/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081223.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 254 Headlines CAREER EDUCATION: "Benoit" Arbitration Proceeds Individually CAREER EDUCATION: CCA Students' Suit in California Still Pending CAREER EDUCATION: Court Gives Final OK for "Sanders" Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: Dec. 19 Trial Set for Demurrer in Calif. Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Amended Medical Assistant Program Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Faces "Anglade" Suit on Rest & Meal Periods CAREER EDUCATION: Finalizing FLSA Violations Lawsuit Settlement CAREER EDUCATION: "Gozzi" Suit Over WCI Information in Discovery CAREER EDUCATION: Pursues Dismissal of "Blake" Suit in Missouri CAREER EDUCATION: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Sept. CAREER EDUCATION: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Diallo" Suit CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Hoke" DOLLAR TREE: Dec. 17 Final Fairness Hearing Set for Oregon Suit DOLLAR TREE: Faces Consolidated Ex-Store Manager's Suit in Ala. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Former Employees' Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages DOLLAR TREE: Faces Managers' Labor Violations Lawsuit in Calif. DOLLAR TREE: Former Employee's Labor Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved DOLLAR TREE: Wage & Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due on Dec. 31 E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decertification Bid in "Greenberg" Pending E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York SEMTECH CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Awards Company in Merger Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Brauldi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* CAREER EDUCATION: "Benoit" Arbitration Proceeds Individually ------------------------------------------------------------ Arbitration of the complaint in the matter styled "Benoit, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al.," cannot proceed as a class action, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On June 24, 2005, a purported class-action complaint was filed in Hillsborough County, Florida against the company and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. on behalf of all persons enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program at the company's SBI-Tampa campus in the prior four years. The complaint alleges defendants breached enrollment contracts with the plaintiffs and other class members and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by, among other things, failing to properly train students, offer and require sufficient hours of course work, provide properly trained instructors, provide appropriate curriculum consistent with the represented degree, award the represented degree, provide adequate career placement services, and misrepresenting that they would provide such services. The complaint also alleges that defendants "padded" the MBC Program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in violation of FDUTPA. The plaintiffs sought actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. The Court granted the company's Motion to Stay Proceedings pending Arbitration on Oct. 11, 2005 pursuant to the arbitration provision contained in each plaintiffs' enrollment agreement. On Oct. 30, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Initiate Arbitration, and ordered the company to initiate arbitration proceedings as to only the first named plaintiff, Aimee Benoit, and ordering defendants to pay all fees associated with initiating the arbitration proceedings. On Nov. 30, 2007, the company filed with the American Arbitration Association a Demand for Arbitration as to Benoit. On Jan. 24, 2008, the arbitrator conducted a preliminary hearing and established a briefing schedule on the issue of whether the arbitration can proceed as a class-action. On Jan. 30, 2008, the arbitrator issued an interim ruling stating that the action could not go forward as a class-action suit, and that briefing on the issue was thus not needed. On Feb. 14, 2008, the arbitrator conducted a scheduling conference, reiterated his ruling that the arbitration would not proceed as a class action, and scheduled the final hearing in Benoit's individual arbitration action for the first week of April 2008. Benoit's final hearing has been continued and a new date has not been set. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CAREER EDUCATION: CCA Students' Suit in California Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corp. continues to face two purported class- action suits in California that were filed by certain students of CEC's California Culinary Academy, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Amador Litigation On Sept. 27, 2007, a complaint, entitled "Amador et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corp.," was filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco on behalf of 37 current and former students of the California Culinary Academy. The plaintiffs brought their complaint as a putative class suit and alleged four putative causes of action: 1. fraud; 2. constructive fraud; 3. violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and 4. violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial student loans. CCA filed a motion to compel arbitration of certain of the claims by certain of the purported class representatives, but the Court denied that request on Feb. 28, 2008. The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on or about May 5, 2008, that alleges the same claims. The defendants filed demurrers to and a motion to strike the claims and various allegations. The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike was conducted on Oct. 16, 2008. The court has not yet ruled on these matters. Adams Litigation On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Amador action filed another suit on behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class. The Adams action also is styled as a class action, is based on the same allegations underlying the Amador action, and attempts to plead the same four causes of action as in the Amador action. Although the Adams complaint is virtually identical to the Amador complaint, it makes adjustments to the manner in which the plaintiffs' counsel pleads plaintiffs' claim under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in an effort to avoid certain defects that may lead to dismissal of the claim in the Amador action. The date by which CCA and CEC must respond to the complaint has not yet been set. The defendants intend to move to coordinate this case with the Amador action and also to file demurrers to the plaintiffs' claims on various grounds when the response date is established (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). The court will not require a response to the Adams action pending a ruling on the demurrers and motion to strike in the Amador action. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CAREER EDUCATION: Court Gives Final OK for "Sanders" Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on Sept. 26, 2008, granted final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter captioned "Sanders et al. v. Career Education Corporation et al., Case No. 8:2006-cv-01031," according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On March 15, 2006, 26 current and former students of the Landover, Maryland campus of Sanford-Brown Institute, one of Career Education's schools, filed a class-action complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Career Education and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., one of the company's subsidiaries. The suit, entitled "Laronda Sanders, et al. v. Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. It alleges that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things, details regarding instructors' experience or preparedness, availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their certificates and be able to enter the work force. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants failed to maintain accurate attendance records, and that the defendants negligently or deliberately dropped students without justification. The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached the enrollment contract with the plaintiffs by failing to provide the promised instruction, training, externships, and placement services. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, and costs. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and filed a motion to dismiss significant portions of the complaint. The plaintiffs requested to remand the action to state court. On Sept. 18, 2006, the court denied the plaintiffs' remand motion. The court, however, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the common law and statutory fraud counts of the complaint, with leave to amend. On Oct. 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The case was later consolidated with a separate action brought in the same court by another former student. On March 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On March 7, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint adding four additional former students as plaintiffs based on similar allegations. The parties subsequently agreed to resolve their dispute and entered into a deal. The parties are in the process of finalizing terms of a proposed settlement in the matter, which deal would only be effective upon approval of the court. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the court after notice to potential class members (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). The suit is "Sanders, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:2006-cv-01031," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge Peter J. Messitte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: George Wadie Hermina, Esq. Hermina Law Group 8327 Cherry Ln Laurel, MD 20707 Phone: 1-301-206-3166 Fax: 1-301-490-7913 e-mail: law@herminalaw.com - and - Allan W. Steinhorn, Esq. (allansteinhorn@gmail.com) Clark and Steinhorn PC 11720 Beltsville Dr Ste 1001 Calverton, MD 20705 Phone: 1-301-572-5000 Fax: 1-301-572-9500 Representing the defendants are: Karl Richard Barnickol, IV, Esq. (karl.barnickol@kattenlaw.com) Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 525 W Monroe St. Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: 1-312-902-5271 Fax: 1-312-577-4421 - and - Brian Andrew Briz, Esq. (bbriz@homerbonner.com) Homer Bonner PA 1441 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 1-305-350-5117 Fax: 1-305-982-0062 CAREER EDUCATION: Dec. 19 Trial Set for Demurrer in Calif. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A demurrer and motion to strike the purported class-action complaint against Career Education Corp. and California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., has been set for hearing on Dec. 19, 2008. The putative class-action suit was filed on June 23, 2008, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled, "Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation." The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They also allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from CSCA, or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)," (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). Defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the complaint, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Amended Medical Assistant Program Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corp. and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. face an amended purported class-action complaint in the Madison County Circuit Court, alleging that they fraudulently induced the plaintiffs and the class to join a medical assistant program through a number of deceptive acts. The suit, filed on Feb. 11, 2008, alleges that the defendants defrauded the students by misrepresenting transferability of credits in their RN program and financial aid opportunities at Sanford's Collinsville campus (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008). The named plaintiffs are: * Jenna Lilley, * Jessica Lilley, * Candace Lindsay, and * Ashley Cunningham. The plaintiffs claim that they were aware they needed to take prerequisite courses in order to attend an accredited institution and inquired with Sanford Brown to see if the medical assistant program would fulfill the prerequisite requirements for a nursing program. "None of the four putative class representatives had any interest in taking the medical assistant program to become a medical assistant," the complaint states. "They saw the medical assistant program as a stepping-stone to becoming a registered nurse." The admissions representatives at Sanford Brown allegedly claim that: -- the tuition to attend Sanford Brown and obtain a medical assistant certificate was fixed, however students were forced to pay twice for classes they failed; -- the instructors had real-world experience and were otherwise well-qualified, however the majority of the instructors were themselves graduates of Sanford Brown, with little or no real-world experience. -- the students would be provided with the most up-to-date training aids and equipment but much of the perishable equipment provided was past its expiration date; -- the students would be placed in an actual doctor's office, however Sanford Brown was unable to place students in externships, and the students that were placed were assigned as a secretary or receptionist, not a medical assistant; and -- that there was a high demand for medical assistants, however the field is well staffed and doctors do not hire students from Sanford Brown because they are not properly trained. According to the complaint, Sanford Brown violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by engaging in conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. The plaintiffs, who are area nursing students, assert that they suffered actual damages by Sanford Brown's deceptive practices by the payment of fraudulently obtained tuition, by the payment for textbooks which were of no use, being overcharged for equipment and medical aides, being forced to purchase items from the school and exhausting federal aide available to them making it impossible to pursue a legitimate degree. "Plaintiffs and class members would not have sustained the damages but for the defendants