/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 235 Headlines CATERPILLAR INC: Tenn. Court Denies Request for Injunction Stay CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Ambac Financial's Securities Suit Pending CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Amended Complaint Over MAT Five Funds Filed CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Awaits Approval of Analyst Suit Settlement CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Bid to Dismiss American Home's Suit Pending CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Consolidated ARS Suit Still Pending in N.Y. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Falcon Strategies Suit Voluntarily Nixed CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: "Miller" Litigation Voluntarily Dismissed CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Motion to Dismiss "Leber" Complaint Pending CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Suit by Louisiana Sheriff's Pending in N.Y. ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Sides With Plaintiffs in Zyprexa Suit ERNIE HAIRE: Loses Fla. VIN Etching Case, Files For Chapter 11 FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Calif. Carriers' Suit for $22M HARRAH'S METROPOLIS: Faces TCPA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois HORIZON BLUE: Settles Suit Over Coverage of Eating Disorders NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Gives Final OK to "Tawney" Settlement RAVI KOTHARE: Investors Reach $2.1M Settlement in N.J. Lawsuit SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Jamgotchian" WELLS FARGO: Judge Adjourns Wachovia Hearing Without A Ruling New Securities Fraud Cases DAKTRONICS INC: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Litigation INTERNAP NETWORK: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing MCDERMOTT INT'L: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* CATERPILLAR INC: Tenn. Court Denies Request for Injunction Stay --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Caterpillar, Inc.'s request for a stay of injunction in a lawsuit over health insurance for retirees, Paul Gordon of the Peoria Journal Star reports. In denying the company's request, Judge Aleta Trauger stated that Caterpillar cannot take health insurance premiums and other costs from the pensions of some of its retirees while a Sept. 16, 2008 preliminary federal injunction is appealed. Judge Trauger said in her ruling that Caterpillar failed to adequately demonstrate it would be irreparably harmed if the stay was not granted but said the evidence shows the retirees would be harmed if it was granted because the company would continue the deductions, reports the Peoria Journal Star. The latter opinion came despite Caterpillar's warning that if it prevails, the retirees in this case could be forced to pay large arrearages of missed premiums and co-payments and that it would force changes to the current levels of insurance coverage that would not be to the retirees' benefit. The Peoria Journal Star reports that the case in question in this ruling is one brought by retirees and surviving spouses from the company's Logistic Services division. They are a subclass of a larger class-action lawsuit brought by another group of retirees that is still pending. There is another lawsuit brought by a different class of retirees pending, as well. In the lawsuits, the retirees contend they are harmed by changes Caterpillar made in 1992 to its contract with the United Auto Workers, according to the Peoria Journal Star. Prior to 1992, Caterpillar retirees were promised free health care for life. Those who retired between 1992 and 1998 — a period when there was no contract — believe they should be subject to pre-1992 terms. The 1998 contract was the first without that provision. In the other lawsuit, surviving spouses of Caterpillar retirees believe they, too, should receive free health care as promised their spouses. Caterpillar started charging them premiums in 2005. In her ruling, Judge Trauger also rejected the company's argument that it's likely to prevail on the appeal, the Peoria Journal Star reports. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Ambac Financial's Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II reports in its Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, that the consolidated amended class action complaint captioned, "In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., along with numerous other firms, has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits by shareholders of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for which CGMI underwrote securities offerings. These actions assert that CGMI violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with those offerings. Several of these actions have been consolidated under the caption, "In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," and in which a consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed on Aug. 22, 2008. The suit is "In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-5191 - and - Aviah Cohen-Pierson, Esq. (acohenpierson@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 Representing the defendants is: Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com) Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1237 Fax: 212-403-2000 CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Amended Complaint Over MAT Five Funds Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed in the matter, "In Re MAT Five Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv- 04152-NRB," on Oct. 2, 2008, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Citigroup, Inc. faces several purported class-action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws and Delaware state law in connection with investments in MAT