/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090309.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 47 Headlines BECKMAN COULTER: Awaits Approval of Calif. Labor Suit Settlement CEPHALON INC: Bids to Dismiss PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits Pending CEPHALON INC: Continues to Face Suits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug CHASE BANK: Green Welling Files Calif. Consumer Suits Over Loans CHOCOLATE MAKERS: Pa. Court Denies Motion v. Price Fixing Suit CNA FINANCIAL: Appeal v. Approval of "Shaffer" Deal Pending FMC CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Antitrust Violations FMC CORP: Settlement of Antitrust Suit in Tenn. Approved in Nov. INTEL CORP: Lawsuits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices Pending INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: June 1 Hearing Set for $5M Suit Agreement KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dropped as Party in Calif. Antitrust Suits KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CRT Purchasers' Amended Suits Due March 9 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Unit to Oppose Claim Over CRTs in Canada MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits PRIMEO SELECT: Stull Stull Files Investors' Lawsuit in New York PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Conn. Judge Sides with Firm in 401(k) Suit New Securities Fraud Cases BARCLAYS BANK: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* BECKMAN COULTER: Awaits Approval of Calif. Labor Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that Beckman Coulter, Inc. violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders is pending final court approval. On Aug. 16, 2007, a former employee of the company filed a lawsuit in Orange County California Superior Court, entitled, "Davila v. Beckman Coulter." The lawsuit asserts claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class of former and current Beckman Coulter employees. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks and rest periods, the payment of compensation for meal breaks and rest periods not taken, the information shown on pay stubs, and certain overtime payments. It also alleges that the company engaged in unfair business practices. The plaintiff is seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees, and seeks to certify the suit on behalf of the company's non-exempt California employees. Recently, six additional former employees have sought permission from the court to be added as class representatives (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2008). The six additional former employees were added as class representatives. The parties have settled this matter, subject to final Court approval, with the Company to pay an aggregate sum of $2.25 million to settle all claims of the company's California non- exempt employees, including attorney's fees, class representative enhancements, costs, and penalties. The $2.25 million will be shared by the class pursuant to a formula that factors in the percentage of each class member's total compensation paid by the company during the class period compared to the total compensation paid by us to all class members during the class period. Payments to the class will be made on a "claims made" basis, i.e., class members must submit a valid and timely claim form in order to participate in the settlement and be paid. In exchange, all settling class members will effectively release the company from any claims, known or unknown, which relate to their wage claims with Beckman Coulter. Since the court has preliminarily approved the settlement, a claims administrator will begin the process of compiling data relating to the class members and sending notice and claim forms to the class members. Assuming the court provides final approval of the settlement, this matter should be settled, class members paid and the company released within the next five to six months, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Beckman Coulter, Inc. -- http://www.beckman.com/-- is a manufacturer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and supplies that simplify and automate laboratory processes. It designs, manufactures and sells systems, services, reagents and supplies to clinical and life science laboratories worldwide. CEPHALON INC: Bids to Dismiss PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cephalon, Inc.; Barr Laboratories Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA; and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. continue to pursue the dismissal of lawsuits filed over their PROVIGIL patent case settlements. Initially, certain private parties brought a number of civil antitrust complaints, purportedly filed as class-action suits against the defendants. The suits claim, among other things, that the patent litigation settlements concerning PROVIGIL violate the antitrust laws of the U.S. and certain state laws. The suits have been recently consolidated into one complaint on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a separate complaint on behalf of a class of consumers and other indirect purchasers of PROVIGIL. A separate complaint filed by an indirect purchaser of PROVIGIL was filed in September 2007. The plaintiffs in all of the actions are seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. The company moved to dismiss the class action complaints in November 2006 and those motions are still pending. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human diseases. The company's focuses its efforts in four core therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain, cancer and addiction. In addition to conducting an active research and development program, it markets six products in the U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe. CEPHALON INC: Continues to Face Suits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug -------------------------------------------------------------- Cephalon, Inc., continues to face several class-action complaints over its ACTIQ cancer drug, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The company markets and sells ACTIQ, the only appropriate medical use of which is the management of breakthrough cancer in patients with malignancies who are already receiving and who are tolerant to opioid therapy for their underlying persistent cancer pain. In other words, the FDA approved ACTIQ for a narrow class of patients: cancer patients whose pain could not be managed with other narcotic based drugs. In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative class-action complaints filed on behalf of entities that claim to have purchased ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's approved label in non-cancer patients. The complaints allege violations of various state consumer protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and treble damages, with interest, and disgorgement of profits. In May 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that also allege violations of RICO and conspiracy to violate RICO. In February 2009, the company was served with an additional putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health and welfare trust funds that claim to have purchased GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside of the products' approved labels. The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive, and/or treble damages, with interest. Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human diseases. The company's focuses its efforts in four core therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain, cancer and addiction. In addition to conducting an active research and development program, it markets six products in the U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe. CHASE BANK: Green Welling Files Calif. Consumer Suits Over Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:45:36 GMT -- SAN FRANCISCO -- (Business Wire) Green Welling LLP filed two class action lawsuits regarding promotional offers from Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase") that promised a low interest rate for the life of the loan or until paid off. The parent company of Chase is J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ("J.P. Morgan – NYSE: JPM). Chase credit card customers allege in the complaints that they were offered balance transfer loans or loans in the form of blank checks that were connected to but with different terms than the credit cards. The Plaintiffs also claim that the promotional rate loans offered by Chase had terms that were at low interest rates usually with APR's or interest rates set at 2.99% or 3.99% "for the life of the loan." Chase used the promise of these low fixed rates for the life of the loan to induce consumers to transfer their balances from other credit card accounts to a Chase account, according to one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys, Robert Green. Most people paid a substantial balance transfer fee to Chase to lock in the promotional rates for as long as there was a balance remaining on the transferred amounts, he said. In November 2008, Chase sent its customers a notice stating that the minimum monthly payments would go up by 150%, from 2% of the balance to 5% of the balance, according to the document. The notice of change in terms sent by Chase also added a new finance charge misleadingly described as an "Account Service Charge of $10 a month." This new $120 annual account finance charge effectively increases the customers' interest rates, Mr. Green said. The cases are filed in the federal courts in the District of Oregon and the Central District of California. The actions seek to return the accounts of card holders to their original promised terms and to obtain damages for additional amounts that card holders were required to pay in violation of the promises made by Chase. The lawsuits also seek to address the unfair provisions placed in the cardmember agreements by Chase that purport to require cardholders to individually arbitrate their claims and try to prevent cardholders from joining together in a class action to vindicate their legal rights. For more details, contact: Robert S. Green, Esq. (gw@classcounsel.com) Green Welling LLP Phone: 415-477-6700 web site: http://www.classcounsel.com/ CHOCOLATE MAKERS: Pa. Court Denies Motion v. Price Fixing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to throw out a lawsuit accusing the U.S. chocolate industry of price fixing and gave the plaintiffs additional time to prove their claims, Pete Shellem of The Patriot-News reports. In his 83-page opinion issued on March 4, 2009, Judge Conner denied most of the motions to dismiss filed by the chocolate companies, including The Hershey Co., except for some claims under state consumer laws, reports The Patriot-News. He said the plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to allow claims of antitrust violations to proceed and granted them additional time to tie in the actions of the companies' foreign subsidiaries to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts, according to The Patriot-News report. The 87 class-action lawsuits filed across the country were consolidated and assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by an administrative order citing Hershey's headquarters in the area. The Patriot-News reported that the lawsuits against Hershey, Mars, Cadbury and Nestle, which collectively control 75 percent of the chocolate market in the U.S., allege the companies conspired to raise chocolate candy prices by about 10 percent in December 2002, 6 percent in December 2004, and 5 percent in April 2007. CNA FINANCIAL: Appeal v. Approval of "Shaffer" Deal Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal from an order approving the settlement reached in the purported class-action lawsuit "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK," which names CNA Financial Corp. -- an 89%-owned subsidiary of Loews Corp. -- and Continental Casualty Co., as defendants, is being briefed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is a class action suit filed on behalf of certain California long term health care policyholders, alleging that CCC and CNAF knowingly used unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies, which according to plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate premium increases (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007). The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of various California statutes. Both defendants have denied the material allegations of the amended complaint and intended to vigorously contest the claims. On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a class action suit. The defendants have appealed the grant of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an interlocutory basis. In April 2007, the Court denied CCC's and CNAF's motions for summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to the plaintiff's claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which was dismissed. The claim under CLRA involved a provision for claims of awards for attorneys' fees and enhanced damages. In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim. In July 2007, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On Oct. 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to resolve the case. On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties entered into a binding agreement settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint. Under the settlement agreement, CCC will provide certain enhanced benefits to eligible class members including certain non-forfeiture benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and free health screenings. Following a fairness hearing, the Court entered an order approving the settlement. This order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. At present the appeal is being briefed. No oral argument has yet been scheduled, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 23, 2009. The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. (wkreger@maklawyers.com) Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-396-9600 - and - Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com) Neblett Beard and Arsenault 2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309-1190 Phone: 318-487-9874 Representing the defendants are: Brent R. Austin, Esq. (austin@wildmanharrold.com) Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606-1229 Phone: 312-201-2848 - and - Stan Karas, Esq. (stankaras@quinnemanuel.com) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: 213-443-3000 FMC CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Antitrust Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corp. continues to face putative class-action complaints alleging violations of antitrust laws in various jurisdictions. In February 2005, putative class-action complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide producers (and certain of their foreign affiliates) in various federal courts alleging violations of antitrust laws. Related cases were also filed in various state courts. All of the federal court cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court certified the class in January 2007. On Dec. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court. FMC then reached an agreement in principle to settle with the class for $10 million, subject to final documentation and approval by the Court. The Court has already finally approved settlements with four of the six original defendant groups, who collectively paid approximately $90 million. Seventeen companies (predominantly paper producers) have opted out of certain of the settlements with other defendants. Certain of the defendants in the class action have settled those opt out claims for undisclosed amounts. Six of the 17 opt outs have filed suit against FMC and Foret in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one has sued FMC as well as two other producers. These cases have been assigned to the same judge as the class action. Two other opt out cases have been pending for some time against FMC and other hydrogen peroxide producers, and in August 2008, Foret was added as a defendant to these cases. The stay of all these actions entered by the District Court during the class certification appeal remains in place. Most of the state court cases have been dismissed, although some remain in California. In addition, putative class actions have been filed in provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada. A motion for class certification is pending, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. FMC Corp. -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified, global chemical company providing solutions, applications and products to a variety of markets. It operates in three segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. Its Agricultural Products segment focuses on insecticides, which are used in agriculture to enhance crop yield and quality by controlling a range of insects and weeds. Specialty Chemicals consists of FMC's BioPolymer and lithium businesses, and focuses on food ingredients that are used to enhance texture, structure and physical stability, pharmaceutical additives for binding, encapsulation and disintegrant applications, ultrapure technologies for medical devices and lithium specialties for pharmaceutical synthesis, specialty polymers and energy storage. Its Industrial Chemicals segment manufactures a range of inorganic materials, including soda ash, hydrogen peroxide, specialty peroxygens and phosphorus chemicals. FMC CORP: Settlement of Antitrust Suit in Tenn. Approved in Nov. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Tennessee state court approved the $500,000 settlement of an antitrust class action against FMC Corp. in November 2008. An antitrust class-action suit previously brought in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of antitrust laws involving the company's microcrystalline cellulose product was settled for $25.0 million, the same amount paid by FMC's codefendant Asahi Kasei Corporation. The Court approved this settlement in November 2006. The claims of plaintiffs who opted out of the class settlement were also settled late in 2006 for $700,000. The parties have also reached an agreement to settle a related state court case pending in California, for a total for $2.5 million, with the company and Asahi Kasei each contributing $1.25 million. This settlement was approved by the California state court in November 2007. A third related state class-action case against FMC in Tennessee state court has been settled for $500,000. This settlement was approved by the Tennessee state court in November 2008, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. FMC Corp. -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified, global chemical company providing solutions, applications and products to a variety of markets. It operates in three segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. Its Agricultural Products segment focuses on insecticides, which are used in agriculture to enhance crop yield and quality by controlling a range of insects and weeds. Specialty Chemicals consists of FMC's BioPolymer and lithium businesses, and focuses on food ingredients that are used to enhance texture, structure and physical stability, pharmaceutical additives for binding, encapsulation and disintegrant applications, ultrapure technologies for medical devices and lithium specialties for pharmaceutical synthesis, specialty polymers and energy storage. Its Industrial Chemicals segment manufactures a range of inorganic materials, including soda ash, hydrogen peroxide, specialty peroxygens and phosphorus chemicals. INTEL CORP: Lawsuits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corp. continues to face several lawsuits, including some class-action lawsuits, with regards to the higher prices of its microprocessors. In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Intel and Intel's Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions Code, including providing secret and discriminatory discounts and rebates and intentionally interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD. AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits before the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against Intel's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's Anti-monopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55 million, plus various other costs and fees. At least 82 separate class-action suits, generally repeating AMD's allegations and asserting various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed with the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, and the District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. All the federal class action complaints have been consolidated by the Multi-district Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware. All California class actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class certification, which the company is in the process of opposing. At the company's request, the Court in the California actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware Federal Court rules on the similar motion in the coordinated actions, according to the company's Feb. 20, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor chipmaker, developing advanced integrated digital technology platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the computing and communications industries. Intel's products include chips, boards and other semiconductor products that are the building blocks integral to computers, servers, handheld devices, and networking and communications products. Its component-level products consist of integrated circuits used to process information, including microprocessors, chipsets, and flash memory. INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: June 1 Hearing Set for $5M Suit Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will hold a fairness hearing on June 1, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $5 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: Interlink Electronics, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. CV05-8133AG (Shx)." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516. The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of its current and former officers. It alleges that between April 24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005, the company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information regarding the company's results of operations and financial condition (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008). The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. It seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses. On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs, who later filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint includes claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. In September 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion by the defendants to dismiss the operative complaint. On April 24, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with Retired Justice Howard B. Wiener in Los Angeles. The parties were unable to reach a resolution of their dispute and will continue to litigate. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2008, which the Company subsequently moved to dismiss in part. On Oct. 6, 2008, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and on Oct. 22, 2008, the Company filed an answer. The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 e-mail: service@ssbla.com - and - David A.P. Brower, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 488 Madison Avenue Eighth Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 501-9000 Representing the defendants is: Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7000 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dropped as Party in Calif. Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. entities have been dismissed as defendants in two master antitrust class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Dec. 11, 2006, LG Display Co. Ltd (formerly LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd.), a company in which Koninklijke Philips holds 13% of the common stock, announced that officials from the Korean Fair Trade Commission visited the offices of LG Display and that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice and similar notice from the Japanese Fair Trade Commission in connection with inquiries by those regulators into possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry. Subsequent to the public announcement of these inquiries, certain Philips group companies were named as defendants in a number of class action antitrust complaints filed in the U.S. courts, seeking damages on behalf of purchasers of products incorporating thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels (TFT-LCD panels), based on alleged anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of such panels. The lawsuits were consolidated in two master actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: one, asserting a claim under federal antitrust law, on behalf of direct purchasers of TFT-LCD panels and products containing such panels, and another, asserting claims under federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and unfair competition laws, on behalf of indirect purchasers of such panels and products. On Dec. 5, 2008, following the partial grant of motions to dismiss consolidated class action complaints in those master actions, the plaintiffs filed amended consolidated class-action complaints, asserting essentially the same legal claims as those alleged in the prior complaints. The company and certain other companies within the Philips group companies that were named as defendants in various of the original complaints have entered into agreements with the plaintiffs that generally toll the statutes of limitations applicable to plaintiffs' claims, following which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without prejudice the claims against the Philips defendants. None of the companies within the Philips group of companies currently is named as a defendant in the pending amended complaints, but the litigation is continuing. In addition, in February 2007, certain plaintiffs filed purported class actions in a United States court against LG Display and certain current and former employees and directors of LG Display for damages based on alleged violations of U.S. federal securities laws. No Philips group company is named as a defendant in these actions. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics) -- http://www.philips.com-- is the parent company of the Philips Group (Philips). As of Jan. 1, 2008, Philips' activities are organized on a sector basis, with each operating sector Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting being responsible for the management of its businesses worldwide. The company aims, through the Innovation & Emerging Businesses sector, to invest in projects that are not part of the operating sectors, but which will lead to growth. The Group Management & Services sector provides the sectors with support through shared service centers. In September 2008, Medialink Worldwide Inc. announced the transfer of its ownership interest in Teletrax to the company. Pursuant to the transfer, it owns 100% of the Teletrax entities. In October 2008, the company sold its speech recognition activities, Philips Speech Recognition Systems, to Nuance Communications, Inc. In December 2008, it acquired the aerosol therapy business of Medel SpA. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CRT Purchasers' Amended Suits Due March 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- The direct and indirect purchasers of Cathode-Ray Tubes (CRT) and products incorporating CRTs have until March 9, 2009, to file separate consolidated amended complaints against certain Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. entities. On Nov. 21, 2007, the company announced that competition law authorities in several jurisdictions have commenced investigations into possible anticompetitive activities in the CRT industry. As one of the companies that formerly was active in the CRT business, Philips is subject to a number of these ongoing investigations. Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations, certain Philips group companies were named as defendants in over 50 class-action antitrust complaints filed in various federal district courts in the United States. These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of CRTs and seek treble damages on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of CRTs and products incorporating CRTs. These complaints assert claims under federal antitrust law, as well as various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and may involve joint and several liability among the named defendants. These actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Pursuant to a Stipulation and Order issued by the District Court on Sept. 12, 2008, a broad stay of merits discovery has been imposed and the Court has set a deadline of March 9, 2009, for the filing of separate consolidated amended complaints by the direct and indirect purchasers. Philips intends to move to dismiss such consolidated amended complaints once they are filed, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics) -- http://www.philips.com-- is the parent company of the Philips Group (Philips). As of Jan. 1, 2008, Philips' activities are organized on a sector basis, with each operating sector Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting being responsible for the management of its businesses worldwide. The company aims, through the Innovation & Emerging Businesses sector, to invest in projects that are not part of the operating sectors, but which will lead to growth. The Group Management & Services sector provides the sectors with support through shared service centers. In September 2008, Medialink Worldwide Inc. announced the transfer of its ownership interest in Teletrax to the company. Pursuant to the transfer, it owns 100% of the Teletrax entities. In October 2008, the company sold its speech recognition activities, Philips Speech Recognition Systems, to Nuance Communications, Inc. In December 2008, it acquired the aerosol therapy business of Medel SpA. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Unit to Oppose Claim Over CRTs in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s subsidiary, Philips Group, intends to oppose the claim in a proposed class proceeding in Ontario, Canada. Certain Philips group companies have been named as defendants, in a proposed class proceeding in Canada, along with numerous participants in the Cathode-Ray Tubes (CRT) industry. The proceedings remain at a preliminary stage. At this time, no class proceeding has been certified and no statement of defence has been filed, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics) -- http://www.philips.com-- is the parent company of the Philips Group (Philips). As of Jan. 1, 2008, Philips' activities are organized on a sector basis, with each operating sector Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting being responsible for the management of its businesses worldwide. The company aims, through the Innovation & Emerging Businesses sector, to invest in projects that are not part of the operating sectors, but which will lead to growth. The Group Management & Services sector provides the sectors with support through shared service centers. In September 2008, Medialink Worldwide Inc. announced the transfer of its ownership interest in Teletrax to the company. Pursuant to the transfer, it owns 100% of the Teletrax entities. In October 2008, the company sold its speech recognition activities, Philips Speech Recognition Systems, to Nuance Communications, Inc. In December 2008, it acquired the aerosol therapy business of Medel SpA. MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc.'s appeal of the judgment in the lorazepam price increase case, which was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements, remains pending. On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI), and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for by the company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) supply agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, lorazepam and clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the company in 2001, and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to Mylan's 1998 price increases for lorazepam and clorazepate. Following the verdict, the company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On Dec. 20, 2006, the company's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were denied on Jan. 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that request was granted on Jan. 24, 2008. On Feb. 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co- defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million, some or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by Mylan. The plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $9.0 million. The company and its co-defendants have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeals have been held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest. In connection with the company's appeal of the lorazepam judgment, Mylan submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third- party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million. This surety bond is secured by a pledge of a $40.0 million cash deposit and an irrevocable letter of credit for $34.5 million issued under the Senior Credit Agreement. On Oct. 27, 2008, a U.S. magistrate judge issued a report recommending the granting of plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest. The report also recommends requiring the surety bond amount to be increased to include prejudgment interest. Mylan has submitted objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations and now pending is the district court's determination of whether to accept or reject those recommendations. If the magistrate's recommendations on prejudgment interest are accepted, Mylan intends to contest these rulings as part of its pending appeal, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand and branded generic pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). Mylan has three segments: the Generics Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment. Mylan markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than 140 countries. Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles, injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and high-potency products. MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Inc.'s specialty pharmaceutical business subsidiary, Dey L.P., is currently a defendant in various pricing related lawsuits, including several class-action cases brought by consumers and third-party payors. Dey is named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the state AG's of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolina (on behalf of the state and the state health plan), Utah and Wisconsin and the city of New York and approximately 40 New York counties. Dey has reached a settlement of most of the class actions, which has been preliminarily approved by the court. In addition, the U.S. federal government filed a claim against Dey in August 2006. These cases all generally allege that Dey falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Dey. In conjunction with the former Merck Generics business acquisition by Mylan, Mylan is entitled to indemnification by Merck KGaA for these Dey pricing related suits, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand and branded generic pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). Mylan has three segments: the Generics Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment. Mylan markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than 140 countries. Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles, injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and high-potency products. PRIMEO SELECT: Stull Stull Files Investors' Lawsuit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:43:20 GMT -- LOS ANGELES -- (Business Wire) On March 5, 2009, attorneys at Stull, Stull & Brody filed a new 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 and entities who invested in the Primeo Select Fund, Primeo Executive Fund, Thema International Fund, Herald USA Fund, and Herald Luxemburg Fund ("collectively, the "Funds") between January 12, 2004 through and including January 12, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that, unknown to their investors, the Funds concentrated almost 100% of their investment capital in the massive, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by defendant Bernard L. Madoff and his firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Defendants include the various Funds' directors, their auditors (the accounting firms Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers) and the custodian for the various Funds (HSBC). For more details, contact: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. (Tburke@ssbla.com) Stull, Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 1-888-388-4605 Fax: 1-310-209-2087 Web site: http://www.ssbny.com PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a proposed shareholder class-action lawsuit against PXRE Group Ltd. -- now known as Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. -- after ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not show that the reinsurer had a motive to understate the company's losses initially following Hurricane Katrina in order to raise more money before credit agencies could downgrade PXRE, Law360 reports. In a ruling on March 5, 2009, Judge Sullivan found that the plaintiffs "failed to plead that defendants were reckless in not knowing about the flaws in PXRE's calculation of its loss estimates." He noted that the plaintiffs had already repleaded the case three times, and dismissed it with prejudice, according to a report by David Bario of Am Law Litigation Daily. Initially, several purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company; Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer; and John Modin, the company's former chief financial officer. These suits were brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005, and Feb. 16, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 23, 2008). Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical claims and alleges that during the purported class period, certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business, prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act. The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts: -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma; -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from A.M. Best. Furthermore, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable basis. The class-action suits seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. Pursuant to an opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dated March 30, 2007, these lawsuits have been consolidated into one proceeding. The lawsuit is "In re PXRE Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-03410-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. (jalieberman@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 - and - Bradley Peter Dyer, Esq. (BPDyer@SSBNY.com) Stull Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212 687-7230 Fax: 212 490-2022 Representing the defendants is: Bruce Domenick Angiolillo, Esq. (bangiolillo@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-455-2000 Fax: 212-455-2502 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Conn. Judge Sides with Firm in 401(k) Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Warren W. Eginton of the U.S. Distirct Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that United Technologies Corp. did not breach its fiduciary duties in connection with its 401(k) plan expenses and investment options, Jennifer Byrd of Pensions & Investments reports. The class-action lawsuit, filed in September 2006 on behalf of three participants in the company’s 401(k) plan, alleged that the plan should not have offered actively managed mutual funds to participants because those funds do not generally outperform passively managed funds, after fees. Pensions & Investments reported that Judge Eginton wrote in his decision issued on March 3, 2009 that the participants' arguments were "unpersuasive." He wrote, "Plaintiffs rely on expert opinion that actively managed mutual funds generally underperform passive index funds. However, plaintiffs have not addressed the imprudence of selecting any particular actively managed mutual funds." The court also ruled against allegations that the company’s so- called revenue-sharing arrangement with service providers was improper and led to disproportionate fees and that plan fees and expenses were not properly divulged to plan participants, according to the Pensions & Investments report. New Securities Fraud Cases BARCLAYS BANK: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:35:38 GMT -- HARTFORD, CT -- 03/05/09 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the American Depositary Shares, Series 2 ("Preferred Stock") (NYSE: BCS-P) of Barclays Bank Plc ("Barclays Bank" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus (the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's April 2006 offering of the Company's Preferred Stock representing 6.625% Dollar-Denominated Non-Cumulative Callable Preference Shares, Series 2 (the "Offering"). The Complaint charges that Barclays and certain of its officers and directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the Offering was false and misleading because it omitted the following facts: -- Barclays' portfolio of mortgage-related securities was impaired to a much larger extent than had been disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- Barclays' internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its mortgage- related investments; and -- Barclays was not as well capitalized as represented and would have to continually raise additional capital, which would dilute current holders and those investors purchasing Preferred Stock in the Offering. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/barclaysbank/ COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, Mar 5, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf all persons or entities who purchased shares of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("ColonialBanc" or the "Company") between December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company misrepresented or failed to fully disclose the terms upon which it had received preliminary approval from the U.S. Treasury Department to received $550 million under the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). According to the complaint, the Company's misrepresentations and/or omissions caused its stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices in violation of federal law. 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 ********* 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 * * *