/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 225 Headlines AIG MARKETING: Law Firm Drops Suit Over Payouts in Medical Bills AVAYA INC: Second Circuit Rejects Appeal in "Bonime" Litigation AVON PRODUCTS: Calif. Court Nixes Suit Over Unordered Products AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Lawsuit Dismissal Bid AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of New York ERISA Violations Suit ELECTRONICS ARTS: Faces Lawsuits in Pa., Mo. Over SecuROM DRM NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $28.1M in Retired Players' Suit PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Keller Rohrback Announces ERISA Investigation PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Bouder" Overtime Lawsuit Still Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Overtime Suit Transferred to N.J. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: CHS Electronics' Suit Settled in June 2008 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Brokers' Suit Still Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Motions in "Saunders" Pending TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Briefing Schedule on Appeals Not Yet Set TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Nov. Trial Set for Ex-Shareholders' Lawsuit U.S. STEELMAKERS: Seventh Antitrust Litigation Filed in Illinois VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Affirmed New Securities Fraud Cases DAKTRONICS INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing DAKTRONICS INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing DAKTRONICS INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing GENERAL GROWTH: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing NOAH EDUCATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing SADIA S.A.: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* AIG MARKETING: Law Firm Drops Suit Over Payouts in Medical Bills ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lakin Law Firm dropped a purported class-action suit against AIG Marketing, Inc. and Illinois National Insurance Co., after U.S. taxpayers bought the company, Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports. Specifically, one of the law firm's clients Thomas Springman withdrew a motion to certify a class action against a unit of American International Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Sept. 26, 2008, according to The St. Clair Record report. According to Jonathan Piper of the Lakin firm, "The parties have now reached a settlement in principle on an individual basis, subject to documentation." Earlier this year, the St. Clair Record reports that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had announced that AIG would collapse if American taxpayers didn't prop it up. He arranged for taxpayers to purchase 79.9 percent ownership of AIG. Originally, Mr. Springman sued AIG Claims Services and Illinois National Insurance in Madison County circuit court in 2003. He alleged that AIG Claims Services, processing a car crash for Illinois National, improperly reduced payouts on his medical bills. Attorneys for AIG Claims Services responded that Mr. Springman sued the wrong outfit. They reported that AIG Marketing handled his claim. In 2007, the Lakin law firm amended Mr. Springman's complaint and sued AIG Marketing. AIG Marketing removed the suit to federal court on Oct. 19, 2007, arguing that a switch of defendants created a new action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, an act that restricts new class actions to federal courts. Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the suit was entitled, "Springman v. AIG Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00737-GPM-DGW." The Lakins moved for remand, however, Judge Patrick Murphy denied it. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Murphy's decision to keep the case. The case returned to Murphy on May 8, 2008. On May 30, 2008, Jonathan Piper of the Lakin firm moved to certify a double class-action. One class would pursue a breach of contract claim against Illinois National. The class would include all persons that Illinois National insured, or their medical providers, whose payments were reduced by certain software since 1997. The other class would pursue a consumer fraud claim against AIG Marketing. The class would include all persons that AIG insured whose payments were reduced through the same software since 2000. AIG Marketing opposed class certification Aug. 6, 2008, and moved for summary judgment, according to The St. Clair Record report. AVAYA INC: Second Circuit Rejects Appeal in "Bonime" Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has rejected an appeal in the matter, "Bonime v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv- 01630-CBA-CLP," Mark Hamblett of The New York Law Journal reports. The complaint was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 7, 2006, alleging violations of the the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. It was brought on behalf of plaintiff Harold Bonime by attorney Todd C. Bank, Esq. The plaintiff claims that telecommunications equipment company Avaya had its business partners send faxes to the purported class members, a violation of the consumer protection act that exposed Avaya to a claim for actual monetary damages or $500, whichever is greater, according to The New York Law Journal report. Judge Carol Amon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case in late 2006. That decision was later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where Judges Guido Calabresi, Barrington D. Parker and, sitting by designation, Judge Stefan Underhill of the District of Connecticut, heard the appeal. Writing for the court, Judge Parker said the lawsuit sits "at the intersection of two procedurally unusual laws -- the TCPA, which creates a federal claim designed to be brought in state court," and the Class Action Fairness Act, "which gives federal courts original jurisdiction over certain class actions brought under state law." The New York Law Journal reports that while over 40 states have laws against invasive telemarketing solicitations, the states do not have jurisdiction over interstate calls, so Congress filled the gap by passing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which created a private right of action allowing a plaintiff, "if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of the court of a State," to bring an action in an appropriate court of that state. In "Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 436 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2006)," The New York Law Journal reports that the circuit interpreted Section 227(b)(3) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as intending to "confer exclusive state court jurisdiction over private rights of action under the TCPA." But, the court in "Gottlieb" also answered another question, ruling "Congress did not divest the federal courts of diversity jurisdiction over private actions under the TCPA" since "nothing in Section 1332(a) indicates that diversity jurisdiction does not exist where federally-created causes of action are concerned." That did not solve the question in this case, however, since Mr. Bank, and his would-be class of plaintiffs tried to ground jurisdiction in the Class Action Fairness Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A), which confers original federal jurisdiction over any class action where at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy is over $5 million, according to The New York Law Journal report. Another factor in the analysis is that New York courts have held that state CPLR 901(b) bars class actions under New York law unless the relevant statute specifically authorizes class actions. The decision to "bring a putative class action in federal court under Section 1332(d)(2)(A) is undoubtedly motivated by his desire to avoid the barrier erected by C.P.L.R. 901(b)," Judge Parker said. "This tactic, while inventive, fails." The New York Law Journal reports that Mr. Bank had argued that the Erie Doctrine, "Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)," which holds that state substantive law applies to state law claims in federal court, does not apply in this case because the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is a federal law. He also argued that because the CPLR was procedural and not substantive, it does not apply to Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases in federal court. But, Judge Parker said that Mr. Bank's argument was "beside the point" because "Congress directed that the consumer protection law be applied as if it were a state law." Applying the Erie Doctrine, Judge Parker said, "leads to the conclusion that the federal courts must apply C.P.L.R. 901(b) when faced with putative New York class actions brought under the TCPA even when a plaintiff has invoked federal diversity jurisdiction," according to The New York Law Journal. In the end, the Second Circuit rejected the appeal. The suit is "Bonime v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01630-CBA- CLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Carol B. Amon, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Todd C. Bank, Esq. (TBLaw101@aol.com) Law Office of Todd C. Bank 119-40 Union Turnpike Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-520-7125 Representing the defendant is: Glenn Charles Colton, Esq. (gcolton@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1301 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10019-6033 Phone: 212-497-7759 Fax: 212-999-5899 AVON PRODUCTS: Calif. Court Nixes Suit Over Unordered Products -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County dismissed with prejudice the purported class-action lawsuit, "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.," according to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Commenced in March 2003, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999, received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive credit for those returned products." The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust enrichment and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to state a cause of action. The Superior Court sustained these demurrers and dismissed the plaintiffs' causes of action except for the unjust enrichment claim asserted by one plaintiff. The court also struck the plaintiffs' class allegations. The plaintiffs sought review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class allegations. In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class. In February 2006, the trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis. In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a subsequent point in the proceedings. In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on behalf of "all Avon Sales Representatives who, since March 24, 1999, and while residing in California, received products from Avon they did not order, returned the unordered products to Avon, paid for the unordered products, and/or paid shipping costs for their return and did not receive reimbursement therefore by Avon or Avon initially made reimbursement therefore by means of a credit and later reversed the credit." In June 2008, Avon filed its opposition to the motion for class certification. On Sept. 5, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' Request for Dismissal with prejudice. The case is officially closed. The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825, B175973," filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County under Judge Wendell Mortimer. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeffrey Huron, Esq. Huron Law Group 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-284-3400 Fax: 310-772-0037 Web site: http://www.huronlaw.com/ AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Kendall v. Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon Products and the Retirement Board," are appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The suit was filed by a retired employee of Avon Products, Inc. who, before retirement, had been on paid disability leave for approximately 19 years. It was commenced in April 2003 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the amount of the plaintiff's pension. The plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement Plan, as reformed for the plaintiff and for the purported class. In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging additional ERISA violations and seeking, among other things, elimination of a social security offset in the Retirement Plan. The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976, whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful provisions." In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to dismiss and the plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avoncompany.com/-- is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products. Its products fall into three product categories: Beauty, which consists of cosmetics, fragrances, skin care and toiletries (CFT); Beauty Plus, which consists of fashion jewelry, watches, apparel and accessories, and Beyond Beauty, which consists of home products and gift and decorative products. AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Lawsuit Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Avon Products, Inc., filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, are opposing a motion by the company to dismiss the suit. In August 2005, the company reported the filing of two class action complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. These actions are: 1. "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and 2. "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al." The two actions were subsequently consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-06803) under the caption "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation." A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged violations of the federal securities laws was filed in December 2005, naming Avon, an officer and two officer/directors as defendants. The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004, and Sept. 20, 2005, seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements "concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S. . . . and Mexico." It also asserts that during the class period, certain officers and directors sold shares of the company's common stock. In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiffs have opposed that motion. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 - and - Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com) Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 19 Fulton Street New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-964-0046 Representing the defendants is: Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com) Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1237 Fax: 212-403-2000 AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of New York ERISA Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against the company and certain other defendants before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of New York over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In October 2005, the company reported the filing of two class action complaints for alleged ERISA violations: 1. "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and 2. "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al." These cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption, "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV-06803," and a consolidated complaint for alleged ERISA violations was filed in December 2005 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the company, certain officers, its Retirement Board and others as defendants. The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the Avon Products Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon Products Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004, to the present." The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements regarding the company's business made during the class period and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan participants. In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiffs have opposed that motion. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com) Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 19 Fulton Street New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-964-0046 - and - Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 Representing the defendants are: Peter C. Hein Wachtell, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com) Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1237 Fax: 212-403-2000 - and - Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq. (mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor New York, NY 10178 Phone: 212-309-6394 Fax: 212-309-6273 ELECTRONICS ARTS: Faces Lawsuits in Pa., Mo. Over SecuROM DRM ------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts, Inc. is facing two purported class-action suits over its controversial SecuROM digital rights management (DRM) software used on the publisher's P.C. titles, Adam Hartley of TechRadar.com reports. Pennsylvania Litigation One case filed in Pennsylvania, makes an issue over DRM software installed in EA's critically-lauded and massively popular game, Spore. Richard Eldridge claims that EA's Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition secretly installed SecuROM on his PC, which he claims is "deceptive and unlawful." TechRadar.com reports that the lawsuit reads, "The inclusion of undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a program that was freely distributed constitutes a major violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how their computers shall be used... It goes on to state, "[SecuROM] cannot be completely uninstalled. Once installed it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio..." Missouri Litigation In another, separate case, Dianna Cortez from Missouri, has made a similar claims against EA over the use of SecuROM on The Sims 2: Bon Voyage, which, the claimant argues caused immediate problems with her PC, according to TechRadar.com. Ms. Cortez was only able to remove SecuROM from her machine by reformatting her PC and she is arguing that EA is guilty of engaging in "unfair business practices" and conduct that is "immoral, unethical, oppressive [and] unscrupulous..." NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $28.1M in Retired Players' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 10, 2008 -- More than 2,000 retired professional football players scored a major legal victory in a San Francisco federal courtroom today when jurors awarded a $28.1 million verdict against the National Football League Players Association and its licensing and marketing division. The verdict reached before the Hon. William H. Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California requires the NFLPA union and its subsidiary, Players Inc., to compensate thousands of retired players. Jurors found that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to market retired players' licensing rights under a group licensing authorization contract covering the licensing of electronic games, collectibles and other merchandise. The verdict included $21 million in punitive damages. The jury of eight women and two men reached their decision following nearly three weeks of trial. The original claim was filed nearly two years ago with professional football legend Herb Adderley as the class representative. Mr. Adderley and the victorious former NFL players were represented by attorneys from the national law firms of McKool Smith, P.C., and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. The McKool Smith team included firm principal Lew LeClair, senior counsel Jill Naylor and associates Brett Charhon and Anthony Garza. The Manatt, Phelps group included firm partners Ronald S. Katz, Chad S. Hummel and L. Peter Parcher, in addition to associates Ryan S. Hilbert and Noel S. Cohen. "This verdict is a great victory for the men who devoted their lives to building professional football," says Mr. LeClair of McKool Smith, attorney for the retired players. "We are thankful the jury decided to right this wrong." During trial, several former NFL stars testified about the benefits promised by the union that were never received, and the difficulties in gaining information about the NFLPA's finances and licensing agreements. The suit is "Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated, Case No. 3:2007cv00943," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. For more details, contact: Lewis T. LeClair, Esq. (lleclair@mckoolsmith.com) McKool Smith 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas TX 75201 Phone: 214.978.4984 Fax: 214.978.4044 Web site: http://www.mckoolsmith.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Keller Rohrback Announces ERISA Investigation -------------------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. today announced that it is investigating Pilgrim's Pride Corp. ("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company") for potential violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). The investigation focuses on investments in Company stock in the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"). Keller Rohrback's investigation involves concerns that Pilgrim's Pride and other administrators of the Plan may have breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. A breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to manage the assets of the Plan prudently and loyally by investing the assets in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement savings. For more details, contact: Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Phone: (800) 776-6044 e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the dismissed claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. in the matter tagged, "In re Employee Benefit Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," are pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Purported class-action lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August and September 2007, the court dismissed the anti-trust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. In January 2008, the court dismissed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims with prejudice. In February 2008, the court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Bouder" Overtime Lawsuit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359" is pending, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a nationwide class, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Overtime Suit Transferred to N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit against Prudential Financial, Inc., and Prudential Insurance Co. in California in connection with overtime pay and benefits was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in September 2008. In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit, captioned "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," was filed on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial products. The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay overtime and provide other benefits in violation of state and federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. The suit is "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Larry Alan Burns, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) According to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, in September 2008, the Wang litigation was consolidated with the suit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359." Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: CHS Electronics' Suit Settled in June 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action, captioned, "CHS Electronics Inc. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. et al.," which names Prudential Securities, Inc. as a defendant, was settled in June 2008. In August 2000, Prudential Securities was named as a defendant, along with other underwriters, in a purported class action, captioned, "CHS Electronics Inc. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. et al.," which alleges on behalf of issuers of securities in initial public offerings that the defendants conspired to fix at 7% the discount that underwriting syndicates receive from issuers in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs moved for class certification in September 2004, and for partial summary judgment in November 2005. The summary judgment motion has been deferred pending disposition of the class certification motion. In April 2006, the district court denied class certification. In September 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision denying class certification and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In a related action, captioned, "Gillet v. Goldman Sachs et al.," the plaintiffs allege substantially the same antitrust claims on behalf of investors, though only injunctive relief is currently being sought. In June 2008, the CHS Electronics and Gillet matters were settled by all defendants, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Brokers' Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to face a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that accuses the company of improperly classifying stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage and hour laws. The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinated trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC. Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v. Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of New York brokers. Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court and purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California brokers. These suits are captioned: 1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;" 2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated, Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;" and 3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and Prudential Securities Inc." The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice in May 2006. In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al." The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v. Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class- action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) No further developments in the consolidated matter were disclosed in the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Motions in "Saunders" Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to rule on motions filed by both parties in a purported class- action suit "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit was one of several consolidated under the multi- district proceeding entitled, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md- 15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864." In July 2006, in "Saunders," the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland had granted the plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law claims against and Prudential Securities, Inc. In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and the plaintiffs moved for class certification in "Saunders," according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,, Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Briefing Schedule on Appeals Not Yet Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has yet to notify the briefing schedule on the appeals to the settlement of a putative class-action lawsuit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in the United States, including Triple-S, Inc., Triple-S Management Corp.'s managed care subsidiary. On May 22, 2003, a putative class action suit was filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical Society against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and substantially all of the other Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in the United States, including TSI. The class-action complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely manner for the covered medically necessary services they render. TSI, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including but not limited an arbitration right and the applicability of the McCarran Ferguson Act. The parties were ordered to engage in mediation by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and 24 plans, including TSI, actively participated in the mediation efforts. The mediation resulted in the creation of a Settlement Agreement that was filed with the Court on April 27, 2007. On April 19, 2008, the Court issued the final order approving the settlement. However, certain physicians who were unable to either prevent the final approval of the settlement or modify the terms of the agreement, appealed before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The appeals were lodged from late July to early August 2008. The clerk has yet to notify the briefing schedule, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Triple-S Management Corp. operates in the insurance industry in Puerto Rico. The Company is based in San Juan, P.R. TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Nov. Trial Set for Ex-Shareholders' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An argumentative hearing will be held during November 2008, in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of heirs of the Triple-S, Inc.'s former shareholders. TSI is Triple-S Management Corp.'s managed care subsidiary. On Oct. 23, 2007, Ivonne Houellemont, Ivonne M. Lens and Antonio A. Lens, heirs of Dr. Antonio Lens-Aresti, a former shareholder of TSI, filed a suit against TSI in the Court of First Instance for San Juan, Superior Section. The plaintiffs are seeking the return of 16 shares (prior to giving effect to the 3,000-for-one stock split) that were redeemed in 1996, a year after the death of Dr. Lens-Aresti, or compensation in the amount of US$40,000 per share which they allege is a share's present value, alleging that they were fraudulently induced to submit the shares for redemption in 1996. At the time of Dr. Lens-Aresti's death, the bylaws of TSI would not have permitted the plaintiffs to inherit Dr. Lens-Aresti's shares, as those bylaws provided that in the event of a shareholder's death, shares could be redeemed at the price originally paid for them or could be transferred only to an heir who was either a doctor or dentist. The plaintiffs' complaint also states that they purport to represent as a class all heirs of the TSI' former shareholders whose shares were redeemed upon such shareholders' deaths. On Oct. 31, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, alleging that the two year statute of limitations is not applicable to the redemption of the stock by Triple-S that took place in 1996. On March 3, 2008, the company filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss. In its reply, the company renews its motion to dismiss and further argued that plaintiffs' argument is wrong because the statute of limitations has expired, pursuant to tunder term provided under the Uniform Security Act of Puerto Rico for cases of this nature. In the November 2008 hearing, the court will listen to both sides before resolving the motion to dismiss. The company's management believes that the statute of limitations has expired and expects to prevail in this litigation, according to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Triple-S Management Corp. operates in the insurance industry in Puerto Rico. The Company is based in San Juan, P.R. U.S. STEELMAKERS: Seventh Antitrust Litigation Filed in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A seventh class-action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking damages from 8 U.S. steelmakers under antitrust laws, SteelGuru reports. The case was submitted by attorneys for Pennsylvania-based Alco Industries, described on its web site as an employee owned corporation, which consists of eight diversified manufacturing companies located in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom. Alco's companies manufacture foundry equipment, commercial tanks and pressure vessels, bearing housings, tools and dies, electrical insulation materials and more. The defendants named in Alco's filing are: -- ArcelorMittal USA, -- U.S. Steel, -- Nucor, -- Gerdau Ameristeel, -- Steel Dynamics, -- AK Steel Holding, -- SSAB Swedish Steel, and -- Commercial Metals. In general, the suit alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the U.S. during the class period present. The suit is "Alco Industries, Inc. v. Arcelormittal et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-06197," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael Jerry Freed, Esq. (mfreed@fklmlaw.com) Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Representing the defendants are: Jonathan Stuart Quinn, Esq. (jquinn@reedsmith.com) Reed Smith LLP 10 South Wacker Drive 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 207-6443 Fax: (312) 207-6400 - and - Andrew Stanley Marovitz, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-0600 e-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of a securities fraud suit filed against Visteon Corp., on Aug. 26, 2008, was affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In February 2005, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company. In July 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed as lead plaintiff in this matter. In September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleges, among other things, that the Company and its independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period between June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005. On Aug. 31, 2006, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim was granted. Visteon Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules and components to international vehicle manufacturers and the automotive aftermarket. It has four business segments: Climate, Electronics, Interiors and Other. The Company is headquartered in Van Buren Township, Mich. New Securities Fraud Cases DAKTRONICS INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DAKT) during the period between November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Daktronics and certain of its officers and directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for making positive projections of is future prospects because, during the Class Period, they failed to disclose difficulty the Company was having with its digital billboard and sports markets business, that several large orders had been delayed and that operating expenses were not under control. As a result of the Company revising its fiscal fourth quarter estimates and projections for growth in 2008 on April 5, 2007, the value of Daktronic's common stock declined. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com DAKTRONICS INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA CITY, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood announces that on November 7, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota against Daktronics Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from November 15, 2006 through April 5, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com DAKTRONICS INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ HARTFORD, Nov. 10, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company") between November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that Daktronics and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following: -- that the Company was experiencing softness in its digital billboard and sports markets and was not performing according to internal expectations; -- that several of the Company's large orders were being delayed; -- that Daktronics was unable to control its operating expenses; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and revenue growth rate. According to the complaint, on April 5, 2007, after the markets closed, Daktronics issued a press release revising its fiscal fourth quarter 2007 estimates and giving its initial order growth guidance for fiscal year 2008. On this news, the price of Daktronics common stock fell $5.78 per share, or approximately 20%, to close at $22.13 per share. 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 GENERAL GROWTH: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson & Associates 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" or the "Company") publicly traded securities during the period April 30, 2008 through October 26, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that 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: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: (651) 633-5685 NOAH EDUCATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about October 19, 2007 to November 19, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Noah Education and certain of its officers, directors with violation of the Securities Act of 1933. On or about September 24, 2007, Noah Education filed form F-1 Registration Statement with the SEC for the IPO. On or about October 19, 2007 Noah Education conducted its IPO. The IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it raised over $137 million by selling 9.85 million of the Company's ADSs to investors at a share price of $14.00. Then on November 19, 2007, Noah Education disclosed that that its gross profit margins had dramatically declined from 59.4% in the same period the prior year to 50.2% in the current quarter, due largely to "an increase in the purchasing of certain raw materials components... during July and August." In response to this news, the price of Noah Education ADSs dropped from $12.46 per ADSs to $6.72 on extremely heavy trading volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 e-mail: eitan@bgandg.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company") publicly traded securities during the period May 5, 2008 through September 24, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented the Company's financial condition and concealed the impact of the Company's capital problems on its business and prospects. Due to Defendants' positive, but false, statements, Pilgrim's Pride's stock closed as high as $26.85 per share in late May 2008. On September 24, 2008, after the market closed, Pilgrim's Pride issued a press release announcing that it had notified its lenders that it expected to report a significant loss in the fiscal fourth quarter ending September 27, 2008, due to high feed-ingredient costs, continued weak pricing and demand for breast meat, and the significant negative impact of hedged grain positions during the quarter. With the news of Pilgrim's Pride's significant losses, its shares fell to $3.84 per share on September 25, 2008 from $10.26 per share on September 23, 2008, and from the Company's Class Period high of $26.85 per share in late May 2008. According to the Complaint, Defendants were aware of the following material undisclosed information which contradicted their public statements during the Class Period: -- the Company's hedges to protect it from adverse changes in costs were not working and in fact were harming the Company's results more than helping; -- the Company's inability to continue to use illegal workers would adversely affect its margins; -- the Company's financial results were continuing to deteriorate rather than improve, such that the Company's capital structure was threatened; -- the Company was in a much worse position than its competitors due to its inability to raise prices for customers sufficient to offset cost increases, whereas its competitors were able to raise prices to offset higher costs affecting the industry; and -- the Company had not made sufficient changes to its business model to succeed in the more difficult industry conditions. For more details, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: (651) 633-5685 SADIA S.A.: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ BENSALEM, Nov. 10, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) and/or common stock of Sadia S.A. ("Sadia")(NYSE: SDA) between May 1, 2008 and September 26, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Sadia's business, operations and financial condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of Sadia securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- November 11, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION: LEGAL STRATEGIES AND BEST PRACTICES IN "HIGH-STAKES" CASES Practising Law Institute New York, New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 November 12-14, 2008 SECURITIES REGULATION INSTITUTE Practising Law Institute New York Hilton, New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 November 13, 2008 BAD FAITH LITIGATION DEFENSE COUNSEL SUMMIT American Conference Institute Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida Contact: 888-224-2480 November 17-18, 2008 LIFE INSURANCE IN THE SECONDARY MARKET CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Rittenhouse Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 December 4-5, 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHEN WILL IT END? American Law Institute - American Bar Association St. Anthony Hotel San Antonio, Texas Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS December 4-5, 2008 FOOD\u2010BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION American Conference Institute TBC, Phoenix, Arizona Phone: 888-224-2480 December 9-11, 2008 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 December 17-18, 2008 TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Loews Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 January 21-22, 2009 14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute TBD, New York, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 May 18-19, 2009 5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST American Conference Institute TBD, Washington, District of Columbia Phone: 888-224-2480 July 9-10, 2009 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 July 9-10, 2009 INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Langham Hotel Boston, Massachusetts Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ November 19, 2008 BENZENE BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 November 19, 2008 FALSE CLAIMS ACT & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: AN UPDATE American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS November 20, 2008 FASB UPDATE: CONVERGENCE, VOLATILITY & POTENTIAL LIABILITIES BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 December 4-5, 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS December 13, 2008 MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2008) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Phone: 800-285-2221 e-mail: abacle@abanet.org ********* 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 * * *