Five, LLC. One of the complaints allege that MAT Five, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC and Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives violated Section 12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Delaware law. Specifically, the complaint alleges that from late 2006 and continuing into early 2007, Citigroup, through Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives and Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC targeted many of its clients who were interested in fixed-income investments which would provide higher yields. The defendants marketed the MAT Five Fund to these clients and disseminated a false and misleading Private Placement Memorandum in connection with the issuance of hundreds of millions of dollars of shares. The Private Placement Memorandum and related selling documents were false and misleading because they represented that the Fund was a secure, non-volatile investment. In reality, the Fund was a high-risk investment which could lose substantial value if the markets changed or if it was not properly managed. Indeed, MAT Five Fund management employed risky strategies and lost. On March 20, 2008, CAI wrote a letter to investors which stated that the recent credit crunch had rapidly accelerated and spread into the municipal bond markets. As a result, the cash positions and net asset values of the MAT Five Fund had been severely impacted, and they were going to indefinitely suspend the fund's income distributions in an effort to preserve liquidity. At the time of the letter, the Fund had declined to less than 10% of its original value and no further distributions were made to the plaintiffs. The putative class-action lawsuits have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York under the caption, "In Re MAT Five Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-04152-NRB." Similar related actions have been commenced in California, Delaware and New York state court. The company removed the New York state court action to federal court and currently is responding to a motion for a preliminary injunction filed in the Delaware Chancery Court action, which motion seeks to enjoin a tender offer interest in MAT Five LLC. Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Awaits Approval of Analyst Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the matter "In re: Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 06-3225-cv," is subject of judicial approval, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's order granting class certification in the matter. The plaintiffs allege that defendants Citicorp USA, Inc., Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., their ultimate parent, Citigroup, Inc., and SSB research analyst Jack Grubman engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78a et seq., and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R Section 240.10b-5, by issuing and disseminating research analyst reports on Metromedia that contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts. On Oct. 1, 2008, the parties reached a settlement under which Citigroup will pay US$35 million to members of the settlement class that purchased or otherwise acquired MFN securities during the class period. The settlement is subject of judicial approval. The proposed settlement amount is covered by existing litigation reserves. Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Bid to Dismiss American Home's Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the complaint in "In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation," remains pending, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. According to Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann's article on the case (http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/00008),the securities fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. BLB&G disclosed that it filed an amended complaint in June 2008, asserting claims on behalf of investors who purchased American Home stock. On Sept. 12, 2008, defendants, including Citigroup Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint in In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation. Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Consolidated ARS Suit Still Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated amended complaint in "In re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation, Master File No. 08 Civ. 3095 (LTS)(FM)," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint is brought on behalf of investors who purchased auction rate securities underwritten and sold in auctions managed by defendants Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and Smith Barney (Citigroup ARS). The complaint alleges that from Aug. 1, 2007, through Feb. 11, 2008, defendants manipulated the market for Citigroup ARS by fostering the illusion that a valid market existed where buyers and sellers came together, with supply and demand in balance, allowing for the successful completion of auctions of Citigroup ARS. In fact, no such balance existed. During the Class Period, defendants routinely and regularly intervened to ensure that their auctions did not fail. When defendants ceased intervening into auctions for Citigroup ARS, the auctions failed in their entirety, and the Citigroup ARS market came to a sudden and immediate halt. Investors were left with billions of dollars of Citigroup ARS and no market to sell their positions. The complaint alleges that defendants have acted in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Further, the complaint alleges that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to certain Citigroup ARS purchasers and have violated the Deceptive Practices Acts of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota. On Aug. 25, 