulator that oversees the retail bank. The Office of Thrift Supervision said it shut down IndyMac on July 12, 2008, and that a successor institution, IndyMac Federal Bank, opened on July 14. After IndyMac's stock price closed on July 12 at $.28 per share -- down over 99% from IndyMac's share price of over $36 just one year ago -- the OTS said in a statement, "The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors' demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition." On June 30, 2008, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action lawsuit against IndyMac on behalf of those purchasing IndyMac common stock between Aug. 17, 2007, and May 11, 2008, inclusive, for violations of the U.S. securities laws (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2008). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding IndyMac's business and financial results and, as a result, the price of the company's securities was inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming investors. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 11, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Scott+Scott, LLP 108 Norwich Avenue P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 800-404-7770 860-537-5537 e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/ INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles 2006 Derivative Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder of Integrated Silicon Solutions Inc. has agreed to settle a derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and several executives and directors accused of falsifying financial statements in an options backdating scheme, the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports. On July 18, 2006, shareholder Rick Tope filed the derivative suit, alleging defendants backdated dozens of stock options for the company's executives, including CEO Jimmy S.M. Lee, without properly accounting for them. According to the complaint, the executives and directors illegally took tax deductions on backdated stocks and falsified financial records for shareholders to conceal the improper backdating. "As a result of the individual defendants' egregious misconduct," the complaint said, "ISSI has sustained millions of dollars of damages, and Mr. Lee and the other recipients of the backdated stock options have garnered millions of dollars in unlawful profits." The suit asked for damages, attorneys' fees and other expenses. It also demanded that defendants relinquish the backdated stocks they received and the profits they had already made from those options. "The officer defendants were unjustly enriched by their receipt and retention of backdated stock option grants, and it would be unconscionable to allow them to retain the benefits thereof," the complaint said. The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the defendants violated the terms of the shareholder-approved stock-option plans, which stipulated that stocks can't be less than the fair-market value on the day the stock is granted. The complaint further alleged that executives also violated generally accepted accounting principles by failing to record the costs incurred by the company when it issued backdated stock options. Recently, Mr. Tope, agreed to settle the suit, which was for an undisclosed amount of money. The court will hear the settlement on July 25. Attorneys for both the defendants and plaintiff could not immediately be reached for comment, the report says. The suit is "In re: Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case Number: 5:2006cv04387," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Hon. Ronald M. Whyte, presiding, with referral to Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. JP MORGAN: Ill. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary OK -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the suit "In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 06 C 4674 (N.D. Ill.)." The named defendants in the suit are: -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ("JPMC"), -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., -- James L. Dimon, -- William B. Harrison, Jr., -- Hans W. Becherer, -- Riley P. Bechtel, -- Frank A. Bennack, Jr., -- John H. Biggs, -- Lawrence A. Bossidy, -- M. Anthony Burns, -- Ellen V. Futter, -- William H. Gray, III, -- Helene Kaplan, -- Lee R. Raymond, and -- John R. Stafford. The complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for defendants' negligent failure to disclose material facts in the proxy statement soliciting votes for the merger. Specifically, the complaints allege that the defendants negligently failed to disclose that, during the merger negotiations, William B. Harrison, the then-CEO of JPMC, rejected an offer from Mr. Dimon, the then-CEO of Bank One, to merge the companies for no premium if Mr. Dimon could become the CEO of the combined company immediately upon completion of the merger. The consolidated complaint in "Hyland v. Harrison" and "Hyland v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc." also asserts similar claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and state law. The defendants deny the allegation that Mr. Dimon made any such offer and maintain that all material facts regarding the merger were disclosed in the proxy statement. The settlement contemplates that JPMC's corporate governance principles will provide that the: (1) CEO of JPMC will inform the presiding director of discussions involving a clear expression of interest in a proposed corporate transaction requiring shareholder approval under applicable law and listing standards, (2) the presiding director and the CEO will review with JPMC's Board of Directors the process for the CEO to communicate with the Board about such discussions, and (3) JPMC's Board of Directors will review the "background of the merger" section of any proxy statement issued in connection therewith. The measures that will be adopted are intended to provide