/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081125.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 234 Headlines ABLE ENERGY: Defending Claims in Hicks Suit Over N.J. Explosion ABLE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk CCIG Shareholders Suit AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling in "Bateman" Matter AT&T INC: Jury Orders $17M Payment For Overcharging Customers CROCS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo. DBSI INC: Faces Idaho Fraud Litigation Seeking $2B in Damages FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Consolidated Suit for Antitrust Breach FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Pa. Court Approves "Pollak" Suit Settlement HARMONIX MUSIC: Faces Suit Over Faulty "Rock Band" Drum Pedals MARQUEE HOLDINGS: "Bateman" Class Certification Ruling on Appeal MIDAS INC: In Talks with Franchisees Over $168M Suit Settlement NOAH EDUCATION: To Defend 3 Suits Over Oct. 2007 Securities IPO PHYSICIANS MEDICAL: Law Firm Files WARN Violations Suit in Ala. PIRIAN BROTHERS: Car Wash Employees File Labor Violations Suit POINT BLANK SOLUTIONS: Appeal to Securities Fraud Suit Pending SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Securities Suits Over Failure to Inform SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Defends Sewer Ratepayers Case v. Bond Insurers SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit TALEO CORP: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Investigation WACHOVIA CORP: Shareholders File N.C. Suit Over Wells Fargo Deal WORKSTREAM INC: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in Sept. * Litigators Say Banks, Raters Face Subprime Lawsuits, New Rules New Securities Fraud Cases PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing ********* ABLE ENERGY: Defending Claims in Hicks Suit Over N.J. Explosion --------------------------------------------------------------- Able Energy, Inc. continues to defend the claims in the class- action suit styled, "Hicks vs. Able Energy, Inc.," according to company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Following an explosion and fire that occurred at the Company's Facility in Newton, N.J., on March 14, 2003, and through the subsequent clean up efforts, the Company has cooperated fully with all local, state and federal agencies in their investigations into the cause of this accident. A lawsuit, entitled, "Hicks vs. Able Energy, Inc.," has been filed against the Company by residents who allegedly suffered property damages as a result of the March 14, 2003 explosion and fire. The Company's insurance carrier is defending the Company as it relates to compensatory damages. The Company has retained separate legal counsel to defend the Company against the punitive damage claim. On June 13, 2005, the Court granted a motion certifying a plaintiff class action which is defined as "All Persons and Entities that on and after March 14, 2003, residing within a 1,000 yard radius of Able Oil Co.'s fuel depot facility and were damaged as a result of the March 14, 2003 explosion." The Company sought and received Court permission to serve interrogatories to all class members and in November 2007, answers to interrogatories were received by less than 125 families and less than 15 businesses. The Company successfully moved to exclude any and all persons and entities from the class that did not previously provide answers to interrogatories. The class certification is limited to economic loss and specifically excludes claims for personal injury from the Class Certification. The Company says in its latest regulatory filing that the Class Claims for compensatory damages is within the available limits of its insurance coverage. On Sept. 13, 2006, the plaintiff's counsel made a settlement demand of US$10 million, which, according to the Company's Form 10-K dated Nov. 17, 2008, is excessive and the methodology on which it is based to be fundamentally flawed. On May 7, 2008, this matter entered mediation. As of Nov. 17, 2008, the date of the Company's Form 10-K Report, mediation has not been successful but the Company remains open to reasonable settlement discussions with the plaintiffs. Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in the retail distribution of and the provision of services relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel fuels. The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installation and repair services and markets other petroleum products to commercial customers, including on- road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants. ABLE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk CCIG Shareholders Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- No decision has been issued with respect to a motion that sought for the dismissal of the purported class-action complaint brought by shareholders of CCI Group, Inc. against Able Energy, Inc., according to the Able Energy's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. On Jan. 7, 2008, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gregory D. Frost, and its Vice-President of Business Development, Frank Nocito, were served with a summons and complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This action, which seeks class certification, was brought by shareholders of CCIG. The complaint relates to a Share Exchange Agreement, dated July 7, 2006, between All American Properties, Inc. (Properties) and CCIG, under which 70% of the outstanding and issued shares of CCIG were exchanged for 618,557 shares of the Company's common stock which were owned by Properties of which 250,378 shares were to be distributed to the shareholders of CCIG and the balance of the shares were to be used to pay debts of CCIG. According to the its Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K, neither the Company nor Messrs. Frost or Nocito were parties to the Share Exchange Agreement. Properties remain the largest shareholder of the Company. The Share Exchange Agreement was previously disclosed by the Company in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 7, 2006 as part of a disclosure of a loan by the Company to Properties. Each of the Company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion has been fully briefed and submitted to the Court. Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in the retail distribution of and the provision of services relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel fuels. The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installation and repair services and markets other petroleum products to commercial customers, including on- road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling in "Bateman" Matter --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the matter, "Michael Bateman v. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names as defendant AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a defendant is appealing the denial of his renewed motion for class certification of the case. The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on electronic receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder. The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case. On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America signed the FACTA reform bill. The bill specifies that if a company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the law. The legislation does not specifically address the situation where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a receipt. The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff has appealed this decision, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2008. The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Gary A. Feess, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spirmoss.com) Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com) Spiro Moss Barness 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310-235-2468 Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitskim, Esq. Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Phone: 213-576-8097 Fax: 213-576-8080 AT&T INC: Jury Orders $17M Payment For Overcharging Customers ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal jury in Kansas City, Kansas, has ordered AT&T, Inc. to pay almost $17 million for overcharging customers in California when passing along a federally mandated phone fee, The the Kansas City Star reports. However, in the same verdict reached on Nov. 19, 2008, jurors determined there wasn't enough evidence showing the company conspired with Sprint Nextel Corp. or then-competitor MCI to overcharge customers nationwide for the Universal Service Fund, according to the Kansas City Star report. Barry Barnett, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Kansas City Star that his side was "very pleased" with the decision regarding the California customers and would ask the judge to add up to $10 million in prejudgment interest to the award. He also told the Kansas City Star that the plaintiffs were deciding whether to appeal the decision on the antitrust accusations. The antitrust case consolidated dozens of class-action lawsuits filed across the country and covered customers who paid into the Universal Service Fund between Aug. 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003, reports the Kansas City Star. According to the Kansas City Star, the case wound up in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, although it affects only California consumers, because the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred it there. The panel is empowered to transfer similar pending lawsuits brought in multiple districts to a single jurisdiction. The fund subsidizes the cost of running phone service to rural areas, low-income customers and public facilities, such as schools, libraries and rural hospitals. Telecommunications companies are required to contribute to the fund a percentage of their gross revenue from interstate and international calls with the Federal Communications Commission sets the contribution rate. AT&T described the fee on its bills as a "Universal Connectivity Charge," The Kansas City Star reports. CROCS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo. --------------------------------------------------------------- CROCS, Inc., faces a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Colorado. Starting in November 2007, certain shareholders filed several purported shareholder class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged statements made by the company between July 27, 2007, and Oct. 31, 2007. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of attorney's fees and costs of litigation. These actions were consolidated and, in September 2008, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Dhingra, et al. v. CROCS, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-02351," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) Dyer & Berens, LLP 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203-3507 Phone: 303-861-1764 Fax: 303-395-0393 Joseph C. Cohen, Jr., Esq. (jcohen@wolfslatkin.com) Wolf, Slatkin & Madison, P.C. 44 Cook Street #1000 Denver, CO 80206-5827 Phone: 303-355-2999 Fax: 303-329-6826 - and - Thomas P. McMahon, Esq. (tmcmahon@joneskeller.com) Jones & Keller, P.C. 1625 Broadway, 16th Floor Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-573-1600 Fax: 303-573-8133 Representing the defendants are: Brian Neil Hoffman, Esq. (bhoffman@mofo.com) Morrison & Foerster, LLP 370 17th Street Republic Plaza #5200 Denver, CO 