2008, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation, Master File No. 08 Civ. 3095 (LTS)(FM)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Falcon Strategies Suit Voluntarily Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II said in its Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on July 21, 2008, approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the purported class-action suit captioned, "Ferguson Family Trust v. Falcon Strategies Two LLC et al., Case No. 1:08-cv- 04723-SHS." The case names several entities of Citigroup, Inc., as a defendants. On May 20, 2008, an investor in Falcon Strategies Two LLC filed a putative class action complaint against Falcon and several Citi- related entities, among others, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and Delaware state law in connection with a tender offer for interests in Falcon Strategies. On June 17, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction. The suit is "Ferguson Family Trust v. Falcon Strategies Two LLC et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04723-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert M. Rothman, Esq. (rrothman@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants are: Charles Edward Davidow, Esq. (cdavidow@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP 1615 L Street, N.W., Ste. 1300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-223-7300 Fax: 202-223-7420 - and - Sean R. O'Brien, Esq. (sobrien@arkin-law.com) Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP 590 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-333-0200 Fax: 212-333-2350 CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: "Miller" Litigation Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit, "Miller v. Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund, et al., Civ. No. 3756 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2008)," was voluntarily dismissed on Sept. 19, 2008, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The lawsuit, which had been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and in which Citigroup Global Markets Inc. had been named as a defendant, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by a closed-end mutual fund issuer and two underwriters. The suit alleges that the issuer's registration statement was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose the likelihood and true risk of auction failures and that purchasers of its securities would fare worse in the event of auction failures than would purchasers of municipal auction rate securities, Kimberly M. Melvin, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP, writes on Aug. 7, 2008 (http://researcharchives.com/t/s?354f). Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Motion to Dismiss "Leber" Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the purported class-action complaint in the matter, "Leber v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 07 CIV 9329 (SHS)" is pending, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. A participant in the Citigroup 401(k) Plan brought an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of herself and a putative class of approximately 187,000 participants alleging that the Plan sponsor and related fiduciaries breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited self-dealing in selecting investment products and services provided by Citigroup and its affiliates for the Plan. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Oct. 18, 2007, under the caption, "Leber v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 07 CIV 9329 (SHS)." Citigroup and its administration and investment committees filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint on Aug. 29, 2008. Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. CITIGROUP FAIRFIELD: Suit by Louisiana Sheriff's Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subprime-mortgage-related class-action suit styled, "Louisiana Sheriff's Pension and Relief Fund v. Citigroup Inc., et al.," is pending in New York state court, according to Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and several current and former officers and directors, and numerous other financial institutions, have been named as defendants in a class-action lawsuit filed on Sept. 30, 2008, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of offerings of Citigroup securities issued in 2006 and 2007. Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II is a limited partnership which was organized to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as its general partner. Citigroup Fairfield's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Sides With Plaintiffs in Zyprexa Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied Eli Lilly & Co.'s attempt attempt to limit the recovery of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over the company's schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, according to AboutLawsuits.com. The company originally attempted to limit plaintiffs' recovery to just the damages they suffered. However, the court's ruling allows plaintiffs to pursue recovery of the money the drug maker made off of sales of the drug. The class-action lawsuit seeks over $700 million against the drug maker for failing to warn about side effects of Zyprexa like severe weight gain, diabetes, hyperglycemia, and pancreatitis. Zyprexa (olanzapine) is an atypical antipsychotic medication, which has generated sales of about $4.8 billion a year worldwide. Bloomberg News reports that in the Canadian lawsuit, Eli Lilly could face liability for enormous amounts of money with the plaintiffs able to go after the company's sales. According to Judge Sidney Lederman, who originally allowed the claims in 2007, "the ramifications of exposure to this type of liability will extend