early and meaningful oversight by the Board of Directors. The settlement provides that the corporate governance measures will be kept in place for four years, subject to certain exceptions. The settlement does not include payments to members of the settlement class. The settlement class consists of all holders of JPMC stock at the close of business on April 2, 2004, the record date for voting on the merger of JPMC and Bank One Corporation, which was consummated on July 1, 2004. A final settlement hearing will be held before Judge Coar on October 30, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to determine whether the settlement should be approved by the Court, and to consider the applications of plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees not to exceed $11.1 million and reimbursement of expenses up to $435,000, and the application of a lead plaintiff for an award of $2,695 to recover costs and expenses, to be paid by JPMC. Deadline to file for objections is on October 1, 2008. The suit is "In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 06 C 4674," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Judge Coar, presiding. Lead counsel is: Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. (Smith@whafh.com) Demet Basar, Esq. (Basar@whafh.com) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 NEXCEN BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is July 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the July 28, 2008 lead plaintiff application deadline in the class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of NexCen Brands Inc. common stock and call options during the period between May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008. The complaint asserts: -- that NexCen and certain of its officers and directors failed to adequately disclose details of an accelerated- redemption feature on financing it obtained in connection with its acquisition of Great American Cookies, which required the Company to pay half of its borrowing by a date certain; -- that the Company was unable to comply with the accelerated-redemption; that the Company had no reasonable basis for its earnings guidance for fiscal 2008; and, -- the Company's ability to continue as a going concern was in serious doubt. On May 19, 2008, these adverse facts and misstatements were disclosed causing the price of NexCen securities to plummet, damaging investors. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com) Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com) The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 1-866-767-3653 Weekends: 917-797-4425 Fax: 212-202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com OHIO: Lawyers Seeks Class Certification for Suit Over Trash Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys behind a class action lawsuit against the city of Toledo, Ohio, over garbage-collection fee have filed a motion seeking class-action status on behalf of city property owners from whom the fee has been collected, The Toledo Blade reports. Karen Shanahan, a former city council candidate, had sued the city on Feb. 28, 2008, in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, claiming that the $5.50 monthly fee that the administration of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner imposed last year was improper since neither city council nor Toledo voters approved it. Toledo Blade says that Ms. Shanahan's lawyers contend in a motion that there are approximately 100,000 potential plaintiffs in the case, "so that joinder of all members of the class in the action is impracticable." Additionally, the motion states, the trash fee affects all who pay it in similar fashion, so class- action is appropriate for adjudicating the matter. The lawsuit, which is pending before Judge Charles J. Doneghy, seeks an injunction against the fee and reimbursement of all payments associated with it, Toledo Blade notes. OIL COMPANIES: Lawsuit in Ontario Over Gas Pumps Looms ------------------------------------------------------ A request has been filed in Quebec Superior Court for a class- action lawsuit against eight big oil companies, David Cohen writes for CJAD. The request was filed on behalf of anyone who has bought gas since 1999. It is based on a study done over the last eight years that found that about 5% of the nearly 200,000 pumps tested gave less gas than it said on the pump, according to CJAD. The errors, according to reports, amounted to only 30 to 60 cents on a full tank of gas, but multiply that by an entire country filling up, and it comes to an estimated $8-million a year. CJAD relates that the request is hoping for $50 for every driver, and another $50 in punitive damages. PARMALAT: Court Clarifies Settlement Class in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis Kaplan of the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has clarified the terms of the $40 million settlement reached in the securities class action against Parmalat S.p.A., defining a settlement class and scheduling a settlement hearing, the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports. Shareholders initially filed the suit in 2004, and later refiled the complaint after Parmalat emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2006. The plaintiffs received permission in June 2006 to file a class action complaint against the company's executives, underwriters and auditors following Parmalat's emergence from bankruptcy protection, and filed it the following month. In 2007, Judge Kaplan preliminary certified all persons and entities who purchased Parmalat securities through and including Jan. 5, 1999, to Dec. 18, 2003 -- the Settlement Class -- for settlement purposes under Civil Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) in the Action (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007). Judge Kaplan appointed Hilsoft Notifications and Poorman Douglas Corp. as notice and claims administrators to supervise and administer