/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 221 Headlines ADT SECURITY: Employees File Suit in Tex. Over Unpaid Overtime APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over PowerBook G4 Memory Slots DELL INC: Denies Allegations in Calif. Discrimination Lawsuit DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron GARFIELD COUNTY: Legal Costs Soaring in Colo. Jail Litigation HANSEN NATURAL: Bull & Lifshitz Initiates Investigation HARTFORD LIFE: Appeals to Junked Claims in Two Pending Lawsuits JABIL CIRCUIT: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla. LOEWS CORP: Appellants' Brief in Calif. Litigation Due Dec. 22 MASCO CORP: Expects Late 2008 Hearing on Litigation Settlement MASCO CORP: Still Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Insulation Installation OFFICE DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. ROBERT HALF: Faces Calif. Litigation Temps Reimbursement, Wages SELECT COMFORT: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Moldy Products SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery in K-DUR Suits Completed in 3Q 2008 SCHERING-PLOUGH: Judgment Bids in N.J. Securities Suit Pending SCHERING-PLOUGH: Lawsuits by Third-Party Payors Still Pending SCHERING-PLOUGH: Remanded N.J. Lawsuit Over Savings Plan Ongoing SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Lawsuits SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in South Carolina SOUTH KOREA: Exporters Files Suit v. Banks Over Forex Losses SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Early Termination Fees SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Several Stockholder Lawsuits VISTAPRINT LTD: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Membership Discounts XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments New Securities Fraud Cases AUTHENTEC INC: Cohen Milstein Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit CADENCE DESIGN: Brodsky & Smith Announces Filing of Stock Suit CADENCE DESIGN: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Litigation CADENCE DESIGN: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit GENERAL GROWTH: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing GROWTH PROPERTIES: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing NOAH EDUCATION: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* ADT SECURITY: Employees File Suit in Tex. Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- ADT Security Services, Inc. is facing a purported class-actino lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that was filed by employees who claim that the company has violated federal law by failing to pay the workers for overtime, Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports. The suit was file on Oct. 28, 2008 by Bryan Champion, Ronnie Danage, John Engelke, Curtis Green, Max Murphy and David Thompson under the caption, "Champion et al v ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No. 2:2008cv00417." It alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act The Southeast Texas Record reports that the proposed class of plaintiffs consists of service and maintenance technicians, commercial installers, installation technicians, residential installers or installation technicians who were responsible for the installation, maintenance, inspection and repair of ADT devices in commercial and residential security systems for the past three years. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs argue they were employed in excess of 40 hours per week but not properly compensated for their time. The plaintiffs allege ADT knew its employees were not receiving overtime compensation for all hours worked and "willfully engaged in unlawful conduct by failing to record all of the time…" According to the complaint, to be quickly dispatched to customer's locations, the plaintiffs were required to take company vehicles home. However, the plaintiffs state that were not paid for travel time to and from home or to office or work sites. To be paid in excess of the regular workweek, the plaintiffs state they would need prior approval from managers or supervisors. The plaintiffs seek damages for lost wages, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid overtime, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, according to The Southeast Texas Record. The suit is "Champion et al v ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No. 2:2008cv00417," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael Charles Smith, Esq. (michaelsmith@siebman.com) Siebman Reynolds Burg Phillips & Smith, LLP 713 South Washington Marshall, TX 75670 Phone: 903-938-8900 Fax: 19727674620 APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over PowerBook G4 Memory Slots -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company has not done enough to remedy a memory slot defect that has affected a number of PowerBook G4 machines over the years, Justin Berka of Ars Technica reports. The suit is captioned, "Gomelsky v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2008cv04969," which was filed on Oct 30, 2008 by Giorgio Gomelsky. The issue began garnering attention way back in 2005 when multiple reports of PowerBook G4 lower memory slot failures appeared, according to Ars Technica. The most recent legal complaint, as seen by Ars Technica, mentions that slower slot failures are more common, but that upper slot failures can also occur. The issue normally appears at some point (even months) after memory is installed in the second slot, at which point all sorts of weirdness can happen, including inability to boot the notebook or degraded performance. Since the memory slots are attached to the motherboard, repairing the memory slot defect is quite costly. Apple did initiate an extended memory slot warranty in 2006, but the issue only covered machines in the range of serial numbers that had already been affected by the problem. The plaintiff's PowerBook G4 had a bad memory slot, but the serial number was outside the extended warranty range and he was out of luck. Ars Technica reports that Mr. Gomelsky argued in his that the company acknowledged that there was a problem by creating the extended warranty program, but that the company didn't do enough to fix things for affected users. In addition, the plaintiff claims in his suit that Apple didn't do a good job of letting people know about the problem or the extended warranty. Mr. Gomelsky is thus asking for damages, for Apple to refund the money of anyone who bought a defective PowerBook, and for fees and costs, Ars Technica reports. The suit is "Gomelsky v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:08-cv-04969- PVT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Patricia V. Trumbull, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robyn Carrico Crowther, Esq. (crowther@caldwell-leslie.com) Caldwell Leslie & Proctor P.C. 1000 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-629-9040 Fax: 213-629-9022 DELL INC: Denies Allegations in Calif. Discrimination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Dell, Inc. is denying allegations that massive layoffs at the computer maker have unfairly targeted women and employees over 40, Antone Gonsalves of InformationWeek reports. The allegations stem from a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California by four women, all former senior employees in Dell's human resources department. The suit is