beyond the parties to affect not just the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, but also the securities market." The company may still appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, according to AboutLawsuits.com. ERNIE HAIRE: Loses Fla. VIN Etching Case, Files For Chapter 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. is seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after losing a multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit over vehicle identification number etching on windshields, Michael Hinman of the Tampa Bay Business Journal reports. Ernie Haire reported assets and liabilities of between $10 million and $50 million. According to documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, the dealership is listing its two largest unsecured creditors as Moira Gilley of Temple Terrace and Benjamin Atkinson of Lutz at $6.9 million and $5.8 million respectively as a result of the October jury verdict Ms. Gilley filed a lawsuit against Ernie Haire in 2002, claiming the dealership charged her $200 for a theft-deterrent VIN etching on her windshield she didn't ask for, part of nearly $1,000 in optional charges she said were not revealed to her when she purchased a 1997 Ford Taurus for $7,160, reports the Tampa Bay Business Journal. Previously, The Tampa Tribune reported that Florida circuit court judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit that accuses Ernie Haire Ford, a Tampa car dealership of defrauding customers (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006). With class certification, an estimated 12,000 customers of the dealership may join the suit, which centers on the dealership's marketing of a service known as "VIN etching." In general, the suit alleges that the dealership did not fully disclose on purchase documents several hundred dollars in charges for etching the vehicle identification number on vehicle windows as a theft deterrent. In particular, the suit claims the dealership charged customers several hundred dollars each for VIN etching and concealed the cost within the sticker price, similar to items such as taxes and tire disposal fees. VIN etching was marketed as a theft deterrent by making the car's VIN number more prominent. However, Dan Clark, a Tampa attorney for plaintiffs suing the dealership, describes it as "a snake oil service," pointing out, "it's protection that doesn't give anything." Mr. Clark contends that unlike upgrade items such as a high-end stereo or leather seats, the etching charge appeared on documents late in the sale process and listed as "Vehicle Theft Registration." According to Mr. Clark, customers had to buy it (VIN etching), had to pay for it, and only if they sat down with the items and questioned 'what is this?' would they find out. Jeff Carter, a lawyer for Haire maintains though that "the dealership did nothing wrong." He said that the case would prove that "there is no basis or point of success for the plaintiffs." A state appellate court on Oct. 13, 2006, affirmed class-action status for customers of the dealership, according to Mr. Clark. The suit will cover Haire customers between August 1998 and August 2003. Mr. Clark estimates that if the case is successful on all counts, the claims and penalties could add up to $40 million against the dealership. FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Calif. Carriers' Suit for $22M -------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom Communications, Inc., which owns The Orange County Register, has reached tentative $22 million settlement with the newspaper's carriers after a long dispute over their employment status, The Associated Press reports. The a class-action lawsuit was filed in 2003 on behalf of more than 5,000 newspaper carriers, who are considered independent contractors by the company. It claimed the classification was unfair because it denied them overtime pay and mileage and required them to pay fines out-of-pocket for late papers and other delivery problems. The deal, which came in the middle of trial, does not require the newspaper to reclassify its carriers as employees. The company said instead that it would pay any of the class members who filed claims, plus attorney fees as decided by the court. The carriers' attorney, Daniel Callahan, Esq. told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he hoped for $12 million in legal fees. He also predicted current and future carriers would receive up to $6 million in benefits over the next decade as a result of the settlement -- a number the company said it disputed. For more details, contact: Daniel Callahan, Esq. (daniel@callahan-law.com) Callahan & Blaine 3 Hutton Centre Drive Ninth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 Phone: (714) 241-4444 Fax: (714) 241-4445 Web site: http://www.callahan-law.com/ HARRAH'S METROPOLIS: Faces TCPA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Harrah's Metropolis Casino is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois that was filed by a Missouri man who is seeking to represent a nationwide class of individuals who received a prerecorded telephone call from Harrah's advertising its vacation services, Steve Gonzalez of The Madison County Record reports. Richard Vigus's complaint is challenging Harrah's policy and practice of transmitting unsolicited prerecorded telephone calls to residential telephone lines because that form of telemarketing invades the privacy rights of others and violates the law. According to Mr. Vigus, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits a person within the U.S. from using or having an agent use an autodialer or prerecorded voice to deliver a message to residential telephone numbers, reports The Madison County Record. The complaint states, "The TCPA was enacted to protect privacy