/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081027.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 27, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 213 Headlines ANNAPOLIS PAINTING: Sued by Employees For Not Paying Overtime BALISE AUTO: Faces Conn. Lawsuit Over Alleged Overcharging BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Juniper credit Cards BEAUCHAMP DISTRIBRUTION: Faces Calif. Labor Code Violations Suit BRIDGESTONE CORP: ADRs Holders Notified of Class Settlement BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over WWJD Acronym CARA OPERATIONS: Faces Suit as a Result of the E.coli Outbreak CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Subprime Mortgages CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case CITIGROUP INC: Still Awaits N.Y. Securities Suit Appeal Ruling HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Reaches a Settlement With UBS Securities LLC GENERAL ELECTRIC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Dec. 2 HOME LOAN: Reaches $2.5M Settlement for Calif. Labor Lawsuits IKON OFFICE: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Scheduled Oct. 27 LENDINGTREE LLC: Faces FCRA Violations Litigation in California MARICOPA COUNTY: Court Rules Against Sheriff in Jail Lawsuit NESTLE WATERS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Termination Fees QUEST ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4 QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 11 SYNCHRONOS TECH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 7 New Securities Fraud Cases CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing in N.Y. FORTIS INVESTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* ANNAPOLIS PAINTING: Sued by Employees For Not Paying Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal class-action lawsuit was filed against Annapolis Painting Services alleging that the company violated federal and state wage laws by not paying overtime wages, Lisa Beisel writes for Annapolis Capital. So far, the plaintiffs' attorney told Annapolis Capital, 10 employees are taking part in the lawsuit, which could grow to at least 50 workers. According to the report, the move comes four months after the business was raided by federal agents as part of an illegal immigration investigation. The report recounts that Immigrations and Customs officers, along with county police, targeted the company on June 30 and arrested 45 alleged undocumented workers. Annapolis Capital relates that Marcia Murphy, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney Office, said no criminal charges have been filed against the painting company's owner, Robert Bontempo Jr. Ms. Murphy could not confirm whether there is an ongoing investigation. The report says that documents filed las week in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore claim that Annapolis Painting, one of the region's largest painting contractors, and its president, Mr. Bontempo, violated federal and state wage laws by not properly paying some employees. The lawsuit, brought by Cesar Obdulio Gonzalez Corrado, Russell Cain and Adrian Morales on behalf of themselves and other current and former employees, alleges that the company failed to pay the workers time-and-a- half for overtime hours. The workers also allege the company made illegal deductions from employee paychecks, including deductions for tools, materials, and in some cases rent. In other cases, employees had to pay out-of-pocket for their own brushes and rollers, lawyers said. The lawsuit also contends the company failed to pay its employees for: * work done prior to their arrival on the job sites; * time spent traveling between the office and the job sites; * time driving to obtain materials for jobs; * work required during their lunch breaks; and * work following their departure from the job sites. The lawsuit, filed by Brown, Goldstein and Levy, the Zipin Law Firm, and the Law Offices of Jay S. Marks, seeks injunctive relief and undetermined monetary damages, the report says. "I think the government right now is very focused on immigration law and not on the enforcement of labor rights against unscrupulous employers," said Melissa Crow, Esq., a partner with Brown, Goldstein and Levy, a Baltimore-based law firm. "The goal of this case is to hold employers accountable. I think this is a really proactive effort by workers, who have often been victims, to assert their rights to make sure they get paid the wages they're owed by their employer." Until the attorneys know how many employees are involved and how long they have all worked with the company, they will not set a monetary amount they are seeking, Ms. Crow added. Ms. Crow also said she could not say whether the people involved in the lawsuit were in the United States legally, but, she explained, whether a person is an undocumented worker has no impact on the fair wage issue, because state and federal law mandate time-and- a-half pay for any employee who works more than 40 hours per week. BALISE AUTO: Faces Conn. Lawsuit Over Alleged Overcharging ---------------------------------------------------------- Balise Auto Sales, a six-outlet chain, and its closely related companies Balise Ready Credit and Auto Credit Express are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging the companies overcharge people with poor credit and misrepresent the added charge as finance charges, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, in connection with thousands of financed sales of motor vehicles, violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601 et seq., by inflating the stated cash price of motor vehicles sold pursuant to retail installment sales contracts to consumers with poor credit without disclosing the increased pricing as part