/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 29 Headlines ADVANCE AMERICA: Reaches Settlement in Georgia Suit Over Loans ALACER CORP: Faces Litigation in Ill. Over "Emergen-C" Product BROADCOM CORP: Amended Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in Calif. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid for Approval of Settlement Due Feb. 27 FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Faces Indiana Suit Over Retirement Account FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Still Faces Environmental Contamination Suit INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Redux Product Liability Cases Pending J.P. MORGAN: N.Y. Firm Files Suit Over Credit Card Policy Change PANTRY INC: April 6 Hearing for Final Approval of "Barton" Deal PANTRY INC: "Hot Fuel" Lawsuits Pending in Kansas District Court RALPHS GROCERY: Calif. Federal Court Certifies Class in "Sung" STAR GAS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit STARBUCKS CORP: Appealing $100M Judgment in "Jou Chau" Lawsuit STARBUCKS CORP: Still Faces Employment-Related Lawsuit in Calif. STATE FARM: Judge Gives Go-Ahead to Suit Over Hail Damage Claims TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit in Canada Over Pricing TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit in N.H. Still Pending TYCO ELECTRONICS: Settlement with Mass. Commonwealth Pending WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined New Securities Fraud Cases COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Klafter Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit LEVEL 3 COMMS: Dyer & Berens Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing SATYAM COMPUTER: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ADVANCE AMERICA: Reaches Settlement in Georgia Suit Over Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- SPARTANBURG, S.C., Feb. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (NYSE: AEA) announced that it has settled a class-action lawsuit in Georgia that resolves all claims against the Company in connection with originating, marketing, or servicing any loan in that state. The settlement, which does not involve any finding of wrongdoing, requires final approval from the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia. The Company had previously suspended operations in Georgia during 2004. If approved, the settlement will require the Company to make a minimum payment of approximately $2.0 million from which (1) a settlement pool will be established to pay claims; and (2) attorney fees and other costs related to the litigation and settlement administration will be paid. The value of individual claims will vary between $30 and $90. If claims made plus costs exceed $2.0 million, then the Company will be required to pay additional funds into the settlement pool up to an aggregate cap of $3.7 million. If claims made plus applicable costs are less than the minimum payment, the court will distribute the balance of the minimum payment to a charitable organization of the court's choosing. If claims made plus costs are greater than the cap, then claims will be prorated so as not to exceed the cap. The Company has reserved approximately $2.0 million for this settlement, which will result in a charge against earnings in the fourth quarter of 2008. Commenting on the settlement, the Company's Vice President of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Tom Newell, said, "Advance America possesses a strong culture of legal and regulatory compliance and the Company will continue to aggressively defend its products and services against these types of claims. However, a settlement like this one makes good business sense and brings value to our stakeholders by assuring certainty of outcome and eliminating continuing legal costs in a geographic market where we no longer conduct business. We are pleased to have reached a favorable result." Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is the country's leading provider of cash advance services, with approximately 2,800 centers and 79 limited licensees in 32 states, the United Kingdom and Canada. The company offers convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs are not met by traditional financial institutions. The Company is a founding member of the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws that provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage responsible industry practices. ALACER CORP: Faces Litigation in Ill. Over "Emergen-C" Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Alacer Corp. faces a purported class-action suit in St. Clair County Circuit Court over allegations that it engaged in unfair and deceptive practices when marketing its "Emergen-C" product, Kelly Holleran of The St. Clair Record reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 2, 2009 by Nicholas J. Gianino under case number 09-L-0058. It alleges that Alacer misled the public into believing Emergen-C boosts the immune system and decreases the likelihood of getting sick. Paul M. Weiss, Esq., George K. Lang, Esq., and Eric C. Brunick, Esq., of Freed and Weiss in Chicago, Richard J. Burke, Esq., of St. Louis and Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq., and Brian T. Kreisler, Esq., of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson in Belleville represent the plaintiff and the putative class. The suit states, "Alacer's representations of the medical efficacy of 'Emergen-C' are false." It adds, "'Emergen-C' does not boost the immune system, it offers no protection against germs, it provides no health protection or support and has no effect on getting or remaining sick." Mr. Gianino claims Alacer's "unfair and deceptive" practices have caused him and the class to incur damages because they paid for a product devoid of any medical efficacy. He is asking that the case be certified as a class-action and that the court award him and the class damages, attorneys' fees, costs of the suit and other relief the court deems just. BROADCOM CORP: Amended Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on Feb. 2, 2009, denied the motions that sought for the dismissal of the amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Broadcom Corp. From August through October 2006, several plaintiffs filed these purported shareholder class-action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Broadcom and certain of its current or former officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2007): -- "Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx)," -- "Mills v. Samueli, et al., Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC R(CWx)," and -- "Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R (CWx)." The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that Broadcom improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or misleading disclosures concerning, among other things, Broadcom's business and financial condition. The plaintiffs also allege that Broadcom failed to account for and pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual defendants sold Broadcom stock while in possession of material nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused artificial inflation in Broadcom's stock price and damages to the putative plaintiff class. They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In November 2006, the Court consolidated the Options Class Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as lead class plaintiff. In October 2007, the federal appeals court resolved a dispute regarding the appointment of lead class counsel. In March 2008, the district judge entered a revised order appointing lead class counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in late April 2008, naming additional defendants that include certain current officers and directors of Broadcom as well as Ernst & Young LLP, the company's former independent registered public accounting firm. In October 2008, the district judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Also in October, 2008 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In November 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On Feb. 2, 2009, these motions were denied except with respect to E&Y and the current Chairman of the Audit Committee, which were granted with leave to amend, and with respect to the former Chief Executive Officer, which is still being considered, according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Sonam Bakshi v. Henry Samueli et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05036-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael D. Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Bryan L. Crawford, Esq. Heins Mills & Olson 3550 IDS Ctr., 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-338-4605 Fax: 612-338-4692 Representing the defendants are: Gordon A. Greenberg, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery 2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208 Phone: 310-277-4110 Fax: 310-277-4730 - and - Stephen S. Hasegawa, Esq. (shasegawa@irell.com) Irell & Manella 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 Phone: 310-277-1010 EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid for Approval of Settlement Due Feb. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has ordered plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class- action suit filed against Exide Technologies, Inc. to file their motion for preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement on or before Feb. 27, 2009. In June 2005, the company received notice that two former stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately filed purported class action complaints against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004, and May 17, 2005. The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made during this period by the company and its officers. The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought. On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva Partners and Jarman cases under the caption "Aviva Partners v. Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)." On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs: * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund, and * Lakeway Capital Management. The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the putative class. On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint in which they reiterated their original claims but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004, and May 17, 2005. On June 22, 2006, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints. The court has granted this request but permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which they did. The defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but this time, the Court denied this request. Discovery in the lawsuit is proceeding and is expected to continue throughout the remainder of 2008. No trial date has been set in this matter. On Jan. 8, 2009, the Company and Plaintiffs' Court-appointed representatives (the "Lead Plaintiffs") reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Any payment under the Proposed Settlement would be made by the Company's insurers and would have no material impact on the Company's financial statements or results of operations. The Proposed Settlement is subject to execution of a definitive agreement between the Company and Lead Plaintiffs and approval by Lead Plaintiffs' Board of Trustees. The Proposed Settlement is also subject to Court approval, and the Court has ordered Plaintiffs to file their motion for preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement on or before Feb. 27, 2009. Assuming preliminary Court approval is obtained, notice to members of the class would be issued, and the company anticipates that a final approval hearing would take place in the latter half of calendar 2009. Upon final approval of the Proposed Settlement by the Court this litigation will be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement the company and the former officers continue to deny the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaints, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com) Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277 Morristown, NJ 07962-1277 Phone: 973-775-8997 Representing the defendants is: Edward T. Kole, Esq. (ekole@wilentz.com) Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958 Phone: 732-636-8000 FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Faces Indiana Suit Over Retirement Account -------------------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Bank is facing a purported class-action suit claiming that the bank broke a promise to pay 8 percent on the couple's retirement account, Lauren Daley of The Indiana Gazette reports. The litigation was filed by Patrick and Barbara McGrogan, of Greensburg, Indiana, alleging that the bank engaged in deceptive trade practices, breached fiduciary duties and breached agreements in which it promised to pay members the guaranteed minimum 8 percent on their accounts. According to the McGrogans, they opened two IRA Market Rate Savings accounts in 1983 and 1984 with the bank, which guaranteed a minimum 8 percent return, reports The Indiana Gazette. The suit states that at some point in 2008, First Commonwealth reneged on its obligations when it sent a letter to customers, saying it was withdrawing as account custodians, closing the accounts and sending the money to the depositors, less a 10 percent withholding fee for the IRS and other taxes. The bank then offered an IRA account with a 3.5 percent annual percentage yield and to act as custodian. The Indiana Gazette reported that under the provisions of the account, as stated in the lawsuit, the custodian may resign upon 60 days' notice to the depositor and then transfer the assets of the account as the depositor requests. If the depositor does not appoint a new custodian within 60 days after the notice of resignation, the custodian may appoint one to hold the account's assets. However, letters to the McGrogans and other account holders did not advise them of their rights, according to their attorney, who says it violated the Unfair Trade and Business Practices Act, according to The Indiana Gazette. The suit further contends that even if the bank, as custodian, had the right to resign, it still had a fiduciary obligation to protect the McGrogans' rights to the underlying investment and to act in their best interest. According to Frank G. Salpietro, Esq., the Pittsburgh-based attorney representing the McGrogans, "The bank asked the customers to stick with them during the good times and maybe give up a little bit in bad times. Now times aren't so good. They are not sticking with their customers." He tells The Indiana Gazette, "The bank violated the trust of the customer and reneged on the terms of the contract they themselves created to benefit the bank and to the detriment of customers and in breach of fiduciary responsibility." The way the accounts are supposed to work, he said, is that the IRAs were tax-deferred until the McGrogans reached at least 59 when they could withdraw from it. Patrick McGrogan, 55, told The Indiana Gazette that if the money were allowed to remain in the accounts until maturity, they would be worth between $2 million and $3 million. Mr. McGrogan said, "So what they have taken away is what I consider my nest egg for retirement." He added, "It would have put me and my wife in a reasonable position for life. (The bank) did it without a legal recourse. ... I just think they figured out they can roll over a bunch of people who are their customers for a long period of time with no recourse or no remorse." As a result of the breach, the lawsuit states that those affected suffered lost interest by the bank's refusal to pay the 8 percent; additional taxes, expenses and penalties caused by the bank's closure of the accounts; and lost interest from the failure to accept properly tendered rollover contributions, reports The Indiana Gazette. Mr. Salpietro told The Indiana Gazette, "They promised to guarantee a minimum of 8 percent. The bank should do that and honor its promise, particularly when they led customers, when they opened the accounts, to believe they'd be able to have that steady rate of growth and steady rate of interest when they retire. At the minimum, honor the contract. But because of the actions we think they've taken to the McGrogans and others, there are damages. ... It is our position the bank needs to make up that difference." The lawsuit claims that up to 50 other First Commonwealth customers have the same accounts, but Mr. McGrogan and his attorney believe there could be up to 300, according to The Indiana Gazette report. FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Still Faces Environmental Contamination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. and its subsidiary, Phelps Dodge Corp., continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed by residents of Blackwell, Oklahoma over a defunct smelter operation that they believe is the cause of environmental contamination in the area. Blackwell is a town of 7,000 located in north-central Oklahoma. The community is contaminated with 58 million pounds of lead, arsenic, and other toxins left behind by the Blackwell Zinc Smelter, at one time the largest smelter of its type in the world. As successor-in-interest to the company that owned the smelter, Freeport-McMoRan is legally responsible for any related contamination (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2008). The suit, "Coffey, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., Phelps Dodge Corporation, et al., Case No. CJ-2008-68," demands that the defendants thoroughly and completely clean all property contaminated by the smelter waste and provide for a medical-monitoring program open to all Blackwell residents. The law firm of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP is one of several attorneys representing the Blackwell residents. The suit was was filed in early 2008 at Kay County, Oklahoma on behalf of 4 residents of Blackwell, Oklahoma. It was later removed at the defendants' request to a federal court in Oklahoma City. Brenda Craig of Lawyers and Settlements reported that right now, the class-action suit is mired in legal wrangling over where the case should be heard -- yet another delay in the community's long, protracted battle to get its town cleaned up after decades of being an Oklahoma environmental issue. The company wants the case moved out of the Western District of Oklahoma, but Keith Langston of Nix, Patterson & Roach says, "We think it is a local controversy and should be decided by local citizens in the county where the controversy occurred." For more details, contact: Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, TX 75638 Phone: 903-645-7333 Fax: 903-645-4415 INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Redux Product Liability Cases Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reports that as of Feb. 4, 2009, there have been no judgments against the company, nor has it paid any amounts in settlement of any of the Redux-related product liability