rights." It adds, "The TCPA provides a private right of action for violations and provides statutory damages of $500.00 per violation." Mr. Vigus claims on July 6, 2007, Harrah's called his telephone line and delivered a message using a pre-recorded voice message. He claims Harrah's made the same phone call to at least 39 other recipients. According to the complaint, "Defendant did not seek or obtain the prior express consent of, or an established business relationship with, the 39 other recipients." Mr. Vigus claims that Harrah's phone call violated the right to privacy afforded to him and other members of the class. The complaint states, "Defendant knew or should have known that it delivered a prerecorded message to Plaintiff advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services and did not have the prior express consent of Plaintiff to make such telephone contact and that no established business relationship existed with Plaintiff." The Madison County Record reported that Mr. Vigus is seeking the following judgment: -- An award $500 for each violation of the TCPA; -- Treble damages of $1,500 for each violation if the court finds the violations to be willful or knowing; and -- An award of costs and attorneys fees. He seeks to certify a nationwide class consisting of all residential telephone customers who were called on that residential telephone line on or after Nov. 5, 2004 by or on behalf of Harrah's using a prerecorded voice to deliver a message promoting their vacation services and did not provide them with prior express consent to place the call and did not have an established business relationship with Harrah's. Mr. Vigus is represented by Brad Lakin, Paul Marks and Robert Schmeider, II of the Lakin Law Firm in Wood River. In addition, Phillip Bock of Chicago, Brian Wanca of Rolling Meadows and Max Margulis of Chesterfield, Mo., will represent Mr. Vigus and the class, according to The Madison County Record. The case has been assigned to Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. It was originally assigned to Judge William Stiehl, also of the Southern District of Illinois, but he entered an order of recusal in the case, reports The Madison County Record. HORIZON BLUE: Settles Suit Over Coverage of Eating Disorders ------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey reached a tentative $3.6 million settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit, styled, "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05337-FSH-PS," Henry Gottlieb of the New Jersey Law Journal reports. The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is alleging that the company wrongfully denied claims by eating-disorder patients. According to the New Jersey Law Journal, settlement will, subject to approval by a federal judge, provide about $1.18 million to certain insureds who couldn't get coverage for extended bulimia and anorexia treatments under their Horizon plans. Horizon would treat future claims more liberally and make internal reforms to resolve disputes over benefits for eating disorders. The reforms would apply to policies held by more than 1 million of its 3.2 million insureds in New Jersey. Additionally, Horizon would pay up to $2.45 million in fees to the plaintiffs attorneys, led by Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J. The suit is a companion case to "Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, Civ. 6-6219." Previously, Mr. Nagel and attorneys for Aetna asked Judge Faith Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to approve the settlement in the Drazin matter. In a joint motion, they said the deal is fair, adequate and reasonable and provides a procedure that would allow claimants to opt out. As a companion case, "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05337-FSH-PS," would also be settled, according to the New Jersey Law Journal. The lawsuit's goal was to get the insurers to treat eating disorders as biologically based mental illnesses (BBMI), such as schizophrenia. That would make eating-disorder patients eligible for months of treatment, compared with what they were getting: a few outpatient visits per calendar year and a few days of inpatient benefits. The proposed settlement envisions payments to about 500 Horizon insureds who were turned down for extended coverage of eating disorder treatments or who didn't file claims knowing they would be turned down. During the next four years, the New Jersey Law Journal reported that Horizon and the company which manages its claims, Magellan Health Services Inc., would be required to submit disputes over coverage to an eating-disorder specialist who would decide whether the claimant's proposed treatment is medically necessary. The specialist's decision would be binding. The settlement covers only the beneficiaries of fully insured plans -- those funded by employers. Enrollees in self-funded plans, such as employee welfare and state worker health benefits programs, would not automatically benefit from the more liberal process. Mr. Nagel, in a brief supporting the motion for preliminary approval, said that more than 1 million insureds would be covered and that an expert, who was not named, determined that the reforms had a $20 million value. The brief, a copy of which was obtained by the New Jersey Law Journal stated, "This settlement has achieved the core objectives of the litigation: parity status for eating disorders, payment of past denials, and a change in the internal appeals procedures." The motion asked Judge Hochberg to appoint Mr. Nagel as class counsel, but it did not say how the fee would be divided between his firm and a firm that also was in the case, Mazie, Slater, Katz & Freeman, LLC, reports the New Jersey Law Journal The suit is "Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-05337-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Faith