of the finance charge. The plaintiffs also bring this suit on behalf of a class of Connecticut residents under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 42-110a et seq. and the Connecticut Retail Installment Sales Finance Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 36a-770 et seq. They claim damages, costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, punitive damages, and declaratory relief. The suit is "Sharron Poulin et al v. Balise Auto Sales Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08CV1618(CSH)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Representing plaintiffs is: Daniel S. Blinn Consumer Law Group, LLC 35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Phone: (860) 571-0408 Fax: (860) 571-7457 BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Juniper credit Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays Bank Delaware is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging it sends people unsolicited "Juniper" credit cards, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiff brings this action to secure redress for the sending of unsolicited and unauthorized credit cards by Barclays Bank Delaware, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1642. The Truth in Lending Act prohibits the sending of unsolicited credit cards. 15 U.S.C. Section 1642 provides: Section 1642. Issuance of credit cards [TILA Section 132] No credit card shall be issued except in response to a request or application therefor. This prohibition does not apply to the issuance of a credit card in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card. The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons in the United States to whom defendant sent a credit card because they once had an ATA card, but whose accounts had been closed. The plaintiffs ask the Court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class and against defendant for: (1) Statutory damages; (2) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and (3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. The suit is "Bernard Krisner et al v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Case No. 08CV6039," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing plaintiffs are: Daniel A. Edelman Cathleen M. Combs James O. Latturner Cassandra P. Miller Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, L.L.C. 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 739-4200 Fax: (312) 419-0379 BEAUCHAMP DISTRIBRUTION: Faces Calif. Labor Code Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beauchamp Distribution and Jamison Services are facing class- action complaints filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing the companies of violating the Labor Code, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any updates to the cases. BRIDGESTONE CORP: ADRs Holders Notified of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 23, 2008 -- Purchasers of Bridgestone Corporation ("Bridgestone") publicly traded common stock or American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period from March 30, 2000 to and including August 31, 2000, and are not otherwise excluded from the class, are notified of a possible payment from the proposed settlement of a securities class action. A settlement has been proposed in a class action about the alleged artificial inflation of the price of Bridgestone publicly traded common stock and ADRs during the Class Period. The settlement will provide a settlement fund of $30,000,000 for the benefit of investors who purchased Bridgestone publicly traded common stock or ADRs during the period from March 30, 2000 to and including August 31, 2000. This action arises from the August 9, 2000 voluntary recall by Bridgestone's U.S. subsidiary, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., now known as Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire LLC ("Firestone") of certain ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT tires. The Action involves allegations that Defendants Bridgestone and Firestone made false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements designed to conceal and cover up alleged defects of the ATX tires manufactured by Firestone. The Defendants deny that they did so or are liable in any respect. The Court did not decide which side was right. But both sides agreed to the settlement to resolve the case. The two sides disagree on how much money Class Members could have received had the lawsuit gone to trial. What Does the Settlement Provide? Defendants have agreed to pay $30,000,000 in cash in settlement of this case. These funds will be distributed to eligible Members of the Class who send in valid claim forms, after payment of court-approved legal fees and Lead Counsel's, Lead Plaintiff's (Patricia Ziemer) and Intervenor Plaintiff's (Iowa Public Employees Retirement System) time and expenses, the costs of claims administration, including the costs of printing and mailing the Notice, the cost of publishing newspaper notice and taxes and tax preparation fees (the "Net Settlement Fund"). Deadline to file for exclusion is on Jan. 23, 2009. Deadline to file claims is on April 21, 2009. The suit is "In re Bridgestone Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:01-0017," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over WWJD Acronym ---------------------------------------------------------- Bullseye Collection Agency is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging it uses the Christian acronym WWJD - for What Would Jesus Do? - on its debt collection notices, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other updates to the case. The suit is "Neill et al v. Bullseye Collection Agency, Inc., Case Number: 0:2008cv05800," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. CARA OPERATIONS: Faces Suit as a Result of the E.coli Outbreak -------------------------------------------------------------- WINDSOR, ON, Oct. 24, 2008 - A class action was commenced on behalf of all people who ate at Harvey's in North Bay, Ontario between September 12, 2008 and October 12, 2008. The statement of claim alleges, among other things, that Cara Operations Limited was negligent because it served food and beverages that were contaminated with E.coli. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant is liable for causing the outbreak. As a result of the outbreak, at least 207 people became ill with symptoms of E.coli. The plaintiffs are represented by Harvey Strosberg and Sharon Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Glyn Hotz of Hotz Lawyers. Mr. Strosberg said, "The allegations in this lawsuit are a perfect example of the food safety issues that confront Canadians today. The goal of this lawsuit is not only to obtain compensation for individuals affected by this outbreak, but also to ensure that the food service industry pays attention to crucial issues concerning food inspection and safety." A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hear the motion for certification to determine whether this case can proceed as a class action. The motion date has not yet been set. Harvey's class action on the net: http://www.harveysclassaction.ca For more information, contact: Harvey Strosberg Sharon Strosberg Sutts, Strosberg LLP 600 Westcourt Place 251 Goyeau Street Windsor ON N9A 6V4 Phone: (519) 561-6294 - and - Glyn Hotz Hotz Lawyers 40 Sheppard Avenue West, Suite 602 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K9 Canada Phone: (416) 754-9962 x244 CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Subprime Mortgages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., along with numerous others financial institutions, was named as a defendant in several lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime mortgages, and for which CGM underwrote securities offerings. These actions assert that CGM violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with those offerings. Specifically, CGM has been named as a defendant in: -- two alleged class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and -- three alleged class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Citigroup has not yet responded to the complaints in these actions. A motion to remand to California state court has been filed in one of the Countrywide-related actions. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions have sought unspecified damages relating to the alleged losses sustained by the class. Citigroup Emerging Cta Portfolio LP reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. New York, New York-based Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. -- https://www.citigroupcib.com/capital/index.html -- is the brokerage and securities arm of banking behemoth Citigroup. The company provides brokerage, investment banking, and asset management services to businesses, governments, and individuals. The investment bank expanded in Japan with its parent company's acquisition of a majority of Nikko Cordial in 2007; it has offices in major citiies in the Americas, Europe/Middle East/Africa, and Asia Pacific. CGMI has venerable antecedents -- it is the successor to Salomon Smith Barney and operates as Smith Barney Investments, among other brands. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on a motion seeking review of the district court's decision certifying a class in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 7966." Shareholders sued Citicorp, Inc. -- an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. -- Citicorp USA; Salomon Smith Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; and analyst Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007). The shareholders allege that the defendants issued false and misleading analyst reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. stocks. The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived. The shareholders moved for certification of a class as to these claims. The plaintiffs had sought certification of the class comprised of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001, through July 25, 2001, inclusive, and who were therefore damaged. In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint must allege with particularity that the defendant made fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss. Certification requires numerous class members to share common claims. On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted class certification, ruling that all elements of Rule 23 were satisfied. He then appointed three law firms as class counsel, finding that the firms were qualified to adequately represent the interests of the class. The three firms certified as class counsel are: -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP; -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw. The plaintiffs' motion to certify Technology Associates Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III, IV and V as class representatives is denied. On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted an appeal of the class certification order, which appeal was argued on Jan. 30, 2008, and remains pending. Fact discovery has concluded, and expert discovery has been stayed, by agreement of the parties, pending resolution of the appeal. Citigroup Emerging Cta Portfolio LP reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al v. Salomon Smith Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Alan Abrams, Esq. (rabrams@katskykorins.com) Katsky Korins, LLP 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 Phone: (212) 716-3237 Fax: (212) 716-3337 - and - Richard A. Adams, Esq. Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP Century Bank Plaza 2900 St. Michael Drive Suite 400 Texarkana, TX 75505-6128 Phone: (903) 334-7000 Representing the defendants are: Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. (egoldstein@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212)-373-3000 Fax: (212)-492-0204 - and - Robert Bruce McCaw, Esq. (robert.mccaw@wilmer.com) Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P. 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-230-8810 Fax: 212-230-8888 CITIGROUP INC: Still Awaits N.Y. Securities Suit Appeal Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc. has yet to hear whether or not a lawsuit dismissed in August of 2004 will be revived, despite the fact that plaintiffs filed an appeal in October of that year. The plaintiffs filed the appeal in relation to the dismissal of a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit they filed against Citigroup, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 24, 1999 and July 23, 2002. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for common law fraud. Fourteen virtually identical complaints were filed and consolidated. The complaints alleged that the company misstated the extent of its Enron-related exposure, and that Citigroup's stock price fell once the true extent of Citigroup's Enron involvement became known. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2003, which incorporated the allegations in the 15 separate actions and added new material as well. The amended complaint focused on certain transactions between Citigroup and Enron and alleged analyst conflicts of interest. The class period for the consolidated amended complaint encompassed July 24, 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002. On June 2, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' response was filed on July 30, and the company's reply was filed on Oct. 3, 2003. On Aug. 10, 2004, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal in October 2004. Citigroup Emerging Cta Portfolio LP reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 25, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company. As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management. In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards. In May 2008, the company has reorganized its equity and debt business in Japan. Nikko Citigroup Ltd, the company's Japan investment banking unit, merged its equity and debt underwriting teams into one. In July 2008, Discover Financial Services acquired Diners Club International from Citigroup. In August 2008, GE Capital Company announced the completion of its acquisition of CitiCapital. In October 2008, Tata Consultancy Services Limited bought Citigroup's Indian business processing outsourcing unit. HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Reaches a Settlement With UBS Securities LLC -------------------------------------------------------------- BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Oct. 23, 2008 -- HealthSouth Corporation announced that the Company and derivative stockholder plaintiffs have reached an agreement in principle with UBS Securities, LLC and UBS AG, Stamford Branch (together, "UBS"), as well as UBS's insurance carriers, to settle litigation filed by the derivative plaintiffs on the Company's behalf, captioned Tucker v. Scrushy, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. This settlement agreement relates only to UBS and does not affect the Company's claims against Richard Scrushy and the other defendants in the Tucker action, or against the Company's former independent auditors Ernst & Young. The settlement agreement is subject to approval of the Court, and HealthSouth estimates that the process for approval will take approximately 60 days. Under the settlement, HealthSouth will receive $100 million in cash and a release of all claims by UBS including the release and satisfaction of a judgment in favor of UBS, which is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. HealthSouth will be obligated to pay the reasonable fees of the derivative plaintiffs' attorneys to be approved by the Court. After deducting all of the Company's costs and expenses in connection with the Tucker litigation, HealthSouth, pursuant to the previously disclosed settlement agreements in the consolidated federal securities litigation, will pay 25 percent of the net proceeds, to plaintiffs in the federal securities litigation. The balance of the proceeds will be used by HealthSouth to reduce long-term debt. "This settlement represents another milestone in HealthSouth's recovery of damages sustained by the Company under prior management," said John Whittington, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. "HealthSouth and the derivative plaintiffs intend to diligently and vigorously pursue the claims against the remaining defendants including Scrushy and Ernst & Young." HealthSouth -- http://www.healthsouth.com-- is the nation's largest provider of inpatient rehabilitative services. Operating in 26 states across the country and in Puerto Rico, HealthSouth serves more than 250,000 patients annually through its network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, long-term acute care hospitals, outpatient rehabilitation satellites, and home health agencies. HealthSouth strives to be the nation's preeminent provider of inpatient rehabilitation services. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the December 2, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of General Electric Company common stock and call options during the period beginning September 25, 2008 through and including October 1, 2008. The complaint charges GE and certain of its officers with violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint asserts that during an investor conference call on September 25, 2008, defendants falsely stated that GE would not require any additional fund raising through debt, equity, or otherwise during fourth quarter-ended December 31, 2008. On October 1, 2008 GE announced that it planned to offer at least $12 billion of common stock in a public offering. On October 2, 2008, before market open, GE announced the offering was to be priced at $22.25 per share, well-below the stock's prior day closing price of $24.50 per share and below its 52 week low. News that the stock offering was priced at less than the current market price caused GE's stock price to fall over 9% on October 2, 2008, damaging shareholders. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, New York 10118 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com HOME LOAN: Reaches $2.5M Settlement for Calif. Labor Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Home Loan Center, Inc., a mortgage subsidiary of Tree.com, Inc. reached $2.5 million settlement for three purported class-action lawsuits in California that generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is: -- "Richardson v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 07CC01337 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.);" -- "Johanson v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 07CC01405 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.);" and -- "D'Asero v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV08-384 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)." After a mediation on Aug. 15, 2008, the parties entered into a tentative agreement for settlement of these three cases. Under the settlement agreement, HLC has agreed to pay a maximum of $2.5 million for the Richardson, Johanson, and D'Asero cases, inclusive of payments to class members as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement agreement must be approved by the court in order to become effective. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.lendingtree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business and a real estate business. The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet- enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. In August 2008, IAC InterActiveCorp announced that it completed the spin-off of Tree.com, Inc. (Tree.com). IKON OFFICE: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Scheduled Oct. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 23, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announced a preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2008, at the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio seeking to preliminarily enjoin the sale of Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. to Ricoh Company Limited ("Ricoh"). The class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2008. The Complaint alleges that the proposed sale of Ikon to Ricoh protects the interests of Ikon's directors and Ricoh at the expense of Ikon's public shareholders. The Complaint also alleges that the directors concealed material information from plaintiff and Ricoh's other public shareholders in conjunction with the same. For more information, contact: Richard B. Brualdi Gaitri Boodhoo The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 (toll free) or (212) 952-0602 e-mail: gboodhoo@brualdilawfirm.com Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com LENDINGTREE LLC: Faces FCRA Violations Litigation in California --------------------------------------------------------------- LendingTree, LLC, a Lending Business of Tree.com, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit in California, which is alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On July 29, 2008, Marvin Garcia filed a putative class-action lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff previously had sued LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, "Marvin Garcia v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 4551," but on July 28, 2008, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that action and subsequently filed the present suit in federal court in California. On Sept. 12, 2008, a motion to dismiss was filed in this case, according to the company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Marvin Garcia v. Lending Tree LLC et al., Case No. 8:08-cv-00841-CJC-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Cormac J. Carney, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Robyn C. Crowther, Esq. (crowther@caldwell-leslie.com) Caldwell Leslie and Proctor 1000 Wilshire Bouevard Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2463 Phone: 213-629-9040 Fax: 213-629-9022 Representing the defendant is: Paul J. Bond, Esq. (pbond@reedsmith.com) Reed Smith LLP 136 Main Street Suite 250 Princeton, NJ 08543 Phone: 609-520-6393 Fax: 609-951-0824 MARICOPA COUNTY: Court Rules Against Sheriff in Jail Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 13, 2008, that a decades-old lawsuit that alleges inhumane treatment at the Maricopa County jails has been revived and will be heard by a new judge. According to the CAR report, the class-action lawsuit was first filed in 1977, alleging that inmates who have not yet been convicted of a crime are prevented from eating adequate food and are denied health care and housing in violation of constitutional provisions that protect them from punishment. CAR noted that inmate attorneys, in papers filed with the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, paint a horrifying portrait of life inside Maricopa County jails, including overcrowded intake units to cries for medical care that go unanswered. Phoenix attorney Debra Hill, Esq., who represents the inmates in the class-action lawsuit, said that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his staff provide unsafe jail environments for people who are arrested and not even convicted. In an update, Phoenix New Times relates that U.S. District Judge Neil Wake ruled in a landmark class-action lawsuit that Maricopa County jails do not meet constitutional standards. Judge Wake's order comes on the heels of the revocation of Mr. Arpaio's jail accreditation last month by the country's premiere independent jail-healthcare-monitoring agency, Phoenix New Times says. "We won, basically," Ms. Hill said after Judge Wake's ruling. Ms. Hill represented the "class" of all pretrial detainees awaiting court trials in Mr. Arpaio's jails. The ACLU also worked closely with Hill on the case. Margaret Winter, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, said the ruling is a big win. "Sheriff Arpaio's horrendous treatment of detainees, especially those with severe medical and mental-health problems, has caused terrible suffering for years," Ms. Winter said. "Judge Wake's decision should serve as a reminder that even a man who brags about being the 'toughest sheriff in America' has to abide by the Constitution." The report states that details of Judge Wake's four-page judgment and 83-page findings of fact will take attorneys a little time to decipher. In short, though, the order demands that Mr. Arpaio's jails meet a number of specific standards. For example, the report notes, "Defendants shall ensure that the pretrial detainees' prescription medications are provided without interruption." In addition, "Defendants shall provide pretrial detainees who are taking prescribed psychotropic medications with housing in which the temperature does not exceed 85� F." Moreover, "Defendants shall provide food to pretrial detainees that meets or exceeds the United States Department of Agriculture's Dietary Guidelines for Americans." According to Phoenix New Times, the order requires Mr. Arpaio and the county to give Ms. Hill and the ACLU quarterly reports about jail conditions. If the jails do not comply with the long list of new standards, then Ms. Hill and the ACLU can bring violations back before Judge Wake. The judge even set a time to meet if Mr. Arpaio doesn't comply with the new standards -- December 5. It's unlikely that the sheriff will be able, by early December, to make much headway toward complying with the 16 big changes ordered, the report points out. Some -- such as one that requires that only two inmates be incarcerated per cell at the Towers Jail -- will be affected by prisoner overcrowding. Under-staffing and poor record-keeping by the MCSO may also get in the way of other changes coming about soon, Phoenix New Times says. But the order leads advocates of humane jail conditions to believe that the stubborn sheriff can no longer thumb his nose at pleas for reform. The name of the class-action suit has changed several times. It was originally "Hart v. Hill," then "Hart v. Arpaio," and now "Graves v. Arpaio." NESTLE WATERS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Termination Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Nestle Waters North America, and Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water are facing a class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging the companies include illegal early termination fees and penalties in their contracts, the CourtHouse News Service repots. The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other update to the case. QUEST ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the November 4, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Quest Energy Partners LP common units from the date of the Company's initial public offering on or about November 7, 2007. The complaint charges Quest Energy and certain former and present officers, and controlling entities, including Quest Resource Corporation, with violations of Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on Quest Energy's issuance of a materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Registration Statement") in connection with Quest Energy's IPO. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, New York 10118 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct 24., 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the November 11, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all purchasers of Quest Resource Corporation stock during the period from May 2, 2005 through August 25, 2008. The complaint charges Quest Resource and certain former and present officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on Quest Resource's failure to properly disclose related party transactions between Quest Resource and its former CEO Jerry Cash. On August 25, 2008 Quest Resource announced that Jerry Cash had resigned following an inquiry by the Oklahoma Department of Securities in connection with questionable transfers of funds between Quest and an entity controlled by Mr. Cash. Quest Resource also announced that it had constituted a special committee to conduct an internal investigation. As a result of these adverse disclosures, the price of Quest Resource shares dropped, damaging investors. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, New York 10118 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com SYNCHRONOS TECH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct 24., 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors, and in particular, those with large financial losses, of the important November 7, 2008 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. common stock during the period from February 4, 2008 through June 9, 2008. The complaint charges that Synchronoss and certain of its officers violated the Securities Exchange Act by issuing materially false and misleading statements about its contract to provide in-store activation of iPhones. On June 10, 2008, the Company announced that it will not participate in the on-site, retail store activations associated with the 3G iPhone and acknowledged that it had been aware of this material development since at least May 2008 when the Company had issued revised financial guidance. As a result of this adverse disclosure, the price of Synchronoss stock has dropped, damaging investors. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, New York 10118 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com New Securities Fraud Cases CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Suit Filing in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 22, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008, inclusive , including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (the "Preferred Securities") (NYSE: CEG-PA), pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 27, 2008 Preferred Securities offering. The complaint charges Constellation and certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that due to defendants' positive, but false, statements, Constellation's stock closed at about $88.25 per share on June 9, 2008. The complaint further alleges that on June 27, 2008, defendants consummated the sale of Constellation's Preferred Securities pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement, selling 18 million shares at $25.00 per share for proceeds of approximately $435.8 million. The pleading states that in July 2008, the Company reported favorable financial results and reaffirmed EPS guidance of $5.25-$5.75 per share for 2008, but that in August 2008, analysts questioned Constellation's accounting and the implications of a credit downgrade. The complaint goes on to state that, on September 15, 2008, investors and the market became aware of Constellation's exposure to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s ("Lehman") bankruptcy, which affected the Company's ability to engage in energy-related trades, which news caused the value of Constellation's shares to decline approximately 50% from the Company's Class Period high of $97.34 per share. According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose, including in the Registration Statement/Prospectus, that Constellation's characterization of depreciation expense inflated the Company's reported cash flows; that the Company's exposure to credit problems of trading partners was much greater than represented; and that the Company was not on track to report 2008 EPS of $5.25+ per share. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 FORTIS INVESTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 22, 2008 -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP today filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Fortis, Fortis S.A./N.V., Fortis NV [OTC: FORSF; FORSY]; [Brussels: FORB BB]; [EURONEXT: FORA]; [EURONEXT: FORB]; or [LUXSE: FOR] between January 28, 2008 and October 6, 2008, inclusive against the Company and certain officers and directors, alleging fraud under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a). Throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of Fortis securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of Fortis securities. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company and the individual defendants falsely portrayed the Company as relatively immune from the effects of the global credit crisis and stated that the Company's capital position remained strong and loan portfolio was solid. In actuality, the Company was practically insolvent at all relevant times and needed to sell assets at fire-sale prices and raise capital at extraordinarily high rates to remain viable. Moreover, the Company's balance sheet was impaired by billions of dollars of poorly performing assets the Company acquired when it purchased ABN AMRO in October 2007. The magnitude of the Company's severe liquidity crisis first became apparent on September 29, 2008, when the governments of three separate countries (Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg), agreed to bail-out the Company so long as it would sell its troubled stake in ABN AMRO. Published reports indicated that Fortis's sale of ABN AMRO would net considerably less than Fortis had paid for it just months ago. The deal would have given the three European nations a 49% stake in the Company. The emergency infusion was in the form of 11.2 billion euros ($16.9 billion). This unprecedented move, however, was not enough to stem Fortis' continued decline. On Saturday, October 4, 2008, it was reported that the Dutch government took over Fortis' operations for 16.8 billion euros ($23 billion) in a deal that came less than a week after the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg had agreed to invest 11.2 billion euros in Fortis. News that the famed financial giant was in ruins and required nationalization further punished Fortis' already bruised stakeholders. On October 14, 2008, Fortis traded on the Brussels exchange at the lowest levels that it had ever seen since it was formed 18 years ago, after selling most of its operations to three governments and BNP Paribas SA. Fortis, which resumed trading after a six-day suspension, declined 78 percent to 1.22 euro, valuing the Company at 2.86 billion euros ($3.91 billion). Interested parties may move the court no later than December 22, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Martin Restituyo, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: (800) 575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.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 * * *