/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 253 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Mulls Certification Motion in "Ross" ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Remaining Claims in Labor Suit CASEY'S GENERAL: Aug. 2009 Trial Set for Iowa Managers' Lawsuit CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in FLSA Violations Lawsuit Ongoing CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Kansas Suit Over Hot Fuel Ongoing CASEY'S GENERAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Ill. Suit COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Ky. Over Security Breach FORCE PROTECTION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.C. HONEYWELL INT'L: Several Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Affirms Dismissal of N.C. Lawsuit MAPLE LEAF: Settles Canadian Lawsuits Over Tainted Meat Products NEW YORK & CO: Faces "Johnson" Privacy Lawsuit in California NEW YORK & CO: Faces "Schakow" Labor Volations Lawsuit in Calif. PHILIP MORRIS: Law Firm Files N.Y. Suit Over "Lights" Cigarettes SOCIETE GENERALE: Ontario Court Approves Portus Suit Settlement TARRAGON CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Lawsuit TENNESSEE VALLEY: Appeal on Junked Global Warming Case Pending UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Gives Preliminary OK to $895M Deal * Credit Crisis Spur Shareholder Suit Filings To Highest Level New Securities Fraud Cases ATRICURE INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing BRITANNIA BULK: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. CRYSTALLEX INT'L: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Lawsuit ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Mulls Certification Motion in "Ross" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has not yet ruled on a motion seeking for the certification of a class in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co., according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008. The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005. The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005. The suit also named as defendants the company's officers. In September and October of 2005, five other purported class actions were filed against the company and other defendants with the same court. All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005. On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class actions into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. The company joined in that motion. On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings. A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2006. On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. On Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their purported class. The motion has not been fully briefed or submitted. The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Keith W. Schneider, Esq. (kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com) Maguire & Schneider 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-224-1222 Fax: 614-224-1236 Representing the defendants are: Philip Albert Brown, Esq. (pabrown@vssp.com) Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Phone: 614-464-6400 Fax: 614-464-6400 Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. (rsugarman@keglerbrown.com) Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter 65 E State Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-4294 Phone: 614-462-5400 Fax: 614-462-5422 - and - Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. (mrs@mcnamaralaw.us) McNamara and McNamara 88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-228-6131 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Remaining Claims in Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. are continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008. The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006. She, along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006. The parties engaged in discovery. On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims in the action. The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004 (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2008). On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed partial settlement. The partial settlement does not affect claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing on April 30, 2004. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men, women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL brands. As of Jan. 28, 2006, the company operated 851 stores in the U.S. and Canada. CASEY'S GENERAL: Aug. 2009 Trial Set for Iowa Managers' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative trial date of Aug. 3, 2009, has been set in a purported class-action lawsuit against Casey's General Stores, Inc., over alleged violations of the state wage laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint was filed against the company on May 30, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa by two former assistant managers who claim that Casey's failed to properly pay them and other assistant managers overtime compensation (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2008). Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the assistant managers were treated as non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay, but that the company did not properly record all hours worked and failed to pay the assistant managers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The action purports to be a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought on behalf of all "persons who are currently or were employed during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of [the] complaint as 'Assistant Managers' at any Casey's General Store operated by [the] Defendant (directly or through one of its wholly owned subsidiaries), who worked overtime during any given week within that period, and who have not filed a complaint to recover overtime wages." The complaint seeks relief in the form of back wages owed all members of the class during the three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, liquidated damages, attorneys fees, and costs. The company filed an answer denying the claims, as well as a motion for change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sitting in Des Moines. That motion was granted on Aug. 30, 2007, and the case has been transferred to Des Moines. On Oct. 31, 2007, the Court conditionally certified the collective action as to "any employees who are or have been employed by Casey's as an assistant manager at any time since Nov. 1, 2004, and who have unresolved claims for unpaid overtime," and authorized the mailing of notice of the action to all such persons. On Nov. 