Hochberg, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. (bnagel@nagelrice.com) Nagel Rice, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Suite 201 Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 618-0400 Fax: (973) 618-9194 - and - Beth G. Baldinger, Esq. (bbaldinger@mskf.net) Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07054 Phone: 973-228-9898 Representing the defendant is: David Jay, Esq. (jayd@gtlaw.com) Greenberg Taurig, LLP 200 Park Avenue P.O. Box 677 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (973) 360-7900 NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Gives Final OK to "Tawney" Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County gave final approval to a settlement reached in purported class-action suit involving the rights of mineral owners, which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant, according to Carrie Jones of WSAZ-TV reports. The suit is entitled, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc." It alleges that the defendants underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008). In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants. The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-production charges. The court certified the case as a class action that includes any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia. Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs. In November 2008, a Roane County judge gave final approval to a deal that settles the 6-year old case. The money will be divided up among 10,000 landowners, WSAZ-TV reports. The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marvin Masters, Esq. 181 Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Timothy Miller, Esq. 400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St. P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25326 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 RAVI KOTHARE: Investors Reach $2.1M Settlement in N.J. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A state Superior Court judge has approved a $2.1 million settlement to some 25 investors who filed a class-action suit against a South Jersey financial adviser who committed suicide last year after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating him for fraud, Paula Saha of The Star-Ledger reports. The plaintiffs who will share the settlement money live in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and New Hampshire. Each will receive sums ranging from $2,500 to more than $500,000, depending on the size of their losses. The financial adviser, 45-year-old Ravi Kothare of Voorhees, was found dead in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Camden County in March 2007 with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. At the time, he was being investigated by the SEC for misappropriating millions of his clients' dollars to prop up a failing business venture. Following Mr. Kothare's death, James Pastena and Denville attorney G. Martin Meyers filed legal action against the law and accounting firms Mr. Kothare was associated with and TD Ameritrade, the brokerage house where the investors' accounts were maintained. Mr. Meyers told The Star-Ledger that Mr. Kothare effectively stole more than $5 million of the plaintiffs' money over four years. He disguised the misappropriations with made-up financial statements. James and Diane Pastena of Succasunna were among Mr. Kothare's clients. They said Mr. Kothare had essentially bilked them of their life savings, and the suicide left the future of their case momentarily unclear. However, on Nov. 21, 2008, Judge Stephen F. Smith signed off on a settlement agreement with those parties that will at least return some of the lost funds to the Pastenas and other plaintiffs. According to court records obtained by The Star-Ledger, $1.9 million of the settlement will come from TD Ameritrade. Another $230,000 will come from the group of accounting and law firms affiliated with Mr. Kothare. The court also approved attorney fees to Mr. Meyers and a $20,000 "incentive" award to Mr. Pastena, for his work heading up the class-action suit, the court documents said. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Jamgotchian" -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the purported class-action lawsuit against Scientific Games Racing LLC, Scientific Games International Inc., and Scientific Games Corp. over "Quick-Pick" wagering tickets is appealing a decision by Judge George H. King of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California which dismissed the case, Jack Shinar of The Blood-Horse reported. On Nov. 17, 2008, attorney Robert Goodin, Esq. filed the appeal on behalf of Jerry Jamgotchian in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reports The Blood-Horse. Ryan Conley of The Blood-Horse previously reported that the lawsuit, entitled "Jerry Jamgotchian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Scientific Games Corporation, Scientific Games Racing, LLC, Scientific Games International, Inc. and Does one through ten, Case No. CV 08- 05121," was filed on Aug. 5, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008). The suit seeks, among other things, class certification and damages in excess of $5,000,000 on behalf of a purported class of persons who "bought 'Quick-Pick' wagering tickets through Scientific Games' computerized pari-mutuel wagering system" from July 1, 2007, until June 2, 2008, in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Wisconsin. Recently, Judge King dismissed the lawsuit against Scientific Games over the "quick-picks" wagering situation, agreeing with the company that state public policy prohibits such a complaint as it was presented. The judge entered the judgment on Oct. 23, 