the notice procedure and processing of claims. In May, Parmalat disclosed the $40 million settlement. The company said in a statement that as part of the settlement with investors who filed the class action, it will issue 10.5 million shares of stock, worth about $36 million. The company said it would also pay up to $1.55 million to notify class members that a settlement had been reached. The settlement must still receive court approval. The settlement is in the best interests of both shareholders and the company itself, Parmalat said. In an order handed down on July 2, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a settlement class composed of shareholders who purchased Parmalat stock between Jan. 5, 1999, and Dec. 18, 2003. Judge Kaplan stipulated that the settlement class excludes Parmalat; all defendants named in the case; any officers and directors of Parmalat or its subsidiaries; and banks and insurance companies employed by Parmalat. The judge also scheduled a settlement hearing for Sept. 24, when he will determine whether the proposed settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class. Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A. -- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products that can be stored at room temperature for months. It also has about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese, butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable sauces, soups and juices. The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139). Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors. When the U.S. Debtors filed for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200 million in assets and debts. The U.S. Debtors emerged from bankruptcy on April 13, 2005. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles R&G-Related Suit for $12 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to pay $12 million to bring an end to allegations that it failed to identify a series of accounting improprieties at financial holding company R&G Financial Corp, the Standford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports. In a settlement disclosed on July 2, counsel for the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action said that PwC would pay $12 million to resolve the shareholder claims filed against the auditor as part of a suit that also named R&G and several of its executives as defendants. The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Sept. 16. According to the report, news of PwC's settlement comes just a few months after R&G agreed to pay $39 million to resolve claims against the company and its officers and directors. Case Background On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial, claiming that the financial holding company issued false and misleading financial statements to the investing public (Class Action Reporter, March 4, 2008). The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and including April 25, 2005. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were materially false and misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose: -- that the company's earnings quality had been significantly weakened by the company's use of more aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income, as well as to the value it retained in its interest only residuals in securitization transactions; -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused the company to overstate its financial results by at least $50 million; -- that the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the company; and -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the investing public when it announced that it would restate its earnings for 2003 and 2004. On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low. On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in court. Judge John Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25-26, 2005, signed an order consolidating all related cases into one class action, as "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006). An amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs -- the Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement and the Detroit General Retirement System -- alleges that the company did not sell mortgages to banks, as it had told the public. Rather, the sales were loans that the company was obliged to repay. R&G sold more than $1 billion of loans a year, more than half of which were "nonconforming loans," between 2002 to 2004, the amended complaint says. The suit is "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling in Early-Termination Fees Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corp. is awaiting a decision by a California court in a purported class action lawsuit over whether it violated state law with its early-termination fees, Roger Cheng and Fawn Johnson write for the Wall Street Journal. Typically, early-termination fees are charged when a wireless subscriber breaks a contract before it ends, WSJ explains. Wireless carriers have long enforced such penalties on subscribers who leave their one-year or two-year service contracts early. The carriers argue that the fees are a necessary measure because the companies pay for a part of the initial cost of the cellphone, and need to recoup those expenses. Even if the judge rules that Sprint is violating state law, the company predicted it won't have to pay any damages, Sprint spokesman Matthew Sullivan said, because a jury ruling in June 2008 found that Sprint customers had paid $73.8 million in early-termination fees, while the company had lost $225.7 million due to breaches of contracts. "Our feeling is that we won't owe any damages," according to Mr. Sullivan However, WSJ notes, Scott Bursor, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, has argued that the fees were too high and said he expects Sprint to pay damages. The suit was originally filed in 2006 and went to trial in June 2008. It is directed at hefty cancellation