/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 238 Headlines AMERICAN EXPRESS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Amended Fraud Complaint AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Dismiss N.Y. Retirement Plan Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Denies Appeal inn "Ross" Matter AMERICAN EXPRESS: Summary Judgment Sought in "Marcus" Litigation AMERICAN EXPRESS: Third Cicuit Mulls Appeal in "Homa" Litigation AMEX BANK: Continues to Face "Marcotte" Litigation in Montreal AMEX BANK: December Trial Set for "Adams" Case in Quebec Court BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defending "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit BLOCKBUSTER INC: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in "Vogel" Lawsuit BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Still Pending BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Facebook Members' Privacy Suit in Calif. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit Pending in Texas BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Halaris" Suit CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs Dismisses "Irwin" Litigation in Calif. CAREMARK RX: Stay on "Lauriello" Lawsuit in Ala. to be Lifted CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Declines to Review Payday Loans Lawsuit CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Litigation in N.Y. CITIGROUP INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. State Court INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices KIT DIGITAL: To Defend Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Faces N.J. Suit Over NWJ Apartment Merger New Securities Fraud Cases ARACRUZ CELULOSE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* AMERICAN EXPRESS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Amended Fraud Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of the amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class- action lawsuit filed against the American Express Company, under the caption, "In re American Express Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-5533 (RMB)." Beginning in mid-July 2002, 12 putative class-action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In October 2002, these cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re American Express Company Securities Litigation." These lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws and the common law in connection with alleged misstatements regarding certain investments in high-yield bonds and write- downs in the 2000-2001 time frame. The purported class covers the period from July 26, 1999 to July 17, 2001. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages as well as disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. On March 31, 2004, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In August 2006, the Court of Appeals, without expressing any views whatsoever on the merits of the cases, vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded all claims to the District Court for further proceedings. More particularly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling that two of the plaintiff's claims in an amended complaint did not "relate back" to the original complaint and were thus time-barred under the statute of limitations period. As a result, the Court of Appeals decided that it was prudent to remand all claims back to the District Court so that plaintiffs could file a new amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 5, 2007. On or about March 6, 2007, the Company filed a motion to strike the amended complaint, which the District Court denied on July 24, 2007. The Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was granted in September 2008, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is styled "Slayton, et al. v. American Express Company, et al., Case No. 02-CV-5533 (RMB)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman, presiding. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Dismiss N.Y. Retirement Plan Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "Kritzman v. American Express Retirement Plan et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK-HBP," which was filed against American Express Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have voluntarily dismissed their complaint. The plaintiff alleges that when the calculation of benefits under the company's Retirement Plan was converted effective July 1, 1995, from a final average pay formula to a "cash balance" formula, the terms of the amended American Express Retirement Plan (AXP) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, in these ways: -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on reducing rates of benefit accrual due to the increasing age of a plan participant; -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on forfeiture of accrued benefits; and -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's present value calculation rules. The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief entitling the plaintiff and the purported class to benefits that are the greater of: -- the benefits to which the members of the class would have been entitled without regard to the conversion of the benefit payout formula of the AXP Plan to a cash balance formula; and -- the benefits under the AXP Plan with regard to the cash balance formula. The plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys fees and expenses. American Express has filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint. In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in a case not involving American Express, captioned, "Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers and Agents," finding that cash balance plans do not discriminate based on age. In light of the Second Circuit's decision in the Hirt case, the Kritzman plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaint, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Kritzman v. American Express Retirement Plan et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbclasslaw.com) Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz, & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendant is: Jeremy P. Blumenfeld Morgan, Esq. (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com) Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-5258 Fax: 215-963-5001 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Denies Appeal inn "Ross" Matter ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied American Express Co.'s motion in the case, "Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank," according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York back in July 2004. The complaint alleges that AMEX conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardmember agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks...." American Express cardholders are not part of the class. In September 2005, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the action and preliminarily certified an injunction class of Visa and MasterCard cardholders to determine the validity of Visa's and MasterCard's cardmember arbitration clauses. American Express filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court, which motion was denied in September 2006. The Company filed an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. In October 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Company's appeal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The Company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the Company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Summary Judgment Sought in "Marcus" Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the antitrust suit "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et al." have moved for summary judgment in their favor, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Initially, several cases were filed against the company: -- "Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (filed