2008, after considering Scientific Game's motion to dismiss the case. Without specifically commenting on the merits of Mr. Jamgotchian's complaint -- which included charges of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and negligence -- Judge King in published civil minutes of his decision instead focused on Scientific Game's primary dismissal argument: That California case law prevents lawsuits by bettors attempting to collect lost wagers. Judge King wrote that the court didn't agree with Mr. Jamgotchian's assertion that the complaint, which was filed as a class-action lawsuit, was not about trying to recover lost bets. "Moreover, though plaintiff claims that the identity of the winning horse is irrelevant under this theory, we doubt that he will seek to undo any transactions where he held a winning ticket," he wrote. In an accompanying order, Judge King ruled that the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, which generally means that the lawsuit can't be filed again. Mr. Jamgotchian, who in interviews with The Blood-Horse also criticized the California Horse Racing Board for its part in the subsequent investigation and an eventual $200,000 settlement with Scientific Games, was not happy with the court decision. "Judge King failed to understand that our action was based on (Scientific Games') outright fraud, breach of contract and other claims which did not relate to gambling, (and) to Scientific Games latest 'scheme' to defraud all (California) bettors," he wrote in an e-mail statement to The Blood-Horse. "What makes it even worse is that CHRB chairman Richard Shapiro and the CHRB condoned these illegal activities and 'partnered up' with Scientific Games to continue defrauding California bettors, and then even extended the Scientific Games contract (to provide wagering products to the state)!" "Based upon this illegal and despicable conduct by both Scientific Games and the CHRB, why should anyone have confidence that wagering in California has any integrity or safeguards?" he continued. "The simple answer is that it doesn't, and the CHRB won't require any such integrity or safeguards from their 'partner,' Scientific Games." An attorney representing Scientific Games said the company was pleased with Judge King's ruling. "Scientific Games acted just the way the betting public should want companies to act," said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm in Los Angeles. "The company moved quickly to work with regulatory authorities to resolve the issues and to protect the betting public. California law is very clear that these types of lawsuits are barred and meritless. The district court got it exactly right. "All of the claims in the complaint were utterly baseless on the merits, but the district court didn't even have to reach those issues because California law so obviously prohibited this lawsuit in its entirety," he added. "The false attacks on the CHRB, Scientific Games and Judge King can't change the facts or the law." Mr. Jamgotchian said he and his legal counsel will consider appealing to the California Supreme Court what he called an "irresponsible ruling" by Judge King, and would also consider filing claims to see if the CHRB and Scientific Game will actually refund wagers based upon the settlement agreement. The settlement terms allows for holders of quick-picks tickets purchased during the glitch-period to request refunds from Scientific Games. The suit is "Jamgotchian v. Scientific Games Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge George H. King, presiding. WELLS FARGO: Judge Adjourns Wachovia Hearing Without A Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Without issuing a ruling a North Carolina judge adjourned a hearing in purported class-action complaint captioned, "Irving Ehrenhaus v. John D. Baker, et al.," a purported class-action lawsuit that seeks to to block Wells Fargo & Co.'s impending purchase of Wachovia Corp. Christina Rexrode of CharlotteObserver.com reported that Judge Albert Diaz, with the N.C. Business Court in Charlotte, adjourned the hearing, saying he would take the matter under advisement. The complaint, filed on Oct. 8, 2008 in the Superior Court for the County of Mecklenburg in the State of North Carolina, names as defendants Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and the directors of Wachovia (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008). It alleges that the Wachovia directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger with Wells Fargo at an allegedly inadequate price, and that the Wells Fargo directors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The action seeks to enjoin the Wells Fargo merger, or to recover compensatory or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial holding company and a bank holding company. It provides commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full- service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C. It also provides various other financial services, including mortgage banking, investment banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities brokerage services, through other subsidiaries. The company's retail securities brokerage business is conducted through Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states. New Securities Fraud Cases DAKTRONICS INC: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- RADNOR, Pa., Nov. 24, 2008 -- The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company") from November 15, 2006 through April 5, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Daktronics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Daktronics is a supplier of large screen video displays, electronic scoreboards, LED text and graphics displays, and related control systems. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that a significant number of the Company's orders were being delayed; -- that the Company was experiencing increased and uncontrollable operating expenses; -- that the Company was experiencing softness in its digital billboard and sports markets; -- that as a result, the Company was not performing according to internal expectations; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On February 14, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that during the third fiscal quarter of 2007, it had experienced less cash flow than expected due to higher equipment costs in manufacturing expansion, greater costs incurred in building new facilities and an increased debt level. Additionally, the Company stated that it finished the quarter with higher than expected inventory levels "in preparation for orders that have been delayed in booking." Finally, the Company stated that it estimated net sales for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007 to be in the range of $106 million to $118 million, with earnings in the range of $0.12 to $0.19 per share. The Company indicated that these estimates were affected by "lower than expected levels of orders in the third quarter," but nonetheless maintained that the Company was "well positioned with capacity to respond quickly to opportunities that may arise during the fourth quarter that could impact these estimates." Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $8.00 per share, or 21 percent, to close on February 14, 2007 at $30.09 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on April 5, 2007, after the market closed, the Company again shocked investors when it significantly revised fourth quarter earnings estimates downward. The Company stated that it now expected net sales to be in the range of $101 million to $105 million for the fourth quarter, with earnings in the range of $0.06 to $0.12 per share. The Company further stated that it was unable to book enough orders early in the fourth quarter" to justify its earnings estimates. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $5.78 per share, or 20.71 percent, to close on April 9, 2007 (the next trading day) at $22.13 per share, again on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@btkmc.com INTERNAP NETWORK: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Internap Network Services Corporation ("Internap" or the "Company") on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 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 the Company during that period were materially false and misleading because the statements failed to disclose or indicate, among other things: -- that the Company had not successfully integrated its network following the Company's acquisition of Vitalstream Advertising and Media Services; -- that the Company was actually having significant integration problems causing service issues for Internap's customers; -- that as a result, the Company's customers were requesting account credits and Internap would have to refund money which the Company had previously reported and recognized as revenue; and -- that its customer count was inaccurate and overstated. 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 MCDERMOTT INT'L: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 24, 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 McDermott International Inc. ("McDermott" or the "Company") between February 27, 2008 and November 5, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of McDermott. 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: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER, Nov. 24, 2008 -- Dyer & Berens LLP today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors of PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. ("PharmaNet" or the "Company") who purchased common stock between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges PharmaNet and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements to the market about the Company, its business, backlog and earnings guidance. For example, defendants allegedly 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 foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company. 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 purchasers of PharmaNet securities during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP (888) 300-3362 (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- December 4-5, 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHEN WILL IT END? American Law Institute - American Bar Association St. Anthony Hotel San Antonio, Texas Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS December 4-5, 2008 FOOD\u2010BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION American Conference Institute TBC, Phoenix, Arizona Phone: 888-224-2480 December 9-11, 2008 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 December 17-18, 2008 TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Loews Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 January 21-22, 2009 14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute TBD, New York, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 May 18-19, 2009 5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST American Conference Institute TBD, Washington, District of Columbia Phone: 888-224-2480 July 9-10, 2009 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 July 9-10, 2009 INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Langham Hotel Boston, Massachusetts Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ December 4-5, 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS December 13, 2008 MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2008) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Phone: 800-285-2221 e-mail: abacle@abanet.org ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *