/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 250 Headlines ATRICURE INC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Alleging Securities Violations BROCADE COMMS: Jan. 23, 2009 Hearing Set for $160M Settlement CELERA CORP: Consolidated Suit by Stock Purchasers Still Pending CHINA ORGANIC: Responds to Allegations in December 12 Complaint CITIGROUP INC: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $35M Settlement CSX CORP: Ky. Judge Approves $3M Settlement in Derailment Suit GENERAL NUTRITION: Appeals to Junked Andro Product Suits Pending GENERAL NUTRITION: Class Certification in "Casarez" Case Denied GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Complaint Over Creatine Claims in N.Y. GENERAL NUTRITION: March 2009 Trial Slated for "Ahussain" Case MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y. MF GLOBAL LTD: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement PACIFIC STEEL: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Airborne Pollution VEOLIA WATER: Seeks Dismissal of Overbilling Lawsuit in Indiana VIRGIN MOBILE: Faces N.J. Consolidated Amended IPO-Related Suit VIRGIN MOBILE: Seeks Dismissal of "Nevels" Suit in Mississippi VOYAGER LEARNING: March 12, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement YTB INT'L: Illinois Judge Wants Consolidation of Two Lawsuits New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN CAPITAL: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing CBS CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing CBS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing CHINA ORGANIC: Sarraf Gentile Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit GSI GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing GSI GROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing GSI GROUP: Sarraf Gentile Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing UBS FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ********* ATRICURE INC: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Alleging Securities Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- AtriCure, Inc. and its officers are facing a federal class- action lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in damages for allegedly lying on financial statements, Dave Greber of The Western Star reports. The 43-page class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio says AtriCure, of 6033 Schumacher Park Drive, West Chester, falsified financial filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from May 10, 2007 through Oct. 31, 2008. The lawsuit, which names Chief Executive Officer David Drachman and Chief Financial Officer Julie Piton, also requests a jury, according to The Western Star. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed the purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of AtriCure, Inc. between May 10, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2008, inclusive (Class Period) (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 16, 2008). The complaint charges AtriCure and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, operations and prospects, caused AtriCure's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. AtriCure is a medical device company engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of cardiac surgical ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac tissue. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudulently inflated AtriCure's securities prices by improperly promoting its products to physicians and improperly causing the filing of false claims for reimbursement. On Oct. 31, 2008 AtriCure shocked investors when the company revealed that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice -- Civil Division (DOJ) informing the company that the DOJ was conducting an investigation for potential False Claims Act and common law violations relating to the company's surgical ablation devices. AtriCure further disclosed that, specifically the DOJ was investigating the Company's marketing practices utilized in connection with AtriCure's surgical ablation system to treat atrial fibrillation, a specific use outside the Federal Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) clearance. Moreover, the Company revealed that the DOJ was investigating whether AtriCure instructed hospitals to bill Medicare for surgical ablation using incorrect billing codes. As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined $2.53 per share, or 39.41 percent, to close on Nov. 3, 2008, at $3.89 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com BROCADE COMMS: Jan. 23, 2009 Hearing Set for $160M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 23, 2009 for the proposed $160,098,500 settlement in the matter, "In re: Brocade Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB," which was filed against Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor, Courtroom 8, San Francisco, CA 94102. Case Background Brocade manufactures, among other things, products designed to help information technology organizations manage and profit from their data assets. Brocade is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. KPMG was Brocade's external auditor during a portion of the Class Period. Beginning on May 19, 2005, six putative class-action lawsuits alleging securities laws violations were filed against Brocade and its officers and directors. These actions were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. In January, 2006, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and approved APERS' selection of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP and Patton Roberts, PLLC as "Lead Counsel" in the action. On April 14, 2006, APERS filed a 105-page Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Brocade, certain officers and directors of Brocade, and KPMG. APERS alleged that Brocade and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading public statements and omitted material information about Brocade's finances relating to stock option grants and stock option based compensation in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the Class Period. APERS alleged that KPMG misled investors by falsely stating that Brocade's financial statements were prepared according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that KPMG had conducted its audits according to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. This suit is "Brocade Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. For more information, contact: Eric Wetzel, Esq. Nix, Patterson & Roach 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, TX 75638 Phone: 903-645-7333 or 512-474-7514 Fax: 903-645-4415 Web site: http://www.nixlawfirm.com/ - and - In Re Brocade Securities Litigation Settlement Claims Administrator P.O. Box 3266 Portland, OR 97208 Phone: 1-877-507-4370 e-mail: questions@brocadeclasssettlement.com Web site: https://www.brocadeclasssettlement.com/ CELERA CORP: Consolidated Suit by Stock Purchasers Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class-action complaint against Applied Biosystems, Inc. and some of its officers relating to the public offering of Celera Group common stock remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in the lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera Group common stock in its follow-on public offering of Celera Group common stock completed on March 6, 2000. In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera Group common stock at a public offering price of $225 per share. The lawsuit, which was commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May 2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 21, 2001. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent protection to Celera's genomic-based products. Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent this data. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper. On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class- action lawsuit. According to Celera Corporation's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008, under the terms of the separation agreement between Celera and Applied Biosystems, the company agreed to indemnify Applied Biosystems for liabilities resulting from the class action suit, as well as other actions pending on the split-off date or that may arise in the future, to the extent such actions are ultimately determined to relate to or arise out of the Celera business, assets or liabilities, in each case, to the extent not covered by Applied Biosystems' insurance. Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com-- is a healthcare business delivering personalized disease management through a combination of products and services. The Company operates in three segments: a clinical laboratory testing service business (Lab Services), a products business (Products), and a segment which includes other activities under corporate management (Corporate). Its Lab Services business, conducted through Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., (BHL), offers a portfolio of clinical laboratory tests and disease management services to help healthcare providers improve cardiovascular disease treatment regimens for patients. Its Products business develops, manufactures, and oversees the commercialization of molecular diagnostic products, which are commercialized through its relationship with Abbott Molecular, a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories. On July 1, 2008, Celera announced that it has completed its split-off from Applera Corp. CHINA ORGANIC: Responds to Allegations in December 12 Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES & LIAONING, China, December 16, 2008 -- China Organic Agriculture, Inc. (OTCBB: CNOA) Chief Executive Officer Jinsong Li responds to allegations contained in a press release dated December 12th 2008. "The allegations contained in a Press Release dated December 12th concerning a class action lawsuit filed against China Organic Agriculture are completely without merit," said Mr. Li. "We will vigorously defend China Organic against these assertions and will continue to act in the interests of our shareholders," he said. China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is engaged in the business of rice production, processing and distribution. China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the Company's wholly owned subsidiary. It operates in three segments: Ankang, the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao, the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo Vineyard, the segment for wine production. CITIGROUP INC: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $35M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 27, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. for the proposed $35,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, Docket No. 02-cv-7966," which names Citigroup, Inc. as one of the defendants. The settlement hearing will before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch, U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 6B, New York, New York 10007. Case Background In general, 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 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2008). 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. For more details, contact: IN RE Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator P.O. Box 2005 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2005 Phone: 1-866-233-5637 Web site: http://www.metromediasettlement.com/ CSX CORP: Ky. Judge Approves $3M Settlement in Derailment Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas B. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky gave final approval to the $3,000,000 settlement in the matter, "Green et al v. CSX Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00024-TBR-DW," Connie Leonard of WAVE reports. On Dec. 15, 2008, the judge signed off on the settlement. In recent months, attorneys sent out nearly 13,000 claim forms, WAVE reported. According to plaintiffs' attorneys more than 3,600 people filed a claim. The amounts will vary but, no one is allowed to receive more than $10,000. The attorneys will get one third of the settlement, just over one million dollars, according to WAVE. Previously, the Courthouse News Service reported that residents of Shepherdsville and Brooks, Kentucky filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against CSX Transportation over a train derailment in Bullitt County (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007). This class-action lawsuit arises out of a rail car derailment, explosion, chemical fire, and chemical release beginning on Jan. 16, 2007, in or about the towns of Brooks and Shepherdsville in Bullitt County, Kentucky. The plaintiffs allege that defendants, on their own accord and through their agents, servants and employees, caused a massive rail car derailment, explosion, fire, and chemical release into nearby communities. Thousands of people facing evacuation filed claims for personal injuries, nuisance and trespass. They claim the derailment released noxious gases, including cyclohexane, butadiene and methyl ethyl ketone, and that CSX was negligent in informing them about the derailment and the dangers it posed. There are common questions of law and fact with respect to the class regarding the Defendants' liability for the catastrophe, including, but not limited to whether the Defendants' conduct and/or actions have been intentional, negligent, wanton, a nuisance, or otherwise wrongful: -- the cause and origin of the catastrophe, -- violations of the applicable rules, codes, and regulations, -- violations of standards of care, -- negligence precipitating the catastrophe and any failure to supervise, train and otherwise manage employees responsible for the train cars involved, -- failure to implement and follow safe operations procedures, -- failure to mitigate, evacuate, and otherwise prevent the catastrophe -- failure to timely warn persons at risk from the dangerousness of the catastrophe; and -- liability for punitive damages. The plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs' class pray that they be awarded compensatory and punitive damages and recover judgment against Defendants for the following: -- Reasonable and just compensation for injuries to interests in property, evacuation, shelter in place, and loss of use and enjoyment of property belonging to Plaintiffs and members of the class within the areas affected by the catastrophe; -- All expenses and economic losses, including but not limited to lost income and out-of-pocket expenses attendant to evacuation and/or shelter in place; -- Reasonable and just compensation and punitive damages for personal injuries, present and future medical expenses, nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability, in amounts to be determined by a jury, to the utmost amounts allowed by law; -- Appropriate attorney fees and costs and expenses incurred in connection with the litigation of this matter; -- For an injunction requiring the Defendants to make safe Plaintiffs' property and places of employment; -- That Summons and process issue as to the Defendants and that the Defendants be served Summons and a copy of this Class action complaint as required by law, and that Defendants be required to appear and answer; -- That this case be certified as a class action pursuant to applicable Rules of Civil Procedure; -- Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury; and -- For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, and equitable. A copy of the suit is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18c1 The suit is "Green et al v. CSX Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00024-CRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Charles R. Simpson presiding. Representing plaintiffs are: William L. Bross, Esq. Timothy C. Davis, Esq. Heninger Garrison Davis LLC 2224 First Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-326-3336 or 205-326-3326 Fax: 205-326-3332 Ryan C. Reed, Esq. Lee L. Coleman, Esq. Hughes & Coleman P.O. Box 10120 Bowling Green, KY 42102, Phone: 270-782-6003 Fax: 270-843-0446 or 270-782-8820, e-mail: rreed@hughesandcoleman.com lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com GENERAL NUTRITION: Appeals to Junked Andro Product Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's order dismissing with prejudice several purported class-action lawsuits against General Nutrition Centers, Inc., in connection with Andro Products are pending, according to GNC's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The company is defending against five lawsuits relating to the sale by GNC of certain nutritional products alleged to contain the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol (AndroProducts). These five lawsuits were filed in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida. In each of the five cases, the plaintiffs have sought, or are seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the class representatives and all those similarly situated who purchased certain nutritional supplements from the company alleged to contain one or more Andro Products. On April 17-18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to remove each of the Andro Actions to the respective federal district courts in which the respective Andro Actions are pending. At the same time, the company filed motions seeking to transfer each of the Andro Actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers supplying them with Andro Products, and to whom they sought indemnity -- MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. -- filed for bankruptcy. The company was successful in removing the New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court. These actions were then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction. The California case was not removed and remains pending in state court. Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech Bankruptcy case, the plaintiffs, in September 2007, filed a stipulation dismissing all claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the four cases currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida cases). Additionally, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these actions to the respective state courts where they were originally filed, asserting that the federal court is divested of jurisdiction because the MuscleTech bankruptcy action is no longer pending. The motions to remand remain pending before the District Court. A more detailed description of the cases, listed by original stated court proceeding and current style, follows: (1) "Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." The case was previously pending with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, New York, Index No. 02/126277. Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, it was styled, "Harry Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc. Case No. 1:06-cv-02987-JSR." The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on or about July 25, 2002. The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for unjust enrichment, violation of General Business Law Section 349 (misleading and deceptive trade practices), and violation of General Business Law Section 350 (false advertising). On July 2, 2003, the court granted part of GNC's motion to dismiss the case, and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action. On Jan. 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on GNC's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, both of which remain pending. (2) "Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." The case was previously pending with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789-02. Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, it was styled "Everett Abrams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv- 07881-JSR." The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25, 2002. The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for false and deceptive marketing and omissions and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On Nov. 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing the plaintiff's claims for affirmative misrepresentation and sponsorship with prejudice. The claim for knowing omissions remains pending. (3) "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." The case was previously pending with the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02- 14221AB. Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, it was styled "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon and Like Smith, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv- 06356-UA." The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25, 2002. The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. These claims remain pending. (4) "Andrew Toth v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., et al." The case was previously pending with the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No. 02- 703886. Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, it was styled "Andrew Toth and Richard Zatta, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bodyonics, LTD, d/b/a Pinnacle and General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv- 02721-JSR." The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on July 25, 2002. The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and that order has been affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that the court consider an appeal of the order denying class certification. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition after the case against GNC was removed. The Claims for the violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment remain pending. (5) Guzman Litigation The suit "Santiago Guzman, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," was previously pending with the California Judicial Counsel, Coordination Proceeding No. 4363, Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on Feb. 17, 2004. The complaint, as amended, alleged claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on Feb. 13, 2008. GNC filed its Motion opposing certification on March 12, 2008, and oral argument was heard on June 10, 2008. The Court has not yet decided on the Certification Motion. Mediation On Jan. 25, 2008, a mediation was held for the Andro Actions and no resolution was reached. On June 4, 2008, the U.S. District Court (on its own motion) set a hearing for July 14, 2008, for the purpose of hearing argument as to why the Rodriguez, Abrams, Brown and Toth cases should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in conformity to the Courts Case Management Orders. Following the hearing, the court advised that all four cases would be dismissed with prejudice and issued an Order to that effect on July 29, 2008. On Aug. 25, 2008 plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the four cases. In the Guzman case in California, plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was denied on Sept. 8, 2008. Plaintiffs appealed on Oct. 31, 2008. On Oct. 3, 2008, the plaintiffs in the five other Andro Actions filed another suit related to the sale of Andro products in state court in Illinois, "Stephens and Pio v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." (Case No. 08 CH 37097, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division). The allegations are substantially similar to all of the other Andro Actions, as well as another case, "Pio and McDonald v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." (Case No. 02 CH 14122, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division), which was dismissed on Oct. 4, 2007, for want of prosecution. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a global specialty retailer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS) products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other wellness products. Its product mix is sold under its GNC brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands. The company operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the Company's domestic and international franchise operations. The Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business. GENERAL NUTRITION: Class Certification in "Casarez" Case Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Motion for Class Certification in a lawsuit, captioned "Casarez, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers Inc., et al., Case No. 8:2007cv00875," was denied on Sept. 9, 2008, according to GNC's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On April 24, 2007, Kristin Casarez and Tyler Goodell filed the lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. The company later removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs purport to bring the action on their own behalf, on behalf of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees of GNC throughout the State of California employed on or after Aug. 24, 2004, and as private attorney general on behalf of the general public. The plaintiffs allege that they and the members of the putative class were not provided all of the rest periods and meal periods to which they were entitled under California law. They further allege that GNC failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled to under California law. The plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on May 2, 2008. GNC afterward filed a reply motion opposing the certification request. Oral argument on the Certification Motion was held on Aug. 11, 2008. On Sept. 9, 2008, plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was denied from which plaintiffs did not file an interlocutory appeal. On Nov. 4, 2008, individual members of the purported class refiled their individual claims against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. The suit is "Casarez, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers Inc et al., Case No. 8:2007cv00875," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge James V. Selna presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. (jps@spencerlaw.net) Jeffrey P Spencer Law Offices 635 Camino De Los Mares, Ste. 312 San Clemente, CA 92673 Phone: 949-240-8595 - and - Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq. (jeff@lakeshorelaw.org) Lakeshore Law Center 17476 Yorba Linda Blvd, Ste 221 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Phone: 714-854-7205 Representing the defendants is: Maria R. Harrington, Esq. (mharrington@littler.com) Littler Mendelson 2050 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949-705-3000 Fax: 949-724-1201 GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Complaint Over Creatine Claims in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and one of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, General Nutrition Corporation, faces a complaint filed by plaintiff S.K., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The plaintiff filed the complaint on Oct. 29, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff makes certain allegations regarding consumption of GNC products containing creatine and GNC's alleged failure to warn consumers of those risks. The plaintiff asserts, among other things, claims for deceptive sales practices, fraud, breach of implied contract, strict liability and related tort claims. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, according to GNC's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a global specialty retailer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS) products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other wellness products. Its product mix is sold under its GNC brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands. The company operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the Company's domestic and international franchise operations. The Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business. GENERAL NUTRITION: March 2009 Trial Slated for "Ahussain" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- A March 2009 trial is slated for the purported class-action suit, "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 8:2006cv01090," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against units of General Nutrition Centers, Inc. On Nov. 7, 2006, Abdul Ahussain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued GNC Franchising, LLC, and General Nutrition Corp. The plaintiffs, who are all current franchisees, filed a putative class action lawsuit seeking to certify a class of current and former California GNCF franchisees. The suit alleges that GNC engages in unfair business practices designed to earn a profit at its franchisees' expense. These alleged practices include: -- requiring its franchises to carry slow moving products, which cannot be returned to GNC after expiration, with the franchise bearing the loss; -- requiring franchised stores to purchase new or experimental products, effectively forcing the franchisees to provide free market research; -- using the Gold Card program to collect information on franchised store customers and then soliciting business from such customers; -- underselling its franchised stores by selling products through the GNC website at prices below or close to the wholesale price, thereby forcing franchises to sell the same products at a loss; and -- manipulating prices at which franchised stores can purchase products from third-party suppliers, so as to maintain GNC's favored position as a product wholesaler. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and injunctive relief. On March 19, 2008, the court certified a class as to only plaintiffs' claim for violation of California Business & Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq. The class consists of all persons or entities who are or were GNC franchisees in the State of California from Nov. 13, 2002, to the date of adjudication. The plaintiffs' other claims remain as individual claims in this lawsuit. A trial is scheduled for March 2009, according to GNC's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 8:2006- cv-01090," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Abel E. Aguilera, Esq. (eaguilera@bmkalaw.com) Bohm Matsen Kegel and Aguilera 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-384-6500 - and - Omar Ahmed Siddiqui, Esq. (osiddiqui@usllp.com) Ulwelling Siddiqui Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-384-6650 Representing the defendants are: Christopher C. Eck, Esq. (chris-eck@gnc-hq.com) General Nutrition Corporation 300 Sixth Avenue Pittsburg, PA 15222 Phone: 412-288-4600 - and - Brad A. Funari, Esq. (bfunari@mcguirewoods.com) McGuire Woods Dominion Tower 625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd - 27th Floors Pittsburg, PA 15222 Phone: 412-667-6000 MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against MF Global, Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the Initial Public Offering remains pending in New York. Initially, five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Section 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk management and monitoring practices and procedures. The five purported shareholder class-actions have been consolidated for all purposes into a single action. No further updates regarding the consolidated matter were disclosed in the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The consolidated suit is "Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:08-cv-02233-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq. (racocelli@weisslurie.com) Weiss & Lurie The Fred French Building 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176 Phone: 212-682-3025 Fax: 212-682-3010 - and - William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 Fax: 215-963-0838 Representing the defendants are: David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com) Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1000 Fax: 212-403-2000 - and - David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com) Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP 333 Main St. New York, NY 10504 Phone: 212-446-2310 Fax: 212-446-2350 MF GLOBAL LTD: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- MF Global Ltd. seeks dismissal of a purported class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The company and certain of its executive officers and directors have been named as defendants in the purported class-action lawsuit. This action, which purports to be brought as a class-action suit on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between March 17, 2008 and June 20, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's financial results and projections and capital structure. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, according to its Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. MF Global Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a broker of exchange-listed futures and options. It provides execution and clearing services for exchange-traded and over-the-counter (OTC), derivative products, as well as for non-derivative foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market. It provides its clients with access to many of the financial markets worldwide. MF Global provides its clients with three primary types of products: exchange-traded derivatives, OTC derivatives and cash products. It provides these services through dedicated broker teams focused on particular markets. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 27, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. For the proposed $20,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," which was filed against the Openwave Systems, Inc. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Denise Cote, at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, New York, NY 10007. Case Background Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar securities class-action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Openwave and four current and former officers of the company. The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002, through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the class period, the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and issued materially false and misleading statements in the company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options. Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of action -- one against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a second against the individual defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 25, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern District of California where the related shareholder derivative class actions are pending. On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the four securities class action suits into a single action captioned "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint. The consolidated and amended complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including: * several current and former Openwave officers and directors, * KPMG LLP, * Merrill Lynch, * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., * Lehman Brothers Inc., * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 arising out of the company's 2005 public offering. It seeks money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company is required under contracts with the individual defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the class. On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action complaint. On Oct. 31, 2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against certain of the officer and director defendants. However, the motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted against Openwave and certain of the other director and officer defendants was denied. As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, and Thomas Weisel Partners have all been dismissed as defendants from the consolidated lawsuit. The remaining defendants are the company, certain former officers of the company, and certain former and current directors of the company. On Aug. 5, 2008, the company announced their preliminary financial results for fiscal 2008. Subsequently, they reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuit, which resulted in a $5.0 million net expense recorded in the fiscal 2008 results. The suit is "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq. (Laurag@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-554-1463 Fax: 212-554-1444 - and - Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 Fax: 212-279-3655 Representing the defendants are: Marshall Ross King, Esq. (mking@gibsondunn.com) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Phone: 212-351-3905 Fax: 212-351-5243 - and - Andrew W. Stern, Esq. (astern@sidley.com) Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-839-5300 Fax: 212-839-5599 PACIFIC STEEL: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Airborne Pollution -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Steel Casting Co. is still facing a class-action suit filed on April 22, 2008 in and for the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda accusing it of polluting the air with magnesium, nickel, particulates and other toxins from its three plants in Berkeley. The lawsuit was filed by Berkeley attorney Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq. It seeks an end to the alleged toxic air emissions the plant puts out and offers the company an alternative to fixing the alleged pollution -- relocation, according to Kristin Bender of the Oakland Tribune. The CourtHouse News Service reported that according to the complaint, for 75 years, PSC has been releasing toxic fumes and hazardous metals, magnesium, nickel and particulate matter on its downwind neighbors in the homes surrounding the three industrial plants off Second Street in Berkeley, California (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2008). As a proximate result of defendants' acts of omission and commission arising from the negligent operation of PSC, plaintiffs have endured inconvenience, nuisance, trespass upon their owned or leased property, battery unto their persons, violation of their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and such ordinary emotional distress as is reasonably foreseeable from suffering defendants' acts and omissions. Named plaintiff Rosie Lee Evans brings this action on behalf of all persons proximately damaged by defendants' conduct of polluting the downwind neighborhood with airborne contamination including particulate matter, manganese, nickel, noxious fumes and odors generating from PSC. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants committed and participated in the acts alleged; (b) whether defendants breached duties of care; (c) whether defendants acted recklessly and willfully; (d) whether defendants committed violations of law; (e) whether defendants' conduct constitutes negligence; (f) whether defendants' conduct constitutes battery; (g) whether defendants' conduct constitutes trespass; (h) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a public nuisance; (i) whether defendants' conduct constitutes private nuisance; (j) whether defendants' conduct constitutes intentional misrepresentation; (k) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages for nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of legal rights, emotional distress, among other damages and, if so, what is the appropriate means of calculating such monetary damages; and (m) what is the liability of defendants, and each of them, for causing these damages suffered by all plaintiffs as a proximate result of plaintiffs' exposure to the harmful or offensive emissions from PSC. The plaintiff ask the court for: -- an order certifying the proposed class; -- compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial or other expedited alternative procedures adopted by the court; -- punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate and sufficient to punish defendants, and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct in the future; -- an order requiring defendants to implement appropriate mitigation procedures, staffing and equipment upgrades to restore and preserve the quality of the air in the residential neighborhood downwind of PSC; -- penalties, disgorged profits and attorneys' fees pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.; -- costs of removal of any harmful substances from plaintiffs' real and personal property and all other