/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090224.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 38 Headlines AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Bid to Junk Buyout Suit Granted on Feb. 6 BIOVAIL CORP: N.J. Judge Dismisses Suit V. Hedge Funds, Analysts DEL WEBB: Faces Nev. Homeowners' Suit Over Faulty Construction FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Market-Timing Suit Pending FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Unit Faces 2 Market-Timing Suits in Canada HEALTHWAYS INC: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending HEALTHWAYS INC: Discovery in ERISA Breach Suit to Start March 26 LEGG MASON: Continues to Faces Claims in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit LEWIS HOMES: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Construction Defects NORTH HUDSON: N.J. Federal Court Bars Hiring of Firefighters ORION ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Lawsuit SOLERA HOLDINGS: Suit Over "Total Loss Estimation" Still Pending STAPLES INC: Workers Win $2.5M Jury Verdict in FLSA Litigation TENNESSEE STATE: Student Files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit UNIVERSITY OF B.C.: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Spoiled Sperm WAL-MART STORES: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in Arkansas WILLIAM LYON: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Faulty Construction New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN EXPRESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. BANK OF AMERICA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit INTREPID POTASH: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing INTREPID POTASH: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing INTREPID POTASH: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit LEVEL 3 COMMS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Suit Filing RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Barroway Topaz Announces Lawsuit Filing ROYAL BANK: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing UBS AG: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing ********* AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Bid to Junk Buyout Suit Granted on Feb. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit over the attempted buyout of the company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus Capital Management LP was granted by the Delaware Chancery Court on Feb. 6, 2009. Initially, several lawsuits were filed. In general, the suits allege claims related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are seeking class action status (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2008). The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS stockholders bringing a class action on behalf of all of the company's public stockholders. Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire the company's outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders because the consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process. According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2008, six cases were filed before the Delaware Chancery Court: 1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL," filed on March 20, 2007. 2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on March 21, 2007. 3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on March 22, 2007. 4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007. 5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on April 20, 2007. 6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007. On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated into one before the Delaware Chancery Court under the caption "In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL." Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to acquire ACS. On Nov. 2, 2007, a consolidated amended class action suit and derivative complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events surrounding the resignation of the outside directors. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief and recovery of unspecified monetary damages sustained by the company. On April 8, 2008, a Verified Consolidated Second Amended Class and Derivative Action Complaint was filed alleging class and derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all individual defendants and class and derivative for aiding and abetting against Cerberus and Citigroup. On May 23, 2008, all defendants, including ACS, filed their respective motions to dismiss. All briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete. All briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete and the hearing on the motions occurred on Oct. 22, 2008. On Feb. 6, 2009, the judge in the case granted ACS's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed each of plaintiffs' counts with prejudice. The plaintiffs may appeal this decision, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/-- provides business process outsourcing and information technology services to commercial and government clients. BIOVAIL CORP: N.J. Judge Dismisses Suit V. Hedge Funds, Analysts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a securities class-action suit brought by sellers of Biovail Corp. stock against several analysts and hedge funds, including Banc of America Securities and SAC Capital, for allegedly driving down Biovail's stock price, Andrew Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily reports. In a ruling issued on Feb. 19, 2009, the federal judge dismissed the case and sanctioned two lawyers for the plaintiffs and the lead plaintiff himself for copying the claims of a another lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), including claims relying on documents under a protective order, and not conducting a sufficient investigation into their allegations. Judge Chesler found that lead counsel William Federman of Federman Sherwood and liaison counsel Evan Smith of Brodsky & Smith knew that the complaint was based on documents that had been placed under protective order, according to Am Law Litigation Daily. In a harshly worded opinion, Judge Chesler said the New Jersey shareholder action was a "choreographed strategy by Biovail and its attorneys" and described the plaintiffs lawyers as "ready and willing tools of Biovail [who] ignored their professional and ethical obligations and aided Biovail for their own benefit," the Am Law Litigation Daily reported. Mr. Federman told Am Law Litigation Daily he disagrees with the order and is considering an appeal. "[Judge Chesler] ignores the majority of precedents, which allow you to rely on information that is publicly disseminated," said Mr. Federman. "We had nothing to do with those documents becoming public. We just used them. Brad Butwin of O'Melveny & Myers, who filed the motion for sanctions for defendant Banc of America Securities and one of its former analysts, called Judge Chesler's opinion "well- reasoned." Separately, defendant SAC Capital said in a statement that it was "gratified," adding, "The court's opinion underscores these claims were a cynical attempt to manipulate the legal process in order to divert attention from the company's own improper conduct," reports Am Law Litigation Daily. DEL WEBB: Faces Nev. Homeowners' Suit Over Faulty Construction -------------------------------------------------------------- Del Webb and its Coventry Homes of Nevada subsidiary are facing a purported class-action suit that was filed by two homeowners of property in The Huntington development over construction defects, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. The suit says the plaintiffs' properties in the Silverado development, which has 242 homes, also have problems with roofs and have leaking windows, dirt coming through windows, cracks in drywall, cracks and stains in stucco and water and insects intruding through foundation slabs. The plaintiffs, Edith and Loren Johnston are also represented by the Las Vegas law firm Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C. Their suit says Del Webb has asserted that the homes have no defects and that any repairs it performed were successful in solving problems. The homeowners disagree and claim the alleged defects have not been corrected, reports The Las Vegas Sun. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the cost of repairs and the alleged loss of market value the homes have sustained, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. For more details, contact: Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C. 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Phone: (800) 253-9741 or (702) 631-8014 Fax: (702) 631-8024 Web site: http://www.ssllplaw.com/ FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Market-Timing Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Resources, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class-action complaint in the consolidated market timing or late trading class-action suit filed against the company and certain of the Franklin Templeton mutual funds, current and former officers, employees, and directors remains under submission with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and Florida. Generally, the cases alleged violations of various federal securities and state laws. Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to alleged arrangements to permit market timing and late trading activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing activity. The lawsuits are styled as class-action suits, or derivative actions on behalf of either the named funds or the company. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, restitution, removal of fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and distributors, rescission of management contracts and 12b-1 plans, and attorneys' fees and costs. The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or in part, the allegations asserted in an administrative complaint and in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's findings regarding market timing in the SEC Order. To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19 different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal district courts throughout the country. Because the cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation of a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation." The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some instances, name certain officers, directors and Funds. The suits that have been transferred to the MDL include: * "Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-770 GPM," filed on Nov. 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois; * "Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-859 MJR," filed on Dec. 16, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004; * "Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ," filed on Feb. 6, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; * "Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0583 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0584 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * "Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; * "Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0598 MJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0628 PJH," filed on Feb. 13, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0639 SC," filed on Feb. 17, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 1330," filed on Feb. 18, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; * "D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC," filed on March 3, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0901 JL," filed on March 5, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0902 JL," filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; * "Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0984 EMC," filed on March 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and * "Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489," filed on March 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on Sept. 29, 2004. On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants, including the company, certain of its subsidiaries and the named Funds and individual defendants, filed motions to dismiss those amended complaints. On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class-action complaint. In its order, the court dismissed certain claims, while allowing others to remain, and dismissed all class action claims against the named Funds. Pursuant to stipulation, the court also dismissed all claims against certain individual defendants, including the independent directors to the named Funds, and a former company executive. The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated fund derivative action remains under submission with the court, according to the company's Feb. 9, 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 Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No. 1:04-md-15862-AMD," pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge Andre M. Davis, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: H. Adam Prussin, Esq. (haprussin@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP 100 Park Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: 1-212-661-1100 Fax: 1-212-661-8665 Representing the company is: Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq. (mlandy@omm.com) O'Melveny and Myers, LLP 2765 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 1-650-473-2671 Fax: 1-650-473-2601 FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Unit Faces 2 Market-Timing Suits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary, Franklin Templeton Investments Corp. ("FTIC"), faces two market-timing class action lawsuits in Canada. FTIC, the investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian mutual funds, is named along with several other non-Franklin affiliated investment manager defendants in two market-timing lawsuits in Canada that are styled as class actions. The lawsuits contain allegations similar or identical to allegations asserted by the Ontario Securities Commission in its March 3, 2005 order concerning market-timing activities by three institutional investors in certain Canadian mutual funds managed by FTIC between February 1999 and February 2003, as previously reported. The lawsuits seek, among other relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, an order barring any increase in management fees for a period of two years following judgment, and/or attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuits are: (i) Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06- 000256-046, filed on Oct. 25, 2004, in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; and (ii) Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et al. Case No. 06-CV-307599CP, filed on March 9, 2006, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served defendants with a motion for authorization to institute a class action in July 2007. Defendants filed their evidence in opposition to that motion on Sept. 29, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com/-- is an investment management company. Through its wholly owned direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides investment management and fund administration services to open- end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts, high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in the U.S. and internationally. HEALTHWAYS INC: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint filed on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways, Inc. stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008, remains pending. Beginning on June 5, 2008, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and/or directors were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of Healthways. The amended complaint further alleges that certain of the individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based on their stock sales. The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008. In support of these claims, plaintiff alleges generally that, during the proposed class period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding: -- the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with customers, -- the Company's participation in the Medicare Health Support pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and -- the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 12, 2008. Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated case, and no trial date has been set, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce overall healthcare costs. The company delivers its programs to customers, which include health plans, governments, employers, and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Its programs focus on prevention, education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care. HEALTHWAYS INC: Discovery in ERISA Breach Suit to Start March 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery will commence by March 26, 2009, in a purported class- action lawsuit against Healthways, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On July 31, 2008, the purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Healthways and certain of its directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan. The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent investment option for the 401(k) plan. The named defendants are: the Company, Board of Directors, certain officers, and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering the 401(k) plan. The complaint was amended on Sept. 29, 2008. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and results of the Medicare Health Support (MHS) pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit the plan to hold Company stock. It further alleges that the Company and its directors should have been more closely monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries. The amended complaint seeks damages in an undisclosed amount and other equitable relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2008. On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Under the schedule that currently exists, discovery in this case will commence by March 26, 2009, and a trial date of April 27, 2010 has been set, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce overall healthcare costs. The company delivers its programs to customers, which include health plans, governments, employers, and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Its programs focus on prevention, education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care. LEGG MASON: Continues to Faces Claims in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Legg Mason, Inc. still faces claims in a purported consolidated securities fraud class-action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 still under appeal. The company, and two of its officers are named as defendants in a consolidated legal action that was initially filed on Oct. 16, 2006. The action alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by making misleading statements to the public and omitting certain material facts with respect to the acquisition of the CAM business in public statements and in a prospectus used in a secondary stock offering in order to artificially inflate the price of Legg Mason common stock. The action seeks certification of a class of shareholders who purchased Legg Mason common stock either between Feb. 1, 2006, and Oct. 10, 2006, or in a secondary public offering on or about March 9, 2006, and seeks unspecified damages. Legg Mason and the other two defendants in the action have filed a motion to dismiss the case (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2008). On March 17, 2008, the court granted Legg Mason's motion to dismiss this action. However, the plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal of that dismissal and have appealed only the dismissal of the claims under the Securities Act. The dismissal of the claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of the proposed class of purchases of stock between Feb. 1, 2006 and Oct. 10, 2006 was not appealed and is now final, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Garber v. Legg Mason Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2006- cv-09436," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denny Chin presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 e-mail: malba@csgrr.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C. 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: (516) 741-4977 e-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com Representing the defendants are: James N. Benedict, Esq. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-5000 Fax: (212) 822-5696 e-mail: jbenedict@milbank.com - and - Mark Holland, Esq. Clifford Chance US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212)-878-8432 Web site: (212)-878-8375 e-mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com LEWIS HOMES: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Construction Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis Homes of Nevada and KB Home Nevada face a purported class- action lawsuit by homeowners who are alleging that their properties need to be repaired because of construction defects, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. The suit was filed this month in Clark County District Court by 17 homeowners alleging defects in their homes in the Napa Hills by Lewis Homes and Sonoma Hills by Lewis Homes development near the Las Vegas Beltway and Far Hills Avenue in Summerlin The Las Vegas Sun reported that the plaintiffs, represented by attorneys with the Las Vegas law firm Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C., are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit involving the development they say consists of 439 homes. The litigation alleges that Lewis Homes/KB Home have maintained there are no defects, but nevertheless have performed some repairs that the defendants say have not been adequate to solve the problems. The homeowners claim to have problems with roofs, water and dirt entering through windows, bugs and water entering through their foundations and cracked stucco and drywall, reports The Las Vegas Sun. The suit seeks unspecified damages to cover repairs and for an alleged decline in the value of the homes, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. For more details, contact: Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C. 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Phone: (800) 253-9741 or (702) 631-8014 Fax: (702) 631-8024 Web site: http://www.ssllplaw.com/ NORTH HUDSON: N.J. Federal Court Bars Hiring of Firefighters ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has temporarily barred the North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue service from hiring firefighters as part of a class-action lawsuit filed by black applicants. Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise's decision temporarily bars the agency from hiring firefighters until it widens its residency requirements to include Hudson, Essex and Union counties. Case Background Peter J. Sampson and Eric Hsu of NorthJersey.com previously reported that The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a purported racial discrimination class-action suit against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue (Class Action Reporter, April 19, 2007). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 10, 2007. Identified as plaintiffs in the case are: -- NAACP; -- Newark Branch, NAACP; -- New Jersey State Conference, NAACP; -- Katrina Hall; -- Keith Reeves; -- Lamara Wapples; and -- Altarik White. Generally, the suit alleges that the regional fire department, which is serving North Bergen and four other Hudson County municipalities, hasn't hired a single black firefighter since it was created nearly nine years ago. It contends that that department's preference for recruiting and hiring employees who are residents of North Bergen, Union City, Weehawken, West New York, and Guttenberg discriminates against African-Americans. The suit pointed out that the five towns, which merged their departments in 1998, had a combined population of about 195,000 residents at the time of the 2000 census with less than 5 percent of which is African-American. According to the suit, the department is passing up qualified candidates simply because they don't live in the towns. Four of the plaintiffs, namely, Ms. Hall, Mr. Reeves, Ms. Wapples, and Mr. White, passed the state's firefighter exam and applied for entry-level positions with the department. However, according to the suit, because of the residency preference, the four individuals and other outsiders from predominately black municipalities such as Newark, East Orange, Irvington, Jersey City and Orange are denied opportunities. The suit pointed out that one black firefighter in 300-member department was hired by North Bergen before the merger. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring North Hudson Regional from discriminating against black candidates on the basis of race and directing it to implement a vigorous recruitment program designed to attract qualified minorities in proportion to the labor market. The suit is "The National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People (NAACP) et al. v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, Case No. 2:07-cv-01683-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. Representing the plaintiffs is: David H. Ben-Asher, Esq. Rabner, Allcorn, Baumgartner & Ben-Asher 52 Upper Montclair Plaza, Montclair, NJ 07043 Phone: 973-744-4000 Web site: http://www.rabnerallcorn.com ORION ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's review and decision on Orion Energy Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint remains pending. In February and March 2008, three class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, several of its officers, all members of the board of directors, and certain underwriters relating to its December 2007 Initial Public Offering. The plaintiffs claim to represent those persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock from Dec. 18, 2007 through Feb. 6, 2008. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made misstatements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's registration statement and prospectus. The claims allege various claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On Aug. 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Sept. 15, 2008, the Company and the other defendants filed a brief in support of the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008). On Nov. 13, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On Dec. 15, 2008, the company and the other director and officer defendants, filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. Having been fully briefed, the motion to dismiss is awaiting the court's review and decision, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Orion Energy Systems, Inc. -- http://www.oriones.com� designs, manufactures, markets and implements energy management systems consisting primarily of energy efficient lighting systems, controls and related services. The Company's energy management systems deliver energy savings and efficiency gains to its commercial and industrial customers without compromising their quantity or quality of light. Orion has sold and installed its HIF fixtures in over 3,655 facilities across North America, representing over 587 million square feet of commercial and industrial building space, including for 91 Fortune 500 companies, such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., General Electric Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Newell Rubbermaid Inc., OfficeMax, Inc., and SYSCO Corp. SOLERA HOLDINGS: Suit Over "Total Loss Estimation" Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit in connection with total loss estimation remains pending against Solera Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit alleges that the company colluded with its insurance company customers to cause the estimates of vehicle fair market value generated by the company's total loss estimation products to be unfairly low (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2008). Solera Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.solerainc.com/-- is a global provider of software and services to the automobile insurance claims processing industry. The Company's customers include more than 900 automobile insurance companies; 33,000 collision repair facilities; 7,000 independent assessors, and 3,000 automotive recyclers. Solera Holdings, Inc. helps its customers estimate the costs to repair damaged vehicles; determine pre-collision fair market values for vehicles damaged beyond repair; automate steps of the claims process; outsource steps of the claims process that insurance companies have historically performed internally, and improve their ability to monitor and manage their businesses through data reporting and analysis. Its software and services are organized into five general categories: estimating and workflow software; salvage and recycling software; business intelligence and consulting services; shared services, and other. STAPLES INC: Workers Win $2.5M Jury Verdict in FLSA Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Fri., Feb. 20, 2009 - NEWARK, N.J. - A Newark federal court jury awarded almost $2.5 million against Staples Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLS) to 343 plaintiffs in a case brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Following a six-week trial, the jury unanimously determined that Staples, Inc. had failed to comply with the law in classifying the employees as exempt under the Act and failing to pay them overtime. The jury also found that Staples had acted willfully in violating the law. Staples' liability could be increased as the Court will next month be hearing applications for the imposition of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the jury verdict and for attorneys' costs and fees. "This is the first of several collective and class action lawsuits against Staples for misclassification of store managers that are now pending in the federal courts," said Seth Lesser of Klafter Olsen & Lesser, one of the plaintiffs' two trial counsel. "We hope to be able to now move those other cases to trial on behalf of the rest of Staples managers." Michael Galpern of the Locks Law Firm LLP, the lead trial counsel, added, "We had faith in the jury's ability to discern the truth and recognize that these hard-working employees were entitled to compensation." "Our Staples case is one of the first FLSA misclassification suits to be brought before a jury," said Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. "Staples maintained throughout, and continues to hold the view, that it pays its employees properly. The jury's decision has definitively proven the company wrong." Plaintiffs were represented by Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP of White Plains, New York and Washington, D.C.; the Locks Law Firm LLC of New York, New York, Cherry Hill, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P of Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs were also represented by Jeff Gottlieb, Esq., and Berger & Associates. For further information, please contact Seth R. Lesser of Klafter Olsen & Lesser, 914-997-5656, seth@klafterolsen.com or Michael Galpern of Locks Law Firm LLP at 856-663-8200, mgalpern@lockslaw.com. For more details, contact: Seth R. Lesser Klafter Olsen & Lesser Phone: 914-997-5656 e-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com - and - Michael Galpern Locks Law Firm LLP 856-663-8200 e-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com TENNESSEE STATE: Student Files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Tennessee State University faces a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by a student from Guam on grounds of racial discrimination, Michael Cass and Janell Ross of The Tennessean reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by Angela Cela, a Pacific Islander, who claims that she was denied a financial grant because she is not black. The suit is captioned, "Cela v. Tennessee State University et al., 3:2009-cv-00173," and names as defendants the Tennessee State University, Iris Johnson-Arnold, Tina Smith and Harold R. Mitchell. Ms. Cela accuses the historically black Nashville school and three faculty members of violating her civil rights. According to her, TSU refused to give Cela, a financial grant available to graduate students in speech pathology and audiology because she isn't black. Ms. Cela's suit seeks to create a class-action. Attorney Hal Hardin, Esq., one of Ms. Cela's lawyers, told The Tennessean he wouldn't know how many students had been discriminated against until he could see the university's data, but he was aware of "several." According to the suit, Ms. Cela sought a grant in March 2007 to help her enroll in graduate school at TSU the following August. But she didn't receive any information on her request before classes started. In February 2008, Harold Mitchell, head of the department of speech and audiology, told Ms. Cela she didn't qualify for the grant because she wasn't black, the complaint says. Ms. Cela told Mitchell that Pacific Islanders were represented even less than African-Americans in the field of speech pathology, reports The Tennessean. "Ms. Cela stated that she was advised by several of her professors that this entire situation could have been avoided had she announced that she was not white," the suit says. "Then and there Dr. Mitchell stated: 'Well, what do you expect? You are at an historically black university. You have to know the backdrop and understand our professors' point of view when they converse with white students.'" Dr. Mitchell's department offered Cela a grant retroactively, but she had already found other funding, according to The Tennessean. UNIVERSITY OF B.C.: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Spoiled Sperm -------------------------------------------------------------- B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler has dismissed an application to certify a class-action lawsuit involving sperm samples that may have been ruined when an electrical failure shut down the freezer used to store them, Canwest News Service reports. In a judgment released on Feb. 20, 2009, Justice Butler concluded, "A trial of the common issues would accomplish very little." He further points out, "At the conclusion of the common-issue trial, there would still have to be a process to consider the exclusion-clause issues for each claimant." Howard Lam had applied as the representative plaintiff, seeking certification of a class-action lawsuit against the University of B.C. and other defendants, according to Canwest News Service. WAL-MART STORES: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reached a $17.5 million settlement for a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of discriminating against African Americans in recruiting and hiring truck drivers, Bloomberg News reports. The suit is captioned, "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00171-WRW," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas back in 2004 by Daryal T. Nelson of Coldwater, Miss., who alleged that Wal-Mart rejects and discourages black applicants for truck-driving jobs at the chain's distribution centers in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2007). The suit had a document from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attached to it, saying that it found "reasonable cause" to believe that Mr. Nelson, a 22-year veteran of driving trucks, was discriminated against. The EEOC said Wal-Mart hired some white drivers with more serious driving violations and less experience than black applicants. In May 16, 2007, the suit was granted class-action status by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007). The class involved in the suit includes all black people in the continental U.S. who applied as over-the-road truckers at Wal- Mart since Sept. 22, 2001, but who were not hired. It also includes all black people in the continental U.S. during that period who were discouraged from applying as drivers because of Wal-Mart's practices. In January 2008, Wal-Mart's motions to dismiss the case or decertify the class were denied, according to Bloomberg News. The suit is "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00171-WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. Representing plaintiffs are: Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. (hbates@cauleybowman.com) Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP Post Office Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 Phone: (501) 312-8500 - and - Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq. (tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com) Welch and Kitchens, LLC Post Office Box 3685 Little Rock, AR 72203-3685 Phone: (501) 978-3030 Representing defendants are: Richard H. Deane, Esq. (rhdeane@jonesday.com) Jones Day - Atlanta 1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 581-8502 Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. (lcdinardo@jonesday.com) Michael J. Gray, Esq. (mjgray@jonesday.com) Jones Day - Chicago 77 West Wacker Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 269-4306 or (312) 269-4096 - and - Philip E. Kaplan, Esq. (pkaplan@kbmlaw.net) Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A. Metro Centre Mall 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201-3801 Phone: (501) 372-0400 WILLIAM LYON: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Faulty Construction ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Lyon Homes is facing a purported class-action lawsuit by two owners of homes in the area of Pebble Road and Maryland Parkway in Silverado, alleging problems with their roofs, eaves, stucco, concrete flatwork; heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; and drywall, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. The suit, filed by attorneys with the firm Angius & Terry LLP, alleges the builder's attempts to correct the alleged deficiencies failed to do so, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. The Las Vegas Sun reported that the properties named in the complaint are owned by James Larocca on Labine Street and Constance Larocca on Newcombe Street. Their suit seeks damages to cover the cost of repairs and the alleged loss of value the homes have sustained. For more details, contact: Angius & Terry LLP 1120 N. Town Center Drive Suite 260 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Phone: (702) 990-2017 Fax: (702) 990-2018 e-mail: info@angius-terry.com Web site: http://www.angius-terry.com/nv-locations.htm New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN EXPRESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Feb. 20, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of American Express Company ("American Express" or the "Company"), between March 1, 2007 and November 12, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges American Express and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. American Express is currently the world's largest issuer of charge cards and credit cards as measured by purchase volume. It engages in the communications business in North America and Europe. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements, among other things, misled investors by falsely representing American Express's exposure to the riskiest credit card holders and failed to disclose the Company's increasing reliance on riskier credit card programs. On November 10, 2008, the Company won Federal Reserve System approval to convert to a bank holding company, making it eligible for government help under the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). The new American Express bank could qualify for up to $3.5 billion of the Treasury Department's money-a capital infusion required to save the Company from its riskier endeavors. As a result of the Company's shift to risky card issuances, American Express stock has plunged approximately 65% since March 2007. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- February 20, 2009 07:20 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bofa/)announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Bank of America Corporation ("BofA") (NYSE:BAC) between July 21, 2008 and January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period") and who were damaged thereby, including all persons who acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with BofA's October 7, 2008 secondary common stock offering (the "Offering"), and further, including persons who owned BofA stock on October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote on BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"), pursuant to a false and misleading proxy statement (the "Merger Proxy"). The complaint charges BofA, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. BofA is a financial holding company that provides a range of banking and nonbanking financial services and products in the United States and internationally. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding both the Company's and Merrill Lynch's business and financial results. Defendants concealed BofA's and Merrill Lynch's failures to properly value their mortgage-related assets and BofA's failure to engage in proper due diligence in determining the fairness of its proposed deal with Merrill Lynch. As a result of defendants' false statements, BofA's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $38.13 per share on October 1, 2008, and then retaining value in the $22-$25 per share range even as the stock market collapsed in early October 2008. It was at this time that BofA sold 455 million shares of its common stock at $22 per share in the Offering, which raised some $10 billion. Then, on January 16, 2009, BofA announced its first quarterly loss in 17 years. BofA announced a $1.8 billion loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 and slashed its dividend from $0.32 to a penny a quarter. In addition to its own losses, BofA reported that Merrill Lynch's preliminary results for the fourth quarter of 2008 indicated a net loss of $15.3 billion. BofA further confirmed that it would receive an additional $20 billion in assistance from the U.S. Government. Between January 15 and 20, 2009, BofA's stock lost a dramatic 50% of its value, declining from $10.20 per share on January 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per share on January 20, 2009. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, and/or which were omitted from the Registration Statement and/or from the Merger Proxy, were as follows: -- both the Company and Merrill Lynch failed to adequately reserve for mortgage-related exposure, causing their balance sheets and financial results to be artificially inflated; -- the Company and its advisors had failed to engage in proper due diligence in assessing the fairness of the deal with Merrill Lynch; -- the Company's acquisition of Merrill Lynch would have disastrous results on the Company's capital position and overall operations; -- Merrill Lynch had not substantially decreased its risk exposure to troubled mortgage-related assets; -- the significant deterioration of Merrill Lynch's financial position, including its substantial fourth quarter 2008 loss, were sufficient to trigger termination of the merger; -- the Company had to approach the U.S. Government for additional funding and financial guarantees in December 2008 in order to complete its acquisition of Merrill Lynch; and -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the subprime market and, as a result, BofA would be forced to seek government funding in order to raise significant amounts of additional capital. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BofA during the Class Period and who were damaged thereby, including all persons who acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering and/or who owned BofA stock on October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote on BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch pursuant to the Merger Proxy (the "Class"). For more details, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bofa/ COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of a proposed class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE:CNB) between January 23, 2008 through January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Colonial and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Colonial operates as the holding company for Colonial Bank, National Association, which provides commercial banking, wealth management services, mortgage banking, and insurance services in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Nevada and Texas. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, and concealed the Company's failure to properly account for its troubled loan portfolio and goodwill. As a result of defendants' false statements, Colonial's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $16.06 per share in February 2008. On January 27, 2009, after the market closed, the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2008 financial results, including a net loss of $825 million for the quarter due, in substantial part, to a $575 million goodwill impairment charge, a $415 million charge to write off troubled assets and an increase to its loan loss reserve. Colonial further disclosed that its receipt of funds from the U.S. Treasury's Capital Purchase Program was conditioned upon the Company raising an additional $300 million in equity. On this news, Colonial's stock dropped from $1.58 per share on January 27, 2009 to $0.85 per share on January 28, 2009, a one-day decline of over 46% on unusually large volume. For more information, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/ INTREPID POTASH: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/20/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid Potash" or the "Company") (NYSE: IPI) pursuant to the Company's initial public offering on April 21, 2008 though February 11, 2009. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's initial public offering the educational credentials of the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer were affirmatively misrepresented. According to the complaint, on February 11, 2009, after the Company revealed that the Company's President and COO had misrepresented his educational credentials and was resigning, the value of Intrepid Potash's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER, Feb. 21, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Dyer & Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired of the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid Potash" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) pursuant to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on April 21, 2008 through February 11, 2009 (the "Class"). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of their false statements in the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus regarding the educational credentials of the Company's President and COO. According to the complaint, on February 11, 2009, after the Company revealed that its President and COO had misrepresented his educational credentials and was resigning, the price of Intrepid Potash's securities declined significantly. 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 INTREPID POTASH: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, GA, Feb 20, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Intrepid securities who purchased pursuant or traceable to the April 21, 2008 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and misleading statements to the public in its Registration Statement and Prospectus. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's Registration Statement contained material misrepresentations concerning the educational background of its President and Chief Operating Officer who subsequently resigned from the Company following the disclosure. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com INTREPID POTASH: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on April 21, 2008 (the "Class"). The Complaint charges Intrepid Potash, as well as a current and a former executive officer of the Company with violations of federal securities laws. Intrepid Potash engages in the production and marketing of muriate of potash in the United States. The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus and Registration Statement (collectively the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's IPO, contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO") had not received a B.A. degree from the University of Colorado or a M.S. degree from Loyola Marymount University, as represented in the Registration Statement; and -- that the Company's President and COO had misrepresented his academic credentials in violation of the Company's Code of Business Conduct. On February 11, 2009, the Fraud Discovery Institute revealed that the Company's President and COO had misrepresented his educational qualifications in the Registration Statement issued in connection with Intrepid Potash's IPO. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.52 per share to close at $22.00 per share on February 11, 2009. This closing price on Intrepid Potash represented a cumulative loss of $10.00, approximately 31.25%, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months earlier. After the market closed on February 11, 2009, Intrepid Potash issued a press release disclosing that the Company's President and COO was resigning and confirmed that the statements contained in the Company's Registration Statement about the educational qualifications of the Company's President and COO were false and that the "misrepresentation of his academic credentials was a violation under the Company's Code of Business Conduct." For more information, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/ LEVEL 3 COMMS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com) has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (1:09-cv-00296-MSK), against Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) and certain officers of the company for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007 (the "Class Period"). Level 3 engages in the communications business in North America and Europe. Its network and internet services include transport services, high speed internet protocol services, dedicated internet access, virtual private network services, collocation services, and dark fiber services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and operations. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: -- that the Company's efforts to integrate the numerous acquired companies were not going well; -- that, specifically, the Company was experiencing an increase in service activation times, which was negatively impacting the Company's service installation intervals and the rate of its revenue growth; -- that the Company was also experiencing challenges in its service management processes that were resulting in longer response times to resolve customer's network service issues; -- that steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were not working and actually, further complicating the issues and making them worse; -- that, as a result, the Company did not have adequate provisioning capability to convert its increasing sales, or signed orders, into revenue generating service; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that, as a result of the above, the statements made by the Defendants during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages. For more details, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Barroway Topaz Announces Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- RADNOR, Pa., Feb 20, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following statement was issued by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel" or the "Company") between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Rigel and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rigel is a clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases. Rigel had been in the process of developing a drug compound known as R788 (the "Study") for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the R788 Study demonstrated an increase in certain patients' blood pressure, a potential indicator of an increase in cardiovascular risk, which had the potential to cause pharmaceutical companies to reconsider licensing the drug; -- that patients in the Study taking R788 experienced increased liver enzymes compared to those patients taking the placebo; -- that patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both the placebo and treated arms than U.S. Patients, which may have disproportionately contributed to the overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made; and -- that the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 13, 2007, the Company issued a press release which publicized positive results of a clinical trial of R788. The December 13, 2007 press release was also appended to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed that same day. In response to the positive news of the results of the Study, the price of Rigel's stock increased $17.95 per share to close at $25.95 per share on December 13, 2007, a 224% increase from the previous day's closing price of $8.00 per share. Subsequently, on or about January 31, 2008, the Company completed its Secondary Public Offering ("SPO"). In connection with its SPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement incorporated by reference the Company's December 13, 2007 press release detailing the results of the Study. The SPO was a financial success for the Company, as it sold more than 5 million shares of stock to investors at a price of $27 per share, for gross proceeds of $135 million. Thereafter, defendants continued to tout the positive results of the Phase II clinical trial of R788. However, on October 27, 2008 the Company shocked investors when it presented the full results of the Study at a meeting of the American College of Rheumatology ("ACR") and on an investor conference call. Those results contained adverse information that had been omitted form the Company's December 13, 2007 press release and Form 8-K, as well as from the Registration Statement and the subsequent presentations. Specifically, the Company disclosed that certain patients in the clinical trial taking the compound experienced an increase in blood pressure. Upon the release of this news, shares of the Company's stock plummeted $5.57 per share, or 38 percent, to close on October 28, 2008 at $8.84 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@btkmc.com ROYAL BANK: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com) is filing a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased 6.125% Series R Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares (the "Series R Shares") offered to the public by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS") (NYSE:RBS) in December 2006 and purchased any time thereafter. The lawsuit names as defendants RBS, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("Royal Bank," a subsidiary of RBS), RBS senior officers and directors, and underwriters of the Series R Shares. RBS is the holding company of one of the world's largest banking and financial services groups. Headquartered in Edinburgh, Scotland, RBS operates in the United Kingdom, the United States, and internationally through its two principal subsidiaries, the Royal Bank and NatWest. Both the Royal Bank and NatWest are major United Kingdom-based clearing banks. RBS offered the Series R Shares by means of a prospectus that contained both material misstatements and omissions. At the time of the offering, RBS was suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed to prospective investors. These adversities included: -- RBS's extensive portfolio of asset backed securities, including collateralized debt obligations, was impaired to a much larger extent than RBS had disclosed; -- RBS failed to properly record losses for these impaired assets; -- RBS's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the company from improperly reporting its debt securities; and -- RBS's capital base was inadequate to withstand the significant deterioration in the subprime market. RBS ultimately announced huge multi-billion pound impairment charges associated with its exposure to debt securities, including mortgage-related securities tied to the U.S. real estate markets. This caused the price of the Series R Shares to decline sharply. For more details, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 UBS AG: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD -- (eMediaWorld - February 20, 2009) -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of UBS AG ("UBS") (NYSE: UBS) between May 4, 2004 and January 26, 2009. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that its strategy to attract "Net New Money," touted by the Company as a primary indicator of the Company's performance and future prospects, was accomplished through a fraudulent scheme to help ultra high net worth U.S. investors evade federal taxes by secreting billions of dollars of their funds in "undeclared" Swiss bank accounts. According to the complaint, when the scheme was finally uncovered by U.S. authorities and UBS began disclosing the true nature of its Swiss banking business, the value of UBS's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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 * * *