fees, which is also known as early-termination fees that cellular phone users in California had to pay for quitting a service before a contract ends (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2006). Generally, the suit contends that the cancellation fees violate California contract law, and dampen competition because they temporarily lock consumers into one service. SUFFOLK CORRECTION HOUSE: Toilet Access Suit Allowed to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Nearly 4,000 current and former inmates can proceed with a lawsuit against the Suffolk House of Correction for failing to provide timely access to bathrooms, the Associated Press reports. According to the AP, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton has allowed the class action suit to move forward. He ruled that anyone held in Building Four of the jail since August 2003 could be a plaintiff. The report recounts that the lawsuit was filed in August 2006 by three former inmates. It alleges that the jail housed prisoners in cells without toilets or sinks and required them to ask guards for permission to use the bathroom. The suit says the practice amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. It says that some prisoners were forced to rely on plastic bags and empty shampoo bottles when they were unable to use the bathroom. SUN LIFE: Judge Awards $4,000 to Plaintiff in Insurance Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Carol Baird Ellan of the Provincial Court of British Columbia ordered North Vancouver law firm Poyner Baxter LLP to pay a former client $4,000 for the work he put into a class- action lawsuit, Bethany Lindsay writes for North Shore News. John David Romanchuk was the representative plaintiff in the B.C. portion of a suit against Sun Life Insurance over so-called "vanishing premium" life insurance plans. According to North Shore, Mr. Romanchuk was represented by Kenneth Baxter of Poyner Baxter. The report recounts that Sun Life settled with its policyholders in 1997, paying out a total of $65 million. However, under the settlement's formula for calculating damages, Mr. Romanchuk was not eligible for any compensation. However, after discussion with an Ontario lawyer also involved in the case, Mr. Romanchuk learned that he could be reimbursed for the time and money he put into the lawsuit. Mr. Baxter argued that he was not aware of any deal to compensate Mr. Romanchuk for his help, although the court saw e- mails written by Mr. Baxter saying he would be, "pleased to cut (Mr. Romanchuk) a cheque for your time and expenses," North Shore relates. Mr. Baxter, however, qualified that offer by requesting that Mr. Romanchuk submit documentation of hours worked and expense receipts. The firm never received those records. North Shore notes that originally, Mr. Romanchuk, who is now representing himself, had argued for $8,000 in damages, based on 200 hours of work. However, Judge Baird Ellan wrote in the recent decision that "Mr. Romanchuk's documentation is, with all due respect, non-existent." Thus, the judge calculated Mr. Romanchuk's compensation based on 100 hours of work, valued at $40 per hour, which totaled to $4,000. VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Early-Termination Fees Suits for $21MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verizon Wireless, Inc., agreed to pay $21 million to settle several class-action lawsuits over early-termination fees in cellphone contracts, Roger Cheng and Fawn Johnson write for The Wall Street Journal. WSJ explains that, typically, early-termination fees are charged when a wireless subscriber breaks a contract before it ends. Wireless carriers have long enforced such penalties on subscribers who leave their one-year or two-year service contracts early. The carriers argue that the fees are a necessary measure because the companies pay for a part of the initial cost of the cellphone, and need to recoup those expenses. The company, which is jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC, said that the settlement resolves multiple claims by wireless customers who alleged the company was unfairly charging fees for customers who had broken their contracts early, WSJ notes. The settlement, which effectively ends a trial that began recently, covers all of the lawsuits throughout the nation, according to Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace, who had described the litigation as "a distraction." He explains that the settlement "was a quick way to resolve it." The $21 million will be doled out to plaintiffs and will cover the attorneys' fees, and represents a cap on what the company will have to pay, according to Mr. Gerace. Verizon Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- is a wireless communications provider with 27.9 million subscribers, as of June 30, 2001. The company provides service in 49 of the 50 most populated U.S. metropolitan areas and 97 of the most populated 100 United States metropolitan areas. It is owned by Verizon Communications, a provider of wireline voice and data services with 125 million access line equivalents, and Vodafone, a global wireless telecommunications company. The Company offers wireless services and pricing packages for both wireless voice and data communications. Verizon Wireless offers basic voice services, as well as enhanced services and features, including caller ID, call waiting, call forwarding, three-way calling, no answer/busy transfer and basic voice mail and data services. The Company designs its service packages to target young adults, households, mobile professionals, small to medium- sized businesses and national accounts. New Securities Fraud Cases FIMALAC SA: Howard Smith Files New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all U.S. citizens or residents who purchased the common stock of Fimalac, S.A. (Paris: FIM:PA) between July 26, 2006, and April 20, 2008, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the business and operations of Fitch Group, Inc. -- a majority-owned subsidiary of Fimalac -- thereby artificially inflating the price of Fimalac stock. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Brualdi Law Files California Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of MRV Communications Inc. common stock during the period between March 31, 2003, through June 5, 2008. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's employee stock option grant practices and financial results. Defendants allegedly caused or allowed MRV to issue statements that failed to disclose or misstated the following: (i) that the Company had problems with its internal controls that prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and projections; (ii) that because of improperly recorded stock-based compensation expenses the Company's financial results violated GAAP; and (iii) that the Company's public disclosures covering a seven- year period presented an inflated view of MRV's earnings and earnings per share, which would later have to be restated. Upon this news, the Company's share price plummeted approximately 24%. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from July 8, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-952-0602 877-495-1187 MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of MRV Communications, Inc. common stock during the period between March 31, 2003, and June 5, 2008. The complaint charges MRV and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, MRV made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's employee stock option grant practices and financial results. Defendants allegedly caused or allowed MRV to issue statements that failed to disclose or misstated the following: (i) that the Company had problems with its internal controls that prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and projections; (ii) that because of improperly recorded stock-based compensation expenses the Company's financial results violated GAAP; and (iii) that the Company's public disclosures covering a seven- year period presented an inflated view of MRV's earnings and earnings per share, which would later have to be restated. Upon this news, the Company's share price plummeted approximately 24%. Interested parties may move the court no later than September 8, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Holzer & Holzer, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 770-392-0090 Fax: 770-392-0029 Toll-Free: 888-508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/ MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against MRV Communications Inc. and certain officers of the company for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company between July 24, 2003, and June 5, 2008. MRV Communications is a Delaware corporation which maintains its principal executive office in Chatsworth, California. The company supplies communications equipment and services to carriers, governments and enterprise customers worldwide. The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors and contrary to its public representations, MRV issued stock options that were deliberately backdated in order to provide improper windfalls to the individual defendants. Moreover, defendants compounded the fraud by improperly accounting for the backdated options, thereby, inflating reported results. Finally, the Company belatedly admitted that such misconduct had taken place. The complaint specifically alleges that: (1) the Company backdated the actual grants of its stock options grants and improperly recognized stock-based compensation expenses related to its stock options grants; (2) the Company failed to disclose that the stock option grants had not been accounted for in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (3) the Company materially understated tax expenses, since MRV had improperly deducted such expenses on its tax returns, thereby reducing the amount of taxes to the extent owed; and (4) the Company failed to accurately report its financial statements and will now have to restate its historical financial statements for the period between 2003 and 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than September 8, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: 888-476-6529 888-4.POMLAW SSGA YIELD: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against State Street Corporation and others on behalf of purchasers of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund who purchased shares of the Fund within the three years that preceded the filing of this lawsuit. The complaint seeks remedies for shareholders under the federal Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the Yield Plus Fund by making statements in the Registration Statement and subsequent supplemental prospectuses that described the "investment objective" of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund as investments "primarily in a diversified portfolio" with "high-quality debt securities" that include "high credit quality," "sophisticated credit analysis" and "team based decision making by experienced investment professionals." 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 so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-related or mortgage-backed securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than September 2, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Holzer & Holzer, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 770-392-0090 Fax: 770-392-0029 Toll-Free: 888-508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/ WACHOVIA CORP: Howard Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Wachovia Corp. between May 8, 2006, and June 6, 2008, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Wachovia's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Wachovia stock. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 8, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel 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 * * *