/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081230.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 257 Headlines ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in OrthoClear Lawsuit ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set COMPUCREDIT: Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business Pending in N.C. COMPUCREDIT CORP: To Seek Dismissal of Ga. Securities Fraud Suit CONVERGYS CORP: Still Faces Intervoice Securities Suit in Texas DOLLAR THRIFTY: PCRTA Program Suits Consolidated With "Shames" DOLLAR THRIFTY: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Shames" Suit E.I. DUPONT: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in PFOA Suit FINRA: Faces Lawsuit for Allegedly Misleading Ex-NASD Members EMBARQ CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Mo. Over CenturyTel Offer GOOGLE INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in RICO Lawsuit LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $4.2M MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in N.Y. NATIONAL CITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Late Fees in West Virginia TIME WARNER: Administration of $2.65BB Settlement Still Ongoing TIME WARNER: "Parker" Settlement Still Subject to Final Approval TIME WARNER: Seeks to Notify Members of ERISA Fraud Suit in N.Y. TIME WARNER: Still Facing "Brantley" Antitrust Suit in Calif. New Securities Fraud Cases RYE SELECT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit SOUTHWEST WATER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in OrthoClear Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on motions in a purported class-action lawsuit filed against Align Technology Inc., OrthoClear Inc., and OrthoClear Holdings Inc., 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 complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others similarly situated on May 18, 2007, alleges that orthodontic treatments of the dental patient plaintiff "were interrupted, unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct" relating to the OrthoClear Settlement. OrthoClear Settlement On Oct. 13, 2006, Align Technology entered into a formal agreement with OrthoClear Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, and OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (OrthoClear), together with certain individuals associated with OrthoClear to end all pending litigation between the parties. As part of the OrthoClear Settlement, OrthoClear agreed to stop the importation of aligners into the U.S. and discontinue all aligner business operations worldwide. As a result, most OrthoClear patients were unable to complete their orthodontic treatment with OrthoClear. In an attempt to help minimize treatment disruptions for the OrthoClear patients and their doctors, Align Tech committed to make treatment available to these patients at no additional cost under the "Patients First Program." Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no charge to patients or their doctors. Causes of Action The "Weber" complaint alleges two causes of action against the OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align Technology for breach of contract. The cause of action against Align Technology references the company's agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear patients, alleging that Align failed "to provide the promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members." On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint and asserted 17 affirmative defenses. On July 20, 2007, the company filed a motion for summary judgment on the Third Cause of Action (the only cause of action alleged against Align). On Aug. 24, 2007, Ms. Weber filed a motion for class certification. On Oct. 1, 2007, the company filed an opposition to the motion of class certification and it is currently awaiting rulings from the Court. OrthoClear has filed a motion to dismiss the case. The initial case management conference and all discovery has been stayed pending the Court's decision on the motion for class certification, OrthoClear's motion to dismiss and Align's motion for summary judgment (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2008). The suit is "Weber v. Align Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Norman A. Mordue, presiding. Representing the plaintiff are: Mark J. Schulte, Esq. (mschulte@hancocklaw.com) Daniel B. Berman, Esq. (dberman@hancocklaw.com) Maureen E. Maney, Esq. (mmaney@hancocklaw.com) Zachary M. Mattison, Esq. (zmattison@hancocklaw.com) Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm P.O. Box 4976 1500 MONY Tower I Syracuse, NY 13221-4976 Phone: 315-471-3151 Fax: 315-471-3167 315-233-4312 ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Jan. 21, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- A Jan. 21, 2009 hearing has been set to consider the final approval of a $2-million settlement in a securities class-action lawsuit filed in Colorado against Allos Therapeutics Inc. and one of its former officers, 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 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in May 2004. The complaint was then amended in August 2004. It was brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from May 29, 2003, to April 29, 2004. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages relating to the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during the class period and subsequent declines in the company's stock price. On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. In an opinion dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the legal requirements applicable to its alleged claims. On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. In October 2006, the parties held talks to settle the matter, and on Feb. 6, 2008, they signed a stipulation of settlement, resolving the case for $2,000,000. The Court of Appeals accordingly has remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of the settlement. The settlement is subject to various conditions, including without limitation, approval of the District Court (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008). On Sept. 15, 2008, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing on Jan. 21, 2009, to consider final approval of the settlement. Neither the company nor its former officer admits any liability in connection with the settlement. The amount of the settlement in excess of the company's deductible has been covered by its insurance carrier. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the company has recorded $2,000,000 in accrued litigation settlement costs, which represents its best estimate of the potential gross amount of the settlement costs to be paid to the plaintiffs, and $2,000,000 in prepaid expenses and other assets, which represents the approximately $235,000 of remaining deductible under its insurance policy paid by the company and $1,765,000 paid by its insurance carrier into the settlement fund escrow in September 2008. A claims administrator appointed by the parties will administer the distribution of the settlement fund to authorized claimants in 2009. The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jberens@dyershuman.com) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80218-1417 Phone: 303-861-3003 Fax: 303-830-6920 Representing the defendants are: Tara L. Acton, Esq. (tacton@bw-legal.com) Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C. 370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800 Denver, CO 80202-5698 Phone: 303-825-0800 Fax: 303-629-7610 - and - Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq. (schwartzph@cooley.com) Cooley Godward, LLP 380 Interlocken, Crescent #900 Broomfield, CO 80021-8023 Phone: 720-566-4000 Fax: 720-566-4099 COMPUCREDIT: Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business Pending in N.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CompuCredit Corp. and five of its subsidiaries remain defendants in a purported class-action suit entitled "Knox, et al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No 5 CV 0445," according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Spet. 30, 2008. The suit was filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on Feb. 8, 2005. The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called "payday lending" business, certain of the company's Retail Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan brokering. The plaintiffs further allege that the company is the alter ego of its subsidiaries and is liable for their actions. They are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class member (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008). CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a provider of various credit and related financial services and products to or associated with the financially underserved consumer credit market. The company serves this market principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards, Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro- Loans, Auto Finance and Other. COMPUCREDIT CORP: To Seek Dismissal of Ga. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants in a purported securities fraud class-action suit in Georgia, entitled "Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System vs. CompuCredit Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-2270, intend to file a motion to dismiss, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 14, 2008, against CompuCredit and four of the company's officers -- David G. Hanna, Richard R. House, Jr., Richard W. Gilbert, and J. Paul Whitehead III. In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements (or concealed information) regarding the nature of the company's assets, accounting for loan losses, marketing and collection practices, exposure to sub-prime losses, ability to lend funds, and expected future performance (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008). On Aug. 22, 2008, a virtually identical case was filed entitled "Steinke vs. CompuCredit Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-2687." The complaints recently were consolidated, but a consolidated complaint has not yet been filed. The suit is "Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v. CompuCredit Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv- 02270-TWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 770-392-0090 - and - Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 CONVERGYS CORP: Still Faces Intervoice Securities Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Convergys Corp. continues to face a consolidated class-action lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., 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. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice. Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000 (the Class Period). The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. They have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court. On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class Period. On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's petition to appeal the District Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-certification order and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision in "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc." The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court regarding class certification and are awaiting the District Court's ruling. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss portions of that amended complaint. On March 14, 2008, the District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in response to the plaintiffs' requests for production. Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global player in relationship management. The Company provides its clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions). It has three segments: Customer Management, which provides outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and consulting services to in-house customer care operations; Information Management, which provides convergent rating, charging and billing solutions for the global communications industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and learning solutions. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc. In October 2008, the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play fulfillment software for communications service providers. DOLLAR THRIFTY: PCRTA Program Suits Consolidated With "Shames" -------------------------------------------------------------- Two purported class-action lawsuits filed against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of California -- in connection to the Passenger Car Rental Tourism Assessment Program have been consolidated with the suit styled, "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM,. On Dec. 13, 2007, and Dec. 14, 2007, purported class-action suits were filed against the Company, by Thomas Comisky and Isabel Cohen, respectively, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These lawsuits claim a violation of rights guaranteed under the Free Speech and Free Association Clauses by compelling out-of- state visitors to subsidize the Passenger Car Rental Tourism Assessment Program, that the Program violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by limiting the assessment to airport locations renting to out-of-state travelers and a violation of the California Constitution by not maintaining segregated accounts for the pass through funds. The Comiskey case is styled, "Thomas J. Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., California Travel and Tourism Commission and Dale E. Bonner in his capacity as Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing for the State of California (No. CV07-08118 FMC AJWx (C.D. Cal.))." The Cohen case is styled, "Isabel Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., California Travel and Tourism Commission and Dale E. Bonner, in his capacity as Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing for the State of California (No. CV07-08164 JSL FFMx (C.D. Cal.))." These suits seek injunctive relief to stop the pass through, a refund of all assessments, damages and fees. On Sept. 23, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued its order granting defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and consolidated these cases with the Shames case, 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. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through Company-owned stores. The Company has two rental car brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a network of Company-owned stores and franchisees. DTG also leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other services to franchisees. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Still Faces Amended Complaint in "Shames" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. continues to face an amended purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of California alleging antitrust violations, 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, "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The lawsuit claims that the pass through of the California Trade and Tourism Commission and Airport Concession Fees authorized by legislation effective in January 2007 constitute antitrust violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Act. The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief to stop the pass through, restitution, damages and fees. On April 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend the putative class action, on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for which relief could be granted. The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 25, 2008 the Court issued an order denying the motion as to the antitrust claims but granting the motion to dismiss state law claims. The court also dismissed The California Travel and Tourism Commission from the litigation based on state action immunity. The suit is "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Dennis James Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com) Hulett Harper Stewart 550 West C. Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-338-1133 Fax: 619-338-1139 Representing the defendants are: Michael L. Weiner, Esq. (mweiner@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: 212-735-2666 Fax: 917-777-2632 Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Esq. (jlevee@jonesday.com) Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-243-2572 Fax: 213-243-2539 - and - Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-984-8947 Fax: 415-984-8701 E.I. DUPONT: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in PFOA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has denied class-action status for a group of Salem County residents suing E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. over chemical emissions from the company's Chambers Works plant, Andrew Eder of The News Journal reports. However, the judge left open the possibility of an amended request from the plaintiffs, who seek to compel DuPont to pay for a medical monitoring program. The litigation was brought by citizens who are alleging that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) released from the plant, situated at the foot of the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Deepwater, N.J., has contaminated public water supplies and private residential wells in the area, according to The News Journal. There is no federal drinking water standard for PFOA, although the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has set a preliminary safety guideline for the chemical, used to make the nonstick coating Teflon and other products. In a 58-page opinion, obtained by The News Journal, Judge Renee Marie Bumb said the plaintiffs had not provided an adequate analysis for any of their claims except their assertion that DuPont should pay medical monitoring expenses for those exposed to PFOA. According to Judge Bumb, a monitoring program for PFOA would be difficult to administer because of disparities among plaintiffs in exposure, risk of disease and the need for medical monitoring. Judge Bumb also stated, "The presence of so many individualized issues would make managing a class action for medical monitoring inordinately difficult." She adds, "The problems inherent in managing the individual issues of thousands of class members would certainly outweigh any advantages gained by allowing the class action to proceed." However, the judge said the plaintiffs could file another brief detailing which specific medical monitoring issues would be appropriate for a class action, or seek permission from the court to file a motion for class certification on one of their five other claims against DuPont, The News Journal reported. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com-- operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution and sale to many different markets, including the transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health markets. FINRA: Faces Lawsuit for Allegedly Misleading Ex-NASD Members ------------------------------------------------------------- The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, formed by the merger of the NASD and the New York Stock Exchange's oversight unit, was accused in a lawsuit of misleading NASD members over $35,000 payments to each of them, David Glovin of Bloomberg.com reports. FINRA's creation last year marked one of the largest overhauls of private securities regulation in decades, eliminating dual oversight of about 170 brokerages. The NASD paid each of its members $35,000, or a total of about $175 million, in anticipation of cost savings. The complaint, filed today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Benchmark Financial v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Case No. 08-cv-1193," claims NASD and its officers deceived members when they said the most members could receive was $35,000, because of a cap imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, reports Bloomberg.com. In fact, more than $1 billion was available to members, according to the complaint filed by Florida-based Benchmark Financial Services Inc. "Contrary to defendants' repeated and adamant claims, a much higher member payment was not only possible but feasible," Benchmark said in the complaint. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and an order certifying the case as a class action, or group lawsuit, on behalf of former NASD members, Bloomberg.com reported. EMBARQ CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Mo. Over CenturyTel Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Embarq Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit from a shareholder seeking to halt its acquisition by CenturyTel Inc., claiming the deal shortchanges investors, Monroe News Star reports. The suit was filed earlier this month in Johnson County District Court in Kansas City, Mo. by Richard Tyner. It accuses Embarq corporate officials of ignoring higher and better offers from other suitors so they would receive well-paid positions at CenturyTel. Monroe News Star reported that securities filings show other companies were interested in buying Embarq and at least one offered a stock-and-cash offer that was superior to what CenturyTel was offering. However, the suit contends that Embarq leaders "placed their own personal interests ahead of those of the company's shareholders." Under the combined company, Embarq chief executive Tom Gerke will serve as vice chairman and current Embarq Chairman William Owens will serve as non-executive chairman. In addition, seven other Embarq board members will retain their seats. Also, CenturyTel chief executive Glen Post will remain in charge of the combined company, according to Monroe News Star. According to the lawsuit, "To secure these lucrative and prestigious positions, on top of accepting an inadequate price in the face of a superior offer, the defendants agreed to deal terms that protected CenturyTel's interests in deterring rival bidders." The lawsuit asks the court to rule the acquisition agreement "unlawful and unenforceable," block the deal until it "provides the best possible terms for shareholders" and to order the company to get a better deal. GOOGLE INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in RICO Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion that sought class-action status to a lawsuit against Google, Inc. over "typosquatting," which is alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Wendy Davis of Mediapost.com reports. In denying the case to go forward as a class-action suit, Judge Blanche Manning of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that class certification was not appropriate because the trademark issues raised in the lawsuit required individualized determinations, according to Mediapost.com. Mediapost.com reported that with the ruling the search giant will only have to defend itself against one company's trademark infringement and cybersquatting allegations, significantly limiting the search company's potential damages, Case Background Jason Lee Miller of WebProNews explains that "typosquatting" is the practice of registering a domain that is an errant version of a popular website in order to gain traffic and ad clicks from people who misspell or mistype their intended domain. For example, one might type bankofamrica.com instead of bankofamerica.com. "Typosquatting" has been illegal in the U.S. since 1999, and is considered trademark infringement in most countries (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008). Jordan Golson of The Industry Standard reports that under the scam, which has been around for years, companies will buy domains like "ccartoonnetwork.com" or "bankkofamerica.com" hoping that users will misspell domain names when entering them in the browser window. Then, when users land on those pages, they click the Google AdSense ads that are on the pages, generating revenue for Google and the company that bought the domain name. The loser, says Harvard Business School professor Benjamin G. Edelman, who is co-counsel in the lawsuit, is the company whose trademarks have been infringed. The suit is captioned, "Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007cv03371," and was filed on June 15, 2007. It accuses the search giant and various "typosquatting" companies of trademark infringement. Others named as defendants in the suit, include: Oversee.Net, Sedo LLC, Dotster, Inc., Internet Reit, Inc. and several John Does I-X. Professor Edelman estimates Google makes between $32 and $50 million in gross profit each year -- potentially much more -- from placing its AdSense text ads on so-called "typosquatting" sites. The suit is "Vulcan Golf, LLC et al v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03371," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Blanche M. Manning, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert M. Foote, Esq. (rmf@foote-meyers.com) Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC 28 North First Street Geneva, IL 60134 Phone: (630) 232-6333 - and - William J. Harte, Esq. (wharte@williamharteltd.com) William J. Harte, Ltd. 111 West Washington Street Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 726-5015 Representing the defendants are: Alison C. Conlon, Esq. (conlon@wildmanharrold.com) Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, LLP 225 West Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606-1229 Phone: (312) 201-2000 - and - Henry M. Baskerville, Esq. (hbasker@stetlerandduffy.com) Stelter & Duffy, Ltd. 11 S. LaSalle Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 338-0200 Fax: (312) 338-0070 LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $4.2M ----------------------------------------------------------- Dec. 23, 2008 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Leadis Technology, Inc. announced that a settlement has been reached in its shareholder class-action lawsuit. The company announced that it has reached a settlement in principle regarding the securities class action lawsuit filed in April 2005 pertaining to the company's initial public offering in June 2004. The terms of the settlement, which include no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Leadis, provide for a full and complete release of all claims in the litigation and payment of $4.2 million into a settlement fund. MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Moody's Corp. remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Initially, two purported class-action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the company's securities against the company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007. The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 26, 2007. Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding, entitled "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during the period from Feb. 3, 2006, through Oct. 24, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning the company's business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and financial results relating primarily to MIS's ratings of structured finance products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt obligations. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008). The company did not report any updates regarding the case in its Nov. 4, 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 Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq. (fgerkens@glancylaw.com) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1430 Broadway, Suite 1603 New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212-382-2221 Fax: 212-382-3944 Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmllp.com) Kirby McInerney LLP 825 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-371-6600 Fax: 212-751-2540 - and - Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, Esq. (bhinerfeld@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants is: Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. (nelless@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-558-4976 Fax: 212-558-3338 NATIONAL CITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Late Fees in West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- National City Mortgage Co., a unit of National City Corp., settles a purported class-action suit in West Virginia, which accuses the company of allegedly refusing to credit a partial payment or charging more than one late fee for the same late payment, Kate Long of The Charleston Gazette reports. About 3,000 West Virginians will soon get a check from National City Mortgage, as part of a settlement, which the Ohio-based lender agreed to back in Dec. 19, 2008. In essence, the company agreed to pay 2,859 of its West Virginia customers for its alleged actions. National City does not admit guilt in the settlement, but the company has agreed to pay a penalty of $700,000, including $151 for each refused payment or duplicate late fee. More than 60 customers with multiple infractions will receive at least $1,000. "National City will not be doing those things in the future in West Virginia," said lawyer John Barrett of Charleston law firm Bailey and Glasser. In general, the suit accuses National City of failing to credit payments and charging illegal late fees, as well as "harassing and abusive debt collection practices." The settlement became final earlier this month in the U.S. District Court of the Southern Distirct of West Virginia, in a hearing before Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., according of The Charleston Gazette. For more details, contact: Bailey & Glasser LLP 227 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Web site: http://www.baileyglasser.com TIME WARNER: Administration of $2.65BB Settlement Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- The administration of the $2.65-billion settlement in a lawsuit captioned "AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & 'ERISA' Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575" remains ongoing. During the Summer and Fall of 2002, 30 shareholder class-action suits were filed in various U.S. District Courts naming as defendants the company, certain current and former executives of the company and, in several instances, America Online, Inc. The complaints purported to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of the company and alleged that the company made material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs claimed that the company failed to disclose AOL's declining advertising revenues and that the company and AOL inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of transactions. Certain of the lawsuits also alleged that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at the company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time Warner stock, that the company failed to disclose that the January 2001 merger of America Online (now AOL LLC) and Time Warner Inc., now known as AOL-Historic TW Merger, was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time of the announcement of the merger and, further, that the company inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount in compensatory damages. All of these lawsuits were centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (along with the federal derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under ERISA) under the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and 'ERISA' Litigation." The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers and directors of the company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co. The plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the company made material misrepresentations in its registration statements and joint proxy statement-prospectus related to the AOL-Historic TW Merger and in its registration statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Settlement In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle with MSBI for the settlement of the consolidated securities actions. The settlement is reflected in a written agreement between the lead plaintiff and the company. On Sept. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the settlement class. The court issued an order dated April 6, 2006, granting final approval of the settlement, and the time to appeal that decision has expired. In connection with reaching the agreement in principle on the securities class action, the company established a reserve of $3 billion during the second quarter of 2005 reflecting the MSBI settlement and other pending related shareholder and ERISA litigation. Pursuant to the MSBI settlement, in October 2005, Time Warner paid $2.4 billion into a settlement fund for the members of the class represented in the action, and Ernst & Young LLP paid $100 million. Also in connection with the settlement, the $150 million previously paid by Time Warner into a fund in connection with the settlement of the investigation by the DOJ was transferred to the MSBI Settlement Fund. In addition, the $300 million the company previously paid in connection with the settlement of its SEC investigation will be distributed to investors through the MSBI settlement process pursuant to an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 11, 2006. On Oct. 27, 2006, the court awarded to plaintiffs' counsel fees in the amount of $147.5 million and reimbursement for expenses in the amount of $3.4 million, plus interest accrued on such amounts since Oct. 7, 2005, the