/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 233 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles Del. Fenofibrate Formulations Suit AFFINION GROUP: Discovery & Motion Practice Occur in Wash. Suit AFFINION GROUP: Ala. Court Mulls Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit EHARMONY: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Civil Rights Lawsuit GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Mass. Suit Challenging Right to Foreclose JOE FRANCIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Fla. Suit KADANT INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Litigation KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Claim in Del. Derivative Suit KLA-TENCOR CORP: Still Faces "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Investigation LAND O' LAKES: Faces Lawsuits Over Prices of Egg Products MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Vista Capable" Suit in Wash. NOVATEL WIRELES: To Defend Suits Over False Statements in Calif. SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Face Suits for Improper Reimbursement SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit Over Early Retirement Benefits SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces Age Discrimination Suit in Kans. ST. LAWRENCE: Canadian Court Issues Ruling in Residents' Lawsuit WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Colossus Software New Securities Fraud Cases BRITANNIA BULK: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. INTERNAP NETWORK: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit SADIA S.A.: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing TALEO CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing WATERS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing WATERS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles Del. Fenofibrate Formulations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories, Inc. stated that it would pay about $184 million to resolve claims as part of the settlement in a litigation related to the sale of fenofibrate formulations, RTT News reports. The drug manufacturer, in a Nov. 20, 2008 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, noted that it intends to treat the settlement payments as a specified item in the fourth quarter 2008, reports RTT News. The litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, involved direct purchaser class action claims and claims brought by certain individual plaintiffs, who reportedly alleged that Abbott created a monopoly and prevented generic competition with its anticholesterol drug TriCor, according to RTT News. AFFINION GROUP: Discovery & Motion Practice Occur in Wash. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Limited discovery and motion practice has occurred as of Oct. 31, 2008, in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit filed in Washington against Affinion Group, Inc., which, prior to 2007, was known as the Trilegiant Corp. On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County. The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection statutes. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the court. The case is currently pending before the court, according to Affinion Group, Inc's. Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. AFFINION GROUP: Ala. Court Mulls Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit, according to Affinion Group, Inc's. Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive practices act. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County. The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008. In granting the company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not class) basis. On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. EHARMONY: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Civil Rights Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Victoria Chaney of the California Superior Court in Los Angeles has allowed a lawsuit against eHarmony, an online dating Internet site, to proceed as a class-action lawsuit, Chloe Albanesius of PC Magazine reports. Linda Carlson sued eHarmony in May 2007 for refusing to match gay and lesbian couples. The policy, she claimed, is a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prevents business establishments from discriminating based on sexual orientation. For personal reasons, Ms. Carlson has since been replaced by Nate Cardin as the lead plaintiff, according to PC Magazine. The complaint specifically claims that eHarmony, which an evangelical and conservative Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founded sometime in year 2000, refused to extend its dating service to gays, lesbians and bisexuals (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2007). The lawsuit says Linda Carlson was denied access when she tried using the site's dating service in February 2007. She wrote to eHarmony telling them that its anti-gay policy is discriminatory under the state's law. The company didn't heed her and never changed it. According to attorney Todd Schneider, the suit seeks to change the landscape and make a statement that gays and lesbians have the right and desire to meet with other people with whom they can fall in love with. It also seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy and to pay unspecified damages for those similarly situated. In November 2008, PC Magazine reported that Judge Chaney granted the motion for class certification. The decision will allow gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals who were denied service from eHarmony dating back to 2004 to join the case as a class participant. Individuals do not have to prove actual injury to obtain damages, just that they visited eHarmony and were denied service, reports PC Magazine. For more information, contact plaintiff's lawyer: Todd Schneider, Esq. Schneider & Wallace 180 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-1655 GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Mass. Suit Challenging Right to Foreclose -------------------------------------------------------------- GMAC Mortgage LLC of Fort Washington, Pa., and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. of Santa Ana, Calif., are facing a purported class-action lawsuit, which contends that they lacks the legal authority to press forward with home foreclosures in Massachusetts because they haven't obtained required documents verifying that they hold the mortgages, Robert Weisman of The Boston Globe reports. The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2008 in Suffolk Superior Court on behalf