/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 40 Headlines BEAZER HOMES: Briefing of Motion to Dismiss Suit to End in March BEAZER HOMES: Pursues Dismissal of RESPA Violations Suit in N.C. BEAZER HOMES: Pursuing Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit BEAZER HOMES: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in RESPA Action CITY OF PHOENIX: Iraq Veteran Files Suit Over Stabbing Incident COOK COUNTY: Ill. Judge Favors Ex-Inmates Ill. Strip Search Suit CORVEL CORP: Faces Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers DVI INC: April 15 Hearing Set for $7M Settlement in Pa. Lawsuit HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Plans Vigorous Defense v. Data Breach Suits INTEGRATED SILICON: 3 SRAM Direct Purchaser Suits Remain Pending SCOUT.COM LLC: July 14 Hearing Set for $5M Wash. Suit Settlement SYMANTEC CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Junked in 3Q08 SYMANTEC CORP: Objector's Appeal to Fees in Settlement Pending TELLABS INC: Ill. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: May 27 Hearing Set for $5.35M Suit Settlement TOYOTA MOTOR: To Seek Consolidation of Reese-Levering Lawsuits UGI CORP: Unit Continues to Face 2 Suits by The Swigers in W.Va. WAL-MART STORES: Mo. Judge Approves Wage, Hour Suit Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Colo. ********* BEAZER HOMES: Briefing of Motion to Dismiss Suit to End in March ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing of the motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and certain of its current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is expected to be completed in March 2009. The company and certain of its current and former executive officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class- action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27, 2006, and March 27, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to alleged improper lending practices in its mortgage origination business. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed on May 18 and 21, 2007, before the same district court, asserting similar factual allegations and proposing class periods of July 28, 2005, through March 27, 2007, and March 30, 2005, through March 27, 2007, respectively. The three cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs. On June 27, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, which purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the securities of Beazer Homes during the period Jan. 27, 2005, through May 12, 2008. The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company business and prospects, including, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged improper lending practices in the company's mortgage origination business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's land investments and inventory. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the suit is properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On Nov. 3, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Briefing of the motion is expected to be completed in March 2009, 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 "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com) Milberg LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-594-5300 Krissi T. Gore, Esq. (KGore@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 - and - Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 Representing the defendants are: Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com) Cravath Swaine & Moore 825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza New York, NY 10019-7475 Phone: 212-474-1227 BEAZER HOMES: Pursues Dismissal of RESPA Violations Suit in N.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and subsidiaries Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corp., continue to pursue the dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of Real Estate Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1. The putative class-action suit was filed on April 8, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 by: -- improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program, and -- illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement services sold by Beazer Homes Corp. The plaintiff also asserts that Beazer was unjustly enriched by these alleged actions. The purported class consists of all residents of North Carolina who purchased a home from Beazer, using mortgage financing provided by and through Beazer that included seller-funded down payment assistance, between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct. 11, 2007. The complaint demands an unspecified amount of damages, various forms of equitable relief, treble damages, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 4, 2008. On July 25, 2008, in lieu of a response to the dismissal motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint, according to its 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 "Davis v. Beazer Homes U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00247-UA-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Representing the plaintiffs is: Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq. (akf@lewis-roberts.com) Lewis & Roberts, PLLC POB 17529 Raleigh, NV 27619 Phone: 919-981-0191 Fax: 919-981-0431 Representing the defendants is: Kenneth D. Bell, Esq. (kbell@hunton.com) Hunton & Williams Bank of America Plaza 101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 3500 Charlotte, NC 28280 Phone: 704-378-4834 BEAZER HOMES: Pursuing Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Beazer Homes USA, Inc. pursues the dismissal of a consolidated class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On April 30, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes 401(k) Plan, naming Beazer Homes, certain of its current and former officers and directors and the Benefits Administration Committee as defendants. The complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties, including those set forth in ERISA as a result of the investment of retirement monies held by the 401(k) Plan in common stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants were allegedly not provided timely, accurate and complete information concerning Beazer Homes. Four additional lawsuits were subsequently filed in May, June and July 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, making similar allegations. The court consolidated all five lawsuits and, on June 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants Beazer Homes, its chief executive officer, certain current and former directors of the company, including the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and certain employees of the company who acted as members of the company's 401(k) Committee. On Oct. 10, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Briefing of the motion was completed in January 2009, 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: Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-00952-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Richard W. Story, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Katherine B. Bornstein, Esq. (kbornstein@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-676-7706 - and - Corey Daniel Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com) Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 770-392-0090 Representing the defendants are: Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com) Cravath Swaine & Moore 825 Eighth Avenue Worldwide Plaza New York, NY 10019-7475 Phone: 212-474-1227 - and - John J. Dalton, Esq. (john.dalton@troutmansanders.com) Troutman Sanders, LLP Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Phone: 404-885-3000 BEAZER HOMES: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in RESPA Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Beazer Homes USA Inc., and Security Title Insurance Co. have filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a purported class-action suit alleging violations of Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA). The suit was filed on March 12, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Placer. The complaint was amended on June 2, 2008. The purported class is defined as all persons who purchased a home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the assistance of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25, 1999, to the present where Security Title Insurance Co. received any money as a reinsurer of the transaction. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and asserts claims under a number of state statutes alleging that the defendants engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of giving and accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses including affiliated and recommended title insurance companies. It also alleges a number of common law claims. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages under RESPA, unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants removed the action to federal court. On Nov. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which substituted new named plaintiffs. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on Jan. 9, 2009, 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. Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs, sells and builds primarily single-family homes in over 45 markets located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Through Beazer Mortgage Corp., the Company offered mortgage origination services to its homebuyers. On Feb. 1, 2008, Beazer effectively exited the mortgage origination business. In addition, it offers title insurance services to its homebuyers in many of the Company's markets. Beazer is a diversified homebuilder with operations in 21 states. CITY OF PHOENIX: Iraq Veteran Files Suit Over Stabbing Incident --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Okon, a decorated Iraq war veteran has filed a class- action lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona, over an incident wherein he was stabbed by a deported illegal immigrant in his very own front yard in 2006, Sandra Haros of KTAR reports. Mr. Okon and his wife filed a class action lawsuit against the city and the Phoenix Police Department. Some of the allegations in this civil rights' action include gross negligence in the enforcement of immigration laws and civil rights violations, according to the KTAR report. The suit alleges that the suspect had an active warrant and the Phoenix Police Department knew about it at the time of the attack, KTAR reported. COOK COUNTY: Ill. Judge Favors Ex-Inmates Ill. Strip Search Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has ruled in favor of several thousand former Cook County Jail inmates who claimed their rights were violated by being strip-searched in humiliating conditions, The Chicago Tribune reports. The class-action lawsuit alleges that over a period of years, strip searches were conducted without regard to the seriousness of the crime and that bodily fluids were present during these searches for years, according to The Chicago Tribune report. It also alleges that guards used abusive language that included insults about anatomy, body odor and sexual orientation during the strip searches, according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune reported Judge Kennelly found the jail humiliated inmates, with group searches with up to 100 inmates at a time standing shoulder-to-shoulder in unsanitary conditions, according to the news release issued by attorney Michael Kanovitz, who filed the lawsuit. CORVEL CORP: Faces Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers ------------------------------------------------------------ CorVel Corp. intends to pursue all available legal remedies including defending the putative class-action lawsuit filed by Kathleen Roche, D.C., 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. In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the company. The case seeks unspecified damages based on the company's alleged failure to steer patients to medical providers who are members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleges that the company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review medical providers' bills. In December 2007, the court certified a class in this case of all Illinois health care providers with CorVel PPO agreements, excluding hospitals. In January 2008, CorVel filed with the Illinois Appellate Court a petition for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's class certification order which was denied in April 2008. In May 2008, the company appealed the appellate court's denial of its petition for interlocutory appeal which appeal was also denied by the Illinois Supreme Court in September 2008. CorVel Corporation -- http://www.corvel.com/-- is an independent nationwide provider of medical cost containment and managed care services designed to manage the medical costs of workers' compensation and other healthcare benefits, primarily for coverage under group health and auto insurance policies. The company's services are sold as separate services directed toward managing claims, care, networks, reimbursements and settlements. They include automated medical fee auditing, preferred provider networks, out-of-network/line-item bill negotiation and repricing, utilization review and management, medical case management, vocational rehabilitation services, early intervention, Medicare set-asides and life-care planning, and a variety of directed care services, including independent medical examinations, diagnostic imaging, transportation and translation, and durable medical equipment. Such services are provided to insurance companies, third-party administrators (TPAs) and self-administered employers. DVI INC: April 15 Hearing Set for $7M Settlement in Pa. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on April 15, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. for the proposed $7,000,000 settlement by Thomas J. Pritzker and The Pritzker Organization, LLC in the matter, "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Case Background In 2003, DVI, Inc., was named defendant in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2008). The suit alleged that the company issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between Nov. 7, 2001, and June 27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's publicly traded securities. The complaint alleged that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented these adverse facts, among others: -- that the company had failed to timely write down the value of certain assets which had become impaired; -- that the company's accounting and financial reporting policies and procedures for non-systematic (non- recurring) transactions were inadequate; -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the company; and -- that as a result, the values of the company's assets, net income and earnings per share were materially overstated at all relevant times. The class period ended June 27, 2003. On that date, DVI shocked the investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003 quarterly report because an independent auditor had not reviewed it. The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically reduced. Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share for the nine months ended March 31, 2003, was reduced by $0.10, or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, was reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%, reduced the company's net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003. Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very high trading volume. The class consists of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9 7/8% Senior Notes), between Aug. 10, 1999, and Aug. 13, 2003, both dates inclusive. The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D. Davis presiding. For more information, contact: Clint Krislov, Esq. (Clint@krislovlaw.com) Krislov & Associates, Ltd. Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-606-0500 Fax:312-606-0207 Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com - and - In re: DVI Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 Phone: (610) 565-9202 Web site: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?39dc HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Plans Vigorous Defense v. Data Breach Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Heartland Payment Systems, which announced a breach of potentially millions of credit and debit cards in January, said it plans to vigorously defend itself against lawsuits filed against it as a result of the data breach, Robert Westervelt of SearchFinancialSecurity.com reports. In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Heartland Chairman and CEO Robert Carr acknowledged the claims that cardholders, card issuers, the credit card brands, regulators, and others have asserted, or may assert, against the payment processor as a result of the breach and the impact it could have on the business, reports SearchFinancialSecurity.com. SearchFinancialSecurity.com reported that several class-action lawsuits have been filed against Heartland, claiming that the payment processor issued belated and inaccurate statements when it announced a security breach of its systems. One lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by Chimicles & Tikellis LLP on behalf of Alicia Cooper, a resident of Woodbury, Minn., and others who might have been affected by the breach (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009). A second lawsuit, which BankInfoSecurity.com previously reported, was filed by the law firm of Berger & Montague filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2009). A third lawsuit, which BankInfoSecurity.com previously reported, was filed by Sheller P.C. of Philadelphia, PA in a New Jersey court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2009). Mr. Carr states that the company could not "reasonably estimate the potential impact of the breach on the day-to-day operations" of the business, SearchFinancialSecurity.com reported. In response to the allegations in the lawsuits, Mr. Carr states, "We intend to vigorously defend any such claims and we believe we have meritorious defenses to those claims that have been asserted to date. At this time we do not have information that would enable us to reasonably estimate the amount of losses we might incur in connection with such claims," according to the SearchFinancialSecurity.com report. Computerworld previously reported that the Princeton, New Jersey-based processor of payment card transactions, disclosed on Jan. 27, 2009 that its systems had been broken into by unknown intruders sometime last year. The company claimed that the intrusion -- which some are calling the biggest ever -� was discovered only earlier this month (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009). Visa and MasterCard alerted Heartland of suspicious transaction activity, triggering Heartland to conduct its own forensic investigation, during which the intrusion was discovered, reports Computerworld. According to the company, the intruders planted sophisticated sniffer software in its network and stolen data as cards were being processed. INTEGRATED SILICON: 3 SRAM Direct Purchaser Suits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., continues to face three lawsuits brought by direct purchasers in the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of static random access memory products. Initially, 33 purported class-action lawsuits were filed by U.S. Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. Federal courts, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The suits seek treble damages for the alleged damages sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from 29 of the 33 pending lawsuits pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs. The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is terminated according to terms specified in that agreement. On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from one more lawsuit, which was brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs. However, it remains a defendant in three remaining suits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2008). The company reported no further development in the matter in its Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high- performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications and automotive electronics. The company's primary products are high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low- and medium-density dynamic random access memory. It also designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory, SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card reader- writers, and wireless chipsets. SCOUT.COM LLC: July 14 Hearing Set for $5M Wash. Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington will hold a fairness hearing on July 14, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. For the proposed $5,274,170 settlement by Scout.com LLC and Scout Publishing, LLC in the matter, "Bucknuts LLC et al. v. Scout Media Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00737-RSM." Case Background Publishers of Internet sites devoted to high school sports filed a class-action against Scout Media, Fox Interactive Media and three individuals, accusing them of unfair and deceptive trade, securities violations and criminal profiteering (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007). The plaintiffs Bucknuts, Inside Tx, The Bootleg and OU Insider brought the action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of a class of all persons, companies, or other entities that owned or provided content for a website in the Scout Internet Network and were parties to a Network Affiliate Agreement with Scout.com (or its predecessors) between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007. They also bring this action on behalf of other Magazine Publishers in a class defined as all persons, companies, or other entities that owned or provide content for a magazine in the Scout Magazine Network and were parties to a Magazine Content, License, Publishing, and Marketing Agreement with Scout Publishing between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007. The complaint alleges that in early 2001, defendants began approaching several independent internet publishers to solicit them to join a network of websites to be operated by Scout.com. According to the suit, the Internet Publishers Class consists of approximately 300 persons, companies, or other entities that owned or provided content for a website in the Scout Internet Network and were parties to an Affiliate Agreement with Scout.com between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007. These Affiliate Agreements are accordingly substantially identical, under which the Internet Publishers and Scout.com worked together to establish and maintain a network of website dedicated to high school, college and professional athletes. The Internet Publishers were required to provide certain insider content for their websites and Scout.com was required to maintain the network of websites and provide certain national content that would be available on all of the websites. The Affiliate Agreements place uniform obligations on Scout.com to pay a percentage of resulting subscription, advertising, e- commerce, and syndication revenue to the Internet Publishers. The complaint alleges that Scout Media, which is the sole owner of Scout.com and Scout Publishing, have engaged in the following unlawful acts to benefit themselves: (a) defendants caused Scout.com and Scout Publishing to take action that did not properly compensate the Internet and Magazine publishers and have deceived those publishers regarding the amounts that they were owed; and (b) defendants induced each Internet Publisher to sign agreements with Scout.com by falsely promising that the Internet Publishers would have a 10% ownership interest in Scout Media. Common questions of law and fact common that the purported class raise, include: (i) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a method for allocating subscription revenue under Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (ii) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a method for allocating advertising revenue under Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (iii) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a method for allocating syndication revenue under Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (iv) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a method for e-commerce under Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (v) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement a method for allocating subscription revenue under Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (vi) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement a method for allocating newsstand revenue under Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (vii) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement a method for allocating advertising revenue under Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice; and (viii) whether defendants committed fraud or unfair or deceptive trade practices when they promised the Internet Publishers a 10% interest in Scout Media, but failed to disclose the material facts that that 10% interest had already been significantly diluted and subject to further dilution. Contemporaneously with the filing of this action, plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class-action complaint with the American Arbitration Association against Scout.com, Scout Publishing, Scout Media and Fox Interactive. In that arbitration, plaintiffs allege among other things that respondents violated Washington law by: (a) implementing accounting systems that did not properly compensate internet and magazine publishers and deceived those publishers regarding amounts that they were owed; (b) inducing each internet publisher to sign an Affiliate Agreement with Scout.com by falsely promising that the Internet Publishers would have a 10% ownership interest in Scout Media; and (c) failing to satisfy performance obligations in their Agreements. Plaintiffs ask the court to: -- certify the Internet Publisher Class; -- certify the Magazine Publisher Class; -- appoint plaintiffs to be class representatives; -- appoint plaintiffs' counsel to be the class counsel; -- award damages to plaintiffs and each class member; -- award three times the damages sustained to plaintiffs and each class member; -- enjoin defendants from engaging in further unlawful activity; -- award prejudgment and postjudgment interest to the Internet and Magazine Publishers; -- award plaintiffs and each class member the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- grant to plaintiffs and each class member such further relief to which they are entitled to. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f66 The suit is "Bucknuts LLC et al. v. Scout Media Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00737-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, presiding. For more details, contact: Jeffrey M. Thomas, Esq. (jthomas@gordontilden.com) Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP 1001 4TH AVE, STE 4000 Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 - and - CAC Services Group, LLC P.O. Box 1939 Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Phone: 1-800-951-7346 e-mail: info@cacservicesgroup.com Web site: http://cacservicesgroup.com/ SYMANTEC CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Junked in 3Q08 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Veritas Software Corp. -- which was recently acquired by Symantec Corp. -- was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California during the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2008. After Veritas announced in January 2003 that it would restate its financial results as a result of transactions entered into with AOL Time Warner in September 2000, numerous separate complaints purporting to be class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Veritas and some of its officers and directors violated provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints contain varying allegations, including that Veritas made materially false and misleading statements with respect to its 2000, 2001 and 2002 financial results included in its filings with the SEC, press releases and other public disclosures. A consolidated complaint entitled, "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation Securities Litigation" was filed by the lead plaintiff on July 18, 2003. On Feb. 18, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in the class-action suit. On March 18, 2005, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, a $35 million settlement fund was established on March 25, 2005. Veritas' insurance carriers funded the entire amount of the settlement fund. In July 2007, the Court of Appeals vacated the settlement, finding that the notice of settlement was inadequate. The matter has been returned to the District Court for further proceedings, including reissuance of the notice. The District Court again approved the settlement and dismissed the matter, according to Symantec Corp's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009. The suit is "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-283-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M. Chesney, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Luke O Brooks, Esq. (lukeb@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 - and - Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com) Green Welling LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 SYMANTEC CORP: Objector's Appeal to Fees in Settlement Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An objector's appeal to the fees portion of the $21.5-million settlement in the consolidated lawsuit "Paul Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 00831-SLR," is pending. VERITAS Software Corp. has been acquired by Symantec Corp. The purported class action complaint was filed on July 7, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the company's announcement on July 6, 2004, that it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, to fall below earlier estimates. It generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Subsequently, additional purported class-action complaints have been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating these actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period from April 23, 2004, through July 6, 2004. The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named officers made false or misleading statements in the company's press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the company's financial results, which allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were unsigned or lacked essential terms. The defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which request was denied by the court in May 2006. In April 2008, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement in order to resolve the matter. The court held a hearing and, on Aug. 5, 2008, entered an order approving the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the company established a settlement fund of $21.5 million on May 1, 2008. An objector to the fees portion of the settlement has lodged an appeal, according to Symantec Corp's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009. The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com) Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess Citizens Bank Center Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Phone: 302-656-4433 Representing the defendants are: Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq. (efinnegan@crosslaw.com) Cross & Simon, LLC 913 North Market Street 11th Floor, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-777-4200 Fax: 302-777-4224 - and - Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. (pwalsh@potteranderson.com) Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr. P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 Phone: 302-984-6037 Fax: 302-658-1192 TELLABS INC: Ill. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amy St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted class-action status to a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against telecommunications supplier Tellabs, Inc., Law360 reports. On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Directors Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs) (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 10, 2008). Eight similar complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of the company's current or former officers and directors. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001), the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in its financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the company's securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about the company pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief. The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., f/k/a/ Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv- 04356," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Richard H. Weiss, Esq. (rweiss@milbergweiss.com) Milberg Weiss LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-946-9304 Fax: 212-273-4401 Representing the defendants is: David F. Graham, Esq. (dgraham@sidley.com) Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-7000 TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: May 27 Hearing Set for $5.35M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on May 27, 2009, at 12:00 p.m. For the proposed $5,350,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Tower Automotive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-01926 (RWS)." The hearing will be held at the David Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18C, New York, New York 10007, before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, United States District Judge. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired Tower's securities between Aug. 14, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2005, inclusive, and alleges violations by certain current and former officers and directors of Tower of federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007). For more details, contact: Tower Automotive Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael CA 94912-8040 Phone: (800) 654-5763 Web site: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?39db Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. Vianale & Vianale LLP 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Phone: (561) 392-4750 Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com/ - and - Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/ TOYOTA MOTOR: To Seek Consolidation of Reese-Levering Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Motor Credit Corp. intends to seek consolidation of nearly identical class-action lawsuits over alleged violations of the Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California. Initially two separate lawsuits were filed. The first lawsuit, "Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," is a cross- complaint, alleging a class action, filed on January 2007 in the Superior Court of California Stanilaus County. It claims that the company's post-repossession notice failed to comply with the Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California. The second cross-complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California San Francisco County, alleging a class action. The suit, "Aquilar and Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," was filed in February 2008 and contains similar allegations claiming that the company's post-repossession notices failed to comply with Reese-Levering. The plaintiffs in the Aguilar matter are seeking injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as damages. The company has filed a petition to consolidate these cases as they present nearly identical questions of law and fact. The cases have been consolidated in Stanislaus County as they present nearly identical questions of law and fact. A complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of California San Diego County, "McNess v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," filed in September 2008, contains similar allegations claiming that the company's post-repossession notice failed to comply with Reese-Levering. An additional complaint alleging a class-action suit in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, "Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, " filed in December 2008, also contains similar allegations claiming that the Company's post repossession notice failed to comply with Reese-Levering. The plaintiffs in the McNess and Smith cases are seeking injunctive relief and restitution. The Company intends to seek consolidation of the McNess and Smith cases with the Garcia Cases as they present nearly identical questions of law and fact, 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. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/-- provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. It also provides finance products to commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment dealers) and their customers. TMCC provides a range of finance products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their customers. It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle dealers and their customers. TMCC also provide coverage and related administrative services to its affiliates. The company is wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA). UGI CORP: Unit Continues to Face 2 Suits by The Swigers in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corp.'s subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP"), faces two purported class action lawsuits filed by Samuel and Brenda Swiger and their son (the "Swigers") in West Virginia. The Swigers sustained personal injuries and property damage as a result of a fire that occurred when propane that leaked from an underground line ignited. In July 1998, the Swigers filed a class action lawsuit against AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (named incorrectly as "UGI/AmeriGas, Inc."), in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, in which they sought to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees, for themselves and on behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom the defendants had installed propane gas lines, resulting from the defendants' alleged failure to install underground propane lines at depths required by applicable safety standards. In 2003, AmeriGas OLP settled the individual personal injury and property damage claims of the Swigers. In 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to include customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as additional potential class members and the plaintiffs amended their complaint to name additional parties pursuant to such ruling. Subsequently, in March 2005, AmeriGas OLP filed a crossclaim against CEG, former owner of Columbia Propane, seeking indemnification for conduct undertaken by Columbia Propane prior to AmeriGas OLP's acquisition. Class counsel has indicated that the class is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12 million plus punitive damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In 2005, the Swigers filed what purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In the Harrison County lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Swigers have also requested that the Court rule that insurance coverage exists under the policies issued by the defendant insurance companies for damages sustained by the members of the class in the Monongalia County lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Harrison County has not certified the class in the Harrison County lawsuit at this time and, in October 2008, stayed that lawsuit pending resolution of the class action lawsuit in Monongalia County, 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. UGI Corp. -- http://www.ugicorp.com/-- is a holding company, which through its subsidiaries and joint venture affiliates, distributes and markets energy products and related services. The company is a domestic and international retail distributor of propane and butane; a provider of natural gas and electric service through regulated local distribution utilities; a generator of electricity; a regional marketer of energy commodities; and a regional provider of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration and electrical contracting services. The segments of the company include AmeriGas Propane, International Propane, Gas Utility, Electric Utility and Energy Services. The company conducts the international liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) distribution business in Europe through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Antargaz and Flaga. WAL-MART STORES: Mo. Judge Approves Wage, Hour Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A Missouri judge has preliminarily approved a settlement of up to $90 million in a wage and hour class-action suit against Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., Greg Griffin of The Denver Post reports. Denver attorney Steve Long of Polsinelli Shughart, Esq., represented the class of more than 178,000 current and former Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees in Missouri with a team that included Denver lawyers Frank Azarm Esq, and Gerald Bader, Esq., according to The Denver Post. The lawsuit accused the company of forcing employees to work off the clock, changing employee time cards and preventing workers from taking breaks, reports The Denver Post. The Denver Post reported that the new settlement is part of an agreement reached in December 2008 in which Wal-Mart settled 63 class-action lawsuits nationwide for $352 million to $640 million. New Securities Fraud Cases COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP announces that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial") (NYSE: CNB) common stock during the period of December 2, 2008 through January 27, 2009. 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 approved funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). According to the complaint, the defendants knew but concealed from the investing public that the U.S. Government's approval to provide Colonial with $550 million in funding as announced on December 2, 2008 was conditioned upon Colonial raising an additional $300 million in capital from outside sources. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, Colonial's stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period. On December 2, 2008, Colonial announced that it had received TARP funding approval of $550 million. In response to that announcement, the Company's stock price surged to $2 per share. Colonial, however, failed to disclose that as a prerequisite to receiving the funding, the Company would have to raise outside capital of $300 million. When Colonial finally announced this condition after the markets closed on January 27, 2009, the Company's stock price plunged from a close of $1.58 on January 27, 2009 to $0.85 the next trading day - a 46% drop on volume exceeding 26 million shares. For more information, contact: Finkelstein Thompson LLP The Duvall Foundry 1050 30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 877-337-1050 (toll free) Fax: 202-337-8090 e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com/ DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- February 24, 2009 02:52 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/deutschepreferred/)announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who acquired the 6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII ("6.375% Securities") (NYSE:DUA) and/or the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X ("7.35% Securities") (NYSE:DCE) (collectively, the "Securities") pursuant or traceable to materially false and misleading registration statements and prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration Statements") issued in connection with the October 2006 and November 2007 offerings, respectively, of the Securities. The complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG ("DB" or the "Company"), certain of its subsidiaries, its senior insiders and the investment banks that underwrote the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. DB is an investment bank headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, which has offices in the United States. The complaint alleges that in October of 2006, DB consummated the offering of the 6.375% Securities pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement, selling 24 million 6.375% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $600 million. Then, in November 2007, DB consummated the offering of the 7.35% Securities pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement, selling 32.2 million 7.35% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $805 million. After the Offerings, on January 14, 2009, DB issued a press release announcing disappointing fourth quarter 2008 financial results, including a loss after taxes of EUR4.8 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008, reflecting market conditions that severely impacted results in the sales and trading businesses, "most notably in Credit Trading including its proprietary trading business, Equity Derivatives and Equities Proprietary Trading." As a result of this disclosure, the prices of the Securities fell dramatically. According to the complaint, the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were false and misleading because they omitted the following true facts: -- the Company failed to properly record provisions for credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline insurers; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent it from improperly recording provisions for credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate loans, and the Company's exposure to monoline insurers; -- the Company's internal risk management systems were inadequate to limit the Company's exposure to credit trading, equity derivatives, and proprietary equity trading; and -- the Company was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would have to raise an additional �10 billion by selling equity in the Company to the German government. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings (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 e-mail: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/deutschepreferred/ OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Colo. --------------------------------------------------------------- SEATTLE, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif)filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Colorado against Oppenheimer Funds on behalf of investors. The suit, captioned "Ron Jansen v. Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.," filed in U.S. District Court of Colorado, is on behalf of two classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period of Nov. 1, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2008. The suit claims Oppenheimer, which runs the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund ("The Fund"), misled investors about the Fund's investment style and risky investments resulting in an 82 percent collapse of the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (OPCHX), B Shares (OCHBX), C Shares (OCHCX), N Shares (OCHNX) and Y Shares (OCHYX). The lawsuit alleges defendants marketed and sold the fund as a conservative high-income fund, portraying it as diversified and higher yielding. Plaintiff's claim fund managers failed to disclose the true risk of the fund, which took gambles on mortgage-backed securities and illiquid derivatives that ultimately led to the fund's collapse. Beginning in July 2008, shares declined as did other high- yield funds as the credit crunch exposed the volatility and collapse of mortgage-related investments. The Champion Fund continued to fall further as Lehman Brothers Holdings and other institutions collapsed. Overall, the Fund experienced an 82 percent drop. Compared to other high-yield funds that averaged a drop of 32 percent in 2008, The Champion Fund experienced an almost $2 billion drop in assets in 15 months. The complaint sites several misleading representations of the fund from defendants including, 'In selecting securities for the Fund, the overall strategy is to build a broadly diversified portfolio to help moderate the special risks of investing in high-yield debt instruments.' Plaintiffs claim the fund collapsed because fund managers targeted highly risky derivatives in an effort to 'pump returns.' Hagens Berman seeks to represent two classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period. The lawsuit represents investors who purchased or held shares between Nov. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008. The suit contends Oppenheimer violated state laws when it changed the fund's fundamental policies, a move requiring the vote of a majority of the fund's outstanding voting securities. The fund's policy says it cannot invest 25 percent or more of its total assets in one industry. The suit claims in late 2006, the fund concentrated more than 25 percent of its total assets in high-risk mortgage backed securities and failed to obtain approval from a majority of shareholders. For more information, contact: Reed Kathrein Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (510) 725-3000 e-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com or oppenheimer@hbsslaw.com Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif ********* 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 * * *