/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 229 Headlines AMAERICAN MEDICAL: Law Firm Wins $12M Insurance Suit Settlement APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Hairline Cracks in iPhone 3G casings ASTRAZENECA PLC: Fla. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Seroquel AUTHENTEC INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Fla. Federal Court CIGNA CORP: Briefing for "Amara" Appeals to End in December CIGNA CORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Use of Ingenix, Inc.'s Data CIGNA CORP: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Manage Care Case Pending DOMINION RESOURCES: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Fairness Hearing Set FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Attempt at Reviving Flaky Paint Lawsuit HEALTHWAYS INC: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint HEALTHWAYS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Tenn. ERISA Violations Suit KANSAS CITY: Continues to Face Policyholders' Litigation MOTOROLA INC: Settlement in Iridium-Related Suit Gets Approval MOTOROLA INC: "Silverman" Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill. NORTHWESTERN CORP: Determination on Appeal to Injunction Pending PORTLAND GENERAL: Briefing on Bid to Lift Stay to End on Nov. 25 QWEST CORP: Final Court Approval of QCII's Settlements Pending QWEST CORP: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for Settlement of Suits v. QCII QWEST CORP: QCII Defending Remaining Claims in Colorado Lawsuit WACHOVIA CORP: To Defend Securities Brokerage Unit in Wage Suits WACHOVIA CORP: Consolidated Action on Interchange Fees Ongoing New Securities Fraud Cases ANADIGICS INC: Prower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit DAKTRONICS INC: Glancy Binkow Files S.D. Securities Fraud Suit DAKTRONICS INC: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing INTERNAP NETWORK: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit ********* AMAERICAN MEDICAL: Law Firm Wins $12M Insurance Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Barnes Law Group, LLC successfully represented a class of Georgia consumers in a class action lawsuit who purchased group health insurance from American Medical Security and United Wisconsin. The firm achieved a substantial settlement from the class- action suit which was approved by the court in September 2008. Under the terms of the class action settlement of "Parker v. American Medical Security," class action members will receive a combined $12 Million in premium refunds and future credits. This class-action suit challenged the methodology used by insurance companies to set renewal premiums, claiming this method was unfair and discriminatory for Georgia small business owners. "It took a while but we are very pleased with the results," said John Salter, a Barnes Law Group, LLC attorney who worked on the class action suit continuously since it was filed in 2004. "Despite the size of the class, and the strong disapproval people feel about health insurance generally, and this practice in particular, there was not a single objection at the fairness hearing, which we felt was a sign we did the right thing for the class members." For more details, contact: The Barnes Law Group, LLC Attorneys at Law 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, Georgia 30060 Phone: 770-227-6375 Fax: 770-227-6373 Web site: http://www.barneslawgroup.com/ APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Hairline Cracks in iPhone 3G casings --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit over the performance of its iPhone 3G on AT&T, Inc.'s network, but with added allegations that the company is ignoring the occurrence of hairline cracks in the handset's enclosure, The AppleInsider reports. The 23-page lawsuit was filed on Nov. 3, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of New York by Nassau County resident Avi Koschitzki. Aside from Apple, it also names AT&T as a defendant. According to Mr. Koschitzki's complaint, "Based upon information and belief the 3G iPhones demand too much power from the 3G bandwidths and the AT&T infrastructure is insufficient to handle this overwhelming 3G signal based on the high volume of 3G iPhones it and Apple have sold." It claims that due to the overloaded 3G network, it is quite common for iPhone users to only be on the 3G network for a few minutes before being bumped to the slower EDGE network despite being in geographical areas allegedly rich with 3G network coverage. Mr. Koschitzki also claims that he is among several customers who've noticed hairline cracks form in the iPhone 3G's casing at or around the camera module, and adds that some customers have noticed similar cracks immediately upon opening their new iPhones' boxes for the first time, according to The AppleInsider. The complaint states, "Although Apple was and is aware that the iPhones were and are defective, and that consumers have experienced repeated instances of cracked housing, Apple has nevertheless allowed the defectively designed iPhones to be sold to the public." The AppleInsider reports that Mr. Koschitzki, who is seeking class-action status on his suit, is also unhappy with the handful of iPhone Software updates released to date. He says they've failed to address a number of outstanding issues with the phone, ranging from third-party application crashes at launch to poor 3G reception. The suit is "Koschitzki v. Apple Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2008- cv-04451," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of New York, Judge Jack B. Weinstein, presiding. ASTRAZENECA PLC: Fla. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Seroquel -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit brought by several union health and welfare benefit funds that claimed they were tricked into paying hundreds of millions of dollars for AstraZeneca plc's Seroquel anti-psychotic as a result of an alleged off-label marketing campaign that misrepresented safety and effectiveness, Ed Silverman of Pharmalot reports. The funds, which sued the company under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations act, had claimed that they were deceived by an off-label marketing campaign that misrepresented Seroquel's safety and efficacy. In dismissing the suit, Judge Anne Conway, said that the RICO claims wouldn't stand as a class action because doctors determining whether any misrepresentations about Seroquel influenced prescribing behavior would require questioning the physicians one by one--and patient by patient, according to the Pharmalot report. In her view, each doctor would have to be questioned separately to determine their reasons for prescribing Seroquel and the extent to which their decisions were influenced by AstraZeneca's alleged misrepresenations, Pharmalot reports. Judge Conway wrote, "In the context of this case, establishing that plaintiffs' injuries were caused by defendants' misconduct would require an inquiry into the specifics of each doctor- patient relationship implicated by the lawsuit." The judge also wrote, "Furthermore, as Defendant AstraZeneca points out in its motion, this individualized inquiry would likely have to be conducted with regard to each consumer purchase transaction or third-party reimbursement payment made over the last approximately ten years." AUTHENTEC INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Fla. Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- AuthenTec, Inc. is facing a shareholder lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging that the company violated securities rules by misleading investors and withholding information about slowing sales, The Florida Today reports. Several law firms have issued statements announcing a class- action lawsuit against AuthenTec or saying that they are investigating claims against the company. Frederick Jorgenson, the company's vice president and general counsel, told The Florida Today that he knows of only one AuthenTec shareholder who initiated the lawsuit, but lawyers are trying to recruit other shareholders to join the litigation. He described the pending litigation as lawyers seeking extra business and said such suits are somewhat commonplace when a company's stock price declines. He pointed out, "There are no facts that support any kind of claim." The Florida Today reported that the Brualdi Law Firm in New York City announces that a class-action lawsuit has been initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. According to the firm, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of AuthenTec, Inc. securities during the period between April 28, 2008, through September 5, 2008, for violations of federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008). The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning AuthenTec's business and operations (a mixed-signal semiconductor business that provides fingerprint authentication sensors and solutions to the high-volume personal computer, wireless device, and access control markets) were materially false and misleading, including withholding that the Company's sales growth was slowing; withholding that AuthenTec was flooding its customers with inventory; and withholding that the Company lacked effective internal controls. It further alleges that only a matter of weeks after defendants issued favorable revenue guidance and touted the Company's financial performance, as well as AuthenTec's prospects for sales and revenue growth, on September 7, 2008, the Company revised downward its previously issued financial guidance which caused the value of AuthenTec's shares to decline substantially. CIGNA CORP: Briefing for "Amara" Appeals to End in December ----------------------------------------------------------- Briefing of the appeals filed by both parties in the purported class-action suit against CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act will be completed by Dec. 17, 2008. Both parties have appealed certain decisions made by U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in the case, 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. Case Background On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that: -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not adequately disclosed to plan participants; and -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees. The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20, 2002. They seek equitable relief. A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11, 2006. Due to the court's schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was completed on Jan. 25, 2007. On Feb. 15, 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of CIGNA Corp., and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims, but deferred ruling on an appropriate remedy. Then, on June 13, 2008, the court issued a decision ordering an enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion CIGNA Pension Plan and their accrued benefits under the post conversion CIGNA Pension Plan. The court also ordered, among other things, pre-judgment and post judgment interest. It has stayed implementation of the decision until the parties' appeals have been exhausted. The suit is "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv- 02361-MRK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net) 805 15th St., NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-289-1117 Fax: 202-371-0121 - and - Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com) Moukawsher & Walsh Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-278-7000 Fax: 860-548-1740 Representing the defendants are: Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com) Robinson & Cole 280 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Phone: 860-275-8209 Fax: 860-275-8299 - and - Jeremy Blumenfeld, Esq. (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Phone: 215-963-5258 Fax: 215-963-5001 CIGNA CORP: Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Use of Ingenix, Inc.'s Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIGNA Corp. is facing two putative class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of members asserting that due to the use of Ingenix, Inc.'s data, the Company improperly underpaid claims, an industry-wide issue, 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 actions are: -- "Franco et al. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Health Corporation;" and -- "Chazen et al. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Health Corporation." The Franco putative class action filed on March 22, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute and state law on behalf of members of CIGNA plans. The plaintiff seeks to recover alleged underpayments in relation to out-of-network claims for the period from 1998 to present. On Aug. 6, 2008, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of standing while indicating that the named plaintiff's unique situation might undermine her adequacy as a class representative. The parties are conducting significant discovery. On Aug. 15, 2008, the same counsel that filed the Franco case, filed a second putative class-action lawsuit in the same court as the Franco case on behalf of a different class representative, David Chazen, in order to address potential issues regarding Franco's adequacy as a class representative. The alleged damages period in the Chazen case encompasses 2002 to present. The Company denies the allegations asserted in the investigations and litigation. The Company was previously a defendant in a third putative class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of members asserting that the Company conspired with other health care company defendants in violation of the RICO statute and the Sherman Antitrust Act to improperly depress reimbursements for out-of-network benefits. In August 2008, plaintiff dismissed the Company from that case. CIGNA Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is an investor-owned health service organization in the U.S. The Company's subsidiaries are providers of healthcare and related benefits, the majority of which are offered through the workplace, including healthcare products and services; group disability, life and accident insurance, and workers' compensation case management and related services. CIGNA's revenues are derived principally from premiums, fees, mail order pharmacy, other revenues and investment income. The Company operates in five business segments: HealthCare; Disability and Life; International; Other Operations, and Run-off Reinsurance. CIGNA CORP: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Manage Care Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- CIGNA Corp.'s renewed motion to dismiss the matter entitled, "Amer. Dental Ass'n v. CIGNA Corp., et. al.," 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. On April 7, 2000, several pending actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in a multi-district litigation proceeding captioned, "In re Managed Care Litigation." The consolidated cases include: -- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et. al.," (The Company's subsidiaries added as defendants in August 2000), -- "Mangieri v. CIGNA Corporation," (filed Dec. 7, 1999 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama), -- "Kaiser and Corrigan v. CIGNA Corporation, et. al.," (class of health care providers certified on March 29, 2001) and -- "Amer. Dental Ass'n v. CIGNA Corp., et. al.," (a putative class of dental providers). In 2004, the Court approved a settlement agreement between the physician class and the Company. A dispute over disallowed claims under the settlement submitted by a representative of certain class member physicians is proceeding to arbitration. Separately, in April 2005, the Court approved a settlement between the Company and a class of non-physician health care providers. Only the Amer. Dental Ass'n case remains unresolved. On June 6, 2008, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. CIGNA Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is an investor-owned health service organization in the U.S. The Company's subsidiaries are providers of healthcare and related benefits, the majority of which are offered through the workplace, including healthcare products and services; group disability, life and accident insurance, and workers' compensation case management and related services. CIGNA's revenues are derived principally from premiums, fees, mail order pharmacy, other revenues and investment income. The Company operates in five business segments: HealthCare; Disability and Life; International; Other Operations, and Run-off Reinsurance. DOMINION RESOURCES: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ A Jan. 21, 2009 final fairness hearing is scheduled for the settlement of the purported class-action suit, "Jones et al. v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv- 00671," 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 2006, Gary P. Jones and others filed the suit against Dominion Transmission, Inc., Dominion Exploration and Production, Inc., and Dominion Resources in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Joseph R. Goodwin. The plaintiffs are royalty owners, seeking to recover damages as a result of the Dominion defendants allegedly underpaying royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying fair market value for the gas produced from their leases. They seek class-action status on behalf of all West Virginia residents and others who are parties to or beneficiaries of oil and gas leases with the Dominion defendants. Dominion Resources is erroneously named as a defendant as the parent company of DTI and DEPI. By order dated July 16, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved settlement of the class-action suit and conditionally certified a temporary settlement class. The Court also dismissed Dominion Resources and added Dominion Appalachian Development, LLC, as a defendant for the sole purpose of settling the class claims. Following preliminary approval by the Court, settlement notices were sent out to potential class members. Class members had until Nov. 1, 2008 to opt out of the class. The suit is "Jones et al. v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00671," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael W. Carey, Esq. (mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com) Carey Scott & Douglas P.O. Box 913 Charleston, WV 25323 Phone: 304-345-1234 Fax: 304-342-1105 - and - Marvin W. Masters, Esq. (mwm@themasterslawfirm.com) The Masters Law Firm 181 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Thomas J. Allen, Esq. (Thomas_J_Allen@dom.com) Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 445 West Main Street Clarksburg, WV 26301 Phone: 304-627-3332 Fax: 304-627-3305 - and - W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Esq. (Hank.Lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com) Steptoe & Johnson P.O. Box 2190 Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190 Phone: 304-624-8000 Fax: 304-624-8183 FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Attempt at Reviving Flaky Paint Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Associate Judge Richard Tognarelli has rejected a Lakin Law Firm bid to revive a giant nine-year-old class action against Ford Motor Co., Steve Korris of The Madison County Record reports. On Oct. 29, 2008, Judge Tognarelli denied a motion to vacate or reconsider an order he entered last December, decertifying a class action over paint that flaked off Ford vehicles. Back in December 2007, the judge had ruled that the case, which reportedly involves approximately 27 million vehicles that Ford built from 1989 to 1996, would overwhelm the court with mini- trials. He wrote that experts would have to inspect every car to see if the owner belonged to the class, according to The Madison County Record report. The Lakin Law Firm had originally sued Ford in 1999 on behalf of Joyce Phillips, a Lakin Law Firm secretary. They claimed that damages would have run into billions. Ford moved to disqualify Ms. Phillips, arguing that her interests as client and employee would conflict. However, the Madison County Record reported that Circuit Judge Philip Kardis denied disqualification, and in 2003, he certified a class action for two classes. One class would have alleged common law fraud for Ford owners in 49 states, and the other class would have alleged consumer fraud for Ford owners in 46 states. Ms. Phillips withdrew as plaintiff for "personal reasons" in 2005, and was replaced Daniel Schopp. When Judge Kardis retired, the case passed to Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian, who then shed the case and others to lighten his load. Chief Justice Ann Callis later assigned the case to Judge Tognarelli, an unelected associate judge. Judge Tognarelli took up a decertification motion that Ford filed after the Illinois Supreme Court delivered decisions that limited class action lawsuits. For Ford, Robert Shultz of Edwardsville argued that individual issues predominated over common issues. Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law Firm argued that the class suffered common damage from delamination due to Ford's failure to protect paint from ultraviolet light. In his December 2007 order, Judge Tognarelli agreed with Mr. Shultz. The judge specifically wrote, "The evidence submitted demonstrates that there are many different kinds of paint problems - delamination being only one of these." He adds, "Plaintiffs' contention that the sole cause of post-warranty delamination is UV exposure is contrary to the evidence before the Court." Even if there was a single cause of delamination, Judge Tognarelli wrote, the court would have to decide individual questions of reliance, causation and warranty issues. He pointed out, "The individual issues involved in deciding these questions for nationwide classes, or even an Illinois class, would be overwhelming." The judge also wrote that a separate set of questions about class members who bought used Fords would multiply the individual factual issues. He added that Ford acknowledged paint problems and spent millions fixing them. The Lakin Law Firm moved to vacate or reconsider the order, and Judge Tognarelli held a hearing in August 2008, and did not change his mind. The judge's Oct. 29, 2008 order disposed of the motion in two short sentences, according to The Madison County Record. HEALTHWAYS INC: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc., is facing a consolidated amended complaint filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Company stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008. Beginning on June 5, 2008, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and/or directors were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of Healthways. The amended complaint further alleges that certain of the individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based on their stock sales. The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008. In support of these claims, plaintiff alleges generally that, during the proposed class period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding: the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with customers, the Company's participation in the Medicare Health Support pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due to be filed on Nov. 6, 2008. Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated case, and no trial date has been set. Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce overall healthcare costs. The company delivers its programs to customers, which include health plans, governments, employers, and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. It's programs focus on prevention, education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care. HEALTHWAYS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Tenn. ERISA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc. and the other defendants in a purported class- action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2008. On July 31, 2008, the purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Healthways and certain of its directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan. The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent investment option for the 401(k) plan. The named defendants are: the Company, Board of Directors, certain officers, and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering the 401(k) plan. The complaint was amended on Sept. 29, 2008. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and results of the Medicare Health Support (MHS) pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit the plan to hold Company stock. It further alleges that the Company and its directors should have been more closely monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries. The amended complaint seeks damages in an undisclosed amount and other equitable relief. According to the company's Oct. 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008, discovery in this case has not yet commenced. A trial date of April 27, 2010 has been set. Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce overall healthcare costs. The company delivers its programs to customers, which include health plans, governments, employers, and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. It's programs focus on prevention, education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care. KANSAS CITY: Continues to Face Policyholders' Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Kansas City Life Insurance Co. is still facing litigation pursued on behalf of purported classes of policyholders. The life insurance industry, including the Company, has been subject to an increase in litigation in recent years. Such litigation has been pursued on behalf of purported classes of policyholders and other claims and legal actions in jurisdictions where juries often award punitive damages, which are grossly disproportionate to actual damages. No specific details regarding the litigation 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. Kansas City Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.kclife.com/-- is a financial services company. The Company operates in the life insurance sector of the financial services industry in the United States. KCL primarily consists of three life insurance companies: Kansas City Life Insurance Company (Kansas City Life) the parent company, and wholly owned subsidiaries Sunset Life Insurance Company of America (Sunset Life) and Old American Insurance Company (Old American). MOTOROLA INC: Settlement in Iridium-Related Suit Gets Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The federal district court in the District of Columbia, on Oct. 23, 2008, granted final approval of the settlement in the Iridium-related lawsuit and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The company has been named as one of several defendants in putative class action securities lawsuits arising out of alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications business. On March 15, 2001, the lawsuits were consolidated in the federal district court in the District of Columbia under Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al., originally filed on April 22, 1999. In April 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle, subject to court approval, to settle all claims against Motorola in exchange for Motorola's payment of US$20 million. According to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008, during the three months ended March 29, 2008, the company recorded a charge associated with this settlement. Headquartered in Schaumburg, Ill., Motorola, Inc. manufactures wireless telephone handsets and designs and sells wireless network infrastructure equipment like cellular transmission base stations and signal amplifiers. The Company's home and broadcast network products include set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and network equipment used to enable video broadcasting, computer telephony, and high-definition television. MOTOROLA INC: "Silverman" Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of Motorola Inc. securities between July 19, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007, remains pending. The lawsuit, "Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and certain current and former officers and directors of the company on Aug. 9, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. According to its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008, the factual assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of 2006. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period. An amended complaint was filed Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008. On Sept. 24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in part to dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain claims related to forward looking statements, among other things, and denied the motion in part. Headquartered in Schaumburg, Ill., Motorola, Inc. manufactures wireless telephone handsets and designs and sells wireless network infrastructure equipment like cellular transmission base stations and signal amplifiers. The Company's home and broadcast network products include set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and network equipment used to enable video broadcasting, computer telephony, and high-definition television. NORTHWESTERN CORP: Determination on Appeal to Injunction Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A determination is pending on the appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's ruling that enjoined the plaintiffs from taking any further action in the matter, "McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SHE," which names Northwestern Corp. as defendant. The company was one of several defendants named in the class- action suit filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power Co., most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings, Inc., as a result of a corporate reorganization of the Montana Power Co. The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the transactions. The plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late 2001, when shareholder approval should have been sought. The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which the plaintiffs claim is a successor to the Montana Power Co. In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought. In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved the agreement and the claims were discharged. The plaintiffs' attorneys and the company filed a joint motion to dismiss the claims against the company in the McGreevey lawsuits and no objections were filed. On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to dismiss the company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the benefits of the settlement to be received by the class members in the settlement and the authority of the plaintiffs' counsel to have negotiated the settlement without a class having been certified by the federal court. On Jan. 11, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Montana suggested that the settlement agreement was invalid because the plaintiffs' attorneys had not secured the court's permission to engage in settlement discussions. The District Court enjoined the plaintiffs from taking any further action in the matter. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's January 11th injunction to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where on July 10, 2008, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments. 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, NorthWestern does not anticipate a resolution of this litigation before class representatives and class counsel are approved by the U.S. District Court in Montana. However, it believes that given the scope of the Order confirming the Plan and the injunctions issued by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court which channeled the claims to the D&O Trust, the company has limited exposure to the plaintiffs for damages arising from the McGreevey claims. The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Judge Sam E. Haddon, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Wade Dahood, Esq. Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton P.O. Box 727 Anaconda, MT 59711-0727 Phone: 406-563-3424 Fax: 406-563-7519 Milton Datsopoulos, Esq. (mdatsopoulos@dmllaw.com) Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind 201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201 Missoula, MT 59802 Phone: 406-728-0810 Fax: 406-543-0134 - and - Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. (amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com) McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey, 745 S. Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901-2529 Phone: 406-752-5566 Fax: 406-752-7124 Representing the defendants is: Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq. (kim@bkbh.com) Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven PO Box 1697 Helena, MT 59624-1697 Phone: 406-443-6820 Fax: 406-443-6883 PORTLAND GENERAL: Briefing on Bid to Lift Stay to End on Nov. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing on the motion to lift the abatement in two purported class-action suits filed by electric service customers against Portland General Electric Co. is set to be completed by Nov. 25, 2008. The two suits were filed on Jan. 17, 2003, in the Marion County Circuit Court against Portland General, on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. These suits are: 1. "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10639;" and 2. "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640." The "Dreyer" case seeks to represent current Portland General customers that were customers during the period from April 1, 1995, to Oct. 1, 2001 -- Current Class -- while the "Morgan" case seeks to represent Portland General customers that were customers during the period from April 1, 1995, to Oct. 1, 2001, but who are no longer customers of the company -- Former Class. The suits seek damages amounting to $190 million for the Current Class and $70 million for the Former Class, with the inclusion of a return on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the rates Portland General charges its customers. On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and in July 2004, Portland General also requested summary judgment in its favor on all of the claims. On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and partial summary judgment and denied Portland General's own summary judgment request. Portland General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on Feb. 1, 2005. On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, asking it to take jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed. On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court seeking to overturn the class certification order. On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus, abating the class action proceedings. On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court, abating the class actions, but inviting motions to lift the abatement after one year. On Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the abatement. A hearing on this motion was held on April 10, 2008. At the hearing, the Circuit Court declined to lift the abatement. The Circuit Court has encouraged the parties to attempt to agree on steps that might be taken in preparation for a trial in the event the Circuit Court lifts the abatement following the OPUC order issued on Sept. 30, 2008. On June 3, 2008, the Circuit Court scheduled a status conference for Oct. 15, 2008 and set a tentative trial date for April 2009. At the Oct. 15, 2008 status conference, the Circuit Court set a schedule for the filing of briefs on the plaintiffs' motion to lift the abatement. 