related remedial action; -- interest on the amount of any economic losses, at the prevailing legal rate; -- reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to California Civil Code 1021.5; and -- for costs of suit and any and all such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The lawsuit is "Rosie Lee Evans et al. v. Pacific Steel Casting Company, Case No. RG08-383068," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Representing the plaintiffs is: Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq. (tim@rumbergerlaw.com) Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger 2161 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 200 Berkeley, California 94704-1313 Phone: (510) 841-5500 Fax: (510) 841-5501 VEOLIA WATER: Seeks Dismissal of Overbilling Lawsuit in Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- Veolia Water, the private manager of the Indianapolis waterworks is asking a judge to dismiss a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of overbilling customers, Jon Murray of the Indianapolis Star reports. Veolia Water Indianapolis, a subsidiary of a French company, treats and distributes water and handles billing for the utility's more than 250,000 customers, reports the Indianapolis Star. The suit -- filed on April 23, 2008 in Marion Superior Court -- accused Veolia of failing to take required bimonthly meter readings, relying too often on inflated usage estimates during typically low-consumption periods (Class Action Reporter April 25, 2008). Stewart & Irwin, P.C., filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of two plaintiffs and over 250,000 residential water consumers served by Veola Water in Central Indiana (Class Action Reporter April 28, 2008). The complaint specifically alleges Veolia Water failed to read the meters of its customers at least every two months as required by law and overestimated water usage for thousands of its customers. It also alleges that Veolia Water overcharged their customers for late fees as well as breached their agreement with Indianapolis Water, and committed deceptive acts including fraud. The complaint has been filed individually on behalf of David Lear, an Indianapolis resident, Jason Bond, a Zionsville resident, and seeks class action status on behalf of all 250,000 residential customers served by Veolia Water in Central Indiana. For more information, contact: Stewart & Irwin, P.C. 251 East Ohio Street, Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 639-5454 Fax: (317) 632-1319 VIRGIN MOBILE: Faces N.J. Consolidated Amended IPO-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Mobile USA, Inc., certain of the its officers and directors, and other defendants, face a consolidated amended complaint in the purported class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Initially, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Each suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statement filed pursuant to the company's IPO contained materially false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, and additionally alleges that at the time of the IPO the Company was aware, but did not disclose, that results for the third quarter of 2007 indicated widening losses and slowing subscriber growth trends. On Jan 7, 2008, the company filed a motion to consolidate all cases with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for pre-trial purposes. On April 7, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the motion and consolidated the cases with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 17, 2008, the district court judge in the New Jersey matter appointed the New Jersey plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs for the litigation. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 16, 2008. On July 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on Oct. 6, 2008, and the Company filed a reply brief on Nov. 5, 2008. An oral argument date has not yet been set, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008 Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is a provider of wireless communications services, offering prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth market. The Company offers its products and services on a flat per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term contracts or commitments. The Company markets its products and services under the Virgin Mobile brand. VMU has rights to use the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin Group. VIRGIN MOBILE: Seeks Dismissal of "Nevels" Suit in Mississippi -------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Mobile USA, Inc.'s Proposed Order to the Court dismissing the complaint, "Nevels v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al." remains pending. The Company is one of seven defendants named in a class-action lawsuit filed on May 14, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and other costs under the Communications Act of 1934 based on their allegations that the defendants improperly: (1) prohibit customers from disabling text messaging services; and (2) charge customers for receipt of unsolicited text messages. On Aug. 29, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. According to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion and on Sept. 25, 2008, the Company submitted a Proposed Order to the Court dismissing the complaint. Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is a provider of wireless communications services, offering prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth market. The Company offers its products and services on a flat per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term contracts or commitments. The Company markets its products and services under the Virgin Mobile brand. VMU has rights to use the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin Group. VOYAGER LEARNING: March 12, 2009 Hearing Set for $20M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will hold a fairness hearing on March 12, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. For the proposed $20,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-10619- AC-MKM," which was filed against Voyager Learning Co., formerly known as ProQuest Co. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Avern Cohn in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI 48226. Case Background Between February and April 2006, four putative securities class- action complaints, now consolidated and designated as "In re ProQuest Company Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the company and certain of its former and then-current officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2008). Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed restatement. On May 2, 2006, the court consolidated the four cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. By stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed pending restatement of the company's financial statements. The lead plaintiffs subsequently asked the Court to lift the stay of proceedings to enable them to file a consolidated complaint, which they did on July 17, 2006. The defendants then filed motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Rather than respond to these motions, the lead plaintiffs moved to reinstate the stay of proceedings, which was granted. On Dec. 4, 2006, the Court again lifted the stay of proceedings and ordered the lead plaintiffs to either respond to the previously filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions, or to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint. On Jan. 24, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on March 15, 2007. On July 22, 2008, Voyager Learning Co. reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated shareholder securities class-action lawsuit. The settlement will be funded largely by insurance. Under the terms of the agreement, the company would pay approximately $5 million in fees and settlement amounts to settle the class action with remaining amounts to be paid by the insurers. The settlement is subject to completion of