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to include class claims alleging violations of the state laws of eight states where the company operates, based on the same general factual allegations underlying the FLSA claim. The court allowed the amended complaint to be filed, with modifications. The deadline for certain potential class members to elect to “opt-in” and become collective class members was extended by agreement to Oct. 1, 2008 and has now expired. A total of 631 potential class members have elected to opt-in. The company will be allowed to move to decertify the collective action after discovery is conducted. The plaintiffs recently filed amended collective and class action complaints, essentially asserting the same claims alleged in previous filings, but expanding the class claims under State law and extending them to include violations of Wisconsin law. In addition, the plaintiffs added as parties defendant five former and current officers of the company. The claims against these five named officers are limited to alleged violation of the FLSA. Discovery activities are being pursued by both the plaintiffs and the company, and a tentative trial date of Aug. 3, 2009, has been set by the court, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2008. The suit is "Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Judge Mark W. Bennett presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jon E. Heisterkamp, Esq. (jeheisterkamp@yahoo.com) Peters Law Firm PC PO Box 1078, 233 Pearl Street Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078 Phone: 712-328-3157 Fax: 712-328-9092 CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in FLSA Violations Lawsuit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery activities are being pursued in a collective action filed by seven current and former store employees against Casey's General Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2008. On Jan. 10, 2008, seven current and former store employees filed a companion case to the action brought by assistant managers, Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv- 04043-MWB. The companion was filed by the same attorneys representing the assistant managers and is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines. This action is filed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and also alleges class claims based on “the independent statutory state wage and hours laws of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota.” The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of essentially all Casey's non-management-level store employees employed “during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of [the] complaint… at any Casey's General Store, whether operated directly by Defendant or through one of its wholly owned subsidiaries.” The complaint alleges that the subject employees were denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as well as mandatory meal and rest breaks, and that the company failed to accurately record actual hours worked and willfully encouraged the employees to work “off-the-clock.” The complaint seeks damages, including alleged unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, court costs and attorneys fees, as well as equitable relief pursuant to various state laws. Approximately 30,000 potential collective action members were provided notice of the action and their right to opt-in to the FLSA claims. A total of 2,573 potential members have opted-in to the collective action claim. The opt-in period expired on Oct. 1, 2008. The plaintiffs recently filed amended collective and class action complaints, essentially asserting the same claims alleged in previous filings, but expanding the class claims under state law and extending them to include violations of Minnesota law. In addition, the plaintiffs added as parties defendant five former and current officers of the company. The claims against these five named officers are limited to alleged violation of the FLSA. Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. The stores carry a selection of food (including freshly prepared foods, such as pizza, donuts and sandwiches), beverages, tobacco products, health and beauty aids, automotive products, and other nonfood items. In addition, all stores offer gasoline for sale on a self-service basis. CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Kansas Suit Over Hot Fuel Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery efforts by both sides in the consolidated "hot fuel" litigation are being pursued, according to Casey's General Stores, Inc.'s Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2008. Initially, Casey's General Stores was named as a defendant in five lawsuits brought with the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally allege that the company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60F. Fuel is measured at 60F in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Several of the suits seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. These actions are part of a number of similar lawsuits that have been filed within the past year in 28 jurisdictions, including 26 states, Guam and the District of Columbia, against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification. The court recently denied plaintiff's motion for leave of the court to file an amended complaint that, among other things, would have added the company as a party defendant to the action already pending in federal court in Indiana. Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. The stores carry a selection of food (including freshly prepared foods, such as pizza, donuts and sandwiches), beverages, tobacco products, health and beauty aids, automotive products, and other nonfood items. In addition, all stores offer gasoline for sale on a self-service basis. CASEY'S GENERAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Ill. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Casey's General Stores, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported class action lawsuit is pending with the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. The suit was filed on March 13, 2003, by a former store manager, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated. It is filed under Illinois law on behalf of all persons employed by the company or one of its affiliates who, at any time from February 1993 through the time of final judgment, were not paid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The plaintiff seeks relief for herself and the class members under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and similar laws of other states. The company answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that, among other things, the company's store managers are exempt from overtime laws as executive employees, or the equivalent, under applicable federal and state laws. The court issued its ruling on April 29, 2008, denying the dismissal motion as it pertains to the plaintiff's individual claims based on alleged violations of Illinois law, but granting the dismissal motion as it pertains to the class claims based on alleged violations of other states' overtime laws. The plaintiff was granted leave to re-file the class action claim, provided the purported class could be clearly identified and provided the plaintiff could demonstrate that she can adequately and fairly represent the interests of the class members. The Court called into question the plaintiff's ability to represent class members residing outside Illinois, in light of an August 2005 decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois in an unrelated case. The plaintiff, on June 13, 2008, filed an amended complaint in which the class action claim is limited to persons employed as managers of Casey's stores within the state of Illinois. The company has moved to dismiss plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on the grounds that the Act is not a vehicle to enforce claims under the Minimum Wage Law, according to its Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2008. Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. The stores carry a selection of food (including freshly prepared foods, such as pizza, donuts and sandwiches), beverages, tobacco products, health and beauty aids, automotive products, and other nonfood items. In addition, all stores offer gasoline for sale on a self-service basis. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Ky. Over Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Countrywide Financial Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, claiming that it allowed a security breach involving detailed financial information from more than two million customers, The Associated Press reports. The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 17, 2008 by Matthew and Danielle Holmes of Mount Holly, N.J., under the caption, "Holmes et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 5:08-cv- 00205-TBR." The Associated press reported that the couple wants a judge to grant class-action status to claims that an employee of the mortgage giant, which is now part of Bank of America Corp., stole detailed financial information from customers, sold it to another person, who then sold it to an unknown number of companies. According to Donald Haviland Jr., Esq., the Philadelphia-based attorney representing the couple, Countrywide Financial had all his client's financial information including mortgage information, credit card and Social Security numbers and birth dates. He told The Associated Press that the breach has the potential to wreck their finances. Additionally, the New Jersey couple is also seeking an injunction to stop companies that bought the information from using it in the future and an order requiring them to either return or destroy the information. The lawsuits stem from the arrest of Rene Rebollo Jr., 36, of Pasadena, Calif., a former senior analyst for Countrywide, and Wahid Siddiqi, 25, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., according to The Associated Press. Federal investigators said Mr. Rebollo used a flash drive to download data from about 20,000 customers a week for two years from 2006 through August 2008. According to investigators, Mr. Rebollo then sold the information to Mr. Siddiqi for $500 and earned a combined $50,000. Mr. Siddiqi pleaded guilty on Dec. 9, 2008 to 10 counts of fraud and admitted to selling the information to third parties, including an undercover FBI agent. On the other hand, Mr. Rebollo has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for trial in January 2009, reports The Associated Press. The suit is "Holmes et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 5:08-cv-00205-TBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Thomas B. Russell, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq. The Haviland Law Firm 111 South Independence Mall East, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-609-4661 Stacey A. Blankenship, Esq. (sblankenship@dklaw.com) Denton & Keuler, LLP 555 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 929 Paducah, KY 42002-0929 Phone: 270-443-8253 Fax: 270-442-6000 - and - Kent M. Williams, Esq. Heins, Mills & Olson 608 Second Avenue, South 700 Northstar East Minnespolis, MN 55402 FORCE PROTECTION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- Force Protection, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. On March 10, 2008, the first of 10 related class actions was filed against the company and certain of its former and current board members or officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of a proposed class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period between Aug. 14, 2006 and Feb. 29, 2008. The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations include but are not limited to allegations that the defendants violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal controls, and financial results. The plaintiffs assert that as a result of the defendants' allegedly wrongful acts and omissions, members of the proposed class have suffered significant losses and damages. The individual class-action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10, 2008 under caption "In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH." On June 20, 2008 a group of investors consisting of the Laborers' Annuity and Benefit System of Chicago, Gary Trautman, David J. Jager, Bhadra Shah, Panteli Poulikakos, George Poulikakos, and Niki Poulikakos was appointed lead plaintiff. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge C. Weston Houck, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo 1 Liberty Square Eighth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 615-542-8300 - and - Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jscowart@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross 110 Park Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Representing the defendants are: Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com) King and Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-572-2820 - and - Eleni Maria Roumel, Esq. (eleni.roumel@nelsonmullins.com) Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough P.O. Box 1806 Charleston, SC 29402 Phone: 843-853-5200 HONEYWELL INT'L: Several Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face several purported class-action lawsuits in the U.S. And Canada over allegations that 12 filter manufacturers, including the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters. Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc. v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-00475." It is a purported class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S. And Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi- district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is also investigating the allegations raised in these suits. The company is cooperating with the DOJ investigation, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Dec. 11, 2008. The consolidated lawsuit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com) Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. One State St., Po Box 231277 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 Phone: 860-548-2600 INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Affirms Dismissal of N.C. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a consolidated class-action lawsuit against Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., The Triangle Business Journal reports. In a ruling issued on Dec. 12, 2008, the court said that the plaintiffs didn't offer enough evidence that the company's executives willfully misled investors about studies of diquafosol tetrasodium, according to The Triangle Business Journal. Rather, the court says, it seems clear that Inspire withheld the information for competitive purposes - a legitimate business purpose. The Fourth Circuit's ruling upholds an earlier ruling in the case by Judge William L. Osteen of the the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, reports The Triangle Business Journal. Triangle Business Journal reported that with the ruling any appeal in the case would have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Case Background On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported shareholder class-action complaints was filed against the company and certain of its senior officers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2008). Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focused on statements that are claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of the company's dry eye product candidate, ProlacriaTM (diquafosol tetrasodium). Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities between June 2, 2004, and Feb. 8, 2005. On March 27, 2006, following a consolidation of the lawsuits into a single civil action and the appointment of lead plaintiffs, a consolidated class action complaint asserting the same allegations as the original ones was filed. The consolidated complaint also asserts claims against certain parties that served as underwriters in the company's securities offerings during the period relevant to the complaint. It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities from May 10, 2004, to Feb. 8, 2005. In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims against the underwriters on the basis that they were time-barred. On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not satisfy the pleading requirements under applicable law. In July 2007, the court granted Inspire's and the other defendants' request and dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice. On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the company and the other defendants filed an opposition brief in January 2008. On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Nov. 19, 2007. The company and the other defendants filed an opposition brief on Jan. 18, 2008. The plaintiffs filed their reply on Feb. 22, 2008. The suit is "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge William L. Osteen, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel, Esq. Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P. P.O. Box 58186 Raleigh, NC 27658-8186 Phone: 919-872-3000 Fax: 919-790-9273 e-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com - and - Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor, Esq. (kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP 5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 561-361-5022 Fax: 561-367-8400 Representing the defendants are: William Mark Conger, Esq. (mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com) Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P. 1001 W. Fourth St. Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: 336-607-7309 Fax: 336-734-2633 - and - Barry m. Kaplan, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2500 Fax: 206-883-2699 MAPLE LEAF: Settles Canadian Lawsuits Over Tainted Meat Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Settlements have been reached in class-action lawsuits against Maple Leaf Foods in connection with a listeriosis outbreak from tainted meats that resulted in the deaths of 20 Canadians last summer, Chris Thompson of The Windsor Star reports. The Sutts Strosberg law firm is one of eight across Canada that have been involved in the lawsuit, which has been settled out of court for between CDN25 and CDN27 million. Specifically, Sutts Strosberg is one of five firms in Ontario involved in the litigation. Though it could not say how many people in Windsor and Essex County were part of the lawsuit, Sutts Strosberg did point out that in late October 2008 about two dozen locals had signed on. Under the settlement, which applies in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan and will be fully funded by the company's liability insurers, the estate of someone who died from physical symptoms of listeriosis is entitled to CDN120,000 for their estate, CDN35,000 for a surviving spouse, CDN30,000 for each surviving child and CDN5,000 for surviving siblings and grandchildren, according to The Windsor Star. Death is one of eight injury levels outlined in the suit. The lowest level is compensation for psychological injuries or trauma as a result of consuming meats covered by the recall. Medical documentation and proof of purchase is required for a payment of CDN2,000 per month up to two months for a total of CDN4,000. There are currently about 5,000 plaintiffs nationally in the case and all will have to apply for compensation in one of the three provinces approved in the suit. Court approval for the settlement is expected by February 2009 and claimants could begin receiving settlement checks by next summer, according to The Windsor Star report. The national class-action suit originally claimed CDN100-million for all consumers who purchased or consumed products on the Maple Leaf Foods recall list, reports The Windsor Star. The Maple Leaf Foods' Toronto meat-processing plant was shut for a month when it was determined that its deli meats had been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The Windsor Star reported that listeria monocytogenes is a bacterium that exists in the environment and can contaminate meats, fish and vegetables. It can lead to the development of listeriosis, associated with flu-like symptoms that can include nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness, constipation, persistent fever and death. Symptoms usually appear within two to 30 days, but it can take up to 90 days to get sick after someone has eaten contaminated food. The elderly, pregnant women, children and those with weak immune systems are most at risk. For more details, visit: http://www.mapleleaffoodsclassaction.com NEW YORK & CO: Faces "Johnson" Privacy Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ New York & Company, Inc. is defending the class action captioned Leslie Johnson v. Lerner New York, Inc., according its Dec. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008. On March 25, 2008, a class action claim was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, the caption of which has been changed to Leslie Johnson v. Lerner New York, Inc. The class action seeks relief for, among other things, collection of customers' personal information in a manner that is allegedly in violation of California law. The company has denied liability. The company did not disclose further details regarding the claim in its Dec. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008. New York & Co., Inc. is a leading specialty retailer of fashion oriented, moderately priced women's apparel. The company designs and sources its proprietary branded New York & company TM merchandise sold exclusively through its national network of retail stores and E-commerce store at www.nyandcompany.com. The target customers for the company's merchandise are fashion conscious, value sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45. As of Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 600 stores in 44 states. NEW YORK & CO: Faces "Schakow" Labor Volations Lawsuit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- New York & Company, Inc. is facing a class-action lawsuit filed against it in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa. The class-action claim was filed on April 29, 2008, under the caption, "Jannika Schakow v. Lerner New York, Inc. and New York & company, Inc." It seeks relief for, among other things, meal and rest periods allegedly not provided or permitted to certain eligible employees in California. The company has denied liability. No further details regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the company in its Dec. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008. New York & Co., Inc. is a leading specialty retailer of fashion oriented, moderately priced women's apparel. The company designs and sources its proprietary branded New York & company TM merchandise sold exclusively through its national network of retail stores and E-commerce store at www.nyandcompany.com. The target customers for the company's merchandise are fashion conscious, value sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45. As of Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 600 stores in 44 states. PHILIP MORRIS: Law Firm Files N.Y. Suit Over "Lights" Cigarettes ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREAT NECK, N.Y., Dec. 18, 2008 -- Parker Waichman Alonso LLP announces that it has filed suit on behalf of a man who suffered economic damages as a result of misrepresentations made about Marlboro Lights cigarettes marketed by Philip Morris USA. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under the caption, "Tang v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-05085-SLT-VVP." The lead plaintiff, a resident of Flushing, New York, has purchased and smoked Marlboro Lights cigarettes for many years. The lawsuit alleges that, because of misrepresentations made by Philip Morris USA, the plaintiff and members of the class purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes in order to benefit from a low tar, low nicotine alternative to regular cigarettes, but did not receive those benefits. The lawsuit alleges that as early as 1971, Philip Morris USA deceptively marketed Marlboro Lights cigarettes as a less dangerous alternative to regular cigarettes. The lawsuit charges that Philip Morris USA falsely claimed that Marlboro Lights had "Lowered Tar and Nicotine," even though the company knew those cigarettes would not deliver less tar or nicotine to the consumer. The lawsuit is seeking disgorgement of all monies Philip Morris USA unjustly received through its unlawful conduct, as well as an injunction barring Philip Morris from unlawfully marketing Marlboro Lights. "Light" cigarettes are designed in such a way that air is mixed with and dilutes the smoke drawn through the filter. This produces a lower measurement of tar and nicotine for "lights" as compared to regular cigarettes when undergoing standardized testing by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") testing apparatus -- automated smoking machines used by the tobacco industry to measure tar and nicotine levels in cigarettes. Research has shown, however, that smokers who switch to "light" cigarettes from regular cigarettes compensate for the lower nicotine level by inhaling more deeply; taking larger, more rapid, or more frequent puffs; or by increasing the number of cigarettes smoked per day. For more details, contact: Andres F. Alonso (aalonso@yourlawyer.com) Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP 111 Great Neck Road, 1st Fl. Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 466-6500 Fax: 516-466-6665 SOCIETE GENERALE: Ontario Court Approves Portus Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- TORONTO, Dec. 18, 2008 -- Manulife Securities Investment Services Inc. (Manulife Securities) announced today that the Honourable Justice Colin Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement of a class-action lawsuit that Manulife Securities commenced against Société Générale (Canada) (Société Générale) and related entities on its behalf and on behalf of all purchasers of certain investment products of Portus Alternative Asset Management Inc. and related entities. Under the settlement, Société Générale has agreed to repurchase deposit instruments underlying the Portus investments that are held by KPMG Inc., the Trustee in bankruptcy of the Portus estate, prior to their maturity such that the total face value of the all of the Société Générale deposit instruments will have been paid upon the completion of the settlement. Under the settlement, Société Générale continues to deny all of the allegations in the lawsuit and completion of the settlement is subject to Société Générale's right to terminate the settlement if the Opt-Out Threshold provided for in the settlement agreement is exceeded. At the December 18th hearing approving the settlement, Justice Campbell commended Manulife Securities both for its action in 2005 in making its clients whole by acquiring their investments and in pursuing the class action law suit in a reasonable but forceful manner to ultimately achieve a fair and reasonable settlement for the benefit of all Portus investors. Justice Campbell also recognized the efforts of all parties and their legal counsel in bringing this matter to a satisfactory resolution. Notice of the certification and other materials relating to the settlement will be mailed to all Portus investors, posted on the Portus Group web-site and published in the Globe and Mail. Portus investors do not have to take any steps in order to participate in the settlement. Manulife Securities is a subsidiary of Manulife Financial, a leading Canadian-based financial services group serving millions of customers in 19 countries and territories worldwide. Operating as Manulife Financial in Canada and Asia, and primarily through John Hancock in the United States, the Company offers clients a diverse range of financial protection products and wealth management services through its extensive network of employees, agents and distribution partners. Funds under management by Manulife Financial and its subsidiaries were Cdn$385 billion (US$364 billion) as at September 30, 2008. TARRAGON CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tarragon Corp. is still facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Aside from the company, three of its officers -- William S. Friedman, chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer; Robert P. Rothenberg, president and chief operating officer; and Erin D. Pickens, executive vice president and chief financial officer -- as well as Beachwold Partners, L.P. (a Texas limited partnership composed of William S. Friedman, as general partner, and members of his family, as limited partners), and the company's independent registered public accounting firm, were also named as defendants in the matter. The consolidated suit, captioned "In re Tarragon Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-7972," was originally filed on Sept. 11, 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between Jan. 5, 2005, and Aug. 9, 2007. The suit is "In re Tarragon Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-7972," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge P. Kevin Castel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, L.L.P. One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 Fax: 212-279-3655 Representing the defendants is: Theresa Ann Foudy, Esq. (tfoudy@cm-p.com) Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP 101 Park Avenue South 35th Floor New York, NY 10178 Phone: 212-696-6000 Fax: 212-697-1559 TENNESSEE VALLEY: Appeal on Junked Global Warming Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs continue to appeal the dismissal of a global warming class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against several companies, including Tennessee Valley Authority In April 2006, the company was added as a defendant to a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by 14 residents of Mississippi allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal, including the company and other utilities. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages among other relief. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No further developments on the case were reported by the company in its Dec. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Gives Preliminary OK to $895M Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota gave preliminary approval to an $895 million settlement reached in the matter, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN" Chen May Yee of the Star Tribune reports that the money will go into a settlement fund for class members in a securities fraud lawsuit led by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust. According to the Star Tribune report, a notice to shareholders eligible for payouts will be mailed on Dec. 29, 2008 and published the next week. The deadline for objections is Feb. 17, 2009 and there is a March 16, 2009 hearing for final approval. Case Background On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class-action suits alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006, consolidating the seven actions into a single case. The action is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN." The appointed lead plaintiff is California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants, in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock. The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in possession of material, non-public information concerning the matters set forth in the complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act. It seeks unspecified money damages and equitable relief. On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to settle the lawsuit. The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against the company, all current officers and directors of the company named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the Company named in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has accrued $895 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of class members in two installments. An installment of $450 million will be deposited into the settlement fund on the earlier of 10 days following preliminary court approval of the settlement or Sept. 15, 2008. The remaining $445 million settlement amount will be deposited into the settlement fund on the earlier of: -- 10 days following final non-appealable court approval of the settlement of the claims, -- 10 days following execution by the plaintiffs and the non-settling defendants of an agreement in principle for the settlement of the claims against the non- settling defendants, or -- Jan. 1, 2009. In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company will also supplement the substantial changes it has already implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional changes and enhancements. The proposed settlement, which has been approved by the boards of directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to completion of final documentation, and preliminary and final court approval. The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 -and - Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com) Zimmerman Reed, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Phone: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Representing the defendants is: Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-492-6741 Fax: 612-340-8856 - and - Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-408-2421 * Credit Crisis Spur Shareholder Suit Filings To Highest Level -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Dec 18, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The ongoing credit crisis and turmoil in the financial sector have fueled a major surge in securities class action litigation in 2008, according to a new study from NERA Economic Consulting. Filings are projected to reach 267 by year's end, which would represent a 37% increase over 2007 and the largest annual total since 2002. Excluding atypical cases (related to the IPO securities litigation, analyst cases, and mutual fund market timing), filings in 2008 are on pace to reach a 10-year high. According to NERA's study, 2008 Trends in Securities Class Actions, the credit crisis is the most significant factor contributing to the increase, continuing a trend that began in 2007. Of the 255 cases filed as of 14 December 2008, 43% or 110 are related to the credit crisis, nearly tripling from 40 in 2007. While filings have steadily increased from 2006 through 2008, median settlement values have remained relatively stable. The 2008 median settlement resolved for $7.5 million, below the 2007 median of $9.4 million, and above the 2006 median settlement of $7.0 million. Although it is too early to tell what impact the surge in credit crisis filings may have on future settlement values, there are two intriguing hypothetical outcomes, according to study co-author Dr. Stephanie Plancich. Historically, large investor losses have been positively correlated with a larger settlement size, and the median investor loss for a credit crisis case in 2008 is almost $3.5 billion--approximately nine times the median amount of a non- credit crisis case filed this year ($387 million). This suggests that average and median settlement sizes could grow in the future as these cases begin to be resolved. "On the other hand," says Dr. Plancich, "defendants with 'deep pockets' are the ones who can afford big settlements. However, the credit crisis has dramatically shrunk the size of many defendants' pockets. The financial distress faced by defendant companies could therefore pull median settlement values down." Other Notable Findings of the Study Include: -- Nearly 50% of all filings in 2008 named a company in the finance sector as the primary defendant. -- Auction-rate securities cases peaked in the first half of 2008, following the massive failure of auctions in late February. The pace of these filings has since slowed, but they have not disappeared. -- The concentration of filings in the Second and Ninth Circuits remains a continuing trend, with a particular spike in the Second Circuit in 2008 due to a clustering of credit crisis cases in this Circuit. New Securities Fraud Cases ATRICURE INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD – Dec. 18, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the securities of AtriCure, Inc. ("AtriCure" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATRC) during the period between May 10, 2007 and October 31, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that its publicly reported revenue and earnings had been improperly inflated due to illegal activities and that the Company's financial statements and results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. According to the complaint, on October 31, 2008, after the Company revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division was conducting an investigation of the Company's unlawful activities, the value of AtriCure's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com BRITANNIA BULK: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Dec 18, 2008 -- The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Cohen Milstein") has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client and on behalf of purchasers of Britannia Bulk Holdings, Inc.'s (NYSE: DWT) common stock acquired pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Britannia's Initial Public Offering completed on or about June 17, 2007 ("IPO"). The complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Britannia, together with its subsidiaries, provides drybulk shipping and maritime logistics services in the Baltic region. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially false and misleading, and/or omitted material information necessary to make the statements made, in light of such material omissions, not materially false and misleading. More specifically, according to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following material adverse facts: -- that the Company had entered into Forward Freight Agreements ("FFAs"), agreements to pay the difference between a current price and the future price of moving a product from one location to another, that were far larger than necessary to hedge against identifiable ship or cargo positions and for transactions encountered through the normal course of the Company's shipping business; -- that the FFAs were not purchased to hedge against identifiable ship or cargo positions; -- that the FFAs violated the Company's historical hedge policy; -- that the Company faced greater exposure to falling charter rates and reduced demand for drybulk shipping services than it had disclosed; -- that the Company's internal and financial controls were inadequate; and -- that the Company's financial results and future business prospects would be severely affected by losses incurred as a result of these speculative contracts. The complaint alleges that on October 28, 2008, Britannia issued a press release announcing that it entered into FFAs that were not purchased to hedge identifiable ship or cargo positions. The complaint further alleges that the Company admitted that by not following its historic practices concerning FFAs, its exposure to falling charter rates and reduced demand for drybulk shipping services was heightened and that it expected a significant loss for the three months ended September 30, 2008. Finally, the complaint alleges that Britannia announced that there was a high risk that it would default on a $170 million loan and that it was unlikely that shareholders would recognize much, if any, value for their shares. According to the complaint, on this news, Britannia's stock fell 86% to $0.16 per share. Additionally, according to the complaint, on October 29, 2008, Britannia announced that a major lender had accelerated the terms of the $170 million loan. Finally, according to the complaint, the subsidiary that had secured the loan was placed into administration under United Kingdom insolvency laws, and the New York Stock Exchange suspended trading of Britannia stock on October 29, 2008, and filed a notice of intent with the SEC to delist Britannia stock on November 21, 2008. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 CRYSTALLEX INT'L: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ BOCA RATON, Fla., Dec. 18, 2008 -- The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP announces that it filed a class action lawsuit on December 8, 2008 on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Crystallex International Corporation (AMEX:KRY) during the period July 28, 2005 through April 30, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Crystallex hid the full extent of the problems the Company was experiencing with the Venezuelan government in securing the requisite "Impact Renewable Natural Resources Permit" for the exploration, development and mining of the Las Cristinas mine in Sifontes, Venezuela. As a result of the permit denial, the Company's stock fell roughly from a closing price of $1.68 on April 29, 2008, to a closing price of $0.91 on April 30, 2008, on heavy trading volume. For more information, contact: Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com) Julie Prag Vianale. Esq. Vianale & Vianale LLP 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) 561-392-4750 ********* 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 * * *