date the company paid $2.4 billion into the MSBI Settlement Fund; these amounts are to be paid from the MSBI Settlement Fund. On May 2, 2007, the court entered an order directing an initial distribution of these funds. Administration of the MSBI settlement is ongoing (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008). The company reported no further development in the matter in its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. For more details, contact: AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 808061 Petaluma, CA 949475-8061 Phone: 877-800-7852 e-mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com Web site: http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/ TIME WARNER: "Parker" Settlement Still Subject to Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a purported nationwide class-action suit, entitled "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al., Case No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," which alleged violation of subscribers privacy rights by Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., and Time Warner Cable remains subject to final approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit, "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable," alleged that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and common law. The plaintiffs sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request was denied on Sept. 7, 1999. In December 1999, the company filed a motion to deny class certification, and this motion was granted by the court with respect to monetary damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief. On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings on class certification and other matters. In May 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which motion Time Warner Cable has opposed. On October 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that settlement was later denied. The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement to resolve this action on terms that are not material to the company and submitted their agreement to the district court on April 2, 2008. On May 8, 2008, the district court granted preliminary approval of the revised settlement, but it is still subject to final approval by the district court (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008). The company did not provide further updates regarding the matter in its 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 "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al., Case No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge I. Leo Glasser, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael G. Lenett, Esq. Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, District of Columbia 20002 Phone: 202-789-3960 Fax: 202-789-1813 Web site: http://www.cuneolaw.com/ - and - Peter Steven Linden, Esq. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 830 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-371-6600 Representing the company are: Landis Cox Best, Esq. (lbest@cahill.com) Jonathan D. Their, Esq. (jthier@cahill.com) Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-701-3694 Fax: 212-269-5420 - and George W. Sampson, Esq. Hagens Berman LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Fax: 206-623-0594 TIME WARNER: Seeks to Notify Members of ERISA Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the matter entitled "Hallissey, et al. v. America Online, Inc.," reached an agreement to issue supplemental notice to newly identified members of the putative class as well as previously notified members and submitted this agreement to the court for approval in August 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 class action alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 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 Jan. 17, 2002, Community Leader volunteers filed the class- action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, America Online Inc. and AOL Community, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to pension, welfare benefits and other employee benefits subject to ERISA. In March 2003, the plaintiffs filed and served a second amended complaint, adding as defendants the company's Administrative Committee and the AOL Administrative Committee. On May 19, 2003, the company, America Online and AOL Community filed a motion to dismiss the case and the Administrative Committees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both of these motions are pending (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008). The suit is "Hallissey, et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., Case no. 1:02-cv-00423-KTD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lynn Beth Bayard, Esq. (lbayard@paulweiss.com) Lewis Richard Clayton, Esq. (lclayton@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-373-3215 Fax: 212-373-2070 Representing the company is: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Leon Greenberg, P.C. 225 Broadway Suite 612 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-227-4841 TIME WARNER: Still Facing "Brantley" Antitrust Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc., continue to face the matter "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The company was among the defendants named in the purported class action, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007. Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: -- Rob Brantley, -- Darryn Cooke, -- William Costley, -- Beverly Costley, -- Christina Hills, -- Michael B. Kovac, -- Michelle Navarrette, -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and -- Joseph Vranich. The defendants in the case are: -- NBC Universal, Inc., -- Viacom Inc., -- The Walt Disney company, -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., -- Time Warner Inc., -- Time Warner Cable Inc., -- Comcast Corp., -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., -- Cox Communiations, Inc., -- The Directv Group, Inc., -- Echostar Satellite LLC, -- Charter Communications, Inc., and -- Cablevision Systems Corp. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a la carte basis. The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the distributor defendants. On Dec. 21, 2007, the programmer defendants, including the company, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On March 10, 2008, the court granted these motions, dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint in an attempt to address the deficiencies noted by the court in its prior dismissal order. On April 22, 2008, the programmer defendants, including the company, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On June 25, 2008, the court denied these motions. The programmer defendants and the distributor defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its June 25 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008). On July 14, 2008, the programmer defendants and the distributor defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its June 25 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied by the district court on Aug. 4, 2008. The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com) Blecher & Collins 515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-622-4222 Representing the defendants are: Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com) Davis Polk and Wardwell 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650-752-2005 John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com) Arnold and Porter 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513 Phone: 213-243-4000 - and - Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-663-6321 New Securities Fraud Cases RYE SELECT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- New York, New York (PRWEB) Dec. 23, 2008 -- Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action lawsuit on December 24 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Rye Select Broad Market Fund, LP ("Rye Select"), Rye Investment Management, Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., Robert Schulman, and Jim Mitchell. The suit, 08- CV-11212, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased limited partnership interests in Rye Select from May 10, 1994 through December 22, 2008, alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding their investments with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities ("BMIS") and breached their fiduciary duties to the proposed class by failing to conduct appropriate due diligence into the operations of BMIS before entrusting all of Rye Select's capital to be managed by BMIS and its founder, Bernie Madoff. On December 11, 2008, Madoff was arrested by federal authorities who say Madoff admitted to operating a $50 billion Ponzi scheme in which Madoff used the principal investments of new clients to pay fictitious "returns" to other clients. Although Madoff had only a few individual clients that invested directly with him, individuals and institutions across the world invested indirectly and sometimes unknowingly in Madoff's scheme through "feeder funds" - including Rye Select, a fund managed by Tremont Partners, Inc. and its parent company, Tremont Group - whose sole purpose was to funnel money to BMIS. As a result of Madoff's scheme, the Rye Select fund and its limited partners have been substantially wiped out. The complaint, captioned, "Brainson v. Rye Select Broad Market Fund LP, et al.," alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in Rye Select's private placement memorandum, financial statements, and other documents in violation of federal securities laws. Throughout the class period, defendants represented to its investors that Tremont, as general partner for Rye Select, was conducting careful due diligence, thorough manager research, and advanced risk allocation. These statements were materially false and misleading because defendants in fact conducted no due diligence with regard to its investments with Madoff, or its due diligence was so lacking as to constitute recklessness. The complaint also alleges that Rye Select and its general partner, Tremont Partners, breached their fiduciary duties to the class by ignoring dozens of red flags warning that BMIS and the investment strategy it employed were not capable of generating the consistent double-digit annual returns for which Madoff was famous. For example, a 2005 letter to the Securities Exchange Commission identified 29 red flags and described in great detail how Madoff's operation could not be legitimate. In addition, some hedge fund managers and investment advisers who performed proper due diligence on Madoff identified additional warning signs and urged their clients not to invest with Madoff. The complaint alleges that if defendants had conducted proper due diligence as investment professionals, they would have come across at least some of these red flags and would have warned their investors about the potential risks of investing with Madoff. The complaint also alleges common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. For more details, contact: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, New York Phone: (877) 779-1414 or (212) 779-1414 Web Site: http://www.bernlieb.com SOUTHWEST WATER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Dec. 24, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com) ("Pomerantz") has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against SouthWest Water Company ("Southwest Water" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SWWC). The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company between May 10, 2006 and November 7, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Ace and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. SouthWest Water is a provider of water, wastewater, and public works services. The Company owns regulated public utilities and also serves cities, utility district and private companies under contract. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: -- that in regard to certain acquired assets, the Company was improperly applying a rate of depreciation for financial reporting purposes that did not consider the length of time the assets were in service prior to being acquired; -- that the Company was improperly capitalizing and depreciating costs associated with installing water and sewer taps in Texas and Mississippi but recognizing the related tap fee revenue when received, instead of expensing the costs as incurred and recognizing the related revenue in the period the tap was actually installed; -- that, as a result of the above, depreciation expense related to assets acquired by acquisition since 2000 had been understated on the Company's consolidated financial statements; -- that as such, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class period; -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- that as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 10, 2008, the Company revealed that its audit committee had concluded that the consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, as well as for the quarters ended March and June 2008, should no longer be relied upon and would be restated. On this news, shares of SouthWest Water declined $2.97 per share, more than 36%, to close at $5.25 per share. For more details, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 ********* 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 * * *