/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 22 Headlines ABLE ENERGY: CCIG Shareholders' Suit in N.J. Dismissed Last Dec. AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces Litigation Over Preferred Stocks CITIGROUP INC: Adelphia Investors Suit Settlement Pending Appeal CITIGROUP INC: Awaits Court Approval of Labor Suits Settlement CITIGROUP INC: Backloading/Notice Claims Ruling Still on Appeal CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated ERISA Action Remains Pending in N.Y. CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face Subprime Mortgage-Related Suits CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss "Disher" Suit Remains Pending CITIGROUP INC: Motions to Merge Securities Fraud Actions Pending CITIGROUP INC: Parmalat Domestic Purchasers Claims Still Pending CITIGROUP INC: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Suit Over Parmalat Collapse OK'ed to Proceed INFOSONICS CORP: April 23 Hearing Set for Securities Settlement JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations KV PHARMACEUTICAL: BOD Appoints Special Committee for Lawsuits LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit Pending in Wash. PAROGAN INC: Settles Indiana Litigation Alleging FCRA Violations PHILADELPHIA GAS: March 23, 2009 Hearing Set for "Brophy" Deal SOVEREIGN BANCORP: April 2, 2209 Hearing Set for Pa. Suit Deal SPRINT NEXTEL: Calif. Judge Orders New Trial in ETF Litigation WELLCARE HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Fla. Securities Fraud Suit WESTBOROUGH FINANCIAL: March 26, 2009 Hearing Set for $550T Deal New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN INT'L: Gilman and Pastor Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit TRIAD GUARANTY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.C. Securities Fraud Suit TRIAD GUARANTY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ********* ABLE ENERGY: CCIG Shareholders' Suit in N.J. Dismissed Last Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, on Dec. 15, 2008, dismissed a purported class action brought by shareholders of CCI Group, Inc. against Able Energy, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, Gregory D. Frost, and its Vice-President of Business Development, Frank Nocito (Prior Action). On Jan. 7, 2008, the company, Mr. Frost, and Mr. Nocito, were served with a summons and complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This action, which seeks class certification, was brought by shareholders of CCIG. The complaint relates to a Share Exchange Agreement, dated July 7, 2006, between All American Properties, Inc. (Properties) and CCIG, under which 70% of the outstanding and issued shares of CCIG were exchanged for 618,557 shares of the Company's common stock which were owned by Properties of which 250,378 shares were to be distributed to the shareholders of CCIG and the balance of the shares were to be used to pay debts of CCIG. According to the its Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K, neither the Company nor Messrs. Frost or Nocito were parties to the Share Exchange Agreement. Properties remain the largest shareholder of the Company. The Share Exchange Agreement was previously disclosed by the Company in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 7, 2006 as part of a disclosure of a loan by the Company to Properties. Each of the Company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion has been fully briefed and submitted to the Court (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 25, 2008). The Dec. 15, 2008 dismissal ruling was on the ground that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission on Dec. 29, 2008. The dismissal came three days after counsel for the plaintiffs conceded in a letter to the District Court, dated Dec. 12, 2008, that, after consulting with his expert, the District Court did not have jurisdiction. The company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito intend to file a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel to recover all legal fees incurred in defending the Prior Action. On Dec. 19, 2008, the Company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito were served with a summons and complaint in a purported class action commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Docket No. L-3709-08. The complaint in this action and the parties bringing the action are substantially identical to those found in the Prior Action. Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in the retail distribution of and the provision of services relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel fuels. The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installation and repair services and markets other petroleum products to commercial customers, including on- road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants. AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces Litigation Over Preferred Stocks ----------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- On January 26, 2009, the Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. and Ravenswood Investments III, L.P. (together, the "Ravenswood Companies") filed a direct, derivative and class-action lawsuit against Avalon Correctional Services, Inc. (Pink Sheets: CITY) and Donald E. Smith, Avalon's founder, CEO, chairman, and sole director. In the suit, the Ravenswood Companies alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against Smith in connection with causing Avalon to make sales of its preferred stock to insiders, repurchase Avalon's shares and pledge such repurchased shares to a trust as collateral for a Supplement Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP"), make excessive cash contributions to the SERP, make excessive cash contributions for a separate retirement plan for the benefit of Smith, lend cash to insiders to purchase common and preferred stock of Avalon, lease transportation equipment from an entity owned by Smith and make payments to such entity at above-market rates, and extend for a term of 15 years the exercise period of 750,000 Common Stock Purchase Warrants granted by Avalon to Smith. In addition, the lawsuit alleges oppression of minority shareholders by Smith and alleged unjust enrichment of Smith, both in connection with the foregoing actions, and made a demand for books and records. Robert E. Robotti, Managing Member of Ravenswood Management Company, LLC, the general partner of the Ravenswood Companies said, "We are following with interest the recent demand for inspection made by Avalon, as a stockholder of The Providence Service Corporation (Nasdaq: PRSC), under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Prior to the lawsuit noted herein, we had made a demand to inspect books and records upon Avalon, and despite our demand, Avalon refused and continues to refuse to produce any books and records." For more details, contact: William C. Rand, Esq. Law Office of William Coudert Rand Phone: (212) 286-1425 - and - Matthew J. Day, Esq. Law Office of Matthew J. Day Phone: (212) 673-0484 CITIGROUP INC: Adelphia Investors Suit Settlement Pending Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the class-action suit brought by certain Adelphia Communications Corporation investors against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is pending appeal, according to Citigroup Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. CGMI was among the underwriters named in civil actions brought by investors in Adelphia debt securities in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September 1997 and October 2001. Following settlements of the class action, which is pending appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain outstanding. The Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one has proper standing to sue. In September 2007, motions to dismiss in the other case were granted in part and denied in part. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Awaits Court Approval of Labor Suits Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Global Markets Inc.'s agreement in principle to the settlement of class actions relating to overtime violations and unlawful payroll deductions remains subject to court approval, according to Citigroup Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its affiliates, have been named in putative class actions alleging that certain present and former employees in California were entitled to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were entitled to reimbursement for employment-related expenses incurred by them. The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, "Bahramipour v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.," seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California employees. Similar complaints have been subsequently filed against CGMI on behalf of certain statewide or nationwide putative classes in (i) the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii) the New Jersey Superior Court. Without admitting any liability, CGMI has reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98 million of various class actions asserting violations of state and federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions. Additional putative class-action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against various other Citigroup businesses, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Backloading/Notice Claims Ruling Still on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals on the judgment on the backloading and notice claims in the matter styled, "In Re: Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA Litigation," remains pending. Beginning in June 2005, certain participants in the Citigroup Pension Plan filed putative class action complaints against the Plan, Citigroup Inc., and the Plans Administration Committee of Citigroup, alleging that certain aspects of the Plan violate provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The claims were later consolidated as "In Re: Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In December 2006, the District Court denied defendants' summary judgment motion; granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their backloading, age discrimination and notice claims; and ordered the Plan reformed to comply with ERISA. The District Court also granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In November 2007, the District Court: -- ordered that defendants fix the Plan's unlawful backloading by increasing certain pay credits, -- denied plaintiffs' request for additional relief on their backloading claims, -- denied plaintiffs' request for relief on their notice claims, and -- reserved its rulings on the proper remedy, if any, for the Plan's violation of ERISA's ban on age discrimination. In January 2008, the Court entered a partial final judgment on the backloading and notice claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and stayed the judgment pending appeal. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on Jan. 22, 2008, and plaintiffs cross appealed on Jan. 30, 2008, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated ERISA Action Remains Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Citigroup Inc. and certain company employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is pending in the Southern District of New York. Thirteen putative class actions have been filed in the Southern District of New York asserting claims under the ERISA against the company and certain company employees alleged to have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries. These complaints allege that defendants improperly allowed participants in Citigroup's 401(k) Plan to invest in the company's common stock, notwithstanding that they knew or should have known that the company's stock price was artificially inflated, and that defendants failed adequately to disclose its subprime exposure to the Plan beneficiaries. On Jan. 22, 2008, these thirteen actions were consolidated by the Court, and interim lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face Subprime Mortgage-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc., along with numerous others, face several lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime mortgages, and for which Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. underwrote securities offerings. These actions assert that CGMI violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with those offerings. Specifically, CGMI has been named as a defendant in (i) two putative class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and (ii) three putative class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The company has not yet responded to the complaints in these actions. A motion to remand to California state court has been filed in one of the Countrywide-related actions, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss "Disher" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the purported class-action suit styled, "Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.," remains pending, according to Citigroup Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. In March 2004, the putative research-related customer class- action suit alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of allegedly misleading research analyst reports was filed in Illinois state court. Citigroup removed this action to federal court, and in August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court's August 2004 order remanding the case to state court, and directed the District Court to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as pre-empted. On June 26, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Seventh Circuit's opinion and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings. On Jan. 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Citigroup's appeal from the District Court's removal order for lack of appellate jurisdiction. On Feb. 1, 2007, plaintiffs secured an order reopening this case in Illinois state court, and on February 16, Citigroup removed the reopened action to federal court. On May 3, 2007, the District Court remanded the action to Illinois state court, and on June 13, 2007, Citigroup moved in state court to dismiss the action. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Motions to Merge Securities Fraud Actions Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to consolidate four putative shareholder securities class actions filed against Citigroup Inc. in the Southern District of New York remain pending. Four putative class-action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York by shareholders alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that Citigroup's stock price was artificially inflated as a result of allegedly misleading disclosures relating to the company's subprime- mortgage-related exposures, and that plaintiffs suffered losses when the company's exposure to these assets was disclosed. Various plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate the actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff, which remain pending, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Parmalat Domestic Purchasers Claims Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The claims of domestic purchasers of Parmalat Finanziaria S.P.A. securities remain pending against Citigroup Inc., according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Beginning in 2004, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A. (along with, in many cases, other investment banks and certain Parmalat officers and/or accountants) were named as defendants in a series of class-action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the collapse of Parmalat and consolidated under the caption, "IN RE PARMALAT SECURITIES LITIGATION." The consolidated amended complaint, filed on Oct. 18, 2004, alleges violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Parmalat securities between Jan. 5, 1999 and Dec. 18, 2003. On Jan. 10, 2005, the Citigroup defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part on July 13, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2005, and filed a third amended consolidated complaint on July 26, 2006. On Sept. 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is currently pending. On Oct. 10, 2006, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of all foreign purchasers for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 24, 2007, the District Court converted Citigroup's motion to a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims of foreign purchasers of Parmalat securities. As a result, only the claims of domestic purchasers of Parmalat securities remain against Citigroup. Fact and expert discovery in this action are complete. Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services) Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions - North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico); Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including Mexico); and Asia (including Japan). CITIGROUP INC: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on a motion seeking review of the district court's decision certifying a class in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 7966." Shareholders sued Citicorp, Inc. -- an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. -- Citicorp USA; Salomon Smith Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; and analyst Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007). The shareholders allege that the defendants issued false and misleading analyst reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. stocks. The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived. The shareholders moved for certification of a class as to these claims. The plaintiffs had sought certification of the class comprised of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001, through July 25, 2001, inclusive, and who were therefore damaged. In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint must allege with particularity that the defendant made fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss. Certification requires numerous class members to share common claims. On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted class certification, ruling that all elements of Rule 23 were satisfied. He then appointed three law firms as class counsel, finding that the firms were qualified to adequately represent the interests of the class. The three firms certified as class counsel are: -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP; -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw. The plaintiffs' motion to certify Technology Associates Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III, IV and V as class representatives is denied. On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted an appeal of the class certification order, which appeal was argued on Jan. 30, 2008, and remains pending. Fact discovery has concluded, and expert discovery has been stayed, by agreement of the parties, pending resolution of the appeal, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West. Both have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as its commodity broker. The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al v. Salomon Smith Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Alan Abrams, Esq. (rabrams@katskykorins.com) Katsky Korins, LLP 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 Phone: (212) 716-3237 Fax: (212) 716-3337 - and - Richard A. Adams, Esq. Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP Century Bank Plaza 2900 St. Michael Drive Suite 400 Texarkana, TX 75505-6128 Phone: (903) 334-7000 Representing the defendants are: Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. (egoldstein@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212)-373-3000 Fax: (212)-492-0204 - and - Robert Bruce McCaw, Esq. (robert.mccaw@wilmer.com) Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P. 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-230-8810 Fax: 212-230-8888 DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Suit Over Parmalat Collapse OK'ed to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is letting a lawsuit proceed against accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP in the collapse of the Italian dairy giant Parmalat, The Associated Press reports. The ruling, issued on Jan. 27, 2009, allows the class-action lawsuit brought by buyers of Parmalat securities to proceed against the U.S. Company, reports The Associated Press. The Associated Press reported that the investors want the accounting firm held liable for a fraud they blame on its Italian arm, one of Parmalat's auditors. The $18 billion collapse of the company in 2003 remains Europe's largest corporate bankruptcy. In his ruling, Judge Kaplan stated that limiting the lawsuit to Deloitte Italy would hurt investors' effort to recover damages and government efforts to enforce securities laws against corporations, according to The Associated Press report. INFOSONICS CORP: April 23 Hearing Set for Securities Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- An April 23, 2009 fairness hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has been set for the settlement in the consolidated class-action lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231." Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231." The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in connection with the company's restatement announced June 12, 2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with VK Corp. The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified relief. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006. On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. In April 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion. In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2008). On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismiss or other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidated complaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the case. On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case, which provides the securities class action settlement is contingent on preliminary and final Court approval (after appropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivative action against the company, among other contingencies, and provides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by the Company or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusive of any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by the Court). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will be funded entirely by the Company's insurer. The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants deny any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no admission of any wrongdoing. On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oral argument the request for an order preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement. On Jan. 20, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying the class, preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement, providing for notice to the class, and setting a fairness hearing on April 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 26, 2009. The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com) Latham and Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Phone: 619-236-1234 Fax: 619-696-7419 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. faces purported a securities fraud lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over losses the plan sustained through the bank's securities lending program, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The suit was filed by the Board Of Trustees Of The AFTRA Retirement Fund on Jan. 23, 2009 under the caption, "Board Of Trustees Of The AFTRA Retirement Fund et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00686." The $1.5 billion pension fund of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), claims JPMorgan Chase lost a "substantial portion" in cash collateral in medium-term notes issued by Sigma Finance Inc., a structured investment vehicle sponsored by Sigma Finance Corp. According to the lawsuit, creditors seized more than $25 billion of Sigma's $27 billion in assets in September and October of 2008, leaving about $1.9 billion as security for about $6.2 billion of outstanding medium-term notes. According to pension fund lawyer Ed Ciolko, Esq., a partner with Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, the suit, which seeks class-action status, asks that JPMorgan Chase repay the pension plan losses and for profits. The suit is "Board Of Trustees Of The AFTRA Retirement Fund et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00686," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Milo Silberstein, Esq. (msilberstein@dealysilberstein.com) Dealy & Silberstein, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 385-0066 Fax: (212) 385-2117 KV PHARMACEUTICAL: BOD Appoints Special Committee for Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- KV Pharmaceutical Co.'s Board of Directors has appointed a special committee in response to the initiation of a series of putative class action shareholder lawsuits, according to the company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 26, 2009. The special committee consists of the following members of the Board: Jean M. Bellin, Kevin S. Carlie, Terry B. Hatfield, Jonathon E. Killmer and Norman D. Schellenger. Mr. Hatfield, the Chairman of the Board, has been appointed to serve as the Chairman of the special committee. The special committee was formed in response to the initiation of a series of putative class-action shareholder lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the company and certain individuals as well as the receipt of an informal inquiry from the SEC. KV Pharmaceutical Co. -- http://www.kvpharma.com-- is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, acquires and markets branded and generic/non- randed prescription pharmaceutical products. The company has a range of dosage form capabilities, including tablets, capsules, creams, liquids and ointments. KV conducts its branded pharmaceutical operations through Ther-Rx Corp. (Ther-Rx) and its generic/non-branded pharmaceutical operations through ETHEX Corp. (ETHEX). Through Particle Dynamics, Inc. (PDI), the company also develops, manufactures and markets value-added raw material products for the pharmaceutical, nutritional, personal care, food and other markets. The company has developed a variety of drug delivery and formulation technologies, which are primarily focused in four principal areas: SITE RELEASE; tastemasking; oral controlled release, and oral quick dissolving tablets. LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit Pending in Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class-action lawsuit styled, "Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc." is pending in King County (Washington) Superior Court. On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the company in King County (Washington) Superior Court. GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks, as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class. LiveDeal has denied the allegations, according to the company's Dec. 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium- sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via the Internet. Through its online property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize their Internet search advertising campaigns. Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. PAROGAN INC: Settles Indiana Litigation Alleging FCRA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parogan, Inc. d/b/a Paragon Restaurant settled a purported class-action suit in Indiana, which is alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The suit, entitled, "Bood v. Parogan, Inc. d/b/a Paragon Restaurant, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00421," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by Dana A. Bood, a restaurant customer. The plaintiff alleged that Parogan, Inc. d/b/a Paragon Restaurant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing credit or debit card receipts that contained the cardholder's entire credit card number and the expiration date. She was seeking statutory damages for herself and the members of the Class. For more details, contact: Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC Paragon Restaurant Settlement (Case No. 20352) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 739-4200 e-mail: info@edcombs.com Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?38e0 PHILADELPHIA GAS: March 23, 2009 Hearing Set for "Brophy" Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas will hold fairness hearing on March 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Brophy v. Philadelphia Gas Works, et al., Case No. 04-197," The hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark I. Bernstein, in Courtroom 246, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19107. The class-action suit was filed by Donald Brophy against Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) and Philadelphia Facilities Management Corp., related to the defendants' removal of gas regulators from some homes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The regulators contained mercury, a hazardous substance. Mr. Brophy claimed that PGW's procedures for removing Mercury Regulators were deficient, constituting a "threatened release" of mercury, that is, the risk of mercury spilling, when the regulators were removed. He brought this action, for himself and others, to obtain testing to determine whether or not mercury was spilled when PGW removed his and others' Mercury Regulators. For more details, contact: Alan M. Feldman, Esq. (afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com) Thomas More Marrone, Esq. (tmarrone@feldmanshepherd.com) Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock 1845 Walnut Street, 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 567-8300 Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?38df SOVEREIGN BANCORP: April 2, 2209 Hearing Set for Pa. Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on April 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in a purported class-action suit against Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. The hearing will be held in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Courtroom 246 at Philadelphia City Hall, Broad and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA. The Philadelphia Business Journal reported that Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. settled a shareholder class-action suit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, opposing the bank's sale to Spain's Banco Santander (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009). The settlement allows Sovereign to move forward with a Jan. 28, 2009 shareholder vote of the proposed takeover of the bank by Banco Santander. In exchange, Sovereign agreed not to cut Pennsylvania workers in the 12 months following the Santander deal, according the Philadelphia Business Journal. However, employees in other states will not receive such protection. The settlement also does not include workers fired for cause or the 1,000 job cuts announced several days before Christmas, according to court papers obtained by the Philadelphia Business Journal. Sovereign though will provide severance to all bank employees not protected by the no-layoff provision. In addition, every Sovereign worker employed on the closing date of the Santander deal will receive 100 shares of Santander's American Depository Receipts. Those shares were trading at $6.85 each Thursday. The Philadelphia Business Journal reported that the deal is expected to close within the next month after a shareholder meeting in New York. The Spanish bank owns 24.35 percent of Philadelphia-based Sovereign and would be purchasing the remaining 75.65 percent for $1.9 billion at $3.81 per share. The settlement is still subject to court approval. A hearing is set for April 2, 2009, reports the Philadelphia Business Journal. The class-action lawsuit was filed last year in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court on behalf of Sovereign shareholders. The proposed takeover of Sovereign in October triggered several lawsuits that later were consolidated. The intention of the suit was to have Judge Marc Bernstein prevent next week's Sovereign shareholder vote from taking place. Stockholders accused Sovereign of not providing enough information about the transaction. They also complained Santander was not paying any premium to buy the rest of Sovereign the Spanish bank did not already own, reports the Philadelphia Business Journal. Court papers show that the attorneys working for the plaintiffs in the case are to split $6.9 million in fees, costs and expenses. The lead plaintiff lawyer was Michael Donovan, Esq. of Philadelphia-based Donovan Searles, LLC, according to the Philadelphia Business Journal report. For more details, contact: Michael Donovan, Esq. Donovan Searles, LLC 1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 732-6067 Fax: (215) 732-8060 Web site: http://www.donovansearles.com SPRINT NEXTEL: Calif. Judge Orders New Trial in ETF Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bonnie Sabraw of the Superior Court of California in Alameda County has ordered a new trial for the $300 million class-action lawsuit brought against Sprint Nextel Corp. over damages related to early terminations fees (ETF), Phil Goldstein of FierceWireless. The ruling, issued last week, sets aside a previous jury's decision which had awarded damages. The new trial will determine damages, reports FierceWireless. FierceWireless reported that Judge Sabraw has ruled before that ETFs are illegal and last July 2008 she ordered Sprint to pay $73 million in refunds to customers for the fees. Judge Sabraw said that, according to the first jury, "Sprint's actual damages from the early termination of the class's contracts ($225,697,433) were exactly equal to the amount of the charged but unpaid ETFs ($225,697,433)." This meant that Sprint would not have to pay any damages. Sprint said it would appeal the new ruling, according to the FierceWireless report. WELLCARE HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Fla. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- WellCare Health Plans, Inc., faces an amended consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to the company's Jan. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Initially, two putative class-action suits, entitled, "Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al.," and "Hutton v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc. et al.," were filed on Oct. 26, 2007, and on Nov. 2, 2007, respectively. These suits were filed against the company; its former chairman and chief executive officer, Todd Farha; and its former senior vice president and chief financial officer, Paul Behrens. Messrs. Farha and Behrens were also officers of various subsidiaries of the company. The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleges that the defendants materially misstated the company's reported financial condition by, among other things, purportedly overstating revenue and understating expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Hutton complaint alleges that various public statements supposedly issued by defendants were materially misleading because they failed to disclose that the company was purportedly operating its business in a potentially illegal and improper manner in violation of applicable federal guidelines and regulations. It also asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Both complaints seek, among other things, certification as a class action and damages. The two actions were consolidated, and various parties and law firms filed motions seeking to be designated as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. In an order issued on March 11, 2008, the Court appointed a group of five public pension funds from New Mexico, Louisiana and Chicago (Public Pension Fund Group) as lead plaintiffs. The Court has directed that the Lead Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint, which will become the operative pleading in the case, no later than Sept. 9, 2008, to which the defendants must respond within 60 days