deceptive practices in fraudulently inducing them to enroll in the medical assistant program," the complaint further states. According to the complaint, all persons who attended Sanford Brown in Collinsville and enrolled in the medical assistant program are eligible to join the class. The plaintiffs and the class want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants represented that tuition would be set at a fixed amount; (b) whether defendants gave plaintiffs and the class inaccurate and inflated data concerning wages graduates could reasonably expect to earn including signing bonuses they could reasonably expect to receive; (c) whether defendants claimed Sanford Brown credits were transferable to other colleges and universities within Illinois; (d) whether Sanford Brown instructors were well experienced and well-qualified in teaching at the college level; (e) whether defendants misrepresented that there were a limited number of seats available for Sanford Brown programs that were filling up quickly; (f) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members would be provided with the most up to date training aids and equipment upon which to learn; (g) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members would be placed in a safe, educational environment for clinical study that was in close proximity to their homes; (h) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members would receive large financial grants and loans and the program would cost nothing out of pocket; (i) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members needed to purchase scrubs and other equipment from the school; (j) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members needed to purchase certain new textbooks to master the information needed to pass the classes; (k) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members needed to purchase all new textbooks and other equipment from the Sanford Brown bookstore; (l) whether defendants misrepresented that there was a high demand for workers in the fields for which plaintiffs and class members would be educated; (m) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members would receive large federal loans with low payments and interest; (n) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members would obtain their degrees much quicker and earn more money post degree completion than they would at a community college; (o) whether defendants misrepresented that plaintiffs and class members could only finance their education at Sanford Brown through Sanford Brown's Financial Aid Office; (p) whether defendants misrepresented to plaintiffs and class members that class sizes would be small and not exceed 20 people; (q) whether defendants intended the public to be misled by its various misrepresentations; (r) whether defendants' conduct constituted breach of contract; (s) whether defendants' conduct constituted a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (t) whether the defendants' conduct is in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and (u) whether the conduct of alleged results in damages to plaintiffs and class members and, if so, the proper measure of those damages. The plaintiffs and class are seeking judgment for: -- compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages; -- general damages, including emotional distress in amount to be proved at trial; -- disgorgement and restitution of all monies converted, taken or appropriated by Sanford Brown; and -- prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs of the suit. The company filed a motion to dismiss the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). In response to Defendants' motion, on Sept. 5, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint added one new plaintiff and dropped the negligence and breach of contract and implied covenant claims. A hearing was set on the new motion for Nov. 7, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Jenna Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corp., et al., Case No. 08 L 113," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The plaintiffs are represented by: John Carey, Esq. (jcarey@careydanis.com) David Bauman, Esq. (dbauman@careydanis.com) Corey Sullivan, Esq. (csullivan@careydanis.com) Carey & Danis, L.L.C. 8235 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Toll Free: 800-721-2519 Phone: 314-725-7700 (voice) Fax: 314-721-0905 CAREER EDUCATION: Faces "Anglade" Suit on Rest & Meal Periods ------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corp. continues to face a purported class- action suit in California, alleging violations of the California Labor Code for failure to authorize and permit rest and meal periods and failure to pay compensation for work performed during rest and meal periods. On Oct. 31, 2007, Tino Anglade, a former Admissions Representative at the California School of Culinary Arts, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, on behalf of himself and a putative class consisting of all admissions representatives employed by most of CEC's California schools. The plaintiff also alleges a violation of California's unfair competition law asserting that the alleged rest and meal period violations constitute an act of unfair competition. They seek unspecified lost wages, attorneys' fees, civil and statutory penalties, and injunctive relief. They also seek class certification under California law. Each named California school (California School of Culinary Arts, California Culinary Academy, American InterContinental University�Los Angeles, Brooks College, Brooks Institute, and Kitchen Academy) has been served with the suit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). No developments in the matter were disclosed by the company in its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CAREER EDUCATION: Finalizing FLSA Violations Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the suit styled "Vander Vennet, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., et al.," are finalizing the terms of a proposed settlement with respect to the remaining plaintiffs, according to Career Education Corp.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The purported class-action suit filed on Aug. 24, 2005, by former admissions advisors of American InterContinental University, Inc. (AIU Online), against the company, AIU Online, and the president of the company's Online Education Group in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. It also alleged that defendants failed to pay the plaintiffs for all of the overtime hours they allegedly worked. The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the FLSA and, on Aug. 