of Darlene Manson of Stoneham and Regine Michel of Hyde Park. The Boston Globe reports that Ms. Manson's home, where she's lived for 35 years, was foreclosed on last March 2008 and she is scheduled to be evicted next week. The suit said Ms. Michel's home, where she lives with two daughters, is scheduled for a foreclosure sale next month. According to attorney Gary Klein, Esq., who is representing both women, the defendants bought the mortgages on the secondary market, but haven't completed paperwork proving the mortgages are assigned to them, as required by state law. The case underscores the increasingly disorganized process of financial firms buying, packaging, and selling mortgages to third parties, a process that is often invisible to homeowners and the public, reports the Boston Globe. By turning the paperwork over to private parties rather than going through registries of deeds, and moving forward with foreclosures before they have the necessary documents, "the lending community is turning the Massachusetts foreclosure process into the Wild West," Mr. Klein, a partner at Roddy, Klein & Ryan tells the Boston Globe. Mr. Klein told the Boston Globe that he will seek class-action status on behalf of what he estimated were thousands of other borrowers in similar situations. One of the goals is to buy time for homeowners to stay in their properties until they can be offered assistance by a federal rescue plan. The lawsuit alleged, "Massachusetts' foreclosure process has become an undisciplined and lawless rush to seize homes." It adds, "Many thousands of foreclosures are plainly void under statute and settled Massachusetts case law." For more details, contact: Gary Klein, Esq. Roddy Klein & Ryan 727 Atlantic Ave. 2d Floor Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 357-5500 Fax: (617) 357-5030 e-mail: info@roddykleinryan.com Web site: http://www.roddykleinryan.com/ JOE FRANCIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Fla. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has refused to certify a class-action lawsuit against Joe Francis and "Girls Gone Wild," which alleges that there might be hundreds of underage girls who have been victimized by the video company, David Angier of The News Herald reports. In March 2008, the attorneys sued "Girls Gone Wild" on behalf of four unnamed females, saying the girls ranged in age from 13 to 17 when they were filmed in stages of undress or performing sexual activity (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2008). Named as defendants in the matter are: -- Aero Falcons LLC; -- Mantra Films Inc; -- MRA Holdings LLC; and -- Joseph R. Francis. In July 2008, Panama City lawyer D. Ross McCloy Jr., Esq., along with Chicago attorneys Larry Selander, Esq., Wayne Mack, Esq., Thomas Dent, Esq., Rachael Pontikes, Esq., and Duane Morris, Esq., amended the lawsuit. The amended lawsuit maintains these allegations, but also places the girls in three classes and sued the company on behalf of the classes: -- Subclass 1, according to the lawsuit, is all minor girls in the nation "who defendants employed, used, persuaded, enticed or coerced into engaging in sexually explicit conduct for the GGW series." -- Subclass 2 is Florida minor girls who have been filmed flashing or engaging in sexually explicit conduct. -- Subclass 3 is Florida minor girls who "defendants and their agents coerced through payment to engage in sexually explicit conduct alone, with each other or with defendant (Joe) Francis." According to Ms. Pontikes, Mr. Francis and his employees broke Florida prostitution laws by soliciting "children to engage in sex acts with each other, with defendant Francis" and paying them with T- shirts and cash. She also accused Mr. Francis of racketeering practices, something he was charged with in Bay County in 2003, which were dropped when the evidence against Mr. Francis was thrown out because it was collected under a flawed search warrant. Ms. Pontikes further said Francis and his companies, since the beginning of their operation, promoted and produced videotapes containing minor girls, which they sold and delivered through the mail. "Defendants are a criminal enterprise which has engaged in the racketeering activities alleged as a matter of routine business practice over an extended period through the actions, assets and assistance of the defendants and has preyed upon and victimized many children including the plaintiffs," Ms. Pontikes wrote. The lawsuit asked for a minimum payment of $150,000 to each girl for damages, but also said "Girls Gone Wild" is eligible for punitive damages as well, which could significantly increase that number. Mr. Selander told The News Herald that a judge will have to decide if class action status is appropriate in this case before they can go forward. If they get certification, then there might be additional plaintiffs to investigate. In ruling to deny a class certification motion, Judge Richard Smoak stated that class-action would be inappropriate in a lawsuit against Mr. Francis and "Girls Gone Wild," because details of each individual within the classes would still have to be explored, according to The News Herald. Class action is certified in lawsuits in which plaintiffs are so numerous that individual lawsuits would be impractical and common questions of the plaintiffs predominate over individual questions. Judge Smoak wrote, "The court would be required to extensively delve into the facts surrounding each plaintiff to determine if she was injured and whether defendants' alleged pattern of racketeering activity was the proximate cause of this injury." Mr. Francis and his companies pleaded guilty in 2006 to federal charges that they'd failed to maintain the proper records proving that the girls in their videos were all adults. Judge Smoak said in his ruling that because of improper record keeping in 2002 and 2003, Mantra Films Inc., the producers of the Girls Gone Wild DVDs, sold footage of at least two minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Judge Smoak did not dismiss the lawsuit, only denied the request for class certification. The lawsuit can go forward, for now, with the individual plaintiffs, reports The News Herald. The suit is "Plaintiff B et al v. Francis et al., Case No. 5:08- cv-00079-rs-ak," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Judge Richard Smoak, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas G. Dent, Esq. (tgdent@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris LLP 190 South Lasalle St. Ste. 