thereafter (Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2008). On Oct. 31, 2008, an amended consolidated complaint was filed in this class action against the company, Messrs. Farha and Behrens, and adding Thaddeus Bereday, the company's former senior vice president and general counsel, as a defendant. The response to the amended complaint was filed in January 2009. The suit is "Eastwood Enterprises, LLC v. Farha et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01940-SCB-MSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Susan C. Bucklew, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David C. Cimo, Esq. (dcimo@gjb-law.com) Genovese, Joblove & Battista, PA 44th Floor, 100 SE 2nd St Miami, FL 33131-2311 Phone: 305-349-2300 Fax: 305-349-2310 - and - Laura Gundersheim, Esq. (LauraG@blbglaw.com) Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-554-1400 Fax: 212-554-1444 Representing the defendants are: Laura E. Besvinick, Esq. (lbesvinick@hhlaw.com) Hogan & Hartson, LLP Suite 1900, 1111 Brickell Ave. Miami, FL 33131-3142 Phone: 305-459-6622 Fax: 305-459-6550 - and - Ronald Sturgis Holliday, Esq. (ronald.holliday@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper US, LLP Suite 2200, 100 N. Tampa Street Tampa, FL 33602-5809 Phone: 813-229-2111 Fax: 813-371-1160 WESTBOROUGH FINANCIAL: March 26, 2009 Hearing Set for $550T Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Worcester Superior Court (Massachusetts) will hold a fairness hearing on March 26, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed $500,000 settlement in the matter, "Gut v. MacDonough, et al., Civil Action No. 07-1083-C." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Christine M. Roach in the Worcester Superior Court, 225 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01608. Case Background Bob Kievra of Telegram and Gazette reported that Westborough Financial Services Inc. investors filed a lawsuit seeking class- action status in Worcester Superior Court (Mass.) to block a proposed merger of Westborough Financial and Assabet Valley Bancorp (Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2007). In addition to West Financial, the lawsuit names the following Westborough Financial directors as defendants: -- President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph F. MacDonough, -- John L. Casagrande, Westborough Financial's senior vice president and chief financial officer, -- James N. Ball, -- Nelson P. Ball, -- Edward S. Bilzerian, -- David E. Carlstrom, -- Nancy M. Carlson, -- Benjamin H. Colonero Jr., -- Robert A. Klugman, -- Jeffrey B. Leland, -- Paul F. McGrath, -- Charlotte C. Spinney, -- Phyllis A. Stone, and -- James E. Tashjian. In November 2006, Westborough Financial announced a $20.6 million cash transaction merger with Assabet Valley -- the parent of Hudson Savings Bank -- that would create a nearly $1 billion community bank and produce no layoffs or branch closings. Named plaintiffs Philippe E. Gut and Gwen Pratt Gut allege the transaction is unfair in both price and procedure. They further allege Westborough Financial and its 14 directors, including President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph F. MacDonough, breached their fiduciary duties by structuring a deal that includes $2.4 million in payments to directors and executive officers. The Guts said the merger is also discriminatory because it cashes out minority shareholders while enabling majority shareholders to maintain an equity interest in the merged institution. In addition, the complaint, which also names Assabet Valley as a defendant, alleges the $35 per share offered by Assabet Valley is inadequate, citing unsolicited offers in recent months of $38.50 per share, $40 per share and $41 per share, all of which have been rejected by Westborough Financial, parent of The Westborough Bank. The complaint further alleges that Westborough Financial enacted a flood of changes to its executive compensation and benefits packages during the merger discussion with Assabet Valley, increasing the price of the transaction solely for their benefit and to the detriment of public shareholders. Directors who stood to benefit from the Assabet Valley deal ignored higher offers because they were in line for significant payouts and future positions with the merged entity, according to the complaint. "The individual defendants are hopelessly conflicted and unable to protect the best interests of the public shareholders," according to the complaint. The Guts' lawyers are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the merger and any payments that would occur as a result of the transaction. "The total compensation as a percentage of the deal is high and significant," said the Guts' lawyer, Patrick T. Egan of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo of Boston. "All of these directors also have conflicts in their actions because they have a financial interest in seeing this deal go through." Mr. Egan can be contacted at: Patrick T. Egan , Esq. (pegan@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 542-8300 Fax: (617) 1194-0322 New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN INT'L: Gilman and Pastor Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOSTON, Jan. 29, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Notice is hereby given that Gilman and Pastor, LLP filed a lawsuit on January 15, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") Medium- Term Notes, Series AIG-FP ("Notes") issued by AIG pursuant and/or traceable to AIG's public offerings of Notes pursuant to a prospectus dated July 24, 2006 and a series of prospectus supplements (the "Offering Documents"), during the period from November 17, 2006 through April 10, 2008. AIG issued a prospectus supplement for each of the 59 series of Notes offered for sale, commencing with the prospectus supplement for FP-1 on November 17, 2006. The Complaint names as defendants AIG, several investment banking firms that acted as sales agents for the Note offerings, and certain directors and officers of AIG, and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Notes