claims. On Sept. 15, 1997, the company announced a market withdrawal of its first prescription product, the weight loss medication Redux (dexfenfluramine hydrochloride capsules) C-IV, which had been launched by Wyeth (formerly American Home Products Corporation), the company's licensee, in June 1996. The withdrawal of Redux was based on a preliminary analysis by the U.S. Foof and Drugs Administration of potential abnormal echocardiogram findings associated with certain patients taking Redux or the combination of fenfluramine with phentermine. After the withdrawal of Redux, the company was named, together with other pharmaceutical companies, as a defendant in several thousand product liability legal actions, some of which purported to be class-action lawsuits, in federal and state courts relating to the use of Redux and other weight loss drugs. No further updates regarding the cases where disclosed in the company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008. Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.indevus.com-- is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the acquisition, development and commercialization of products to treat conditions in urology and endocrinology. The Company's products include SANCTURA and SANCTURA XR for overactive bladder (OAB), which it co-promotes with its partner Allergan, Inc. (Allergan), VANTAS for advanced prostate cancer, SUPPRELIN LA for central precocious puberty (CPP), and DELATESTRYL for the treatment of hypogonadism. Indevus's core urology and endocrinology portfolio contains multiple compounds in development in addition to its approved products. Its most advanced compounds are NEBIDO for male hypogonadism, VALSTAR for bladder cancer, PRO 2000 for the prevention of infection by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually-transmitted diseases, the octreotide implant for acromegaly and a biodegradable ureteral stent used in association with the treatment of kidney stones. J.P. MORGAN: N.Y. Firm Files Suit Over Credit Card Policy Change ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New York law firm of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP, said it filed a class-action lawsuit against J.P. Morgan & Chase for monthly service fees attached to some low-interest credit cards, United Press International reports. Affected customers calling Chase said they were offered a $10 monthly fee and a higher minimum payment schedule -- jumping minimum payments from 2 percent to 5 percent of their balances -- or a higher interest rate, USA Today reported on Feb. 9, 2009. Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson told UPI that the new policy affected credit card holders with promotional rates who have kept large balances for more than two years, making little progress reducing their balances. The change, affected about 400,000 accounts, she adds. According to the law firm, it filed suit for "customers who have been charged a monthly service fee on balance transfers to their Chase credit cards that have low fixed APRs for the life of the loan." For more details, contact: Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, New York 10004 Phone: 212.847.8315 Fax: 646.964.9645 Web site: http://www.gslawny.com/ PANTRY INC: April 6 Hearing for Final Approval of "Barton" Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina will hold an April 6, 2009 hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement reached in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc." The suit asserted claims, on behalf of the company's present and former North Carolina employees, for unpaid wages under the North Carolina Wage and Hour laws. The suit was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth County, State of North Carolina in June 2004. The named plaintiffs in the suit are Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, and others similarly situated. The suit sought an injunction against any unlawful practices, damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On Aug. 17, 2004, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On July 18, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting certain additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of present and former store employees in the southeastern U.S. It added one additional plaintiff, Chester Charneski. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the Superior Court for Forsyth County, which request is presently pending before the federal district court. The company, on Aug. 23, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss parts of the amended complaint. In May 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion, with the result that the court will now determine if the case may proceed as a class action under state law and a collective action under federal law and if so, who among the company's present or former employees will be members of the classes. On Jan. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to file a second amended complaint, asserting state law claims for alleged unpaid wages in all 11 states in which the company does business. The company opposed the filing of a seconded amended complaint. On March 26, 2007, the company reached a proposed settlement in principle with the class counsel. The proposed settlement will establish a settlement fund of $1,000,000 from which payments will be made to settlement class members and the class counsel. Additionally, the proposed settlement provides for the company to bear all costs of sending notices, processing and preparing payments and other administrative costs of the settlement. No other payments will be made to class members or class counsel. The proposed settlement is subject to court approvals. On Sept. 26, 2008, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 6, 2009, the court will hold a hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The company incurred a one-time charge in the second quarter of fiscal 2007 of $1.25 million for the proposed settlement and associated costs, according to its Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 25, 2008. The suit is "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. 1:04- cv-00748-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert M. Elliot, Esq. (rmelliot@epmlaw.com) J. Griffin Morgan, Esq. (jgmorgan@epmlaw.com) Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A. 426 Old Salem Road Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: 336-724-2828 Fax: 336-714-4499 - and - Charles Joseph, Esq. Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP 757 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-688-5640 Representing the company is: Kimberly Jo Korando, Esq. (kkorando@smithlaw.com) Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan P.O. Box 2611 Raleigh, NC 27602-2611 Phone: 919-821-6671 Fax: 919-821-6800 PANTRY INC: "Hot Fuel" Lawsuits Pending in Kansas District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc., and other defendants continue to face several purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, over motor fuel that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale. Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class-action suits have been filed before the federal courts across the country against numerous players in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits. To date, Pantry Inc. had been named as a defendant in seven cases in: 1. Florida -- "Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM," filed on Feb. 16, 2007; 2. Delaware -- "Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136," filed on March 7, 2007; 3. North Carolina -- "Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv- 00091-FL," filed on Match 7, 2007; 4. Alabama -- "Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC," filed on March 27, 2007; 5. Georgia -- "Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM," filed on June 5, 2007; 6. Tennessee -- "Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169," filed on July 13, 2007; and 7. South Carolina -- "Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218- MDL," filed on Sept. 24, 2007. Pursuant to an order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi- District Litigation, all of the cases against the numerous companies in the petroleum industry, including the seven in which Pantry Inc. was named, have been or will be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas where the cases will be consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which the company is named, the plaintiffs also have alleged that because the defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers in non-temperature adjusted gallons, the defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. The cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and prejudgment interest. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which motions were heard by the court on Jan. 11, 2008. The court denied the motions by order dated Feb. 21, 2008. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 25, 2008. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. RALPHS GROCERY: Calif. Federal Court Certifies Class in "Sung" -------------------------------------------------------------- February 09, 2009: 12:49 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC and Berger & Montague, P.C. announce that on October 6, 2008, Judge Christina Snyder of the Central District of California certified a class action lawsuit pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and California State discrimination laws. The case is "Sung Park, et al. v. Ralphs Grocery Company, CV 08-2021 CAS (RCx)." The Class consists of all individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, during a time period to be determined by the Court, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of all corporate owned Ralphs Grocery Company stores in California excluding the 23 locations presently the subject of litigation in "Pereira v. Ralphs, CV-07-841 PA (FFMx)." The Court named Brodsky & Smith, LLC and Berger & Montague, P.C. class counsel. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages under federal and state law. Ralphs, a division of The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR), operates 260 supermarket locations throughout California. Ralphs sought permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing among other things, that the District Court's certification "ruling created a death knell for Ralphs" and that plaintiffs "could ask for damages as high as $600,000,000." On January 23, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied Ralphs' petition to appeal and the class action remains certified for trial in the Central District of California. For more details, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com - and - Doug Risen Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-875-3000 STAR GAS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The decision on the December 2008 oral arguments hearing in connection with the plaintiffs' appeals regarding certain rulings previously entered in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Star Gas Partners, L.P., remains pending. On Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action complaint on behalf of a purported class of unitholders was filed against Star Gas and its various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut. The suit is "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766- IBA." Subsequently, 16 additional class-action complaints, alleging the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The class actions were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, in July 2006, the Court sided with the defendants and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of dismissal altered and reopened. They also sought leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. On Oct. 20, 2006, the defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. However, on April 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA. This motion was opposed by the plaintiffs. On April 20, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court in connection with the district court's decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against: -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc., -- Paul Biddelman, -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., -- UBS Investment Bank, and -- Audrey Sevin. On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal. The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on Sept. 11, 2007. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA. Oral argument was held in December 2008, and a decision is awaited, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. (andres@stlouislaw.com) Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 - and - David L. Belt, Esq. (dbelt@jacobslaw.com) Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C. 