July 2003); -- "Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (filed August 2003); -- "DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed December 2003); -- "Hayama Inc. v. American Express Co., et al.," Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed December 2003); -- "Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed January 2004); -- "Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed January 2004); -- "Mims Restaurant v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed February 2004); and -- "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed July 2004). The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. Upon motion to the Court by the Company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2003. Each of the above-listed actions (except for Hayama) is now pending in the Southern District of New York, consolidated as "In re American Express Merchants' Litigation." Dismissal and Arbitration On April 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all the actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the Southern District of New York, and on March 15, 2006, such motion was granted, with the Court finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal. That request was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's arbitration ruling. Hayama Litigation In addition, during the pendency of the motion in the Southern District of New York, the Company had asked the California Superior Court hearing the Hayama action referenced above to stay that action pending resolution of such motion. Marcus Corp. Litigation The Company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by the Marcus Corp., which was denied in July 2005. On Oct. 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class. The Company has opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In addition, each of the Company and the plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment in their favor. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The Company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the Company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Third Cicuit Mulls Appeal in "Homa" Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule on a motion regarding a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to compel individual arbitration and dismiss the complaint in the matter, "Homa v. American Express Company et al.." The putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey back in 2006. It alleges, generally, misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered" "up to 5 percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card. The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from September 30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or rebates provided for in the offer." On Dec. 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to the present." The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified relief that the Court deems appropriate. In May 2007, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal of that decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and argument is expected to occur in December 2008, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The Company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the Company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMEX BANK: Continues to Face "Marcotte" Litigation in Montreal -------------------------------------------------------------- AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express Canada and owned by American Express Co., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit captioned, "Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et al." In May 2006, in a matter captioned, "Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et al.," filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (originally filed in April 2003) the Court authorized a class action against AMEX Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada, Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada. The action alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the QCPA) and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA. The class includes all persons holding a credit card issued by one of the defendants to whom fees were charged since April 17, 2000, for transactions made in foreign currency before expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement of account. The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs. The trial in the Marcotte action commenced in September 2008 and is expected to run through November 2008, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The Company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the Company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMEX BANK: December Trial Set for "Adams" Case in Quebec Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative December 2008 trial is slated for a purported class- action suit captioned "Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada," which was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal against AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express Canada and owned by American Express Co. The motion to authorize a class action alleges that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a foreign currency conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements or solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers. The class, consisting of all Cardmembers in Quebec that purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion commissions, CDN1,000 in punitive damages per class member, interest and fees and costs. The trial in the Adams action is scheduled to commence in December 2008 after the conclusion of the trial in the Marcotte action, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The Company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the Company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defending "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc. continues to defend the extended viewing fee putative class-action case styled, "Cohen v. Blockbuster," according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008. The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott settlement"). Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies. Such claims were brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18, 1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an arbitration clause. In the same order, the trial court certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video since Feb. 18, 1994. On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes. On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the trial court for reconsideration of our motion to decertify plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal. On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in "Vogel" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Newcastle County Chancery Court, Delaware, on Aug. 15, 2008, dismissed Howard Vogel's claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008. On Feb. 10, 2004, Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against the company, John Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie Clegg, Viacom Inc., and the company' directors who were also directors and officers of Viacom. The plaintiff alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated to be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair dealing and coercive conduct. The stockholder class action complaint asks the court to certify a class and to enjoin the then-anticipated transaction. The plaintiff has confirmed that Blockbuster and the other defendants are not required to respond to the pending complaint. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face two purported class-action suits over its "end of late fees" program, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008. Galeno Litigation On Feb. 25, 2005, Michael L. Galeno filed a putative class action suit before the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. Creighton Litigation On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott settlement, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008. Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999 and April 2001. These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental product beyond the initial rental term. Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment. In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national class settlement (the "Scott settlement"). Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and made certificates available to class members for rentals and discounts through November 2005. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Facebook Members' Privacy Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc. faces a putative class action complaint filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran, Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint. The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John Does 1-40, corporations. They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates' websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007. The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites. They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required to respond to the pending complaint at this time, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 5, 2008. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit Pending in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action complaint against Blockbuster, Inc., remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, over allegations it invaded customers' privacy by sending information about their movie rentals to the Facebook Web site. This is a class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2710. The plaintiffs also bring this action pursuant to Rules 23 (b)(3) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of each and every individual in the United States of America who has ever been a member of Facebook and Blockbuster on-line during the same period beginning from Nov. 6, 2007, through the date of judgment herein whose name, and address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented, sold or delivered to each individual were distributed to third parties by defendant without the informed written consent of such individuals or a clear and conspicuous manner to prohibit the disclosure of such individuals name and address. CourtHouse News Service reported that the plaintiffs claim Blockbuster's cooperation with Facebook's "Beacon" system violates the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, which Congress passed after a newspaper obtained a list of 146 movies Robert Bork or his family had rented, and publicized it during Bork's failed nomination to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs say that Facebook launched Beacon in November 2007, in cooperation with 44 other Web sites, that automatically fed information to Facebook. This was not just for social purposes, but was "a core element in the Facebook Ads system for connecting businesses with users," the plaintiffs say. According to the complaint, Blockbuster sent information about movie rentals to Facebook, which added it to members' Facebook profile, something like this: "Preston added Lord of the Rings to his queue on Blockbuster.com," the complaint states. This was an opt-out system, in which users had to check a box to prevent the information from being distributed, the plaintiffs say. According to CourtHouse, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, faced with furious criticism about privacy invasion, was forced to issue an apology, in December, which is quoted, apparently in full, in this filing. "To this day, however, Facebook still receives personal identifiable information from participating Web site with the Beacon javascript, whether the Facebook member has chosen to distribute their information or not," Facebook says. The plaintiffs say that if users did not check the opt-out box quickly enough, their information would be sent to Facebook, and that along with "a picture of the individual who purchased the movie and a Blockbuster ad." They say that Blockbuster did not notify online customers that this information was being sent to Facebook until "sometime in December 2007. However, the summary is immediately sent to a user's Facebook profile even before the user has a chance to decline the distribution of his personal identifiable information -- as long as you have not marked the privacy feature telling Blockbuster never to send summaries. To this day, Blockbuster online victims remain unsuspecting victims," the complaint states. Blockbuster, which has 64 million "active users," is the 7th most popular site on the Web, the complaint points out. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants improperly distributed and used "personal identifiable information" obtained from their websites of members of the class, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (b) whether defendants' obtaining and distributing "personal identifiable information" from the defendants' Web sites of members of the class was done knowingly, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (c) whether defendants' when disclosing the names and addresses of members of the class provided members of the class "a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit such disclosure," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (d) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and addresses of members of the class disclosed the "title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (e) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and addresses of members of the class was for the "exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly to the consumer," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; and (f) whether defendants' obtaining and distribution of "personal identifiable information" from the defendants' Web sites of members of the class was destroyed "as soon as practicable, but not later that one year from the date the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710. The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order: -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class action; -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the other members of the class against the defendant in the amount of $2,500 for each instance in which the defendant disclosed, or used persona identifiable information concerning the plaintiff and members of the class; -- awarding punitive damages should the court find that the defendants acted in willful or reckless disregard of the VPPA; -- awarding attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and -- requiring the defendants to destroy any personal information illegally distributed. The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required to respond to the pending complaint at this time, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 5, 2008. The suit is "Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. (jwilson@corealaw.com) The Corea Firm PLLC The Republic Center 325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-953-3900 Fax: 214-953-3901 Representing the defendants is: Michael Lawrence Raiff, Esq. (mraiff@velaw.com) Vinson & Elkins 2001 Ross Ave. 3700 Trammell Crow Center Dallas, TX 75201-2975 Phone: 214-220-7744 Fax: 1-214-999-7705 BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to face two putative class-action lawsuits that are pending in Canadian courts. Hazell Litigation William Robert Hazell filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and Blockbuster. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct. The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and exemplary and punitive damages. Hedley Litigation Douglas R. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19, 2002. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief, punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys' fees. The company reported no further development in the matters in its Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Halaris" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- John Halaris' claims against Blockbuster, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice last Aug. 19, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 5, 2008. On Sept. 8, 2006, John Halaris filed a putative collective class-action complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, purporting to act on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included investments in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003. The plaintiff asserts claims against: -- Vicaom, Inc., -- the Viacom Investment Committee, -- the Viacom Retirement Committee, -- William A. Roskin, -- John R. Jacobs, -- Mary Bell, -- Bruce Lewis, -- Robert G. Freedline, -- Larry J. Zine, -- Keith M. Holtz, -- Barbara Mickowski, -- Dan Satterthwaite, -- Phillipe P. Dauman, -- Sumner M. Redstone, -- Richard Bressler, -- Michael D. Fricklas, -- John L. Muething, -- Linda Griego, -- Jackie M. Clegg, -- John F. Antioco, -- Peter A. Bassi, -- Robert A. Bowman, -- Gary J. Fernandes, -- Mel Karmazin, -- Blockbuster, Inc. -- the Blockbuster Retirement Committee, and -- the Blockbuster Investment Committee. The plaintiff claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA. The suit seeks declaratory relief, recovery of actual damages, court costs, attorney's fees, a constructive trust, restoration of lost profits to the Blockbuster Investment Plan and an injunction. On Sept. 21, 2007, the trial court partially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for restitution damages and alleged omissions by the defendants. The trial court denied other portions of the defendants' motions to dismiss and reserved judgment on other portions of their motions to dismiss. The trial court allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to re- plead his claims in light of the trial court's partial dismissal. On Nov. 5, 2007, Mr. Halaris filed an amended class action complaint adding Dennis Conniff as an additional named plaintiff. The suit is "Halaris v. Viacom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv- 01646," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge David C. Godbey, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com) Hoeffner & Bilek 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 Representing the defendants is: Kenneth P. Held, Esq. (kheld@velaw.com) Vinson & Elkins 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: 713-758-4353 Fax: 713-615-5219 CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs Dismisses "Irwin" Litigation in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit filed before the Superior Court of the State of California against Caremark Rx Inc. -- which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp. -- agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice as to the Caremark defendants. Caremark and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark, L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (acquired by Caremark in March 2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have been named in the putative class action lawsuit filed by an individual named Robert Irwin. The suit was brought on behalf of all California members of non- ERISA health plans and all California taxpayers. The lawsuit, which also names other Pharmacy Benefit Managers as defendants, alleges violations of California's unfair competition laws and challenges alleged business practices of PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates, formulary management, data utilization and accounting and administrative processes. In September 2008, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice as to the Caremark defendants, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S. The company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions annually. CAREMARK RX: Stay on "Lauriello" Lawsuit in Ala. to be Lifted ------------------------------------------------------------- The stay on a case by John Lauriello against Caremark Rx Inc., and other entities, over a 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits is expected to be lifted. Caremark, which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp., was named in a putative class action suit filed in 2003 in Alabama state court by Mr. Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants in the lawsuit include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed on Nov. 5, 2003, by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark, several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but Mr. McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello case. In February 2008, the court stayed the Lauriello proceedings pending an appeal by Mr. McArthur of certain rulings related to his complaint in intervention. In September 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court entered judgment on Mr. McArthur's appeal, and the proceedings in the Lauriello case are expected to resume after the court lifts the stay and returns the case to its active docket, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S. The company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions annually. CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Declines to Review Payday Loans Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia in a purported class-action lawsuit against Cash America International, Inc. over payday loans, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class action suit against Georgia Cash America, Inc.; Cash America International, Inc.; Daniel R. Feehan; and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The suit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings. The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery sanction was handed down by the Court. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia where discovery relating to the propriety of continuing this suit as a class action is likely to proceed. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Litigation in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc., faces a consolidated securities fraud litigation that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Sept. 24, 2008, four actions alleging securities fraud claims were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation." The lead plaintiffs are expected to file a consolidated class action complaint by Nov. 10, 2008. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company. As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management. In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards. In May 2008, the Company has reorganized its equity and debt business in Japan. Nikko Citigroup Ltd., the Company's Japan investment banking unit, merged its equity and debt underwriting teams into one. In July 2008, Discover Financial Services acquired Diners Club International from Citigroup. In August 2008, GE Capital Company announced the completion of its acquisition of CitiCapital. In October 2008, Tata Consultancy Services Limited bought Citigroup's Indian business processing outsourcing unit. CITIGROUP INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc., several current and former officers and directors, and numerous other financial institutions face a purported class-action lawsuit 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. The action, "Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund v. Citigroup Inc., et al.," was filed on Sept. 30, 2008, and is currently pending in New York state court, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company. As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management. In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards. In May 2008, the Company has reorganized its equity and debt business in Japan. Nikko Citigroup Ltd., the Company's Japan investment banking unit, merged its equity and debt underwriting teams into one. In July 2008, Discover Financial Services acquired Diners Club International from Citigroup. In August 2008, GE Capital Company announced the completion of its acquisition of CitiCapital. In October 2008, Tata Consultancy Services Limited bought Citigroup's Indian business processing outsourcing unit. INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corp. continues to face several lawsuits, including some class-action lawsuits with regards to the higher prices of its microprocessors. In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Intel and Intel's Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions Code, including providing secret and discriminatory discounts and rebates and intentionally interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD. AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits before the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against Intel's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's Anti-monopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55 million, plus various other costs and fees. At least 82 separate class-action suits, generally repeating AMD's allegations and asserting various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed with the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, and the District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. All the federal class action complaints have been consolidated by the Multi-district Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware. All California class actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class certification, which the company is in the process of opposing. At the company's request, the Court in the California actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware Federal Court rules on the similar motion in the coordinated actions, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor chipmaker, developing advanced integrated digital technology platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the computing and communications industries. Intel's products include chips, boards and other semiconductor products that are the building blocks integral to computers, servers, handheld devices, and networking and communications products. Its component-level products consist of integrated circuits used to process information, including microprocessors, chipsets, and flash memory. KIT DIGITAL: To Defend Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld --------------------------------------------------------------- KIT Digital, Inc. intends to defend a purported class-action suit entitled, "Julie Vittengl et al. vs. ROO HD, Inc.," which is pending in New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County. In November 2007, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, ROO HD, Inc., currently KIT HD, Inc., was named as the defendant in the class-action lawsuit. The suit, brought by four former employees of Wurld Media, Inc. purportedly on behalf of themselves and "others similarly situated," claims that ROO HD's acquisition of certain assets of Wurld was a fraudulent conveyance and that ROO HD is the alter- ego of Wurld. The plaintiffs seek the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the Company's property in constructive trust for plaintiffs and payment of plaintiffs' unpaid wages and costs of suit, both in an unspecified dollar amount. ROO HD filed its answer to the complaint in January 2008, and there have been no developments in this action since then, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008. KIT digital, Inc., -- http://www.kit-digital.com/-- formerly ROO Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of providing Internet software products and solutions that enable its customers to distribute video content through Internet Websites and mobile devices. Its core activities include video player deployment, ingestion and transcoding, localization, content syndication, digital rights management, hosting, storage and content delivery. The Company provides video solutions for over 600 Websites internationally. The Company is a provider of Internet Protocol television enablement technology and video-centric interactive marketing solutions. It has a range of mobile television content, including a daily, global sports program, SportCall. WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Faces N.J. Suit Over NWJ Apartment Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in the Chancery Court of New Jersey, General Equity, in Essex County, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008. A complaint was filed on Aug. 8, 2008 in the Chancery Court of New Jersey, General Equity, in Essex County, by Pennsylvania Avenue Funds as plaintiff individually and on behalf of the public stockholders of Company in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with a wholly-owned subsidiary of NWJ Apartment Holdings Corp., an affiliate of NWJ Companies, Inc., a privately owned real estate development company. The Company, its directors, NWJ Apartment Holdings Corp. and NWJ Acquisition Corp. are named as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, three causes of action: -- breach of fiduciary duty by the directors as a result of their alleged failure to maximize shareholder value, -- breach of fiduciary duty by the directors as a result of their alleged failure to disclose to the Company's stockholders all information material to the stockholder's decision about the merger, and -- aiding and abetting by the NWJ entities of the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the litigation as a class action, for plaintiff to be appointed class representative, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the proposed transaction, an accounting, costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court determines appropriate. Newark, New Jersey-based Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.wilshireenterprisesinc.com/-- is principally engaged in acquiring, owning and operating real estate properties. T he Company owns multi-family properties, office space, retail space, and land located in the states of Arizona, Texas, Florida and New Jersey. New Securities Fraud Cases ARACRUZ CELULOSE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- BOCA RATON, FL, Nov 26, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of Aracruz Celulose S.A. ("Aracruz" or the "Company") (SAO PAULO: ARCZ6) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Aracruz Celulose S.A. American Depository Receipts (ADR's) and/or common stock between April 7, 2008 through October 2, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Aracruz is a major Brazilian manufacturer of forest products, which they market to manufacturers of consumer paper products around the world. During the Class Period, Aracruz entered into undisclosed currency derivative contracts to purportedly hedge against the Company's U.S. dollar exposure. The Company characterized the use of these contracts as protection against foreign interest rate volatility and assured investors that this type of trading did not represent "a risk from an economic and financial standpoint." However, these contracts violated Company policy in that they were far larger than necessary to hedge normal business operations. As a result of Aracruz's clandestine and speculative currency wagers, credit rating agencies downgraded Aracruz, the Company's CFO resigned, and Aracruz's stock suffered a severe decline, plummeting to the lowest levels in 14 years. On October 3, 2008, the price of the ADR's traded on the New York Stock Exchange closed at $23.40, down $7.84 per share, a decline of 25%. The Company's common stock suffered similar drastic declines on the Sao Paulo Bovespa. For more details, contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com ********* 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 * * *