captioned, "Chapman et al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945-MHP." In addition to discrimination in layoffs, the plaintiffs claim Dell systemically discriminates in blocking women across the company from entering the top ranks, according to InformationWeek. The four senior HR women, namely Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey and Bethany Riches, accuse the world's second largest computer manufacturer of systemic discrimination in blocking women across the company from breaking into the top ranks of what a Dell male Vice President, Michael Summers, calls the "old boy networks in Dell" (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31 ,2008). The plaintiffs, who as HR specialists are intimately familiar with the company's employment practices, seek to change Dell's discriminatory policies regarding pay, job placement, promotion, and termination. The lawsuit demands $500 million in damages for a class of thousands of current and former Dell female managers and executives, and older employees disproportionately affected by the company's mass layoffs in 2007 and 2008. InformationWeek reports that the plaintiffs are claiming that Dell engineered layoffs of more than 8,000 employees, singling out women and older employees. As a result, Dell's upper- management ranks have swelled to about 80% male. The suit claims each of the plaintiffs lost more than $1 million in projected salary increases, promotion grants, and short- and long-term incentive awards, according to the InformationWeek report. The plaintiffs allege that chief executive Michael Dell, along with others on the 14-member executive leadership team and other senior male executives, carried out or assisted in the discriminatory acts described in the complaint. The four plaintiffs and the class are represented in this matter by Steven L. Wittels, David W. Sanford, and Janette Wipper, who head teams of lawyers from Sanford Wittels & Heisler's San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and New York City offices. On Nov. 3, 2008, Dell denied the allegations. A Dell spokesman told InformationWeek "We believe the claims in the suit are without merit." The spokesman added, "Dell does not tolerate discrimination in any aspect of employment and will vigorously defend any claim that we are not acting in accordance with the law or our policies." The suit is "Chapman et al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945- MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Thomas Marc Litton, Esq. (tmlitton@gmail.com) Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP 120 Montgomery Street Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-421-4770 Fax: 415-421-4784 DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal with regard to the decertification of a purported class action lawsuit that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan, D.D.S., filed a class action complaint in San Francisco County, California. The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006, with respect to the suit's breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients. The company filed a motion for decertification of the class, which request was granted. The plaintiffs have appealed this decertification order to the California Court of Appeals. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty. The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, D.D.S., and Robert Jaffin, D.D.S., filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs have filed their request for class certification to which the company has filed its response. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. (aklein@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey (rplacey@mmwr.com) Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 GARFIELD COUNTY: Legal Costs Soaring in Colo. Jail Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Garfield County has paid nearly $570,000 in outside attorney fees to defend a purported class-action lawsuit, alleging prisoners at the county jail have been subjected to excessive force, The Associated Press reports. County attorney Don Deford told AP that the litigation has increased legal fees, because of huge amount of interviews and document research required. Case Background In July 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a class-action complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield County Jail (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2007). The suit alleges that the jail's use pepper ball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and electroshock belts violates widely accepted standards of law enforcement and corrections professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and vendors' training and recommendations for safe and appropriate use. It claims that prisoners shot with pepper balls or drenched with pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair- sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to decontaminate. Court documents claimed that prisoners going to court are often forced to wear a remote-controlled electroshock belt during transport to court and during hearings. With a push of a button, a deputy can deliver an incapacitating and painful eight-second-long electric shock of 50,000 volts. The suit alleges that deputies deliberately taunt prisoners to heighten their anxiety while they are wearing the electroshock belt by playing "mind games" and suggesting that the prisoners are about to be shocked. It notes that electroshock weapons, pepper spray, and restraint chairs have all been associated with a number of in-custody deaths, and that the jail's unregulated use of these devices in combination poses especially serious risks to prisoners' safety. Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated requests for mental health care. They have been reportedly strapped into the restraint chair a total of 12 times between them, sometimes for over six hours. The organization amended its suit on Aug. 1, 2006 to include allegations that the sheriff denies mental health care to indigent county jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline without due process (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2006). In the amended complaint, ACLU said the policy violates U.S. And Colorado constitutions and Colorado law, requiring that serious mental health needs of prisoners should be treated even when they don't have money. The county waives the $100 requirement in cases in which the prisoner asking psychiatric help is hallucinating or suicidal. HANSEN NATURAL: Bull & Lifshitz Initiates Investigation ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP is investigating possible illegal conduct as alleged in proposed class action lawsuits (the "Class Actions") filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and a derivative complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside against Hansen Natural Corporation ("Hansen" or the "Company"). The actions name as defendants certain of Hansen's officers and directors. The Class Actions are brought on behalf of all purchasers of common stock from May 23, 2007 and through November 8, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The derivative action ("Derivative Action") is brought derivatively on behalf of the Company. Hansen is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201, Corona, California 92880. Hansen, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of beverages in the United States and Canada. The class action complaints allege that, during the Class Period, Hansen and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose that: -- the Company's second quarter sales results were "materially impacted by inventory loading as customers were induced to purchase more product before the Company raised its prices in its Monster Energy drink line and its Java Monster drink line"; -- the Company was "experiencing declining sales in its non-core drink lines"; -- the Company was "experiencing production shortfalls with its Java Monster drink line"; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants "lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects." The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that between May 2007 and the present, the defendants directed the Company to issue a series of improper statements concerning its business prospects. The complaint further alleges that while the Company's shares were purportedly artificially inflated because of those improper statements, certain defendants sold Company stock while in possession of material non-public information regarding the Company's "true" business prospects. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty for improper financial reporting, breaches of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information, violations of Cal. Corp. Code Sections 25402 and 25403, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, adoption of corporate governance reforms, and equitable and injunctive relief. For more details, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Bull & Lifshitz, LLP Phone: (212) 213-6222 Fax: (212) 213-9405 e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com HARTFORD LIFE: Appeals to Junked Claims in Two Pending Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the dismissal of claims in two consolidated amended complaints filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased insurance through broker defendants are pending, according to Hartford Life Insurance Company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Following the New York Attorney General's filing of a civil complaint against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and Marsh, Inc., in October 2004, alleging that certain insurance companies, including The Hartford, participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them, private plaintiffs brought several lawsuits against The Hartford predicated on the allegations in the Marsh complaint, to which The Hartford was not party. Among these is a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. There are two consolidated amended complaints filed in the multidistrict litigation, one related to conduct in connection with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the other related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of group benefits products. The Company is named in the group benefits products complaint. The complaints assert, on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased insurance through broker defendants, claims under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state law, and in the case of the group benefits products complaint, claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The claims are predicated upon allegedly undisclosed or otherwise improper payments of contingent commissions to the broker defendants to steer business to the insurance company defendants. The district court has dismissed the Sherman Act and RICO claims in both complaints for failure to state a claim and has granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ERISA claims in the group-benefits products complaint. The district court further has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, has dismissed those state law claims without prejudice, and has closed both cases. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of claims in both consolidated amended complaints, except the ERISA claims. Hartford Life Insurance Company provides retail and institutional investment products such as variable and fixed annuities, private placement life insurance and retirement plan services; and individual life insurance products including variable universal life, universal life, interest sensitive whole life and term life. The Hartford, Conn.-based company has four reporting segments: Retail Products Group, Retirement Plans, Institutional Solutions Group and Individual Life. JABIL CIRCUIT: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Jabil Circuit, Inc. is still facing a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the company and various of its present and former officers and directors. The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons who purchased shares of the company between Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006. It asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of options for various senior officers and directors, causing the company's financial statements to understate management compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the company's stock price. In addition, the suit alleged that the company's proxy statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of the grant. A second putative class action suit, containing virtually identical legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned, "Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv- 01883," was filed on Oct. 12, 2006. The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action. On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001, and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former officers, including: -- Forbes I.J. Alexander, -- Scott D. Brown, -- Wesley B. Edwards, -- Chris A. Lewis, -- Mark T. Mondello, -- Robert L. Paver, and -- Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of the company's directors: -- Mel S. Lavitt, -- William D. Morean, -- Frank A. Newman, -- Laurence S. Grafstein, -- Steven A. Raymund, -- Lawrence J. Murphy, -- Kathleen A. Walters, and -- Thomas A. Sansone. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder It contained allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the original putative class action and, in addition, alleged that the defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint asserting claims substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint it replaced but adding allegations relating to the restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense for certain stock option grants. At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice, but with leave to amend the complaint by May 12, 2008. On May 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional allegations with respect to: -- pre-class period option grants, -- the professional background of certain defendants, -- option grants to non-executive employees, -- the restatement of the Company's financial results for certain periods between 1996 and 2005, and -- trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the defendants during the class period. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008. The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Steven D. Merryday. Representing the plaintiffs is: William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com) Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. 1101 Market St., Suite 2400 Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389 Phone: 215-238-1700 Representing the defendants is: Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight, LLP 100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601-1288 Phone: 813-227-8500 Fax: 813-229-0134 LOEWS CORP: Appellants' Brief in Calif. Litigation Due Dec. 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- The appellants' brief in the a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of certain California individual long term health care policyholders against CNA Financial Corporation and Continental Casualty Company is due to be filed on Dec. 22, 2008. CNA Financial is a a 90% owned subsidiary of Loews Corp. The class-action is styled, "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Company, et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, CV06-2235 RGK." The action alleges that CCC and CNA knowingly or negligently used unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies. On Jan. 8, 2008, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs entered into a binding agreement settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint. Following a fairness hearing, the Court entered an order approving the settlement. This order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. CNA believes it has meritorious defenses to this appeal and intends to defend the appeal vigorously, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Loews Corp. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are engaged in these lines of business: commercial property and casualty insurance, can Financial Corp.; the production and sale of cigarettes, Lorillard, Inc.,; the operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline systems, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP; the operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.; the operation of hotels, Loews Hotels Holding Corp. and the distribution and sale of watches and clock, Bulova Corp. MASCO CORP: Expects Late 2008 Hearing on Litigation Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Masco Corp., in its Form 10-Q dated Oct. 29, 2008, says it anticipates that a hearing will be conducted by the end of 2008 to obtain preliminary court approval of the settlement terms in an alleged employment-related class-action lawsuit. Several California-based installation subsidiaries of the Company were named as defendants in an alleged employment- related class action lawsuit arising under state law. The subsidiaries recently reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle this litigation for approximately US$9 million, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures, distributes and installs home improvement and building products. Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related Products, Plumbing Products, Installation and Other Services, Decorative Architectural Products, and Other Specialty Products. MASCO CORP: Still Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Insulation Installation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Masco Corp. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit in Georgia in connection with insulation installation. Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a number of its insulation installation companies with the federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices violate provisions of the federal antitrust laws. The complaint requests class action certification. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures, distributes and installs home improvement and building products. Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related Products, Plumbing Products, Installation and Other Services, Decorative Architectural Products, and Other Specialty Products. OFFICE DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor program funds. Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as: * "Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay (Case Number, 07-14348)," filed on Nov. 6, 2007; and * "Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay (Case Number, 07-81038)," filed on Nov. 5, 2007. On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in "Nichols v. Office Depot, et. al.," moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits. On March 21, 2008, the court entered an order consolidating the cases. The lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 2, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to state a claim, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14348-DTKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Alleghney Building 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-338-2266 Representing the defendants is: Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. (aflindsay@hhlaw.com) Hogan & Hartson 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-459-6500 Fax: 305-459-6550 ROBERT HALF: Faces Calif. Litigation Temps Reimbursement, Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Half International, Inc. is facing a purported class- action lawsuit, which alleges that temporary employees in California were "improperly denied expense reimbursement and wages for time purportedly spent preparing for interviews, and traveling to and attending interviews with, alleged clients of." Robert Half's, The San Jose Mercury News reports. The complaint was filed Sept. 16, 2008 in California Superior Court by plaintiff Donald R. Green "on behalf of himself and a putative class of all temporary staffing employees" in the state. Mr. Green is seeking "penalties and equitable and legal remedies under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and Sections 1194 and 2802 of the California Labor Code." SELECT COMFORT: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Moldy Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Select Comfort Corp. is facing a purported a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over moldy products. On April 25, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against one of the company's subsidiaries in state court in California by one of the company's customers. The suit asserts various claims related to products liability and misrepresentation and seeks class certification. It alleges that products sold by the company prior to 2006 had a unique propensity to develop mold, alleges that the plaintiff suffered adverse health effects, and seeks various forms of legal and equitable relief. On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court granted the company motion to dismiss and strike the purported class action claims, and allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corporation et al., Case No. 5:08-cv-02746-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert M. Gagliasso, Esq. Bustamante O'Hara & Gagliasso River Park Tower 333 W. San Carlos Street 8th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: 408-977-1911 Fax: 408-977-0746 Representing the defendants are: Dianne L. Sweeney, Esq. (dianne@pillsburylaw.com) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 233-4500 Fax: (650) 233-4545 SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery in K-DUR Suits Completed in 3Q 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. reports that during the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2008, discovery has been completed in several purported antitrust class-action suits filed before the federal and state courts against the Company with regards to the drug K- DUR. Schering-Plough Corp. had settled patent litigation with Upsher- Smith, Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions of K-DUR, the company's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications. Following the commencement of an Federal Trade Commission administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements, which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor, alleged class action suits were filed in federal and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K- DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle. These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. These suits seek unspecified damages, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Judgment Bids in N.J. Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for summary judgment in the federal securities litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a purported class of Schering-Plough Corp. shareholders are pending. Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain named officers. These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material information and making material misstatements. Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues. These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001, purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001. The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class. The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003. Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of that class in July 2007. Discovery has been completed, and motions for summary judgment have been briefed, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Lawsuits by Third-Party Payors Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Purported class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of third-party payors against Schering-Plough Corp. are still pending, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, Schering-Plough made cash payments of US$435 million for the settlement of the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts involving certain of the Company's sales, marketing and clinical trial practices and programs, cash payments of US$9 million of employee termination costs related to the 2006 manufacturing streamlining and US$6 million related to integration planning. Several purported class action litigations were filed following the announcement of the settlement of the Massachusetts Investigation. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third- party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue in the Massachusetts Investigation. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Remanded N.J. Lawsuit Over Savings Plan Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- A remanded putative class-action complaint filed against Schering-Plough Corp. for breach of fiduciary duties under the Company's Employee Savings Plan (Plan) is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 31, 2003, the Company was served with a putative class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired Chairman, CEO and President Richard Jay Kogan, its Plan administrator, several current and former directors, and certain former corporate officers breached their fiduciary obligations to certain participants in the Plan. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plan. The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004. The plaintiffs appealed. On Aug. 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court. The matter has been remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. is still facing several purported class- action suits in connection with the sale and promotion of the VYTORIN, ZETIA, and ENHANCE products. Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or been served with litigation, including: -- civil class-action lawsuits alleging common law and state consumer fraud claims in connection with Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck & Co., Inc./Schering-Plough joint-venture products' VYTORIN and ZETIA; -- several putative shareholder securities class action lawsuits (where several officers are also named defendants) alleging false and misleading statements and omissions by Schering-Plough and its representatives related to the timing of disclosures concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; -- a putative shareholder securities class action lawsuit (where several officers and directors are also named), alleging material misstatements and omissions related to the ENHANCE results in the offering documents in connection with Schering- Plough's 2007 securities offerings, allegedly in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, including Section 11; and -- several putative class action suits alleging that Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plans. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com/-- is a global science-based healthcare company with prescription, consumer and animal health products. Through internal research and collaborations with business partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops, manufactures and markets advanced drug therapies. SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonoco Products Co. is still facing a securities fraud lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, under the caption, "Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City of v. Sonoco Products Company et al., Case No. 08- cv-02348." The company was served with the complaint, filed by the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, on July 7, 2008. The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 7, 2007, and Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and directors of the company. It alleges that the company issued press releases during the class period that were materially false and misleading because the company allegedly had no reasonable basis for the earnings projections contained in the press releases, and that such information caused the market price of the company's common stock to be artificially inflated. The complaint also names certain company officers as individual defendants and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008. The suit is "Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City of v. Sonoco Products Company et al., Case No. 4:2008cv02348," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Terry L. Wooten, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq. (wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com) Hopkins and Campbell P.O. Box 11963 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: 803-256-6152 Fax: 803-256-6155 Representing the defendants is: William Clarence Boyd, Esq. (bboyd@hsblawfirm.com) Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd P.O. Box 11889 Columbia, SC 29211-1889 Phone: 803-779-3080 Fax: 803-765-1243 SOUTH KOREA: Exporters Files Suit v. Banks Over Forex Losses ------------------------------------------------------------ Several South Korean exporters filed a purported class-action lawsuit against 13 major banks, both local and foreign, saying the currency options they hold should be nullified amid huge losses caused by the won's steep decline, The Dow Jones Newswires reports. Hundreds of small exporters took out the options contracts known as "knock-in knock-out" (KIKO) in recent years to hedge against currency movements. If the dollar soars beyond a given range, the firms stand to mark up hefty losses on their contracts, according to The Dow Jones Newswires. The won's steep fall of around 30% against the dollar this year has hit them hard. Combined losses reached 1.7 trillion won ($1.3 billion) as of August, according to the Financial Services Commission (FSC) watchdog. Exporters say the banks failed to explain the high risk associated with the options and passed on their own forex losses to the exporters, the report said. Kim Moo-Song, a representative for a group of 97 exporters filing the suit, said that when the dollar soars exorbitantly against the won, the options violate the principle of good faith. "The system doesn't function as a hedge," he told Yonhap news agency. The Dow Jones Newswires reports that the suit involves 13 foreign and local banks, including U.S. Citibank, Britain's Standard Chartered Bank and South Korea's Shinhan Bank, and Korea Exchange Bank. According to a report by the FSC last month, Korea Exchange Bank, Citibank and Shinhan Bank accounted for 70% of all companies involved in the KIKOs. FSC said Korea Exchange Bank traded with 209 firms, whose combined losses amounted to KRW322.5 billion. Citibank sold the options to 134 firms that suffered KRW408.9 billion in combined losses, followed by Shinhan Bank with 117 firms that lost KRW327.2 billion. The options "are unfair and violate the principle of good faith, which makes them invalid," Mr. Kim was quoted as saying. SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Early Termination Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corp. is facing a $1.2 billion federal class- action lawsuit because of early-termination fees the company charged, The Triangle Business Journal reports. The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the caption, "Lee et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 3:08-cv- 04959-SC." The plaintiffs in the case are Larry Lee, Lisa Whitlock, Randy Whitlock, and Shahin Shokoofandeh. In general, the suit alleges that the $150 to $200 fees violated the Federal Communications Act and laws in every state, and says the fees from 1999 to present total about $1.2 billion, according to The Triangle Business Journal. The suit is "Lee et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-04959-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. (sbursor@bellatlantic.net) Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor 500 Seventh Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212-989-9113 Fax: 212-989-9163 Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com) Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: (925) 945-0200 Fax: 925-945-8792 Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. (ltfisher@bramsonplutzik.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 925-945-0200 Fax: 925-945-8792 - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017-6531 Phone: 212-983-9330 Fax: 212-983-9331 (fax) e-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Several Stockholder Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. is facing several purported class-action lawsuits alleging it made false and misleading statements about its relationship with AT&T in connection with the activation of Apple iPhones, Michael Deak of The Scarlet Scuttlebutt reports. The company provided software that allowed purchasers of iPhones to activate their phones through their home computers. AT&T is the exclusive provider in the U.S. of iPhone service. According to the stockholders' lawsuits, filed both in federal and state courts, the relationship with AT&T accounted for about 80 percent of Synchronoss' revenue. Synchronoss was paid by the number of iPhones activated by using its software, The Scarlet Scuttlebutt report stated. The lawsuits claim that Synchronoss, starting in February 2008, failed to disclose to investors numerous warning signs that its relationship with AT&T was in jeopardy because the new generation of iPhones was going to be activated in stores, instead of home computers. That switch would remove Synchronoss from the activation process, according to the suits. However, Synchronoss continued to tell investors that its prospects for growth were bright, the lawsuits contend, even though the company knew it might be losing the business. On May 10, 2008 Synchronoss officials, in a conference call with stock analysts and investors, said revenue would decline by about $30 million because the number of iPhones being activated without the company's software was increasing, according to the lawsuits. The company's stock price then fell $9.86, about 43.06 percent, to $13.04 per share. A month later, Synchronoss announced it would not be involved in the activation of the new 3G iPhone, which caused its stock price to fall on June 10 by 17 percent to $11.03. The lawsuits allege that Synchronoss' "misstatements" created an "unrealistically positive assessment" of the company and its financial well-being, causing its stock to be overvalued and "artificially inflated," according to The Scarlet Scuttlebutt. VISTAPRINT LTD: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Membership Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------------- VistaPrint, Ltd., and its subsidiaries are facing several purported class-actions lawsuits in various federal courts in connection with certain membership discount programs, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Texas Litigation On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against VistaPrint Corp., VistaPrint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC. Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc. company that provides subscription-based membership discount programs, including programs that are offered on the company's VistaPrint.com website (Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the Vertrue Defendants). The Texas complaint alleges that the defendants violated, among other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act, in connection with certain membership discount programs offered to VistaPrint customers on the company's VistaPrint.com website. It also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment, conversion, and similar common law claims. Other Litigation Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, on July 31, 2008, Aug. 25, 2008, Sept. 3, 2008, Sept. 10, 2008 and Sept. 11, 2008, nearly identical purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Florida, respectively, against the same defendants, and in one case VistaPrint Ltd., on behalf of different plaintiffs. The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits include substantially the same purported Federal and common law claims as the Texas complaint but contain different state law claims. Massachusetts Litigation In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims as the Texas complaint, but containing a state law claim under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a different plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against VistaPrint Ltd., VistaPrint USA, Inc. and the Vertrue Defendants. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim that after ordering products on our VistaPrint.com website they were enrolled in certain membership discount programs operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription fees for the programs were subsequently charged directly to the credit or debit cards they used to make purchases on VistaPrint.com, in each case purportedly without their knowledge or authorization. The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose to them that the credit or debit card information they provided to make purchases on VistaPrint.com would be disclosed to the Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly subscriptions for the membership discount programs. The plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined from engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs. They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, including statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre- judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs for the purported class. Recent Developments On Sept. 8, 2008, VistaPrint USA, Inc. filed an Answer to the Texas Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and on Sept. 9, 2008, VistaPrint USA, Incorporated filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, on or about September 16, 2008, the plaintiff in one of the cases pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts filed a Motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking the consolidation and transfer of pretrial proceedings in all of the outstanding cases to the Massachusetts District Court. Following that, on or about Sept. 24, 2008 and Sept. 25, 2008, the Vertrue Defendants and VistaPrint USA, Incorporated and VistaPrint Limited, respectively, filed motions before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of the outstanding cases, as well as any cases subsequently filed involving similar facts or claims, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial proceedings. All of the purported class action lawsuits in which the Defendants have been served were subsequently stayed pending resolution of the motions for consolidation and transfer pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. VistaPrint, Ltd. -- http://www.vistaprint.co.uk-- is an online provider of coordinated portfolios of customized marketing products and services to small businesses worldwide. The company offers a spectrum of products and services ranging from business cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations and announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design services, copywriting services, direct mail services, promotional gifts, signage and Website design, and hosting services. Its Internet-based order processing systems receive and store individual orders on a daily basis and, organize these orders for production and delivery to its customers. XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- XTO Energy, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit filed in January 2006 before the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs in the suit, "Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.," allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to them the royalties to which they are entitled. They seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the amount allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming amounts owed for additional time. A hearing on class certification has not been scheduled. The plaintiffs have not alleged, in their petition, an amount they are seeking. XTO Energy has informed the trustee -- Bank of America, N.A. -- that it believes that it has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it, the trust -- Hugoton Royalty Trust -- will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if a judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. XTO Energy further informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the trust's annual distributable income, financial position or liquidity. Hugoton Royalty Trust reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com/-- and its subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development, exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and transportation of oil and natural gas. New Securities Fraud Cases AUTHENTEC INC: Cohen Milstein Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of AuthenTec, Inc. ("AuthenTec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AUTH) common stock during the period between April 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges AuthenTec and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). AuthenTec is a mixed-signal semiconductor company that provides fingerprint authentication sensors and solutions to the high-volume personal computer, wireless device, and access control markets. The Company's sensors enable users to access and control multiple functions on an electronic device by touching or sliding a finger across the sensor. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused AuthenTec's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that the Company's sales growth was slowing; -- that AuthenTec would not meet its previously-issued financial guidance; -- that AuthenTec was flooding its customers with excess inventory; -- as such, the Company's financial results were materially inflated; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- as a result, statements made by the Company's management during the Class Period regarding the Company's financial results and strong revenue growth lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint further alleges that Company insiders sold a substantial amount of AuthenTec stock during the Class Period. According to the complaint, on September 7, 2008, AuthenTec shocked investors when the Company issued a press release in which it revised downward its previously-issued financial guidance. In the press release, AuthenTec told investors that "the Company attributes the reduction in estimated revenue to an overstocked inventory position at a new customer and the impact of lower than expected sales of higher-end notebooks. . . " It is also alleged that during a conference call with analysts the next day, the Company further revealed that, "as it turns out, the effect of the downturn that has impacted many others in the semiconductor industry seems to have been masked to us by the fact that one of our newer customers overbought in the second quarter and even into the beginning of this quarter. This has led to an overstocking position on their part and thus reduced forecasts for the remainder of the year . . . we are still working to fully understand the impact and the size of the inventory build, but at this point we are assuming that it will take at least a quarter for them to work through this inventory." The complaint alleges that on this news, AuthenTec's shares declined $3.84 per share, or more than 60%, to close on September 8, 2008 at $2.55 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 8, 2008, request that the Court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff of the class. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to remain an absent class member. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Tyler Gaffney, Esq. (tgaffney@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 CADENCE DESIGN: Brodsky & Smith Announces Filing of Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cadence Design Systems, Inc.("Cadence" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNS) between April 23, 2008 andOctober 22, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, therebyartificially inflating the price of Cadence. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 E-mail: atclients@brodsky-smith.com CADENCE DESIGN: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. ("Cadence" or the "Company"), between April 23, 2008 and October 22, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Cadence and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects, caused Cadence's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Cadence develops electronic design automation software and hardware for electronics companies worldwide. Its products and services are used to design and develop integrated circuits and electronics systems. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Cadence's business and operations were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue; -- that as a result, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 15, 2008 Cadence's stock declined more than 15% after the Company disclosed that Michael Fister had resigned as President, Chief Executive Officer, and director of the company, and that four other Cadence executives had also resigned. Thereafter, on October 22, 2008 Cadence shocked investors when it delayed the announcement of its third-quarter financial results and disclosed that Cadence was reviewing, in conjunction with the Company's independent accountants and legal advisors, the recognition of revenue related to customer contracts signed during the first quarter of 2008. Cadence revealed that the Company initiated the review after preliminarily determining during its regular review of its third quarter results that approximately $24 million of revenue relating to these contracts was recognized during the first quarter of 2008, but should have been recognized ratably over the duration of the contracts commencing in the second quarter of 2008. Cadence further disclosed that, as a result, Cadence expects to restate its financial statements for the first quarters of 2008 and the first half of 2008 to correct the revenue recognition with respect to these contracts. On this news, shares of Cadence declined $1.10 per share, more than 25%, to close on October 23, 2008 at $3.22 per share, on unusually heavy volume. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com CADENCE DESIGN: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The law form of Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. ("Cadence" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CDNS) common stock during the period between April 23, 2008 and October 22, 2008 (the"Class Period"). The complaint charges Cadence and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class Period, the Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented Cadence's financial performance and prospects, overstated its revenues, and caused it to file false and misleading financial statements with the SEC. More specifically, defendants allegedly caused Cadence to improperly report approximately $24 million in revenue in the first quarter of 2008 and in the six months ended June 28, 2008 that will not be earned until the later quarters and, therefore, should be properly recognized over the duration of the customer contracts. If you are a purchaser of Cadence common stock during the Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before December 29, 2008. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (ormdees@holzerlaw.com) Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com GENERAL GROWTH: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of General Growth Properties, Inc. ("General Growth" or the "Company") between April 30, 2008 and October 26, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that General Growth and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants represented that General Growth had the ability to refinance billions of dollars in debt that was coming due in the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009 on acceptable terms. In fact, General Growth did not have access to such financing. Further, defendants failed to disclose that the Company's President and its Chief Financial Officer had received loans from the Chief Executive Officer's family trust in violation of the Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. On September 22, 2008, General Growth announced that it was pursuing a comprehensive evaluation of its financial and strategic alternatives. On October 3, 2008, the Company suspended its dividend and then, on October 27, 2008, announced it was marketing for sale its portfolio of retail properties in Las Vegas. On this news, General Growth's stock fell from $21.42 on September 19, 2008 to less than $2.00 per share on October 27, 2008. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com GROWTH PROPERTIES: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of General Growth Properties, Inc. ("General Growth") (NYSE:GGP) common stock during the period between April 30, 2008 and October 26, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges General Growth and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. General Growth is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about General Growth's access to financing. Specifically, defendants represented that General Growth had the ability to refinance billions of dollars in debt that was coming due in the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009 on acceptable terms. In fact, General Growth did not have access to such financing. Further, defendants failed to disclose that the Company's President/Chief Operating Officer and its Chief Financial Officer had received loans from the Chief Executive Officer's family trust in violation of the Company's own Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. On September 22, 2008, the Company announced that it was pursuing a comprehensive evaluation of its financial and strategic alternatives. On October 3, 2008, the Company suspended its dividend and then, on October 27, 2008, announced it was marketing for sale its portfolio of retail properties in Las Vegas. On this series of disclosures, General Growth's stock price collapsed, falling from $21.42 on September 19, 2008 to less than $2.00 per share on October 27, 2008, or nearly 95% from its Class Period high of $43.83 per share. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com NOAH EDUCATION: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain investors of Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. ("Noah Education" or the "Company") who purchased its American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering between October 19, 2007 (the "IPO") and November 19, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Noah Education and the lead underwriters for the IPO with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges certain statements made by the Company in connection with the IPO were false and misleading and failed to disclose to the market certain material facts about the Company's business operations and financial performance. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company") between May 5, 2008 and September 24, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pilgrim's Pride. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 E-mail: atclients@brodsky-smith.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, 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 * * *