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 schedule calls for the completion of briefing by Nov. 25, 2008, and oral argument on Jan. 12, 2009. Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com/ -- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the State of Oregon. PGE also sells electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities and power marketers located throughout the western U.S. QWEST CORP: Final Court Approval of QCII's Settlements Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Corporation awaits final court approval of settlements entered into by putative class representatives with Qwest Communications International Inc. (QCII), Joseph Nacchio, and Robert Woodruff. QCII is the ultimate parent of the company. Mr. Nacchio is the company's former chief executive officer while Mr. Woodruff is its former chief financial officer. Twelve putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of QCII's publicly traded securities between May 24, 1999 and Feb. 14, 2002, were consolidated into a consolidated securities action pending in federal district court in Colorado against QCII and various other defendants. The first of these actions was filed on July 27, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants issued false and misleading financial results and made false statements about QCII's business and investments, including materially false statements in certain of QCII's registration statements. The most recent complaint in this matter sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. However, counsel for plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars. In November 2005, QCII, certain other defendants, and the putative class representatives entered into, and filed with the federal district court in Colorado, a Stipulation of Partial Settlement that, if implemented, will settle the consolidated securities action against QCII and certain other defendants. No parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the QCII settlement. Under the QCII settlement, QCII deposited approximately US$400 million in cash into a settlement fund. In connection with the QCII settlement, QCII received US$10 million from Arthur Andersen LLP. As part of the QCII settlement, the class representatives and the settlement class they represent are also releasing Arthur Andersen. If the QCII settlement is not implemented, QCII will be repaid the US$400 million plus interest, less certain expenses, and QCII will repay the US$10 million to Arthur Andersen. If implemented, the QCII settlement will resolve and release the individual claims of the class representatives and the claims of the settlement class they represent against QCII and all defendants except Joseph Nacchio, the company's former chief executive officer, and Robert Woodruff, its former chief financial officer. In September 2006, the federal district court in Colorado issued an order approving the proposed QCII settlement on behalf of purchasers of QCII's publicly traded securities between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002, over the objections of Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff. Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff then appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In addressing that appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the federal district court order overruling Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff's objections to the QCII settlement was not sufficiently specific, and it remanded the case to the district court with instructions to consider certain issues and to provide a more detailed explanation for its earlier decision overruling those objections. Subsequent to the remand, a proposed settlement was reached involving the claims of the putative class against Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff that, if implemented, will also result in the implementation of the QCII settlement. On Aug. 4, 2008, QCII, Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, and the putative class representatives entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the Nacchio/Woodruff settlement) that, if implemented, will, among other things, (i) settle the individual claims of the putative class representatives and the class they purport to represent against Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, and (ii) result in the withdrawal by Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff of their objections to the QCII settlement and the resolution of their indemnification dispute with QCII arising from the QCII settlement. Under the proposed Nacchio/Woodruff settlement, QCII would contribute US$40 million, and Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff would contribute a total of US$5 million of insurance proceeds. The Nacchio/Woodruff settlement is subject to a number of conditions and future contingencies, including that it (i) requires both preliminary and final court approval, and (ii) provides QCII with the right to terminate the settlement if class members representing more than a specified amount of alleged securities losses elect to opt out of the settlement. No parties admit any wrongdoing as a part of the Nacchio/Woodruff settlement, 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. Qwest Corp. provides voice, data, Internet and satellite video services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company is based in Denver, Colo. QWEST CORP: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for Settlement of Suits v. QCII --------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts court set a hearing for Nov. 17, 2008, to consider final approval of the proposed settlement of putative class actions filed against Qwest Corporation's ultimate parent company, Qwest Communications International Inc. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against QCII on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. For the most part, the complaints challenge QCII's right to install its fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. Complaints in Colorado, Illinois and Texas, also challenge QCII's right to install fiber optic cable in utility and pipeline rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline companies own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit QCII to install its fiber optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most actions (California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas) purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states. The Massachusetts action purports to be on behalf of state-wide classes in all states in which QCII has fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way (other than Louisiana and Tennessee), and also on behalf of two classes of landowners whose properties adjoin railroad rights-of-way originally derived from federal land grants. Several actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes. The Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. The Illinois federal court action purports to be on behalf of landowners in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana and Oregon. The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which QCII's network passes. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages, 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. On July 18, 2008, the Massachusetts court entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions, except the action pending in Tennessee. Qwest Corp. provides voice, data, Internet and satellite video services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company is based in Denver, Colo. QWEST CORP: QCII Defending Remaining Claims in Colorado Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Corporation's ultimate parent company, Qwest Communications International Inc., continues to defend against the remaining claims in a putative class action filed in a federal district court in Colorado. The putative class action filed on behalf of certain of QCII's retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in connection with QCII's decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a US$10,000 benefit. The action was filed on March 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that QCII and other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before QCII decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court ruled in QCII's favor on the central issue of whether QCII properly reserved its right to reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents. The retirees have amended their complaint to assert additional claims, 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. Qwest Corp. provides voice, data, Internet and satellite video services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company is based in Denver, Colo. WACHOVIA CORP: To Defend Securities Brokerage Unit in Wage Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wachovia Corp. intends to defend its retail securities brokerage subsidiary, Wachovia Securities, LLC, in multiple state and nationwide putative class actions alleging unpaid overtime wages and improper wage deductions for financial advisors. In December 2006 and January 2007, related cases pending in U.S. District courts in several states were consolidated for case administrative purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to two orders of the Multi-District Litigation Panel. There is an additional case alleging a statewide class under California law, which is pending in Superior Court in Los Angeles County, California. According to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated Oct. 30, 2008, Wachovia believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these lawsuits, which are part of an industry trend of related wage/hour class action litigation. Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial holding company and a bank holding company. It provides commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full- service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C. It also provides various other financial services, including mortgage banking, investment banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities brokerage services, through other subsidiaries. The company's retail securities brokerage business is conducted through Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states. WACHOVIA CORP: Consolidated Action on Interchange Fees Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- The payment card association defendants and banking defendants are defending the consolidated action regarding interchange fees, according to Wachovia Corp.'s Current Report on Form 8-K dated Oct. 30, 2008. Wachovia Bank, N.A. and the Company are named as defendants in seven putative class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of a plaintiff class of merchants with regard to the interchange fees associated with Visa and Mastercard payment card transactions. These actions have been consolidated with more than 40 other actions, which did not name the Company as a defendant, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Visa, Mastercard and several banks and bank holding companies are named as defendants in various of these actions, which were consolidated before the Court under orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief. The plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, Mastercard and their member banks unlawfully collude to set interchange fees. They also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and Mastercard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive. The Company, along with other members of Visa, is a party to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that the Company, along with other member banks of Visa, will share, based on a formula, in any losses in connection with certain litigation specified in the Agreements, including the Interchange Litigation. On Nov. 7, 2007, Visa announced that it had reached a settlement with American Express in connection with certain litigation which is covered by the Company's obligations as a Visa member bank and by the Loss Sharing Agreement. Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial holding company and a bank holding company. It provides commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full- service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C. It also provides various other financial services, including mortgage banking, investment banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities brokerage services, through other subsidiaries. The company's retail securities brokerage business is conducted through Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states. New Securities Fraud Cases ANADIGICS INC: Prower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ BALTIMORE, MD -� Nov. 14, 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 New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ANAD) during the period between July 25, 2007 and February 12, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was experiencing manufacturing inefficiencies associated with increased production levels and would not be able to meet its stated guidance due to its inability to meet demand and thus lacked a reasonable basis for positive statements about the Company's prospects. The complaint alleges that both the Company's revelation of disappointing earnings on October 23, 2007 and its February 12, 2008 announcement of financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2007 cause the value of Anadigics' common stock to decline significantly. 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 CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Nov. 14, 2008 -- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (the "Preferred Securities") of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. ("Constellation Energy" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 27, 2008 Preferred Securities offering ("Offering"), and who were damaged thereby. The deadline to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff is November 21, 2008. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted material facts concerning Constellation Energy's business and financial condition. On August 11, 2008, Constellation Energy informed investors that it had understated its potential collateral obligations by as much as $1.6 to $1.8 billion. Then, on September 15, 2008, investors and the market became aware of Constellation Energy's exposure to Lehman's bankruptcy, which negatively impacted Constellation Energy's ability to engage in energy-related trades. For more details, contact: Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. (sfuchs@zsz.com) Willy T. Gonzalez (wgonzalez@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Phone: 800-721-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 web site: http://www.zsz.com DAKTRONICS INC: Glancy Binkow Files S.D. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Nov. 15, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company"), between November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Daktronics and certain of Daktronics' 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 Daktronics' stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Daktronics engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and support of electronic scoreboards, large electronic display systems, and related marketing services. The Company offers digital messaging solutions, software, and services for sports venues, commercial, and transportation applications. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Daktronics' business, operations, and prospects, 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 large orders were being delayed; -- that the Company was unable to control its operating expenses; -- that the marketplace for sports and digital billboards was softening, such that the Company was not able to book sufficient orders; -- that the Company was not performing according to internal expectations; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that as a result of the above, the statements made by the Company and management during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis. On April 5, 2007, Daktronics shocked investors when it revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for the fiscal fourth quarter ending April 28, 2007. On this news, shares of Daktronics declined $5.78 per share, more than 20%, to close on April 9, 2007, at $22.13 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 DAKTRONICS INC: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Nov. 14, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of purchasers of Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or "the Company") common stock during the period between November 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007 (the "Class Period") for violations of federal securities laws. 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 its 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: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com INTERNAP NETWORK: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Nov. 14, 2008 -- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of investors of Internap Network Services Corp. ("Internap" or the "Company") who purchased the publicly traded securities of Internap between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint charges Internap and its Chief Executive Officer with violations of the Exchange Act. Internap provides Internet connectivity solutions to business customers who require business applications such as e-commerce, video and audio streaming, customer relationship management, voice over Internet protocol, virtual private networks, and supply chain management. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's alleged successful integration of acquired businesses into its network and that such integration purportedly improved performance for customers, helped increase Internap's customer base and resulted in record revenues. According to the complaint, however, Internap allegedly hid from the public that its customers were experiencing sever network outages and that several hundred customers had requested account credits. The complaint alleges that because of defendants' false and misleading statements, Internap's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On March 18, 2008, the Company announced, inter alia, that it would delay filing its Form 10-K Annual Report, that it would send refunds to several hundred customers and that service outages caused a reduction of revenue and caused customers to request credits. On the following day, March 19, 2008, Internap's stock price plummeted from $6.12 per share to a closing price of $4.09 per share, a decline of approximately 33%. For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Lawrence D. Levit, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Nov. 14, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the securities of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ("Pilgrim's Pride" or the "Company"), between May 5, 2008 and September 24, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Pilgrim's Pride and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Pilgrim's Pride is a producer of poultry products in the United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: -- that the changes made by the Company to strengthen its competitive position, such as production cutbacks, plant closing, consolidation of operations and others, were insufficient for Pilgrim's Pride to be able to handle the challenges in the industry; -- that Pilgrim's Pride was unable to raise prices to offset higher costs; -- that the Company's margins were being effected due to its inability to use illegal workers; -- that the Company's efforts to hedge against changing costs were ineffective and actually more problematic and damaging to the Company's finances than beneficial; -- that as a result of the above, the Company's capital structure was deteriorating and in danger; and -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. On September 25, 2008, before the market opened, Pilgrim's Pride shocked investors when the Company revealed that as a result of high feed-ingredient costs, continued weak pricing and demand for breast meat, and the significant negative impact of hedged grain positions during the quarter, the Company had notified its lenders that Pilgrim's Pride expected to report a significant loss in the fiscal fourth quarter. As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined, on unusually heavy trading volume, to $3.84 per share on September 25, 2008, a significant decline from the closing price of $10.26 per share two days earlier on September 23, 2008. 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 ********* 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 * * *