a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to be signed by the parties, preliminary and final court approval and the participation of a sufficient percentage of the putative class. There is no assurance that a final Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement will be completed, court approval will be obtained or putative class member participation will be sufficient. The court has indicated that all fact and expert discovery must be completed by October 2008, but no dates have yet been set for dispositive motions or trial. The suit is "In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Avern Cohn, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. (ffox@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor NY, NY 10022 Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/ - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667.7706 Fax: (610) 667.7056 Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/ Representing the defendants are: Michael J. Faris, Esq. (michael.faris@lw.com) Latham & Watkins 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, IL 60606-6401 Phone: 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 - and - George B. Donnini, Esq. (donnini@butzel.com) Butzel Long 150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100 Detroit, MI 48226-4430 Phone: 313-225-7000 Fax: 313-225-7080 YTB INT'L: Illinois Judge Wants Consolidation of Two Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois told attorneys for two competing class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc. to get together and find a way to consolidate the two cases, Sanford J. Schmidt of The Telegraph reports. At a recent hearing, Judge Murphy told the two sides he was unwilling to hear two parallel cases at the same time. The judge said, "We're not going to be hearing two cases at one time." He added, "It makes a lot of sense to file one complaint," according to The Telegraph. However, Judge Murphy pointed out that even if the suits were consolidated, the earliest trial date would be in 2010. To that end, the judge gave the lawyers two weeks to come up with an agreement to consolidate the cases, or he would issue an order of his own choosing, reports The Telegraph. Previously, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reported that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois set a Dec. 8, 2008 status conference for two purported class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc., which alleges that the company is an illegal pyramid scheme (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2008). One of the suits was filed by Faye Morrison and Kwame Thompson on Aug. 8, 2008. They seek to represent a putative class who allege YTB operates an illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs an illegal chain referral sales technique in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Ms. Morrison, of St. Louis and Mr. Thompson, of Atlanta, acted as both independent marketing representatives (IMRs) and referring travel agents (RTAs) for YTB. Their suit seeks at least $100 million in damages on behalf of the putative class, the Madison County Record reports. The two have retained Rex Carr, Christian Montroy and Michael Marker of East St. Louis to represent them. In addition, Jay Kanzler, Jr., and Brian Massimino of St. Louis will assist in representing the class. The Madison County Record reported that the second purported class-action suit against YTB and its subsidiaries was filed by Jeffrey and Polly Hartman. Their suit is almost identical to the first case, however they are represented by different lawyers. They filed their lawsuit, captioned, "Hartman et al. v. YTB International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR- CJP," seven days after the first one. John Carey, Tiffany Marko and Francis "Casey" Flynn of Carey & Danis in St. Louis represent the Hartmans, according to the Madison County Record. New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN CAPITAL: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- RADNOR, Pa., Dec. 15, 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 Maryland on behalf of purchasers of securities of American Capital Ltd. (Nasdaq: ACAS) ("American Capital" or the"Company") between October 30, 2007 and November 7, 2008, inclusive (the"Class Period"). The Complaint charges American Capital and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. American Capital is an "alternative asset management company" that claims to be the largest U.S. publicly traded private equity fund and one of the largest publicly traded alternative asset managers. 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 the Company had far greater exposure todisruptions in the credit markets than disclosed; -- that the Company planned to retain capital gains from its investments rather than distributing them to shareholders; -- that as a result, the Company would have to drastically alter its dividend policy; -- 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, future business prospects and dividend payments were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. Throughout the Class Period and most of the Company's history, investors were lured to invest in American Capital's stock due to its large and dependable dividend payments. During the Class Period, investors were repeatedly assured that such dividend payments would continue, and that the Company was in sound financial condition. However, on November 10, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it reported a quarterly loss, suspended dividends, and stated that it would retain capital gains from investments as opposed to distributing them to shareholders as previously stated. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $5.90 per share,or 42.85 percent, to close on November 10, 2008 at $7.87 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. As the market continued to absorb the Company's announcement, American Capital's shares continued to fall, and finally closed on November 12, 2008 at $6.03 per share. 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 CBS CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- HARTFORD, CT, Dec. 15, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS) ("CBS" or the "Company") between February 26, 2008and October 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that CBS and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose: -- that adverse market conditions had materially impaired CBS's operations, expected cash flows and the value of its intangible assets,including goodwill; -- that the Company's reported goodwill and intangible assets were materially overstated; -- that the Company's reported equity capital was materially overstated; -- that, as a result of its failure to timely write down impaired intangible and good will assets, the Company's financial results were materially overstated; -- that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); -- that the Company's balance sheet was not "pristine," "extremely strong" or"extremely healthy;" and -- that the Company's cash flow from operations was declining at a significant rate. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com CBS CORP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been commenced in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CBS Corporation ("CBS" or the "Company") (NYSE: CBS) common stock during the period between February 26, 2008 and October10, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges CBS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CBS operates as a massmedia company in the United States and internationally. It operates in four segments: Television, Radio, Outdoor, and Publishing. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition and operating results. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: -- that adverse market conditions had materially impaired CBS' soperations, expected cash flows and the value of its intangible assets,including goodwill; -- that the Company's reported goodwill and intangible assets, which ranged between 69% - 73% of CBS's total assets and131% - 137% of CBS's total equity during the Class Period, were materially overstated; -- that the Company reported equity capital during the Class Period that was materially overstated; -- that, as a result of its failure to timely write-down impaired intangible and goodwill assets, the Company's financial results during the Class Period were materially overstated; -- that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and, therefore, were materially false and misleading; -- that the Company'sbalance sheet was not "pristine," "extremely strong" or "extremelyhealthy;" -- that the Company's cash flow from operations was declining at a significant rate; and -- that Defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's free cash flow, including Defendant Moonves' representation that CBS "clearly has the right broad range of assets to produce outstanding free cash flow quarter after quarter, year after year," were materially false and misleading and without reasonable basis. According to the complaint, on October 10, 2008, CBS issued a press release announcing that it "expects to incur a non-cash impairment charge of approximately $14 Billion, in the third quarter of 2008." In response to this announcement, the price of CBS common stock declined from $10.14 to$8.10, on very heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired CBS common stock during the Class Period, which is between February 26, 2008 and October 10, 2008. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com CHINA ORGANIC: Sarraf Gentile Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 12, 2008 -- On December 12, 2008, the law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP commenced a securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of those investors who acquired the securities of China Organic Agriculture, Inc. ("China Organic" or the "Company") during the period July 12, 2007 to August 14, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and names as defendants China Organic and certain of its officers and directors. According to the complaint, the defendants took the Company public in early 2007 and made numerous statements during the Class Period regarding the Company's prospects and sales. Defendants, for example, claimed to be developing organic rice for sale in China, but according to the complaint, never developed any kind of product that could be sold at a competitive price. According to the complaint these and other Class Period statements were false and misleading, designed to inflate the price of the Company's stock. Indeed, according to the complaint, insiders sold tens of millions of dollars worth of Company stock during the Class Period, acquired for themselves a luxury retreat in California, sold off the Company's only significant operation and within eighteen months of taking the Company public left only an empty shell and huge shareholder losses. For more information, contact: Joseph Gentile, Esq. Sarraf Gentile LLP 11 Hanover Square New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-868-3610 Fax: 212-918-7967 web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/ GSI GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- BALA CYNWYD, PA, Dec. 15, 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 GSI Group Inc. ("GSI Group" or the "Company") between April 30, 2008 and December 3, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 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 GSI Group. 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 GSI GROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- HARTFORD, CT., Dec. 15, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GSI Group, Inc. ("GSI Group" or the "Company") between April 30, 2008 and December 3, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that GSI Group and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's business operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following: -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue; -- that as a result, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that GSI Group lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 4, 2008 the Company announced that it would restate its financial statements for the first and second fiscal quarters of 2008. On this news, shares of GSI Group fell approximately 29% to close at $0.68 per share. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com GSI GROUP: Sarraf Gentile Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Sarraf Gentile LLP announces that on December 12, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against GSI Group Inc. ("GSI Group") and certain of its officers on behalf of a Class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GSI Group between April 30, 2008 and December 3, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, GSI Group supplies precision technology to medical, electronics and industrial markets. Throughout the Class Period, the complaint alleges, defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that GSI Group improperly recognized revenue; -- that GSI Group misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- that GSI Group's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that GSI Group lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result, GSI Group's financial statements were materially false and misleading. According to the complaint, when GSI Group announced on December 4, 2008, that it would restate its financial statements, its stock declined $0.28 per share, or 29%, to close at $0.68 per share. For more information, contact: Joseph Gentile, Esq. Sarraf Gentile LLP 11 Hanover Square New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-868-3610 Fax: 212-918-7967 web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/ UBS FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Dec. 15, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s ("LBHI") (Pink Sheets:LEHMQ) 100% Principal Protection Notes (collectively, "Lehman Principal Protection Notes") from UBS Financial Services, Inc. ("UBS" or the "Company") (NYSE:UBS) between May 30, 2006 and September 15, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period") and which were underwritten and sold by UBS. The Complaint charges UBS with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendant issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts relating to the marketing and sale of Lehman Principal Protection Notes. Lehman Principal Protection Notes were marketed and represented to investors to offer "100% Principal Protection" and guaranteed preservation of investors' capital if the Notes were held to maturity. The Complaint alleges that the Company's public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- the risk that, upon maturity, LBHI would be unable to repay the "guaranteed" return of principal on Lehman Principal Protection Notes; and -- the risk that LBHI's "guarantee" of 100% principal protection was subject to LBHI's undisclosed exposure to losses from its real estate and mortgage portfolio and other material undisclosed risks associated with LBHI 's business and accounting practices. On September 15, 2008, LBHI filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The bankruptcy proceeding exposed that LBHI had excessive, undisclosed exposure to losses from its real estate and mortgage investments, and that LBHI lacked sufficient capital to cover those losses. Following the bankruptcy petition, UBS notified holders of Lehman Principal Protection Notes that "The immediate effect of LBHI's bankruptcy filing is that you will not receive any payments on your LBHI structured product as scheduled under the terms of the structured product. Instead, as a holder of a senior unsecured debt instrument of LBHI, you have a claim as a senior unsecured creditor against LBHI's bankruptcy estate." UBS further stated that holders of Lehman Principal Protection Notes "may not receive anything" in the bankruptcy. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 ********* 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 * * *