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312/499-6700 Fax: 312/499-6701 (fax) - and - Robert Armistead Fleming, Esq. (rfleming@harrisonsale.com) Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chartered 304 Magnolia Ave. [32401] PO Drawer 1579 Panama City, Fl 32402 Phone: 850-769-3434 Fax: 850-769-6121 Representing the defendant is: Ross Michael Babbitt, Esq. (rbabbitt@babbitt-lawfirm.com) Ross M. Babbitt Co LPA 700 W St. Clair Ave., Ste. 300 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216/623-6346 Fax: 216/274-9683 KADANT INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products manufactured by Kadant, Inc.'s discontinued operation. Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a consumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375- JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the company on Jan. 7, 2008. Other defendants named in the suit are Kadant Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc. The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and punitive damages under various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs claim that damages exceed $50 million. On March 14, 2008, the company and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss all counts in the complaint. On Nov. 20, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted motions to dismiss all claims against it and the other defendants in the purported class-action lawsuit, reports RTT News. The suit is "Fisher, et al. v. Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Phone: 610-891-9880 Fax: 610-891-9883 - and - Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com) Thornton & Naumes LLP 30th Floor, 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-720-1333 Fax: 617-720-2445 Representing the defendants are: John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com) WilmerHale LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-742-9100 Fax: 617-526-5000 - and - Edward William Little Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com) McCarter & English, LLP 225 Franklin street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-345-7018 Fax: 617-204-8018 KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Claim in Del. Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corp.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action claim brought by a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder is under submission, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted a separate putative class action claim against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from historical stock option granting practices. KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a supplier of process control and yield management solutions for the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries. Its products are also used in a number of other industries, including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage manufacturing, and solar process development and control. The Company's portfolio of products, services and software are designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research and development to final volume production. In June 2008, KLA- Tencor completed its acquisition of ICOS Vision Systems Corporation NV, a supplier of packaging and interconnect inspection solutions for the semiconductor industry. Its offerings are categorized into four groups: Defect Inspection, Metrology, Product related services and Software. In October 2008, the Company acquired Microelectronic Inspection Equipment (MIE) business unit of Vistec Semiconductor Systems. KLA-TENCOR CORP: Still Faces "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corp. is still facing of a purported class-action suit that was recently remanded back to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara. The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and Sept. 27, 2006. The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants. It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission. Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are: -- Edward W. Barnholt, -- H. Raymond Bingham, -- Robert T. Bond, -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr., -- Stephen P. Kaufman, -- Kenneth Levy, -- Michael E. Marks, -- Dean O. Morton, -- Kenneth L. Schroeder, -- Jon D. Tompkins, and -- Richard P. Wallace. The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that the claims have no merit. On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California Corporations Code on April 1, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the action in the Northern District of California, which was granted in part, with the remaining claims being remanded back to the California Superior Court on Sept. 12, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249- CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com) Attorney at Law One Market, Spear Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Phone: 415-442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Investigation -------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is investigating possible violations of the federal securities laws by KV Pharmaceutical Company ("KV" or the "Company") (NYSE:KV-A) (NYSE:KV-B). The investigation focuses on allegations that the Company did not disclose potential violations of federal regulations and FDA guidelines. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (ormdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com LAND O' LAKES: Faces Lawsuits Over Prices of Egg Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Land O'Lakes, Inc. is a named defendant in three of 14 class- action lawsuits filed against producers of eggs and egg products, according to company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. In September and October 2008, a total of 14 class-action suits were filed against a number of producers of eggs and egg products in three different jurisdictions. The complaints fall into two distinct groups: "those alleging a territorial allocation conspiracy among certain defendants to fix the price of processed 'egg products,' such as liquid or dried eggs; and "those alleging concerted action by producers of shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase the price of shell eggs." The plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, under the United States antitrust laws. The company is named a defendant in these cases: -- "Zaza Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al. (D. Minn.: 08- cv-05262);" -- "Oasis Foods Company v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.: 08-cv-05104);" and -- "Country Foods v. Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc. (E.D. Pa.: 08-cv-4653)." Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- was formed as a cooperative designed to meet the needs of dairy farmers located in the Midwest. The Company operates its business through five segments, which includes Dairy Foods, Feed, Seed, Agronomy and Layers. Dairy Foods develops, produces, markets and sells a variety of butter, spreads, cheese and other related dairy products. Feed develops, produces, markets and distributes animal feed to both the lifestyle and livestock animal markets. Seed develops markets and sells seed for a range of crops, including alfalfa, corn, soybeans and forage and turf grasses. Agronomy primarily consists of the operations of Winfield Solutions, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary established in September 2007 upon the distribution of wholesale crop protection product assets to the Company from Agriliance LLC. Winfield operates as a wholesale distributor of crop protection products. MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Vista Capable" Suit in Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in a class-action lawsuit revolving around the company's marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system in early 2007, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reports. The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07- cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2008). In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista, called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com. The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false designation drove up demand for personal computers and, therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they are not. The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report. However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman did dismissed plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought. She instead allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up prices. A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft appealed against the court's decision affording class action status to the Vista lawsuit. However, in a brief order dated April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's decision. In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008, the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify the class. "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves for summary judgment," the company's filing reads. In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain features, including the Aero interface. Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a distinct budget edition." They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical matter." In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs because of the program, reports seattlepi.com. The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/ e-mail: office@gordontilden.com NOVATEL WIRELES: To Defend Suits Over False Statements in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Novatel Wireless, Inc. intends to defend two putative securities fraud class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Sept. 15 and Sept. 18, 2008, the putative securities class- action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 5, 2007 and Aug. 19, 2008. One lawsuit names the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The other lawsuit names the company, certain of its current and former officers and the members of Novatel's Audit Committee as defendants. The complaints allege generally that the company issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding its financial results and the nature and extent of the accounting review conducted by the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors into the company's revenue cut-off procedures, internal control and accounting related to certain customer contracts. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. Novatel Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.novatelwireless.com/-- is a provider of wireless broadband access solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market. The Company's range of products includes third generation (3G) wireless personal computer (PC) card modems, embedded modems, communications software and Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC) solutions for wireless network operators, infrastructure providers, distributors, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and vertical markets worldwide. SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Face Suits for Improper Reimbursement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s seven insurance subsidiaries face putative state class-action lawsuits seeking certification of a state or national class alleging, among others, improper reimbursement of medical providers paid under workers compensation and personal and commercial automobile insurance policies. No specific details regarding the class actions were disclosed by the company in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Selective Insurance Group, Inc. -- http://www.selective.com-- through its subsidiaries, offers property and casualty insurance products and diversified insurance services and products. The company was incorporated in New Jersey in 1977 and its main offices are located in Branchville, N.J. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit Over Early Retirement Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., along with other defendants, continue to face a class-action lawsuit entitled, "Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al.," according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2008. On Feb. 16, 2007, the action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early April 2007. The company, The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) employees and The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) employees, along with The Boeing Company and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12 former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of the company's subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and general contract law and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55 and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005. Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to the early retirement benefits, an injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages under breach of contract claims and attorney fees. The suit is "Harkness et al. v. Boeing et al., Case No. 6:07-cv- 01043-WEB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge Wesley E. Brown, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas E. Hammond, Esq. (tehammond1@yahoo.com) Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C. 727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370 Wichita, KS 67201 Phone: 316-262-6800 Fax: 316-262-3770 - and - Keira M. McNett, Esq. (kmcnett@dcbwash.com) Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP 1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-223-2620 Fax: 202-223-8651 Representing the defendants are: Gregory L. Ash, Esq. (gash@spencerfane.com) Spencer Fane Britt & Browne 40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700 9401 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: 913-345-8100 Fax: 913-345-0736 - and - James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com) Foulston Siefkin LLP 1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Phone: 316-291-9576 Fax: 316-267-6345 SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces Age Discrimination Suit in Kans. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in an age discrimination class-action lawsuit filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2008. On Dec. 19, 2005, the action "Perry Apsley et al. v. The Boeing Co., Onex Corp. and Spirit AeroSystems, Inc." was filed. In early March 2006, plaintiffs served the company and the other defendants with the suit. Generally, plaintiffs assert several claims and purport to bring the case as a class action and collective action on behalf of all individuals who were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas or Tulsa, Oklahoma within two years prior to the date of the Boeing Acquisition and who were terminated or not hired by Spirit. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for age discrimination, interference with Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 rights, breach of contract and retaliation. Additionally, plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive damages. On Nov. 15, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and held that the plaintiffs may send notice of the collective action to all former Boeing employees who were terminated by Boeing on or after Jan. 1, 2002, were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination and were not hired by Spirit. Notice has been sent and individuals had until April 20, 2007 to indicate their interest in joining the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and more than US$1.5 billion in punitive damages. The Asset Purchase Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were made by us with respect to former employees of the commercial aerostructures manufacturing operations at Boeing ("Boeing Wichita") which relate or allegedly relate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such employment decisions. The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Texas, Judge Monti L. Belot presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com) Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq. (l.williamson@swolawfirm.com) Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC 301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center Wichita, KS 67202 Phone: 316-261-5400 Fax: 316-261-5404 Representing the defendants are: James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com) Carolyn L. Matthews, Esq. (cmatthews@foulston.com) Foulston Siefkin, LLP 1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-267-6371 Fax: 316-267-6345 ST. LAWRENCE: Canadian Court Issues Ruling in Residents' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TORONTO, Nov. 20 -- St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) acknowledges the decision released today by the Supreme Court of Canada on the class-action lawsuit filed by a group of residents from Beauport, Qu�bec. SLC is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the company committed no fault in operating the Beauport cement plant prior to its decommissioning in 1997. However, the implications of today's confirmation by the Supreme Court of Canada that a no-fault liability regime does exist in the Province of Qu�bec may have far reaching implications for Canadian industry. This precedent setting decision will require further review and detailed analysis, not only by SLC, but by all potentially impacted Canadian companies, in order to better understand our obligations consequent to this ruling. SLC does acknowledge that, despite using state-of-the-art equipment to manage dust and consistently complying with all regulatory requirements, there was annoyance to our neighbors from the operation of the plant. SLC is very committed to the over 50 Canadian communities in which we operate today. As a responsible industry leader, we are committed to doing the right thing for our employees and neighbors while operations are active and when we decommission sites. Today, community advisory boards are in place for both SLC cement plants, we host regular community open houses to demonstrate how our processes and technologies work, and we actively engage with community members to understand their issues and complaints and to resolve them as quickly as possible. SLC is a leading producer and supplier of products and services for the construction industry, serving customers across Canada. SLC employs approximately 3,000 Canadians and generates annual revenues over $1.5 billion. WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Colossus Software --------------------------------------------------------------- Westfield Insurance Group, and Computer Science Corp. are the the only two remaining defendants in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in Arkansas court over the Colossus computer software, Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports. Out of approximately 581 insurance companies originally sued, only the Westfield Insurance remains. Computer Science, the owner of the Colossus computer software is the other defendant left. The original class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 7, 2005, against insurance companies that use Computer Science Corp.'s software Colossus, Insurance Services Office's software COA, and Claim IQ's software Injury IQ, according to the Southeast Texas Record. The proposed class-action lawsuit alleges that insurance companies use these programs to systematically undervalue bodily-injury claim settlements in an effort to profit. Recently, the Southeast Texas Record reports the proposed class of plaintiffs filed the first amended motion for class certification, announcing the remaining plaintiff seeking class representation is Oklahoma resident Chad Hunter. Mr. Hunter's bodily-injury accident at issue occurred in 2001 with OneBeacon Insurance Group responsible for the claim. Mr. Hunter settled his claims for $25,250 and released OneBeacon Insurance Group from further liability. Although he signed a release of liability, Mr. Hunter then pursued OneBeacon again in the Colossus litigation and has recently settled his claims against OneBeacon, allowing the company to be dismissed from the Colossus lawsuit. The plaintiffs maintain Mr. Hunter is an adequate class representative due to the alleged scheme between insurance and software companies. The court document, obtained by the Southeast Texas Record states, "Hunter asserts claims for which he seeks a joint and several liability determination against defendants CSC and Westfield based on their participation in the 'Overarching Colossus Scheme' - that is, engaging in an overarching fraudulent scheme to conceal the truth about Colossus from the public and to wrongfully profit by using Colossus in the adjustment of bodily injury claims, including UM/UIM claims." However, the Southeast Texas Record reports that Westfield Group is opposing the motion for class certification and seeking dismissal arguing that this plaintiff cannot maintain the lawsuit because there is no actual claim against them. The defendant states that Mr. Hunter has never been a Westfield customer, submitted a claim, or had a policy with Westfield and therefore has "lack of standing." Further, Westfield argues that Mr. Hunter does not fulfill the six requirements necessary for class representation: -- numerosity; -- commonality; -- typicality; -- adequacy; -- predominance; and -- (superiority). The complaint asserts claims against Westfield for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, unjust enrichment, fraud, constructive fraud, and conspiracy. With no insurance policy or insurance claim against Westfield, the insurance company argues Mr. Hunter cannot maintain those claims, reports Southeast Texas Record. Although this litigation has been pending for more than four years, Westfield believes that the plaintiffs' counsel has been unable to find a class representative with any connection to Westfield. With regard to the "overarching scheme" or civil conspiracy, Westfield states it did not set savings targets with the Colossus software but "used past bodily injury settlements as a guide, thereby ensuring that it set Colossus to reflect the actual values for claims, not some arbitrary savings target," according to the Southeast Texas Record report. Elaborating further, Westfield insists that it has a clear history of paying 40 percent more on settlements than the Colossus benchmarks. According to the most recent scheduling order, a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss will be held on Dec. 1, 2008. The hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2008, reports the Southeast Texas Record. New Securities Fraud Cases BRITANNIA BULK: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOCA RATON, Fl., Nov. 20, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. ("Britannia" or the "Company") (PINKSHEETS: BBLKF) formerly (NYSE: DWT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with its June 17, 2008 initial public offering ("IPO"). Britannia Bulk is an international provider of drybulk shipping and maritime logistics services with a focus on transporting drybulk commodities in and out of the Baltic region. On June 17, 2008, Britannia Bulk accomplished its IPO of 8.3 million shares at $15.00 per share for net proceeds of $116.2 million, pursuant to the Registration Statement. In its first day of trading, Britannia Bulk stock closed at $13.85 per share. Then, on October 28, 2008, Britannia Bulk issued a press release announcing that the Company expected a significant net loss for the third quarter of 2008 compared to the net income achieved during the second quarter of 2008. The loss was due to problems with hedges the Company had entered into earlier in the year which clearly violated the Company's investment policy described in the Prospectus. Following this disclosure, the Company's stock collapsed to $0.16 per share. The following day, the Company disclosed that it had been notified by its lenders that they were accelerating all of its subsidiary's obligations under a $170 million lending facility. This would ultimately result in the subsidiary being placed into administration under insolvency laws in the United Kingdom. For more details, contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com INTERNAP NETWORK: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- BALA CYNWYD, PA, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Internap Network Services Corp. ("Internap" or the "Company") between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Internap. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or the "Company") common stock during the period between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges PharmaNet and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PharmaNet is a drug development services company that maintains offices and facilities in North America, Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia and has clients in the branded pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical device industries. The complaint alleges that the representations contained in PharmaNet's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls and presentations during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose that: -- the Company's backlog contained numerous contracts which were likely to be canceled; -- the Company had ramped up expenses in order to perform contracts even though there was a substantial likelihood that the contracts would be canceled; -- the Company was entering into contracts with highly risky biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies where the risk that the contract would be canceled was greatly increased; and -- given the above factors, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its business, backlog and earnings guidance. According to the complaint, on April 30, 2008, PharmaNet issued a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2008. For the quarter, the Company reported direct revenue of $86.8 million and backlog of $482.9 million. In response to the announcement, the price of PharmaNet stock dropped from $23.86 per share to $17.10 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of PharmaNet common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). For more details, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/pharmanet/ SADIA S.A.: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 20, 2008 -- The law firm of Spector, Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. announces that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of investors who purchased American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Sadia S.A. Corporation ("Sadia" or the "Company") between April 30, 2008 through September 26, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Sadia entered into undisclosed currency derivative contracts to allegedly hedge against the Company's U.S. Dollar exposure. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: -- that Sadia entered into currency derivative contracts to hedge against U.S. dollar exposure that were twice as large positions allowed for under the Company's hedge policy; -- that the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading in that they failed to account for the Company's massive exposure to currency market fluctuations; and -- that the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects lacked any reasonable basis when made. On September 26, 2008, the Company unexpectedly announced that it would take a loss of approximately $410 million related to the Company's investments in currency contracts hedging against the U.S. dollar. Sadia acknowledged that the nature and amounts of these currency contracts fell far outside "the purpose of protecting the activities of the Company exposed to exchange variation." As a result of Defendants' admissions, the Company's ADRs closed at $9.50 per share, down from the previous day's close of $15.27, a decline of 38%. For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman, Esq. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 888-844-5862 e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com TALEO CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood announces that on November 14, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Taleo Corp. 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 October 4, 2005 through November 10, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com WATERS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Nov. 20, 2008 -- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") announces that a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Waters Corporation ("Waters Corp." or the "Company") (NYSE: WAT) during the period between January 24, 2007 and January 22, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). No class has yet been certified in this action. If you would like to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call KGS Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, without obligation or cost to you, toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, via cell phone after hours at 504-301-7900, or by email at lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com. Waters Corp. and certain of its officers are charged with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for issuing a series of materially false statements that concealed and failed to disclose that the Company had published materially inaccurate and false information regarding the Company's financial condition. Specifically, the complaint charges that Waters Corp. failed to disclose that it knew or was reckless in not knowing that, throughout the Class Period: -- Waters Corp. was experiencing a slowdown in sales in the Japanese market as a result of decreased government regulation, which reduced the need for its products and services; -- that earnings were being materially impacted by an increased tax rate; and -- as a result of the foregoing, Waters Corp. lacked a reasonable basis for publishing 2007 earnings guidance. Investors only learned the truth about the Company on January 22, 2008, after Waters Corp. announced disappointing financial results for 4Q and full-year 2007, and after defendants had finished liquidating tens of millions of dollars of their personally held Waters Corp. common shares. Moreover, following the publication of these belated disclosures, shares of Waters Corp. declined precipitously -- falling $14.65 per share, or approximately 20%, to close at $58.58 per share, on heavy trading volume. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 e-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com WATERS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Nov. 20, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Waters Corporation ("Waters Corp." or the "Company") common stock during the period between January 24, 2007 and January 22, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Waters Corp. and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Waters Corp. provides high-performance liquid chromatography products and services. The Company distributes its products worldwide to a wide range of industries, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and environmental testing. The complaint alleges that the representations contained in Water Corp.'s press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and presentations during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose: -- that the Company was experiencing a slowdown in sales in the Japanese market as a result of decreased government regulation, which reduced the need for the Company's products and services; -- that the Company's earnings were being materially impacted by an increased tax rate; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company had no reasonable basis for its 2007 earnings guidance. According to the complaint, on January 22, 2008, Waters Corp. announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2007, the period ended December 31, 2007. Following this press release, the defendants held a conference call with analysts and investors and revealed that "an unexpected increase in [its] annual tax rate, among other factors, adversely affected [its] bottom-line performance." Moreover, the Company stated that its Japanese sales were "weaker than anticipated due to [] a change in the testing protocols for drinking water analysis in Japan" which the Company knew about since "last year." Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $14.65 per share, or approximately 20%, to close at $58.58 per share, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Waters Corp.'s common stock during the Class Period, which is between January 24, 2007 and January 22, 2008. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com ********* 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 * * *