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606 New Haven, CT 06503-0606 Phone: 203-772-3100 Fax: 203-772-1691 Representing the defendants are: Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. (tjgallagher@dbh.com) Day, Berry & Howard One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7300 Fax: 203-977-7301 - and - Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. (eandrews@tylercooper.com) Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936 New Haven, CT 06509-1910 Phone: 203-784-8200 Fax: 203-777-1181 STARBUCKS CORP: Appealing $100M Judgment in "Jou Chau" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Starbucks Corp.'s initial appellate brief to a San Diego Superior Court ruling that ordered the company to compensate California baristas for tips they shared with shift supervisors is pending. On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips. More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons for other employees. It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the California Unfair Competition Law. In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay wages due. The plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs. On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of all persons employed as baristas in the state of California since Oct. 8, 2000. In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately 120,000 potential members of the class. Trial is currently set for February 2008. At the February 2008 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co.," Judge Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips the coffee retailer paid to shift supervisors (Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2008). The judge said baristas were entitled to $86 million plus interest in back tips. She added that Starbucks' practice was a violation of a state law. However, Chief executive Howard Schultz said that the ruling was unfair and said that the media grossly mischaracterized the company s standard practice of shift supervisors to share in tips left for baristas. Mr. Schultz vowed that the company would appeal the ruling and defend itself against two similar lawsuits filed this week in Minnesota and Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2008). On March 20, 2008, the court ordered the company to pay approximately $87 million in restitution, plus interest. On Dec. 8, 2008, the company filed its initial appellate brief with the California Court of Appeals, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008. Starbucks said there is no money to be refunded or returned from Starbucks. Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee- related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated retail stores. STARBUCKS CORP: Still Faces Employment-Related Lawsuit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starbucks Corp. continues to face an employment- related lawsuit that is on appeal with the California Court of Appeals. On June 30, 2005, three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung, and Donald Brown -- filed the lawsuit with the Orange County Superior Court in California. The plaintiffs allege that the company violated the California Labor Code section 432.8 by asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application convictions for marijuana related offenses more than two years old. They also seek attorneys' fees and costs. On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks Coffee Co. in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim damages in excess of $200. On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. Starbucks has appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the appeal. The California Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Dec. 10, 2008, instructing the trial judge to enter summary judgment against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have appealed the appellate court's decision to the California Supreme Court. The Company believes its employment application complies with California law, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008. Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items, coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company- operated retail stores. STATE FARM: Judge Gives Go-Ahead to Suit Over Hail Damage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge in Indianapolis gave the go-ahead for a class- action lawsuit to be brought against State Farm Insurance over the company's handling of thousands of claims for hail damage from a 2006 storm, Rafael Sanchez of Call 6 reports. Call 6 has been following the investigation since the April 14, 2006 storm, after which thousands of people said they had difficulty getting their roofs repaired. A spokesman for State Farm had previously said that the company received 49,200 claims and that it had paid out more than $265 million to Hoosiers whose property had sustained damage. An investigation by state insurance regulators is still ongoing regarding State Farm's handling of claims following the storm, according to the Call 6 report. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit in Canada Over Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------- TORONTO, Feb. 9 /PRNewswire/ - A $500 million Class Action was commenced against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., TNOW Entertainment Group, Inc., and Premium Inventory, Inc. (the "Defendants") claiming the Defendants conspired to divert tickets to popular events away from Ticketmaster's lower priced portal available to the general public (http://www.ticketmaster.ca),in favor of its ticket brokering website http://www.ticketsnow.com,in which the same tickets were sold at premium prices. The lawsuit contends that the practice of selling tickets in the secondary market for amounts that exceed their face price contravene Ontario's anti- scalping legislation. The lawsuit also alleges that the fees and surcharges levied to the general public by Ticketmaster also violate the Ontario legislation. The lawsuit was initiated by a plaintiff who purchased two concert tickets for $533.65 including service charges, but excluding shipping costs. The same tickets would have cost him $133.00 on Ticketmaster's website, had they been available. Ticketmaster's website directed him to the higher priced tickets on the TicketsNow website. "Customers have voiced concerns over the fact that tickets for the most popular events can ostensibly sell out in minutes, only to become immediately available in the secondary market at much higher prices," said Luciana Brasil of Branch McMaster, one of the lawyers representing the Plaintiff. "It is reasonable to expect consumers to be curious about the process by which tickets are sold to them," said Jay Strosberg of Sutts Strosberg LLP, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff. "The mere fact that Ticketmaster has a financial interest in both retail and premium ticket sales leads to an obvious question about the process by which those tickets are sold to members of the public and how it works." The class action is commenced on behalf of all persons who purchased tickets for an event in Ontario from Ticketmaster or through TicketsNow.com from and after February 9, 2007. For more details visit http://www.ticketmasterclassaction.com. TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit in N.H. Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class-action lawsuit brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Tyco Electronics Limited remains in litigation. Tyco and certain of its current and former employees, officers and directors, have been named as defendants in eight class actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the six remaining actions were transferred to that Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. All eight actions have been consolidated in the District Court in New Hampshire, according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008. The consolidated complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of the company's Retirement Savings and Investment Plans and the participants therein and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose material information concerning, among other things, the following: -- related-party transactions and executive compensation; -- the company's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting therefore, as well as allegedly undisclosed acquisitions; and -- misstatements of its financial results. The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Plans to invest in the company's shares when it was not a prudent investment. The complaints seek recovery of alleged plan losses arising from alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On Aug. 15, 2006, the Court entered an order certifying a class "consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25, 2002." Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is a global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication systems. The company designs, manufactures, and markets products for customers in industries from automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics. Its products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Limited. TYCO ELECTRONICS: Settlement with Mass. Commonwealth Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyco Electronics Limited's agreement in principle with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board remains subject to the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement. In June 2007, the company agreed to settle 32 purported securities class-action lawsuits arising from actions alleged to have been taken by prior management, for $2.975 billion and the settlement became final in February 2008. On Dec. 2, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, an entity that was not included in the June 2007 securities class-action settlement, to settle all of its claims in respect of the subject matter of the class- action settlement for a payment of $11 million. The settlement is subject to the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, which results in the company being responsible for approximately $3 million out of the aggregate settlement amount. In connection with the 2007 spin-offs of Tyco's Healthcare and Electronics businesses, the company entered into a liability sharing agreement regarding certain legal actions that were pending against Tyco prior to the Separation, according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008. Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is a global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication systems. The company designs, manufactures, and markets products for customers in industries from automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics. Its products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Limited. WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined --------------------------------------------------------------- The amount of damages and attorney's fees in "Gary Hosking v. New World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2007cv02200," has yet to be determined by the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York, according to Willing Holding, Inc.'s Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 21, 2008, a default judgment against the company's subsidiary, New World, was entered in the Eastern District of New York in Gary Hosking's case for failure to appear in a class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, allegedly unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, and damages owed to certain loan officers formerly employed by New World. Willing Holding, Inc. was organized in 2005, as a technology company with a focus on the telecommunications industry. Since inception, the company has conducted various consulting and other startup activities in the telecommunications sector but have not yet generated any revenues and only incurred minimal expenses relating to those activities. With the acquisition of its wholly-owned subsidiary, New World, in April 2008, a significant portion of the company's operations has consisted of providing mortgage and e-commerce products and services through its Telemarketing Group and sales organization. New Securities Fraud Cases COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Klafter Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- February 09, 2009: 10:04 PM ET � Marketwire -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE: CNB) and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities Colonial from December 2, 2008 through January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Defendant Colonial is a bank holding company whose primary business is commercial and consumer banking. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements contained in a press release and a related filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the Company's participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). Specifically, during the trading day on December 2, 2008, Colonial issued a press release announcing that it had received TARP funding approval for an injection of $550 million. The press release also detailed the purported terms of the TARP funding with the United States Treasury Department including that the government would received preferred stock as well as warrants to purchase Colonial common stock. In response to that announcement Colonial's stock price surged over 50 percent from its $2 per share close on December 1, 2008 to close at $3.08 per share on December 2, 2008. However, the Defendants did not disclose that Colonial would be required to raise additional outside capital of $300 million before it could receive the $550 million in TARP funding. Defendants belatedly disclosed that material fact after the markets closed on January 27, 2009. In response to that announcement, Colonial's stock price plunged from its close of $1.58 on January 27, 2009 to $0.85 the next trading -- a 46% drop -- on extraordinary volume exceeding 26 million shares. For more details, contact: Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP 1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Phone:202 261 3553 Fax: 202 261 3533 Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com LEVEL 3 COMMS: Dyer & Berens Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER, Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Denver-based Dyer & Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) who purchased the Company's common stock between February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its senior officers with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements to the market about the Company's business, operations and earnings prospects. For example, defendants failed to disclose that: -- the Company was experiencing problems integrating its numerous acquisitions; and -- the Company's integration problems caused Level 3 to experience severe provisioning problems which were negatively impacting revenue growth. As a result of defendants' false statements, Level 3 stock traded at artificially inflated prices and Company insiders collectively realized more than $3.5 million in proceeds from the sale of their personally-held Level 3 stock. On October 23, 2007, Level 3 issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period ending September 30, 2007. The Company reported that its core communications services revenue was negatively impacted by provisioning issues. On this news, Level 3's stock price dropped to close at $3.18 per share on October 24, 2007, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of Level 3 common stock during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel") (Nasdaq:RIGL) between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008 (the "Class Period"), including all persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel pursuant and/ or traceable to a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 2008 secondary offering. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Rigel' s business, operations and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Rigel securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- February 09, 2009: 06:39 PM ET -- Marketwire -- 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 Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIGL) ("Rigel" or the "Company") between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are those who acquired Rigel in the Company's February 2008 Secondary Offering. The Complaint charges that Rigel and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about a clinical trial (the "Study") of a new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The Study involved 189 patients in the U.S. and Mexico. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose the following: -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients, which may have contributed disproportionately to the overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses; -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk, and the mechanism that caused the increase was not well understood; and -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced increased liver enzymes compared to patients taking the placebo. 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 SATYAM COMPUTER: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The law firm of Harwood Feffer LLP announces that it filed a new class action lawsuit on February 9, 2009 on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAY) during the period January 6, 2004 through January 6, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that the Company and its two top executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading financial statements. On January 7, 2009, the Company's Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju sent a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors and the Securities & Exchange Board of India admitting a "multi-year" fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures were systematically falsified. According to the letter, Raju admitted to having inflated the amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1 billion, incurring liability of $253 million on funds arranged by him personally, and overstating Satyam's September 2008 quarterly revenues by 76% and profits by 97%. The Complaint also alleges that Satyam's auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd., PricewaterhouseCooopers International Limited, and PricewaterhouseCoopers were active participants in the Company's fraud. As a result of this disclosure trading in the ADSs was halted, with an estimated indication of a loss being approximately 90% of its value. For more information, contact: Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@hfesq.com) Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: 877-935-7400 Website: http://www.hfesq.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 * * *