/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090212.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 30
Headlines
AETNA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Under-Reimbursing of Physicians
AGL RESOURCES: Filing Appeal Briefs for Junked Overcharging Suit
AGL RESOURCES: Suit Over Monthly Service Charges Pending in Ga.
AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Remains Pending in South Carolina
BP PRODUCTS: May 26 Hearing Set for $52M "Schagringas Co." Deal
GENERAL MOTORS: April 28 Hearing Set for "Soders" Settlement
HOME SOLUTIONS: March 23, 2009 Hearing Set for $3.5M Settlement
MANDALAY BAY: Nev. Attorney Appeals Dismissal of Workers' Suits
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Gilman and Pastor Files Investors' Lawsuit
NETFLIX INC: Faces Ind. Antitrust Suit Over DVD Rental Monopoly
OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: Sparer Law Group Files Investors' Suit
PROPPER INT'L: Faces Workers' Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: April 27 Hearing Set for $11M Settlement
SRAM MANUFACTURERS: California Court Certifies Class in MDL-1819
STATION CASINOS: "Lukevich" Labor Suit Remains Pending in Nevada
UNITRIN INC: Still Facing Hurricane-Related Suits in La., Texas
UNITRIN INC: Unit Facing Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices
VENETIAN CASINO: Faces Nev. Lawsuit for Failure to Pay Overtime
New Securities Fraud Cases
ROYAL BANK: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
*********
AETNA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Under-Reimbursing of Physicians
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEWARK, N.J., Feb. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The
American Medical Association (AMA) and several state medical
associations, including the Medical Society of New Jersey,
joined with individual physicians in filing separate class-
action lawsuits against Aetna Health, Inc. and CIGNA Corporation
claiming the companies used rigged data to dramatically under-
reimburse physicians.
The two lawsuits, filed late yesterday in New Jersey
federal court, contend that for more than a decade the two
health insurance companies used a corrupt system to underpay
physicians for out-of-network medical services and forced
patients to pay an excessive portion of the costs.
"We can no longer ignore the improper business practices of
health insurers who decide to play by their own rules without
regard to patients, or the legitimate costs required to care for
them," said AMA President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
The complaints charge Aetna and CIGNA with relying on
skewed data provided by UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Ingenix to
set reimbursement rates for out-of-network care. Evidence from
a recent investigation launched by New York Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo found that the Ingenix data is intentionally
manipulated to allow health plans to scam physicians by
shortchanging reimbursements on medical bills.
"Through our lawsuits, the AMA and our partner medical
societies seek to reform the payment systems used by Aetna and
CIGNA by ending their dependence on the Ingenix database," said
Dr. Nielsen. "The lawsuits also seek relief for physicians who
were seriously harmed by Aetna and CIGNA through the insurers'
long-term use of the flawed Ingenix database."
The Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical
Societies is supporting the lawsuits in partnership with the
Connecticut State Medical Society, Medical Society of New
Jersey, Medical Society of the State of New York, North Carolina
Medical Society and Texas Medical Association.
AGL RESOURCES: Filing Appeal Briefs for Junked Overcharging Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class-action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against Georgia
Natural Gas, which is owned by AGL Resources, Inc., are in the
process of filing briefs on the appeal from the dismissal of the
case.
In February 2008, the class-action lawsuit was filed against GNG
containing similar allegations to those asserted by the consumer
affairs staff of the Georgia Commission.
The Georgia Commission staff alleged that GNG charged its
customers on variable rate plans prices for natural gas that
were in excess of the published price, that it failed to give
proper notice regarding the availability of potentially lower
price plans and that it changed its methodology for computing
variable rates.
The action seeks damages on behalf of a class of GNG customers.
This lawsuit was dismissed in September 2008.
In October 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
lawsuit and the parties are in the process of filing briefs on
that appeal, according to AGL's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Based in Atlanta, Ga., AGL Resources Inc., through its
subsidiaries, distributes and markets natural gas to retail and
wholesale customers, stores and transports gas, offers asset and
risk management services, and operates telecommunications
networks.
AGL RESOURCES: Suit Over Monthly Service Charges Pending in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit regarding monthly service charges filed
against Georgia Natural Gas, which is owned by AGL Resources,
Inc., remains pending.
In March 2008, the class-action suit was filed against GNG in
the State Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia.
This lawsuit alleges that GNG arbitrarily assigned customer
service charges rather than basing each customer service charge
on a specific credit score.
According to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, GNG asserts that no violation of law or
Georgia Commission rules has occurred, that this lawsuit is
without merit and has filed motions to dismiss this class action
suit on various grounds.
Based in Atlanta, Ga., AGL Resources Inc., through its
subsidiaries, distributes and markets natural gas to retail and
wholesale customers, stores and transports gas, offers asset and
risk management services, and operates telecommunications
networks.
AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Remains Pending in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged migration of
certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to
neighboring properties remains pending, 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 was filed in the South Carolina State Court on Nov. 27,
2007, by certain individuals seeking certification as a class-
action suit, which has not yet been determined.
In essence, the suit claims that property value had been
negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants
from the company's property (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9,
2009).
The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.
AVX Corp. -- http://www.avx.com/-- is a worldwide manufacturer
and supplier of a line of passive electronic components and
related products. Virtually all types of electronic devices use
the Company's passive component products to store, filter or
regulate electric energy. AVX's passive electronic component
products include ceramic and tantalum capacitors, film
capacitors, varistors and non-linear resistors manufactured in
its facilities throughout the world and passive components
manufactured by Kyocera Corp. of Japan (Kyocera), its majority
stockholder, which owns approximately 71% of AVX's outstanding
common stock. The Company also manufactures and sells
electronic connectors and inter-connect systems, and distributes
and sells certain electronic connectors manufactured by Kyocera.
The Company has three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera
Electronic Devices Resale and Connectors.
BP PRODUCTS: May 26 Hearing Set for $52M "Schagringas Co." Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. for
the proposed $52,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re:
Schagringas Co. v. BP Products, et al., Civil No. 1:06-CV-3621."
The court will hold a the hearing at the U.S. District Court,
Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Courtroom 2503, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Beginning in 2006, several class action and individual lawsuits
were filed against various defendants by propane purchasers and
traders. These lawsuits were ultimately consolidated before the
Court.
On Feb. 29, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Amended and
Consolidated Complaint (Amended Complaint) in which they alleged
that Defendants attempted to manipulate the propane market in
the United States during the period April 1 through April 30,
2003, and did manipulate the propane market in the U.S. during
the period Febr. 1 through March 15, 2004.
Plaintiffs further alleged that, as a result of the
manipulation, they and other members of the proposed class were
injured by paying more for propane than they would have paid in
the absence of the illegal conduct.
The Amended Complaint asserted claims for relief for violations
of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Commodity
Exchange Act, and under common law doctrines of restitution,
disgorgement, and unjust enrichment.
On May 9, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. The motion asked the Court to dismiss all antitrust
and common law claims. Defendants argued in the motion that,
among other points, whether or not they manipulated the market
for February 2004 TET Propane, there was no violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act because the corner was too short in
duration, did not result in any structural change to the market,
and did not preclude competitors from entering the market. The
Court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss.
In addition to the issues raised in Defendants' motion to
dismiss, Class Counsel have evaluated numerous factual and legal
issues that Plaintiffs would confront in the course of the
litigation. These include, among others, whether Defendants'
manipulation was the legal and factual cause of inflated propane
prices, the scope of market participants who could recover money
damages under the asserted legal theories, and how best to
establish what prices would have been had there been no
manipulation. These issues and others pose substantial legal
and evidentiary challenges in the case.
In the drafting of both their Consolidated Complaint, filed in
March 2007, and their Amended Complaint, Class Counsel worked
closely with their experts in marshalling and analyzing detailed
market and transactional data. Class Counsel identified two
broad categories of market activity that they alleged were
damaged by Defendants' manipulation of February 2004 propane:
-- purchases of physical propane for consumption
(Consumption Damages), and
-- trading of propane in the over-the-counter and NYMEX
markets (Trading Damages).
Class Counsel also concluded that Defendants' attempted
manipulation during April 2003 caused no damages that class
members could legally recover.
Commencing in May 2007, concurrent with the conduct of the
litigation, Class Counsel engaged BP in an extensive settlement
negotiation process. Class Counsel continued to work closely
with their experts during these negotiations. In this process,
the parties eventually agreed to exchange the results of their
respective analyses of these data as well as their differing
theories for estimating aggregate damages in the case. This
process extended over approximately eighteen months and
permitted the parties to understand in detail their respective
calculation methodologies and to isolate their divergent damage
and legal theories underlying the different aggregate damage
estimates. During this process, the parties identified areas in
which their respective theories regarding potential damages
converged, and others where the parties remained apart.
Plaintiffs have estimated aggregate damages in this case to be
approximately $102 million. Defendants' estimate of aggregate
damages is significantly less. These estimates were formulated
on a net basis, in which profits from the manipulation were set
off against losses.
The Settlement Agreement was ultimately reached based on each
party's informed view of the legal and factual risks each faced
moving forward to trial in the litigation.
In agreeing to the Settlement in the principal amount of
$52,000,000, the parties also took into account that, in
separate proceedings not involving this class action, BP entered
into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) on Oct. 25, 2007, related to
Commodity Exchange Act, wire fraud and mail fraud claims.
In connection with the DPA, BP admitted, among other things,
that it had manipulated the price of February 2004 TET Propane.
Under the DPA, BP agreed to pay, in addition to substantial
penalties, $53,503,000 into a fund for victim restitution
(Restitution Fund). Based on their analysis and that of their
experts, Class Counsel believe that the Restitution Fund and the
Settlement Fund in this case will likely provide substantial
compensation to members of the Settlement Class.
At this time, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have proven
their assertions. Plaintiffs believe they have meritorious
claims against Defendants, and Defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses to Plaintiffs' claims. Class Counsel have
concluded that a settlement with BP is in the best interests of
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
The Settlement provides a substantial and immediate benefit to
Settlement Class members, and avoids the risks, as described
above, that liability or damages might not be proven at trial.
The Court expresses no opinion whether Plaintiffs' allegations
are correct or whether Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for
the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint. The purpose of
this Notice is to inform you of the Settlement and of the
certification of the Settlement Class.
For more details, contact:
In re BP Propane Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 9328
Dublin, OH 43017-4228
Phone: 1-800-961-4924
e-mail: Questions@BPPropaneSettlement.com
Web site: http://bppropanesettlement.com/
GENERAL MOTORS: April 28 Hearing Set for "Soders" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County will hold a final
fairness hearing on April 28, 2009 in the matter, "Soders v.
General Motors Corp., No. CI-00-04255."
LANCASTER, Pa., Jan. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- A notification program
has begun, as ordered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County, to alert those who bought certain new GM vehicles from
Pennsylvania GM Dealers about a proposed settlement in the
purported class-action lawsuit, "Soders v. General Motors Corp.,
No. CI-00-04255," involving GM's marketing programs (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 28, 2009).
The case is about GM adding 1% of the Manufacturer's Suggested
Retail Price ("MSRP") to the invoice for certain new vehicles it
sold to its dealers, as part of their "Marketing Initiative"
programs. The lawsuit claims that GM required dealers to use the
1% amount for advertising, and that this violated Pennsylvania
law. The lawsuit also claims that dealers passed this amount on
to consumers when they purchased vehicles. GM denies any
wrongdoing, and states that the 1% was a legal, wholesale price
increase to its dealers, and that dealers did not necessarily
pass on the 1% amount to each purchaser.
The settlement includes a group of people, called a "Class" or
"Class Members," who bought a new vehicle at retail in
Pennsylvania from a franchised dealer that was made or
distributed by GM. The GM dealer must have purchased the new
vehicle on or before March 31, 1999, but after (a) September 1,
1998 for Chevrolet or GMC Truck vehicles; (b) July 1, 1989 for
Cadillac or Oldsmobile vehicles; (c) July 1, 1990 for Pontiac
vehicles; and (d) August 1, 1990 for Buick vehicles.
The Class does not include anyone who purchased vehicles under
the GM Employee Purchase Plans, GM qualified fleet purchasers,
government entities, attorneys of record in this case, lessees,
or anyone who previously requested exclusion from the Class.
The settlement provides rebates certificates worth up to $200
toward the purchase or lease of a new GM vehicle. Certificates
will be valid for three years after the settlement receives
final court approval. Up to two certificates can be used toward
the purchase of one vehicle.
Notices informing Class Members about their legal rights are
scheduled to appear in Pennsylvania newspapers and magazines
leading up to a hearing on April 28, 2009, when the Court will
decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement.
The Court has appointed Joseph F. Roda and Michele S.
Burkholder, RodaNast, P.C. of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to
represent the Class as "Class Counsel."
Those affected by the settlement can send in a claim form to ask
for a rebate certificate, object to the settlement, or ask to
appear and speak at the fairness hearing. Claim forms must be
postmarked no later than June 15, 2009. The deadline to object
to the settlement or request to appear and speak at the hearing
is March 16, 2009.
For more details, contact:
"Soders v. General Motors Corp."
PO Box 91196
Seattle, WA 98111-9296
Phone: 1-888-866-1738
Web site: http://www.onepercentcase.com
HOME SOLUTIONS: March 23, 2009 Hearing Set for $3.5M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on March 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3,500,000 settlement in the cases, "Hansen v. Fradella
et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01096," and "Sved v. Chadwick et al.,
Case No. 3:2006-cv-01135," which both name Home Solutions of
America, Inc., and their officers as defendants.
The hearing will be held before Judge David C. Godbey at the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100
Commerce St., Room 1358, Dallas, Texas 75242.
Hansen Litigation
The "Hansen" matter is a consolidated securities fraud class-
action lawsuit filed against Home Solutions of America, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas (Class
Action Reporter, June 18, 2007).
Intially several suits were filed, one of these suits was filed
on June 20, 2006. Home Solutions and the chief executive
officer, president, and chief financial officer of Home
Solutions, are named as defendants in that action.
The complaint alleges claims against Home Solutions and such
officers for violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that the defendants disseminated false and
misleading information to the public and misrepresented the
accuracy of the company's financial condition and future revenue
prospects.
It further alleges that the effect of the purported fraud was to
manipulate Home Solution's stock price so that the defendants
could profit from the manipulation. The action seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.
On June 27, 2006 and on July 6, 2006, two additional class
actions were filed in the same court. Home Solutions and its
directors are named as defendants in those actions.
The allegations in these two additional class actions are
substantially similar to those in the first lawsuit. The
actions seek damages in an unspecified amount.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the Court consolidated two of the class action
cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
consolidated case.
On March 12, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the same
defendants as in the original complaints as well as against
several additional defendants, including a member of the
Company's board of directors and Sanders Morris Harris Group,
Inc.
The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding certain of the
Company's contracts and acquisitions and made false statements
regarding the Company's 2006 earnings guidance.
Sved Litigation
The "Sved" matter is a shareholder derivative action brought by
Plaintiff Stanley Sved for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Home
Solutions against Defendants Michael S. Chadwick, Frank J.
Fradella, Willard W. Kimbrell, Charles P. McCusker, Jr., Patrick
A. McGeeney and Rick J. O'Brien for breaches of fiduciary duties
owed to Home Solutions during the period April 11, 2006 through
the present.
For more details, contact:
Home Solutions Securities Class Action
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9319
Dublin, OH 43017-4219
Phone: 1 (800) 961-3413
Web site: http://homesolutionsofamericasettlement.com/
MANDALAY BAY: Nev. Attorney Appeals Dismissal of Workers' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada attorney is appealing the dismissal of two purported
class-action lawsuits that he filed on behalf of Mandalay Bay
banquet servers, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.
Leon Greenberg, Esq., had sued Mandalay Bay over the issue of
overtime pay and the distribution of gratuity service charges to
workers.
The pair of class-action suits he helmed were both filed last
year. One suit alleged Mandalay Bay failed to turn the required
amount of gratuity service fees over to the workers; the other
alleged the workers were due overtime pay, according to The Las
Vegas Sun report.
The Las Vegas Sun reported that both suits were dismissed in
December 2008 by a federal judge, who found the disputes should
have been arbitrated outside of court under the terms of the
Culinary Union contract for the Mandalay Bay workers.
Mr. Greenberg has appealed those rulings to the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying the courts are
the proper place to enforce the state overtime laws regardless
of what the union contract says about labor-management disputes,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Gilman and Pastor Files Investors' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON, Feb. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Notice is hereby given that
Gilman and Pastor has filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking class
action status on behalf of investors in the Tremont Funds,
Market Neutral Funds II, L.P. and other funds owned or
controlled by Massachusetts Mutual, Tremont Holdings and the
OppenheimerFunds which invested in the Bernard L. Madoff and
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BMIS").
Based upon investigation, Gilman and Pastor is seeking to
recover funds from multiple sources, including law firms,
auditors and financial advisors who failed in their duties to
perform necessary due diligence and even aided and abetted the
acts which allowed Bernard Madoff's scheme to succeed.
Gilman and Pastor LLP is currently representing persons and
institutions who entrusted their money and purchased various
investment funds with Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff"), Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BMIS") and other responsible
and related entities, where such funds were marketed as
providing steady double-digit returns even in the most turbulent
of markets.
Plaintiffs allege that Madoff, BMIS, and other related
entities including Tremont Group Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer
Acquisition, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and
other responsible parties mislead and invested their clients'
investments as part of a massive Ponzi scheme. BMIS and other
parties deceived investors by committing multiple acts of fraud
including issuing false and misleading investment materials and
statements and concealing information about the allocation of
the Feeder Funds' assets.
In addition, Plaintiffs allege that many third parties were
negligent and breached their fiduciary duties in failing to
perform the necessary due diligence when advising their clients
to invest in these funds. Included in these investments and
funds are the following:
* American Master Broad Market Prime Fund LP
* Andover Associated LLC I
* Ascot Fund Limited
* Beacon Associates LLC I
* Fairfield Investors Ltd.
* Fairfield Greenwich Group
* Fairfield Sentry
* Fairfield Sigma
* FM Low Volatility Fund LP
* Herald USA Fund
* Herald Luxemburg Fund
* Maxam Absolute Return Fund LP
* Primeo Select Funds
* Rye Investment Management
* Rye Select Broad Market Fund
* Rye Select Broad Market Portfolio Ltd
* Rye Select Broad Market XL Portfolio Ltd.
* Thelma International Funds
* Tremont Partners and Tremont Holding Group, Inc.
Tremont collected millions of dollars in management fees
from the Fund while turning a blind eye to numerous red flags
indicating that Madoff was a fraud and that the Fund's assets
were in grave danger. Tremont could not have done this,
however, without the conduct of the Fund's auditors, Mass
Mutual, and others who led its investors to believe that the
Funds and its assets were safely invested.
This case is intended to be a major step in recovering the
Funds' losses caused by these derelictions of duty.
If you want to recover your losses from the alleged Ponzi scheme
perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff and any related and other
responsible parties and wish to learn more about our lawsuit and
investigation, please contact Kenneth G. Gilman toll-free at
(888) 252-0048.
For more details, contact:
Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. (kgilman@gilmanpastor.com)
Gilman and Pastor LLP
Phone: (888) 252-0048
Web site: http://www.madoff-ponzi-scheme.com
http://www.madoff-investment-fraud.com
http://www.madoffinvestmentfraud.com
NETFLIX INC: Faces Ind. Antitrust Suit Over DVD Rental Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Walmart.Com USA LLC,
are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Indiana alleging
that they have tried to monopolize the online DVD rental market,
Jeff Swiatek of The Indianapolis Star reports.
The litigation was filed on Feb. 9, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of Martha
Karatz. It accuses Wal-Mart and Netflix of conspiring to divvy
up the rental and sales markets for DVD movies.
The plaintiff is asking the court to declare it a class-action
suit, open to anyone who paid to rent DVDs from Netflix since
May 19, 2005. Damages aren't specified, reports The
Indianapolis Star.
The lawsuit says the conspiracy began when the chief executives
of Netflix and Walmart.com met for dinner in January 2005. The
following May, the companies agreed that Wal-Mart would stop
competing with Netflix for online rentals, and Netflix would
promote sales of new DVDs by Wal-Mart and not sell new DVDs in
competition with them, the lawsuit says.
The Indianapolis Star reported that it is charging four
violations of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. Prices are
"higher than they otherwise would have been" because of the
deal, according to the lawsuit.
The suit is "KARATZ v. NETFLIX, INC. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-
00136-WTL-JMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge William T. Lawrence,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Irwin B. Levin (ilevin@cohenandmalad.com)
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square
Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593 (fax)
OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: Sparer Law Group Files Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 20, 2009 -- (Prudent Press Agency) -- San Francisco,
CA -- Sparer Law Group has filed the first class action lawsuit
on behalf of investors who purchased the Oppenheimer California
Municipal Fund (Symbols: OPCAX, OCABX, OCACX) between September
27, 2006 and November 28, 2008. The case was filed on February
4, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, case number C 09-00567 SI.
The lawsuit alleges that the Fund's Registration Statements
and Prospectuses misled investors about the Fund's investment
objectives and underlying risk by describing the Fund as seeking
current income "consistent with preservation of capital." The
Fund lost over 41% of its net asset value ("NAV") in 2008. By
comparison, the average loss for funds within the same Lipper
peer group over this period was only 11.5%.
"The promise that a municipal bond fund follows a strategy
designed to preserve capital cannot be just a sales pitch. It
has to be reflected in an objective investment approach," said
Alan W. Sparer, lead counsel. "Investors put their 'safe' money
and retirement savings in muni bonds. These funds are not the
place for speculative strategies or junk bond investments."
The lawsuit alleges that the Oppenheimer California
Municipal Fund policies and operations ignored the preservation
of capital objective by concentrating 78% of its assets in bonds
rated at the lowest investment grade or below, and concentrating
60% in bonds that were not rated by any independent rating
agency.
In addition, 33% of the Fund's investments were placed in
Dirt Bonds, which are based on contracts for land developments
that have not been built yet and were especially vulnerable to
the recent declines in California's real estate market.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Oppenheimer failed to
disclose that, because of the Fund's overconcentration in lower
rated bonds and bonds that had not been rated by any independent
agency, there was a significant risk that more than 25% of its
assets were in junk bonds, a violation of the Fund's fundamental
investment policy.
The NAV of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund
decreased by more than $1.1 billion in 2008.
For more details, contact:
Sparer Law Group
100 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: (415) 217-7300
Fax: (415) 217-7307
e-mail: info@sparerlaw.com
Web site: http://www.sparerlaw.com/
PROPPER INT'L: Faces Workers' Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Propper International, the largest manufacturer of uniforms for
the U.S. military, is facing a purported class-action suit
alleging labor law violations, Eric Becker of the Jefferson
County Journal reports.
The litigation was filed by fifteen workers at manufacturing
facilities in Puerto Rico. The workers are suing for damages of
$225,000 related to unpaid work.
The case alleges that the company, which operates eight plants
in Puerto Rico, did not grant legally required paid sick days
and vacation days and that some vacation days were paid at the
federal minimum wage rather than workers' regular wages,
according to the Jefferson County Journal.
The Jefferson County Journal reported Lead plaintiff Rafael
Irizarry has been joined by 14 other workers from the eight
Puerto Rican plants in the class-action suit. Officials from
Unite Here, a group that has been trying to organize a union at
the company, is bankrolling the lawsuit.
In addition to the complaints about sick and vacation days, the
workers in the lawsuit also say Propper reduces employees'
agreed-upon hourly wages for those who do not produce enough
pieces in a period of time, reports the Jefferson County
Journal.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: April 27 Hearing Set for $11M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on April 27, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. For
the proposed $11,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re
Wachovia Securities, LLC, Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL-1807,
U.S. District Court Master File No. SACV 05-1031 DOC (RNBx),"
which names Prudential Securities, Inc. as a defendant.
The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa
Ana, California 92701.
The proposed settlement has been reached on behalf of certain
individuals who were employed by Prudential Securities, Inc. in
the Covered Positions in California, New York, or Pennsylvania.
The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement. If the
Settlement is granted final approval by the Court, it will
resolve several pending lawsuits against Prudential, which have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
In general, the lawsuits allege that Prudential should have paid
its employees in the Covered Positions overtime pay under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and under state law. The
lawsuits also allege that Prudential took illegal deductions
from the wages of employees in the Covered Positions, in
violation of state law.
On Dec. 16, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and certified the following Class for Settlement
purposes only:
All individuals who were actively employed by Prudential in the
States of California, New York, and/or Pennsylvania in any of
the following Covered Positions during the following time
periods:
-- Assistant Branch Managers, Assistant Branch Managers-
Producing, Associate Branch Managers, Sales Managers,
and Satellite Branch Managers (collectively referred
to as "Producing Managers"), Financial Advisors
("FAs") and producing Financial Advisors in Training
("FAITs") and Financial Advisors in the Career
Development Program ("FACDPs") (collectively referred
to as "Producing FAITs and FACDPs") actively employed
by Prudential in the State of California at any time
from September 13, 2001 to June 30, 2003;
-- FAs and Producing FAITs and Producing FACDPs actively
employed by Prudential in the State of Pennsylvania at
any time from August 3, 2001 to June 30, 2003;
-- FAs and Producing FAITs and Producing FACDPs actively
employed by Prudential in the State of New York at any
time from August 30, 1999 to June 30, 2003;
-- Unregistered FAITs and unregistered FACDPs actively
employed by Prudential in the State of New York at any
time from June 27, 2000 to June 30, 2003; and
-- Producing Managers (as defined above) actively
employed by Prudential in the State of New York at any
time from April 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.
For more details, contact:
Prudential Wage and Hour Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 91181
Seattle, WA 98111-9281
Phone: 1 (866) 397-0381
Web site: http://prudentialsecuritiessettlement.com/
SRAM MANUFACTURERS: California Court Certifies Class in MDL-1819
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
certified a class in the purported class-action lawsuit, "In re
Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1819, Case No. 07-cv-01819-CW."
The class-action lawsuit alleges violations of federal antitrust
laws in connection with the sale of Static Random Access Memory
(SRAM). The plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM. The plaintiff also
alleges that this conspiracy resulted in overcharges to
purchasers of SRAM.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of itself, and on
behalf of the class of customers who purchased SRAM in the U.S.
directly from one or more of the defendants or their
subsidiaries or affiliates.
On Sept. 29, 2008, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California certified a class
of purchasers of non-custom SRAM in the U.S. directly from one
or more of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates.
The court has not yet ruled on the merits of plaintiff's claims
or of any defenses raised by defendants.
According to http://sramcase.com/individuals may be a class
member in the above-entitled lawsuit if they purchased static
random access memory (SRAM) between Nov, 1, 1996 and Dec. 31,
2005 from any of the following companies (or their subsidiaries
or affiliates):
* Cypress Semiconductor, Inc.
* Etron Technology, Inc.
* Etron Technology America, Inc.
* Hitachi, Ltd.
* Hitachi America, Ltd.
* Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
* Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.
* Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.
* Micron Technology, Inc.
* Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
* Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
* Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
* NEC Electronics Corporation
* NEC Electronics America, Inc.
* Renesas Technology Corp.
* Renesas Technology America, Inc.
* Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.
* Samsung Electronics America
* Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
* Toshiba Corporation
* Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
For more details, contact:
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
Attn: SRAM Litigation
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577, 692-1112, 692-3606
Web site: http://www.cpmlegal.com/
STATION CASINOS: "Lukevich" Labor Suit Remains Pending in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
A labor-related class-action lawsuit remains pending against
Station Casinos, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, according to Station Casino's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
Feb. 3, 2009.
The purported class-action complaint against the company was
initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees
Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:
-- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
-- failed to pay overtime,
-- failed to timely pay wages, and
-- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
the plaintiffs' counsel.
The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008.
The parties are currently in the discovery process.
The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its regulatory filing.
The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
McInerney & Jones
9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103
Reno, NV 89521
Phone: 775-853-6440
Fax: 775-853-6445
- and -
Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
456 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-983-0900
Fax: 415-397-9005
Representing the defendants is:
Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
DLA Piper US LLP
3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: 702-677-3900
Fax: 702-737-1612
UNITRIN INC: Still Facing Hurricane-Related Suits in La., Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc. continues to face putative class-action lawsuits
in Louisiana and Texas arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.
During the course of 2007, Unitrin and certain of its
subsidiaries, like many property and casualty insurers, were
forced to defend a growing number of individual lawsuits, mass
actions, and statewide putative class actions in Louisiana and
Texas arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 4,
2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance
services. The company conducts its operations through six
operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health
Insurance and Consumer Finance. Unitrin's property and casualty
insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto
and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business
Insurance.
UNITRIN INC: Unit Facing Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices
------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc.'s subsidiary, Fireside Bank, is facing two class-
action lawsuits in California state courts alleging that its
post-repossession notices to defaulting borrowers failed to
comply with certain aspects of California law.
The plaintiffs seek:
(i) compensatory damages, including a refund of deficiency
balances collected from customers who received the
allegedly defective notices;
(ii) punitive damages; and
(iii) equitable relief.
Statewide classes have been certified in these matters and
Fireside Bank successfully moved to have the two cases treated
on a coordinated basis.
Fireside Bank is contesting the allegations that its post-
repossession notices were deficient, according to the company's
Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance
services. The company conducts its operations through six
operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health
Insurance and Consumer Finance. Unitrin's property and casualty
insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto
and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business
Insurance.
VENETIAN CASINO: Faces Nev. Lawsuit for Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venetian Casino Resort LLC is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Nevada that was brought on behalf of current and
former banquet servers who claimed that it failed to pay them
all of the overtime wages they are due, Steve Green of the The
Las Vegas Sun reports.
The suit was filed by attorney Leon Greenberg, Esq., Jan. 29,
2009 in Clark County District Court on behalf of former Venetian
server Steven Csomos and potentially more than 100 other
employees.
Mr. Greenberg tells The Las Vegas Sun that since July 1, 2005,
when a new Nevada overtime law went into effect, the Venetian
and other resorts have been required to pay overtime to these
employees -- many of whom were previously exempt from overtime
laws because they made too much money or received commissions in
the form of gratuity or service fees charged to banquet
customers.
"Defendant has either required or allowed the plaintiffs to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without the payment of overtime
wages," according to the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained
by The Las Vegas Sun.
The suit argues the overtime rate should be based on a "regular
rate" of pay consisting of the employee's hourly rate and the
per-job gratuity charges that were paid by the Venetian on a
weekly basis, reports The Las Vegas Sun.
For more details, contact:
Leon Greenberg, Esq.
Attorney At Law
A Professional Corporation
633 South 4th Street - Suite 9
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Phone: 702-383-6369
Web site: http://overtimelaw.com/
New Securities Fraud Cases
ROYAL BANK: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ORLEANS, Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Kahn Gauthier
Swick, LLC ("KGS") has filed a class action lawsuit against The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS" or the "Company") in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company
between June 26, 2007 and January 19, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). No class has yet been certified in this action.
RBS and certain of its officers and directors, and the
Company's underwriters - collectively, "defendants" - are
charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially
false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with its June 26, 2007
Offering of Series S securities, and the Company's September 18,
2007 Offering of Series T securities, in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933. Additionally, RBS and certain of the
Company's officers and/or directors are charged with making a
series of materially false and misleading statements related to
the Company's business and operations in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Story continues below ?advertisement | your ad here
The allegations in the complaint primarily relate to the
Company's acquisition of Dutch bank ABN AMRO ("ABN"), which was
commenced in early May 2007 and completed on or about October
17, 2007.
On May 29, 2007, RBS issued a release "confirming the terms
of their proposed Offer for ABN AMRO" in which "it is intended
that RBS will acquire the Global Wholesale Businesses (including
the Netherlands but excluding Brazil), LaSalle Bank and
International Retail Businesses of ABN AMRO () for a
consideration of EUR 27.2 billion." RBS further stated in this
release that the "combination of RBS Global Banking & Markets
(GBM) and ABN AMRO's Global Wholesale Businesses will create a
leading corporate and institutional business with both scale and
global reach, and with significantly enhanced growth prospects."
Unbeknownst to investors, the Individual Defendants and RBS
first revealed on January 19, 2009 that, as a result of the
complete failure of the ABN acquisition, among other undisclosed
problems, the Company would be forced to take GBP 15-20 billion
in write-downs on goodwill impairments, and suffer losses of GBP
7-8 billion for full year 2008. After the release of this news,
the Series S ADS traded on the NYSE from a close of $10.85 on
January 16, 2009, to a close of $4.62 on January 20, 2009 (the
next trading day) on heavy volume of over 600,000 Series S
shares traded - a catastrophic loss for investors who had
previously purchased such securities at $25.00 per share in
connection with the June 2007 Series S Offering. At the same
time, the price of the Company's Series T ADS, as well as its
other securities, also declined precipitously.
For more details, contact:
Lewis Kahn
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
e-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.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 * * *