80202-5638 Phone: 303-592-1500 Fax: 303-592-1510 DBSI INC: Faces Idaho Fraud Litigation Seeking $2B in Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- DBSI, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that it took in $500 million in illegal profits since October 2003 as a result of securities fraud, banking fraud and tax fraud, including $160 million personally siphoned to president and chief executive officer Doug Swenson, Simon Shifrin of the Idaho Business Review reports. The suit was filed on on Oct. 27, 2008 in Idaho's Fourth Judicial District Court by a California trust on behalf of tenant-in-common investors, according to the Idaho Business Review. It claims that DBSI: -- treated some securities as real estate transactions to avoid disclosures; -- induced investors to violate the federal tax code; -- reneged on promises not to sell fractional ownership interests to third parties; -- created a "Ponzi" scheme in which the proceeds from the marked-up sale of new properties were used to pay investors on existing properties; and -- intentionally concealed fair market values of properties it sold to investors, among other things. In particular, the lawsuit says that two separate DBSI affiliates, DBSI Securities LLC and For 1031 LLC, treated nearly identical transactions differently � as securities or real estate. According to court papers obtained by the Idaho Business Review treating tenant-in-commons (TIC) solely as real estate requires minimal disclosure and constitutes fraud. The suit seeks $2 billion on behalf of all TIC investors since October 2003 and dissolution or reorganization of the company, reports the Idaho Business Review. FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Consolidated Suit for Antitrust Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd., faces a consolidated class action complaint for alleged violations of antitrust laws in connection with the bidding of municipal guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives, according to the company's Nov. 17 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Between March and July 2008 seven putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal court alleging antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry; an eighth was filed later in July 2008. Five of these cases name both the Company and FSA: -- "Hinds County, Mississippi et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 08 CV 2516," filed on March 12, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; -- "Fairfax County, Virginia et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00432," filed on March 12, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; -- "Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank N.A.," filed on June 4, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:08-cv- 956, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No. 1:08-cv- 6342; -- "Mayor & City Counsel of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank N.A.," filed on July 3, 2008 in the S.D.N.Y., Case No. 1:08-cv-6142; and -- "Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A.," filed on July 14, 2008 in the S.D.N.Y., Case No. 1:08- cv-6304. Three of the cases name the Company only: -- "City of Oakland, California, v. AIG Financial Products Corp.," filed on April 23, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:08-cv-2116, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No. 1:08-cv-6340; -- "County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.," filed on July 8, 2008 in the N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:08-cv-3278, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No. 1:08-cv-7034; and -- "City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.," filed on July 17, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1.08-cv-1045, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No. 1:08-cv-7355. These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the S.D.N.Y. as "In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 (MDL 1950)." Interim lead counsel for the MDL 1950 plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in August 2008 alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. The Plaintiffs Oakland, Alameda, and Fresno also allege violations under California law, and the MDL 1950 court has determined that it will handle federal claims alleged in the Consolidated Complaint before addressing state claims. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations. The company insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held by investment funds. The company is licensed as a guaranty insurer in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim. FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Pa. Court Approves "Pollak" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania approved a tentative settlement reached in the purported class- action lawsuit, "Hayden, et al. v. Freightcar America, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00201-KRG," which generally alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, The Associated Press reports. On Aug. 15, 2007, a lawsuit was filed against FreightCar America in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by Samuel W. Pollak, Jr., and Robert A. Hayden, Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 19, 2008). The plaintiffs were subsequently amended to Kenneth J. Sowers, Anthony J. Zanghi and Robert A. Hayden, Jr. The plaintiffs are employees at the Company's Johnstown, Pennsylvania manufacturing facility and allege that they and other workers at the facility were laid off by the Company to prevent them from becoming eligible for certain retirement benefits, in violation of federal law (General Corporate Litigation Updates, Dec 28, 2007). The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction requiring the Company to return the laid-off employees to work. About 100 workers, who are part of a class-action lawsuit, were laid off when the plant stopped production in 2007. They were supposed to get their pensions, but many were laid off just shy of their eligibility, WJACTV.com reports. Judge Kim R. Gibson had already decided that the company was in the wrong for trying to skimp on paying the pensions and a settlement was worked out for several million dollars between the company and the United Steel Workers Union. WJACTV.com reported that on Nov. 17, 2008, former workers at a Johnstown installation packed into a federal courtroom hoping to hear a decision about the settlement. The judge was expected to make a call on the deal, but so far no decision has been handed down. However, the judge did say that he will make a decision soon though he wants to put his explanation in writing. Asked for comment about the amount workers might receive, attorney John Stember, Esq., who is representing the workers told WJACTV.com, "We can't put an exact dollar figure on it (the settlement)." He added, "The special pensions provide them with a lot more than just a regular pension. I think a fair estimate would be in the $10 million to $20 million range." WJACTV.com reported that during the Monday hearing, there were also about 20 objections to the settlement, not from members of the class-action lawsuit, but by other men trying to get in on the settlement. They worked for Freightcar for 20 years, but are too young to be eligible for pensions. Attorneys on both sides said they feel bad for the men, but it should really have no baring on the judge's decision. On Nov. 19, 2008, A federal district judge in Johnstown, Pa., ruled that the settlement was fair and in the best interests of the workers, according to The Associated Press. The suit is "Hayden, et al v. Freightcar America, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00201-KRG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Kim R. Gibson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: John Stember, Esq. (jstember@stemberfeinstein.com) Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC 429 Forbes Avenue 1705 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1639 Phone: (412) 281-8400 Fax: (412) 281-1007 Representing the defendants is: Joseph P. Milcoff, Esq. (jmilcoff@reedsmith.com) Reed Smith 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886 Phone: (412) 288-4108 HARMONIX MUSIC: Faces Suit Over Faulty "Rock Band" Drum Pedals -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit has been file against Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., MTV Networks, its parent company Viacom, Inc., and Electronic Arts, Inc. over faulty drum pedals in "Rock Band," Tom Magrino of GameSpot reports. "Rock Band" is a series of music video games developed by Harmonix and MTV, and distributed by Electronic Arts for the PlayStation 2 and 3, Xbox 360, and Wii game consoles. It expands upon Harmonix' earlier work on the Guitar Hero music video games, and allows for up to four players to virtually perform rock music songs on lead guitar, bass guitar, drums, and vocals using special controllers modeled after musical instruments. According to GameSpot, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Monte Morgan on behalf of those in a similar predicament. The lawsuit contends that the aforementioned parties are in violation of an implied warranty that all of the items sold with the Rock Band kit were of 'merchantable quality and fit for the purpose for which defendants marketed, advertised, and sold such products to plaintiff and the proposed class, reports GameSpot. The complaint also notes that despite MTV's and Harmonix's awareness of the defect, they continue to sell the game, GameSpot reported. Evidencing this claim, the suit notes that the new Rock Band 2 kick pedal now includes a metal plate, where as the original drum kit still packs the plastic support piece. The plaintiff and those he represents are seeking reimbursement of the purchase cost for the Rock Band kit, for MTV and Electronic Arts to cease selling the defective product, and any other damages as deemed by the court, according to GameSpot. The suit is "Morgan v. Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-05211-BZ, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gretchen Arlene Carpenter, Esq. (gcarpenter@linkline.com) Strange & Carpenter 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-207-5055 Fax: 310-826-3210 MARQUEE HOLDINGS: "Bateman" Class Certification Ruling on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the matter, "Michael Bateman v. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names Marquee Holdings, Inc., as a defendant is appealing the denial of his renewed motion for class certification of the case. The class-action complaint was filed in January 2007, against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the card holder. The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case. The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case. On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America signed the FACTA reform bill. The bill specifies that if a company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the law. The legislation does not specifically address the situation where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a receipt. The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff has appealed this decision, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Oct. 2, 2008. The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge Gary A. Feess, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spiromoss.com) Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com) Spiro Moss Barness 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310-235-2468 Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitski, Esq. Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Phone: 213-576-8097 Fax: 213-576-8080 MIDAS INC: In Talks with Franchisees Over $168M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement discussions are ongoing between Midas Canada Inc. and Midas International Corp., subsidiaries of Midas, Inc., and two Canadian franchisees over a proposed class action proceeding. Two Canadian franchisees have filed a lawsuit in Ontario against Itasca-based (Illinois) Midas Inc. on June 29, Chicago Tribune's James P. Miller reports. The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the automotive services provider breached its franchise agreement when it closed its manufacturing and distribution operations, the report said. The plaintiffs ask for monetary damages of approximately $168 million. Midas believes the case is without merit and will vigorously defend itself (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2007). Midas Canada and Midas International agreed to mediate the claims asserted by two Canadian franchisees. The mediation concluded on Nov. 14, 2008 without a settlement. However, the parties have agreed to a further settlement discussion without the aid of the mediator, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 18, 2008 Midas, Inc. -- http://midas.com/-- is a provider of automotive repair and maintenance services with over 2,550 shops globally. Midas retail shops, which are operated by the Company, its franchisees and licensees, offer an array of automotive repair and maintenance services. NOAH EDUCATION: To Defend 3 Suits Over Oct. 2007 Securities IPO --------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Education Holdings Ltd. intends to defend itself in three securities fraud class-action lawsuits filed in connection with the company's October 2007 initial public offering, according to its Nov. 17, 2008 Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. On Oct. 27, 2008, a securities fraud class-action suit, entitled, "Seidel v. Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9203," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company. The plaintiffs in this case allege that the registration statement of our October 2007 initial public offering purported to warn about the potential impact of increases in component costs, but failed to disclose that the company was then experiencing increased raw material costs. The plaintiffs allege federal securities law violations and seek unspecified damage. On Nov. 3, 2008, two additional securities class-action lawsuits, entitled, "Schapiro v. Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9427," and "Sebik v. Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9509," were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company with substantially the same allegation. Noah Education Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.noahtech.com.cn/-- provides interactive education content in China. The company develops and markets interactive, multimedia learning materials mainly to complement prescribed textbooks used in China's primary and secondary school curriculum, covering subjects, such as English, Chinese, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, political science and history. It delivers its content primarily through handheld digital learning devices (DLDs), into which its content is embedded or subsequently downloaded at over 8,500 points of sale, approximately 2,000 download centers, or through its Website, www.noahedu.com. In addition, the Company sells electronic dictionaries (E- dictionaries). PHYSICIANS MEDICAL: Law Firm Files WARN Violations Suit in Ala. --------------------------------------------------------------- Outen & Golden LLP of New York has filed a purported class- action lawsuit seeking compensation for former employees of Physicians Medical Center Carraway, Bizjournals.com reports. The suit, filed on Nov. 10, 2008 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama, claims PMCC violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act when it laid off 1,000 employees upon its closing on Oct. 20, 2008, according to Bizjournals.com. Attorney Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. of Outen & Golden told Bizjournals.com that PCCC failed to give employees advanced written warning of its closing and employees were not paid in accordance with federal law. She adds that a class-action suit was the best option for affected employees. PIRIAN BROTHERS: Car Wash Employees File Labor Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Four car washes owned by brothers Benny and Nisan Pirian, namely: Vermont Hand Wash, Celebrity Car Wash, Hollywood Car Wash and Five Star Car Wash, are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws, reports James Parks of http://blog.aflcio.org. The class-action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in May 2008, covering an estimated 250 current and former employees at the four car washes. It alleges that the Pirians failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide overtime pay and denied meal and rest breaks during shifts, among other violations of state and federal law. POINT BLANK SOLUTIONS: Appeal to Securities Fraud Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals on the securities fraud class-action suit that was filed against Point Blank Solutions, Inc., and certain individual defendants, as well as the related shareholder derivative action, are pending. Initially, several securities class-action and shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of the company's directors and officers. Those lawsuits were recently settled. On June 25, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the settlement. One of the objectors filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 1, 2008. Both the derivative action and the securities class action have been appealed, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Pompano Beach, Florida-based Point Blank Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- is a manufacturer and provider of bullet, fragmentation and stab resistant apparel and related ballistic accessories, which are used in the U.S. And internationally by military, law enforcement, security and corrections personnel, as well as government agencies. The company manufactures and sells a variety of body armor products through its subsidiaries Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and Protective Apparel Corporation of America. It also produces and sells a variety of sports medicine, health support and other products through a subsidiary, Life Wear Technology, Inc. All products are sold through contracts, a corporate sales force, sales agents and a network of distributors. SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Securities Suits Over Failure to Inform -------------------------------------------------------------- SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. faces several securities class- action suits over its failure to disclose information regarding SemGroup, L.P, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 12b-25 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company has been named as a defendant in securities class action lawsuits that allege, among other things, that the company failed to disclose that SemGroup, L.P was engaged in high-risk crude oil hedging transactions that could affect its ability to continue as a going concern or that SemGroup, L.P was suffering from liquidity problems. SemGroup, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on July 22, 2008. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.SGLP.com/-- owns and operates a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream energy assets. SemGroup Energy Partners provides crude oil and liquid asphalt cement terminalling and storage services and crude oil gathering and transportation services. SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Defends Sewer Ratepayers Case v. Bond Insurers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Syncora Holdings, Ltd. formerly Security Capital Assurance, Ltd. intends to defend itself in the sewer ratepayers' class-action suit filed against one of the company's operating businesses, Syncora Guarantee Inc., and numerous other defendants. On June 17, 2008, Charles Wilson, on behalf of himself and a class consisting of every Jefferson County, Alabama sewer ratepayer since January 1, 1993, filed the suit. The suit alleges that through the wrongful conduct of the members of the Jefferson County Commission, most notably Larry Langford, the County incurred a bonded indebtedness of approximately US$3.2 billion relating to improvements to its sewer system. The complaint alleges that the commissioners, in a conspiracy with several individuals, financial companies, law firms, and bond insurers, completed several swap transactions whereby the bonds, which were primarily fixed interest securities, were swapped to variable rate and auction rate securities. These swaps, the complaint alleges, were done primarily to facilitate the inappropriate payment of exorbitant fees to several bond brokers and financial advisors. With respect to the bond insurers, including Syncora Guarantee, the complaint alleges that the insurers negligently insured the bonds while allowing themselves to become undercapitalized and downgraded by the rating services, which in turn downgraded the bonds. The plaintiffs allege damages on the ground that their sewer rates are much higher than they otherwise would have been without the wrongdoing of all parties. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Syncora Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.scafg.com/Holdings/-- formerly Security Capital Assurance Limited, is a holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide financial guarantee insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the U.S. and internationally. The company's businesses consists of Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and its wholly owned subsidiary, XL Capital Assurance (U.K.) Limited (XLCA-UK) and Syncora Guarantee Re Ltd. (formerly XL Financial Assurance Ltd.). The segments of the company are financial guarantee insurance and financial guarantee reinsurance. The financial guarantee insurance segment offers financial guarantee insurance policies and credit-default swaps contracts. The financial guarantee reinsurance segment reinsures financial guarantee policies and CDS contracts issued by other monoline financial guarantee insurance companies. SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Syncora Holdings Ltd., on Oct. 14, 2008, filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of the company and the individual defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in New York, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. In December 2007 and January 2008, three class-action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They are: -- "Brickman Investments, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al.," -- "2 West, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al.," and -- "Clarke v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al." Two of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common shares in the secondary public offering by XL Insurance Ltd., as selling shareholder, on or about June 6, 2007. The third lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from April 23, 2007, through Dec. 10, 2007, including those who purchased shares in the secondary offering. The complaints name the company, its president and chief executive officer, its former executive vice president and chief financial officer, and XL Insurance, as defendants, and they allege various violations of the U.S. Securities Act and the U.S. Exchange Act by the defendants. Two of the complaints also name the lead underwriters of the secondary offering as defendants. The complaints include claims that the defendants' public statements, including the registration statement and prospectus related to the secondary offering, contained false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading. On April 24, 2008, an order was entered consolidating these actions under the caption "In re Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation," and appointing the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff. On Aug. 6, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The consolidated amended complaint adds Edward Hubbard, Executive Vice President, as well as Richard Heberton, former chief credit officer of XL Capital Assurance, Inc., as defendants and expands the class period to include all persons who acquired the company's securities from March 15, 2007, to March 18, 2008. The suit is "In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-11086-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Deborah A. Batts, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. (egleston@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 e-mail: 212-779-3218 Irving Bizar, Esq. (Ibizar@Ballonstoll.com) Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler 729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-575-7900 Fax: 212-764-5060 - and - Richard A Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-223-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 TALEO CORP: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Investigation -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Nov 21, 2008 -- The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP is investigating possible illegal conduct as alleged in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Taleo Corporation ("Taleo" or "Company") and certain of Taleo's officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Taleo securities from October 4, 2005 through November 10, 2008 (the "Class Period"). Taleo is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Dublin, California. Taleo describes itself as the leader in on demand unified talent management solutions that empower organizations of all sizes to assess, acquire, develop, and align their workforces for improved business performance. According to the class action complaint, during the Class Period, defendants misled or failed to inform the investing public regarding the Company's historical and current accounting practices with respect to the timing for recognition of application and consulting revenues under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States ("GAAP"). These policies, which reflected an inappropriate application of GAAP designed to accelerate the recognition of revenues, had been part of a scheme to defraud investors since the Company's initial public offering in October 2005. As a result of this acceleration of revenues, Taleo was able to present to investors a rosier picture of its financial condition than the appropriate revenue figures would have depicted. When the truth was revealed to the market, the price of Taleo common stock dropped $3.06, or 28 percent, to $7.99. For more details, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222 Fax: (212) 213-9405 e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com WACHOVIA CORP: Shareholders File N.C. Suit Over Wells Fargo Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders who oppose Wachovia Corp.'s purchase have filed a purported class-action lawsuit to block Wells Fargo & Co.'s impending purchase of the bank, The Charlotte Observer reports. In general, the lawsuit -- filed in Charlotte, N.C. court -- claims Wells Fargo is not offering a fair price for the troubled bank, according to The Charlotte Observer. The shareholders want to force Wells Fargo to pay more for Wachovia than what the bank's stock was trading at last year. Although Wells Fargo needs the approval of Wachovia's shareholders to make the purchase, The Charlotte Observer reported that the ballot is nearly cinched because Wells Fargo controls nearly 40 percent of the Wachovia shareholder vote. According to The Charlotte Observer, Wachovia is Charlotte's second-largest employer, with 20,000 local workers. Local resident John Moore, a shareholder activist who is often critical of management at Wachovia's annual meetings, told The Charlotte Observer that he will vote against the deal because of the potential job losses. "It's about protecting people," Mr. Moore, 72, whose family owns about 200,000 shares of the bank tells The Charlotte Observer. WORKSTREAM INC: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in Sept. --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Workstream, Inc., its chief executive officer, and former chief financial officer received the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's final approval on Sept. 12, 2008. The class action suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2005, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares during the period from Jan. 14, 2005, to and including April 14, 2005. The suit alleges, among other things, that management provided the market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance on a timely basis. The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees and costs. In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the allegations contained in the complaint. The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied. The defendants have answered the amended complaint, denying its material allegations. The Court has certified the case as a class action and has approved notice to the class. The defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery has expired, but the plaintiffs have asked the Court for additional time to pursue discovery. The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued on Sept. 28, 2007, and is awaiting court decision. According to the Company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008. The parties have agreed to settle the claims in consideration of the payment of US$3 million by the Company's insurance carrier and issuance by the Company of US$600,000 in common shares. The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2008, to consider the fairness of the settlement after notice of the settlement and the hearing had been given to the class. No opposition to approval of the settlement was presented at the hearing. On Aug. 13, 2008, the Court entered a Final Judgment in the case, which became final on Sept. 12, 2008. The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v. Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com) Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. (rstone@lawssb.com) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 Representing the defendants is: David M. Doret, Esq. H. Robert Fiebach, Esq. Cozen and O'Connor 45 Broadway Atrium New York, NY 10006-3792 Phone: 212-509-9400 * Litigators Say Banks, Raters Face Subprime Lawsuits, New Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top litigators have stated that the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis has sparked more than 250 class-action lawsuits against Wall Street banks and rating companies and will lead to rising regulation in 2009, Walden Siew of Reuters reports. According to Jonathan Sablone, a partner and co-chair of Nixon Peabody's alternative investment litigation practice, global hedge funds also face a new regulatory environment and massive redemptions, and law firms are bracing for a flood of lawsuits related to the collapse of the mortgage and structured debt industry. During a subprime mortgage conference in New York, Mr. Sablone said, "There's going to be a tidal wave of litigation. Invariably, when you're fighting over a limited pool, someone's going to get left out." Nixon Peabody has received many phone calls in preparation for legal filings and expects a new wave to hit in January, Reuters reports. Mr. Sablone said, "From the institutional investor side, it's all bad. You're probably not getting a check. Come January 1, you're probably getting a letter." For the loosely regulated $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry, more regulation is "inevitable," he said. "Hedge funds were fine as unregulated instruments when they were limited vehicles for a chosen few," Mr. Sablone said. "It doesn't make sense when you have huge amounts of capital and pension funds involved. The rules have changed," he adds. Reuters reported that rating companies also will be weighed down by rising litigation costs. Firms like Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service have been blamed for assigning top "AAA" ratings for collateralized debt obligations that later plummeted in value as homeowners defaulted on subprime mortgage loans. William O'Connor, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP tells Reuters, "The rock is being overturned. The ratings are going to be shook by these legal actions." S&P, Moody's and Fitch Ratings so far have been successful arguing that they serve a role as publishers, much like the free press, and that their ratings represent opinions rather than investment advice, reports Reuters. "That industry may lose some of its First Amendment protections," Peter Haveles, partner at Arnold & Porter LLP in New York tells Reuters. Panelists at the New York conference, sponsored by Duff & Phelps, all agreed there will be few winners in the upcoming fights, according to the Reuters report. "Once you're in litigation, it's more about how to avoid the biggest loss, not so much about winning," Mr. Sablone said. "The buzzword for us right now in stress." New Securities Fraud Cases PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Nov. 23, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or the "Company") on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its executive officers violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain public statements made by PharmaNet during that period were materially false and misleading because the statements failed to disclose or indicate, among other things: -- that a substantial portion of the contracts in the Company's backlog were likely to be canceled; -- that the Company had increased its expenses in order to perform these contracts even though the contracts were likely to be canceled; and -- that as a result, statements made by the Company and management during that period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. On April 30, 2008 PharmaNet announced that it was revising downward its previously issued revenue guidance for 2008. The Company explained that cancellations over the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 of approximately $59 million would negatively impact projected revenues for 2008 by approximately $30 million. On this news, PharmaNet's shares declined $6.76 per share, or 28.33 percent, to close on May 1, 2008 at $17.10 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com ********* 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 * * *