were offered and sold to the public through various investment banking firms and broker-dealers, including the following: AIG Financial Securities Corp., ABN AMRO Incorporated, Banca IMI S.p.A., Banc of America Securities LLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., BNY Capital Markets, Inc., Calyon Securities (USA) Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Daiwa Securities America, Inc., Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe Limited, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Greenwich Capital Markets Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., McDonald Investments Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International plc, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Santander Investment Securities Inc., Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, TD Securities (USA), LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC. The Complaint asserts that the Offering Documents were materially false and misleading in failing to disclose material facts relating to the severely deteriorating financial condition of AIG at the time of the offering and that when such facts were disclosed, the market value of the Notes declined substantially. In particular, the Offering Documents failed to disclose: -- that AIG's significant exposure to the subprime mortgage market as a result of AIG's extensive holdings in subprime mortgage-backed securities constituted a serious and material risk to AIG's creditworthiness and credit standing; -- that AIG's exposure from its sale of credit default swaps constituted a serious and material risk to AIG's creditworthiness and credit standing; and -- that these serious risks and exposures adversely affected the market value of the Notes, which declined substantially upon disclosure of this adverse information. For more details, contact: Kenneth Gilman, Esq. (kgilman@gilmanpastor.com) Gilman and Pastor, LLP Phone: 239-598-3541 TRIAD GUARANTY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.C. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:02:00 GMT SAN DIEGO - (Business Wire) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Coughlin Stoia) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Triad Guaranty Inc. ("Triad") (NASDAQ:TGIC) common stock during the period between October 26, 2006 and November 10, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Triad and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Triad, through its subsidiary, Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation, provides private mortgage insurance products to residential mortgage lenders and investors in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Triad stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of $58.45 per share in January 2007. However, beginning in late August 2007 and continuing throughout 2008, Triad began to acknowledge serious issues surrounding its exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of business for its Alt-A and pay-option adjustable rate mortgage ("ARM") products written in 2006 and 2007 due to a failure to engage in proper underwriting practices, resulting in a decline in Triad's stock price. Then, on November 10, 2008, Triad issued its financial results for the third quarter of 2008, reporting a net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of $160.1 million. On this news, Triad's stock price dropped $0.11 per share to close at $0.70 per share on November 11, 2008. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: -- the Company was not adequately accounting for its loss reserves in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; -- the Company failed to engage in proper underwriting practices for its book of business related to insurance written in 2006 and 2007, including the insurance related to its Alt-A and pay-option ARM products; -- the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of business related to insurance written in 2006 and 2007, including its Alt-A and pay-option ARM portfolios, than it had previously disclosed; -- the Company lacked effective internal controls to detect fraud and misrepresentations in the underwriting process; and -- the Company failed to disclose the true risks associated with its ability to continue to write new business and, given rating downgrades and capital limitations, the Company would be forced to liquidate its Canadian subsidiary and stop writing new insurance policies and transition the business to run-off. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Triad common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). For more details, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/triad/ TRIAD GUARANTY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- HARTFORD, CT, Jan 29, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Triad Guaranty, Inc. ("Triad" or the "Company") between October 26, 2006 and November 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that Triad and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false statements concerning the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following: -- Triad was not adequately accounting for loss reserves in violation of GAAP, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; -- Triad failed to engage in proper underwriting practices for its insurance written in 2006 and 2007, including the insurance related to its Alt-A and pay- option ARM products; and -- Triad had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to insurance written in 2006 and 2007 than it had disclosed. On November 10, 2008, Triad issued its financial results for the third quarter of 2008, reporting a net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of $160.1 million. On this news, Triad's stock price dropped to $0.70 per share on November 11, 2008. During the Class Period, Triad traded as high as $58.45 per share in January 2007. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com ********* 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 2009. 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 * * *