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice. On Dec. 22, 2005, and April 7, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs' motions to send FLSA Notice, and the plaintiffs' counsel has distributed such notice to certain current and former admissions advisors. On April 7, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to expand the class to include temporary admissions advisors. The deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to this lawsuit was June 23, 2006. Less than 10% of the persons to whom notice of the suit was sent, including current and former admissions advisors, have joined the litigation. The defendants deny all of the material allegations in the complaint. Several of these opt-in plaintiffs have subsequently dropped out of the lawsuit. The suit is "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under, Judge William T. Hart, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robin B. Potter, Esq. (robinpotter@igc.org) Robin Potter & Associates P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-1800 Representing the defendants is: James M. Gecker, Esq. (james.gecker@kattenlaw.com) Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: 312-902-5200 CAREER EDUCATION: "Gozzi" Suit Over WCI Information in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a purported class-action suit in Oregon entitled "Gozzi, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation," are engaged in discovery. On March 5, 2008, Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen filed the complaint in Portland, Oregon, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County. The plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. They filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, adding two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. The suit alleges that Western Culinary Institute made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after graduation. On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in which they simply changed the statement "Claims Subject to Mandatory Arbitration" on the caption to "Claims Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration" (emphasis added). WCI and CEC filed an answer to plaintiff's second amended complaint on June 13, 2008. The defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit at the appropriate time, the company added (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of Plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act; that motion was granted on Sept. 12, 2008. The parties are presently engaged in discovery on class issues. No briefing schedule has been set for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CAREER EDUCATION: Pursues Dismissal of "Blake" Suit in Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corp. and Sanford Brown College continue to seek the dismissal of a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, over allegations that the company "sells" college degrees in criminal justice by misrepresenting tuition, the quality of the staff, job placement services, and transferability of credits. The plaintiffs bring the class action suit pursuant to Rule 52.08 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 407.025 RSMo on behalf of all Missouri citizens who were paying students of the associate and bachelor degree programs in criminal justice st Sanford Brown College during the period from Jan. 1, 2003, through Jan. 1, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2008). The suit, entitled "Blake v. Career Education Corporation," alleges that the defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Section 407.010 RSMo, et seq.) by purposefully employing a pattern and practice of deception, fraud, and misrepresentation in the sale of the Criminal Justice Degree Programs to potential students. The suit also alleges that the employees and agents of the defendants made misrepresentations to them which deceived them to believe that associate and bachelor criminal justice degrees from SBC were valuable when in reality the degrees had little to no practical value in the real world. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Section 407.010 RSMo, et seq., was violated by the defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged; and (b) whether plaintiffs and members of the class have sustained injury by reason of defendants' actions and omissions. They request for injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from utilizing the deceptive and unfair business practices, and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and members of the class and against the defendants, and award the plaintiffs actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, for a sum greater than $25,000, punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred,but in no event any total sum greater than $4,999,99, and for such other and further relief as the court deems proper under the premises. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request is currently pending with the court, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Janet Blake et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., Case No. 0822-CC000777," filed in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri. Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew C. Casey, Esq. Matthew J. Devoti, Esq. Casey & Devoti, P.C. 100 North Broadway, Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: 314-421-0763 Fax: 314-421-5059 e-mail: info@caseydevoti.com Web site: http://www.caseydevoti.com CAREER EDUCATION: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Sept. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to the settlement of the matter "In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation" on Sept. 26, 2008. The litigation consolidated into one suit six purported class- action lawsuits filed between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, in the District Court by and on behalf of certain purchasers of CEC's common stock, against the company, John M. Larson, and Patrick K. Pesch, its former officers. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their third amended consolidated complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 24, 2007. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the plaintiffs' claims on appeal, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CAREER EDUCATION: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Diallo" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corp. and American InterContinental University, Inc., continues to face an amended complaint in a purported class-action suit over AIU's admissions process. On March 19, 2008, a complaint, entitled "Diallo v. American Intercontinental University, Inc., and Career Education Corporation," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Georgia of Fulton County, on behalf of Tajuansar Diallo. The plaintiff filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and purports to allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Georgia Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit contends that AIU made a variety of oral and written misrepresentations to her during the admissions process. It alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon graduation from AIU and AIU's ability to arrange beneficial student loans. On May 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which they added several named plaintiffs and expanded some of the factual allegations underlying their claims. On May 31, 2008, AIU and CEC filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2008). The parties subsequently conducted extensive discovery on class issues. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Oct. 10, 2008. Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification was due on Nov. 10, and the motion was set for hearing on Dec. 9, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an educational services company. The company's schools and universities prepare students for professional careers through the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the U.K., and three online academic programs. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 89,500 students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree, master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-degree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education, Business Studies and Information Technology. The segments of the company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health Education, International and University. CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Hoke" --------------------------------------------------------------- COSTA MESA, Calif., Dec. 19, 2008 -- The Petersen Law Firm announced today that the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange granted the Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit "Hoke v. Construction Protective Services Case # 05CC-00061 (Hoke 1)," which alleges violations of the California Labor Code by Construction Protective Services (CPS). The Court also certified a second lawsuit, "Hoke v. Construction Protective Services Case # 05CC-00062 (Hoke 2)" as a collective action, based on the plaintiffs' claims arising from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) by CPS. Mr. Hoke, a former CPS security guard, and other current and former CPS employees seek to recover unpaid overtime wages. Mr. Hoke and the other Plaintiffs in the Hoke lawsuit contend that Construction Protective Services required them to work overtime without compensation in violation of the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The lawsuit asserts that CPS failed to properly compensate the security guards for the time spent performing required and integral pre-shift and post-shift work; provide rest periods to its guards; pay wages for the time associated with travel required by CPS; failed to reimburse its employees for the cost of purchasing and maintaining their uniforms; and for failing to pay its employees immediately upon being discharged or within 72 hours of quitting their employment. As a result of the Court's order granting Class Certification in the Hoke 1 Case, a Class Notice will be sent to approximately 4,000 current and former employees of Construction Protective Services, which employees were employed in California. Individuals receiving the Class Notice will automatically be included in the Hoke 1 lawsuit, unless they elect to Opt-out of the Hoke 1 case. The Court certified the Hoke 2 case as a FLSA collective action. Accordingly, a Notice of Collective Action will be sent to approximately 8,000 current or former employees of CPS working throughout the United States, including those working in the State of California. Individuals receiving the Notice of Collective Action will have the opportunity to Opt-in to the Hoke 2 case. Individuals currently or previously employed by CPS in the State of California can participate in both Hoke lawsuits. The parties are finalizing the text of the Notices, which are expected to be sent out within the next month. More information about the Hoke lawsuits, including information about joining these lawsuits is available from the Petersen Law Firm's website: http://www.PetersenLawFirm.com. The Hoke 1 and Hoke 2 lawsuits were brought to the court by Gregory G. Petersen of the Petersen Law Firm in March of 2005. Mr. Petersen was joined as co-counsel by Mr. Kirby Farris, of Birmingham, Alabama-based Farris, Riley & Pitt, L.L.P. For more details, contact: Jeff Leonard The Petersen Law Firm Phone: 949-335-1300 DOLLAR TREE: Dec. 17 Final Fairness Hearing Set for Oregon Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A final fairness hearing was scheduled for Dec. 17, 2008, in the labor lawsuit filed by former Dollar Tree, Inc. employees in Oregon. In 2005, the company was served with a lawsuit by former employees in Oregon who allege that they did not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods, and that terminated employees were not paid in a timely manner. The trial court certified three classes, two for alleged violations of that state's labor laws concerning rest breaks and one related to untimely payments upon termination. Following a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court in a similar rest break class action case, the trial court dismissed one of the classes. The parties agreed to mediate, which resulted in a settlement of all remaining issues. The agreement received the Court's preliminary approval and a final fairness hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 17, 2008, 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 entire settlement amount is accrued in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of Nov. 1, 2008. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety store chain selling everything for $1 or less. At Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1 million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2 million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Consolidated Ex-Store Manager's Suit in Ala. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. faces a consolidated lawsuit filed in federal court in the state of Alabama by a former store manager, who claims that she should have been classified as a non-exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit filed by a former store manager, who claims that she should have been classified as a non-exempt employee under the FLSA and, therefore, should have received overtime compensation and other benefits. The plaintiff filed the case as a collective action on behalf of herself and all other employees (store managers) similarly situated. The plaintiff sought and received from the Court an Order allowing nationwide (except for the state of California) notice to be sent to all store managers employed by the company now or within the past three years. Such notice was mailed and less than 15% percent of those eligible to opt-in as a plaintiff did so. According to its Dec. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008, the company will challenge the anticipated effort by the opt-in plaintiffs to be certified as a class following discovery which is ongoing. A second suit was recently filed in the same court by the same plaintiffs' attorneys by named plaintiffs who sue on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The named plaintiffs in the second suit failed to opt-in to the original suit in a timely manner. The allegations in the second suit are essentially the same as the first. The Court has consolidated the two cases. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety store chain selling everything for $1 or less. At Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1 million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2 million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Former Employees' Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. is facing two former employees' anticipated effort to seek class certification for their case against the company, 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. In 2007, the company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by two former employees who allege that: -- they were not paid all wages due and owing for time worked; -- they were not paid in a timely manner upon termination of their employment; and -- they did not receive accurate itemized wage statements. They filed the suit as a class action and seek to include in the class all of the company's former employees in the state of California. The company responded with a motion to dismiss which the Court denied. The company then answered and opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court denied certification on the grounds their counsel failed to demonstrate he would adequately represent the class as required by the applicable federal rule. Plaintiffs have now engaged other counsel. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety store chain selling everything for $1 or less. At Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1 million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2 million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Managers' Labor Violations Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. is facing an anticipated effort by one present and one former store manager to seek class certification for their case against the company, 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. In 2007, the company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal court in the state of California by one present and one former store manager. They claim they should have been classified as non-exempt employees under both the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. They filed the case as a class action on behalf of California- based store managers. The company responded with a motion to dismiss which the Court granted with respect to allegations of fraud. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint which has been answered by the company. The company was then served with a second suit in a California state court, which alleges essentially the same claims as those contained in the federal action and which likewise seeks class certification of all California store managers. The company has removed the case to the same federal court as the first suit, answered it and the two cases have been consolidated. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety store chain selling everything for $1 or less. At Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1 million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2 million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007. DOLLAR TREE: Former Employee's Labor Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed by a former employee in a California state court, which was served on Dollar Tree, Inc. in 2006, has been resolved, 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. In 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit by a former employee in a California state court alleging that: -- she was paid for wages with a check drawn on a bank which did not have any branches in the state, an alleged violation of the state's labor code; -- she was paid less for her work than other similar employees with the same job title based on her gender; and -- she was not paid her final wages in a timely manner, also an alleged violation of the labor code. The plaintiff requested the court to certify the case and those claims as a class action. The parties reached a settlement and executed an Agreement by which the named plaintiff individually settled her Equal Pay Act and late payment claims. The Court accepted the proposed settlement and certified a class for the check claim. Notices were mailed to class members and a hearing for final approval of the settlement occurred on April 22, 2008. The settlement amount was accrued in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of Feb. 2, 2008, and was paid to class members during the second quarter of 2008. While the Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce settlement, the case is resolved. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety store chain selling everything for $1 or less. At Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1 million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2 million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007. DOLLAR TREE: Wage & Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Resolved -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit in a California state court by a former Dollar Tree, Inc. employee who claimed insufficient meal breaks and unpaid rest periods is resolved, 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. In 2003, the company was served with a lawsuit in a California state court by a former employee who alleged that employees did not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods, along with other alleged wage and hour violations. The lawsuit requested that the Court certify the case as a class action. The parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement which upon presentation to the Court received preliminary approval and the certification of a settlement class. Notices were mailed to the class members and the final fairness hearing occurred on May 22, 2008. The settlement amount was accrued in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of Feb. 2, 2008, and was paid to class members during the second quarter of 2008. While the Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the case is resolved. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- www.DollarTree.com -- is a discount variety store chain selling everything for $1 or less. At Nov. 1, 2008, the company operated 3,572 stores in 48 states, with 30.1 million selling square feet compared to 3,401 stores with 28.2 million selling square feet at Nov. 3, 2007. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due on Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered the "Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman, co-lead plaintiffs, to file a consolidated amended complaint by Dec. 31, 2008, according to E*Trade Financial Corporation's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Initially, on Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and its chief executive officer and chief financial officer (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008). The suit was entitled "Larry Freudenberg, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, versus E*TRADE Financial Corporation, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, Defendants." The plaintiff contends, among other things, that between Dec. 14, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants: -- issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the company was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios; -- failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios and materially overvalued its securities portfolio, which includes assets backed by mortgages; and -- based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements it made about the company's earnings and prospects. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs. Four additional class action complaints alleging similar violations of the federal securities laws and alleging either the same or somewhat longer class periods were filed in the same court between Oct. 12, 2007, and Nov. 21, 2007, by named plaintiffs William Boston, Robert D. Thulman, Wendy M. Davidson, and Joshua Ferenc. Mr. Ferenc subsequently dismissed his complaint on May 2, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2008). The remaining suits were later consolidated. The consolidated class action suit is brought on behalf of people who bought shares in E*Trade between April 20, 2006, and Nov. 9, 2007. By order dated July 17, 2008, the trial court appointed the "Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman co-lead plaintiffs and Brower Piven and Levi & Kersinski, respectively, as lead and co- lead plaintiffs' counsel (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008). Subsequently, the trial court ordered Plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint by Dec. 31, 2008; Defendants to file their respective motion to dismiss by March 15, 2009; and all parties to complete briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss by July 31, 2009. The suit is "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Davis Polk & Wardwell Dennis E. Glazer, Esq. (dennis.glazer@dpw.com) 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-450-4900 Fax: 212-450-3900 E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decertification Bid in "Greenberg" Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- E*Trade Financial Corp.'s motions in a purported class-action suit over the company's practice of recording telephone calls of customers or consumers without their knowledge or consent remain pending before the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On Oct. 11, 2006, a state class-action suit, entitled "Nikki Greenberg, and all those similarly situated, plaintiffs, versus E*Trade Financial Corporation, defendant," was filed on behalf of all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received telephone calls from E*Trade that were recorded without their knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the plaintiff to the company's Beverly Hills branch on Aug. 8, 2006, that was recorded during a brief period when the company's automated notice system was out of order. On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class defined to consist of: -- all persons in California who received telephone calls from E*Trade and whose calls were recorded without their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and -- all persons who made calls from California to the company's Beverly Hills branch office on Aug. 8, 2006. In the interim, the company has filed motions seeking to de- certify or further limit the defined class, and the plaintiffs have filed competing motions seeking to expand it (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008). At the request of the trial court, these motions, formerly set for Sept. 19, 2008, are to be reset for hearing at a date to be determined, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. E*Trade Financial Corp. -- https://www.etrade.com/ -- is a global financial services company, offering a range of financial solutions to customers under the brand E*TRADE FINANCIAL. Its financial solutions include a suite of trading, investing, banking and lending products. Its primary retail products and services consist of trading and investing, banking and lending products. Trading and investing includes automated order placement and execution of United States and international equities, currencies, futures, options, exchange-traded funds, mutual funds and bonds. Banking includes checking, savings, sweep, money market and certificates of deposit products that offer online bill pay, quick transfer, unlimited automated teller machines transactions on eligible accounts and wireless account access. Lending includes mortgage, home equity, margin and credit card products that offer online loan status and quick transfer. The company's primary institutional product is market making. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- E*Trade Financial Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit, filed on April 2, 2008, is entitled "John W. Oughtred, Individually, and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities, LLC, Defendants." The plaintiff contends, among other things, that the company committed various sales practice violations in the sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between April 2, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, by allegedly misrepresenting that these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short term investing. On April 17, 2008, the trial court entered an order relieving the company of its obligation to move, answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until such time as the court may deem appropriate (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008). The plaintiff Oughtred then joined plaintiffs in 12 other actions involving auction rate securities, in which the Company is not named as defendant, in filing a motion seeking to centralize all 13 actions in the Southern District of New York or in the alternative, the Northern District of California. By order filed Oct. 9, 2008, a U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi- District Litigation denied plaintiffs' motion to transfer. The suit is "Oughtred v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03295-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David R. Buchanan, Esq. (dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com) Seeger Weiss LLP One William Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-584-0700 Fax: 212-584-0799 Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP 601 California St, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Fax: 415-981-4846 Norman E. Siegel, Esq. (siegel@stuevesiegel.com) Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7112 Fax: 816-714-7101 Representing the defendants are: Joshua Samuel Sohn, Esq. (joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper US LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-335-4500 Fax: 212-335-4501 SEMTECH CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Semtech Corp. continues to face a consolidated purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Initially, the company was named as a defendant in two purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed against the company and certain current and former officers on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from Sept. 11, 2002, until July 19, 2006. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the company's past stock option practices. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary demand. A very similar lawsuit was filed in October 2007, by another plaintiff, which suit has not been served to the company. In February 2008, MPERS filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel. The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008. Recently, motions to dismiss and for other remedial actions were filed by the company and all named individual defendants. Hearing on the motions was set for Dec. 8, 2008, according to the company's Dec. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 26, 2008. The suit is "Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v. Semtech Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-07114-CAS-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan I. Ellman, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 e-mail: info@labaton.com - and - Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. (mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com) Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 Representing the defendants are: Colleen Elizabeth Huschke, Esq. (colleenhuschke@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858-720-2500 - and - Robert W. Brownlie, Esq. (robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-699-3665 Fax: 619-699-2701 SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Awards Company in Merger Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, on Aug. 8, 2008, awarded SS&C Technologies, Inc. $250,000 in legal fees and expenses in a purported class-action lawsuit over the definitive merger agreement that the company signed on July 28, 2005, wherein it agreed to to be acquired by a corporation affiliated with The Carlyle Group. Initially, two purported class-action complaints were filed against the company, each of its directors, and, with respect to the first matter, Sunshine Acquisition Corp., before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. The first suit, "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N," was filed on July 28, 2005. The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the company's directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit. The complaint alleges, among other things, that: -- the merger will benefit company's management at the expense of company's public stockholders, -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is inadequate and does not represent the best price available in the marketplace for the company and -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the receipt of such relief), compensatory and rescissory damages to the class and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The second lawsuit is "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1541-N," which was filed on Aug. 3, 2005. The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the company's directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit. It asserts similar allegations as the first lawsuit. It also seeks class certification, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger, compensatory and rescissory damages to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit, including attorneys' and experts' fees, along with such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005. On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the parties executed on July 6, 2006. Under the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay up to $350,000 of plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses. The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to its stockholders. The court did not find that the settlement agreement was fair, reasonable and adequate and rejected it on Nov. 29, 2006. The court criticized the plaintiffs' counsel's handling of the litigation, noting that the plaintiffs' counsel displayed a lack of understanding of basic terms of the merger, did not appear to have adequately investigated the plaintiffs' potential claims and was unable to identify the basic legal issues in the case. The court also raised questions about the process leading up to the transaction, but the court did not make any findings of fact on the litigation other than that there were not adequate facts in evidence to support the settlement. The plaintiffs decided to continue the litigation following rejection of the settlement, and the parties proceeded with discovery. On Nov. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw from the lawsuit with notice to SS&C's former shareholders. On Jan. 8, 2008, the defendants opposed the plaintiffs' motion for notice to shareholders in connection with their withdrawal and moved for sanctions against the plaintiffs and removal of confidentiality restrictions on plaintiffs' discovery materials. At a hearing on Feb. 8, 2008, the court orally granted the plaintiffs' motion to withdraw, declined to order notice and took the defendants' motion for sanctions under advisement. In its memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2008, the court granted in part the defendants' motion for sanctions, awarding attorneys' fees and other expenses that the defendants reasonably incurred in defending the plaintiffs' motion to withdraw and in bringing a motion to unseal the record and for sanctions. The court noted that further proceedings were required to determine the proper amount of the award, and it directed the parties to submit a schedule to bring this matter to a conclusion. On March 28, 2008, the defendants submitted their fee petition to the court. The parties subsequently submitted to the court a proposed schedule, which was approved by the court on April 21, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' fee petition (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2008). The court heard oral argument on the fee petition on July 9, 2008, and on July 17, 2008, defendants submitted a supplemental fee petition covering their fees and expenses incurred in connection with preparing, filing, and arguing for their original fee petition, those fees and costs having been granted by the court in its March 6, 2008 memorandum opinion and order. On July 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' supplemental fee petition. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court awarded the Company $250,000 in legal fees and expenses, effectively bringing this matter to a conclusion, according to the company's Nov. 4 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- helps its clients buy low and sell high. The company (which operates through its SS&C Technologies subsidiary) designs software for managing financial portfolios, loans, real estate equity, back- office processing, and securities trading, and it provides consulting and outsourcing services. SS&C's software handles investment portfolio management, asset and liability management for actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk management, and trade ordering and modeling. Customers include asset managers, insurance companies, banks, corporate treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and government agencies. New Securities Fraud Cases INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Brauldi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Dec 19, 2008 -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the "Company") securities during the period between April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. 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 financial results were materially overstated and that financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. According to the complaint, on December 11, 2008, after the Company revealed accounting errors for the first three quarters of 2008, the value of Integral Systems' stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *