/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090317.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 52 Headlines ARRIS GROUP: Contests C-COR Ex-Employees' Suit for Overtime Pay BIG 5: Plaintiffs May Appeal Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation BIG 5: "Zimerman" Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Suit in Calif. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals to Dismissed "Taylor" Suits Pending FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defending "Searcy" Nationwide Suit v. eFunds FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging WARN Violations IMPAC MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Case MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Reinstating Class Status to Kelley Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Amended Overtime Complaint Pending in N.J. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit in N.J. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Bid in "Saunders" Still Pending SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Settlement SKYBUS AIRLINES: Settles WARN Violations Suit by Former Workers TOMATO PROCESSORS: Calif. Court Consolidates Antitrust Lawsuits UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in NetZero Suit Finalized on Jan. 5 WELLS FARGO: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Over Mortgages WILLIS GROUP: Defends Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Continues in Gender Discrimination Case New Securities Fraud Cases CORUS BANKSHARES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Milberg LLP Announces Stock Suit Filing PERRIGO CO: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ********* ARRIS GROUP: Contests C-COR Ex-Employees' Suit for Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- ARRIS Group, Inc. is actively contesting the class-action suit filed by sixteen former employees of a former subsidiary of C- COR, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The company acquired C-COR in late 2008. In February 2008, a Fair Labor Standards Act suit was filed against the former subsidiary of C-COR and C-COR alleging that the plaintiffs were not properly paid for overtime. The suit was filed as a class action and the proposed class could include 1,000 cable installers and field technicians. ARRIS Group, Inc. -- http://www.arrisi.com/-- is a global communications technology company specializing in integrated broadband network solutions that include products, systems and software for content and operations management, and professional services. It develops, manufactures and supplies cable telephony, video and high-speed data equipment. In addition, it is a supplier of infrastructure products used by cable system operators to build-out and maintain Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial (HFC) networks. It provides products and equipments to cable system operators and multiple systems operators (MSOs). Its products allow MSOs and other broadband service providers to deliver a range of integrated voice, video and high-speed data services to their subscribers. BIG 5: Plaintiffs May Appeal Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.," may still be appealed by the plaintiff, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008. On May 31, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed before the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego, entitled "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2008-00083307-CU-BT-CTL." This suit alleges violations of the California Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code and invasion of privacy. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in California using credit cards and were requested to provide their zip codes. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of the class members, general damages, special damages, exemplary or punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits. On Oct. 7, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego dismissed the Gonzalez case with prejudice. On Feb. 20, 2009, the same court denied plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of such dismissal. The dismissal may still be appealed by the plaintiff in that case, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381 stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 28, 2008. BIG 5: "Zimerman" Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the purported class-action suit, "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.," is appealing the dismissal of the case against Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. On Jan. 17, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed before the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled, "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC383834." The complaint was brought as a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in California using credit cards and were requested to provide their zip codes. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees and costs. On Dec. 9, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles dismissed the Zimerman case with prejudice. On Feb. 3, 2009, the plaintiff in the Zimerman case filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381 stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 28, 2008. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals to Dismissed "Taylor" Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeals to the dismissal of two class-action complaints styled, "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et al.," and "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al.," remain pending, according to Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc. et al.," was filed against eFunds and seven other non-related parties in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. eFunds Corp. and its subsidiaries were acquired by the company on Sept. 12, 2007. The complaint alleged that eFunds purchased motor vehicle records that were used for marketing and other purposes that are not permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). The plaintiffs sought statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. eFunds and five of the other seven defendants settled the case with the plaintiffs. That settlement was approved by the court over the objection of a group of Texas drivers and motor vehicle record holders. The plaintiffs have since moved to amend the court's order approving the settlement in order to seek a greater attorneys' fee award and to recover supplemental costs. In the meantime, the objectors filed two class action complaints styled, "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et al.," and "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging similar violations of the DPPA. The Acxiom action was filed against the company's ChexSystems, Inc. subsidiary, while the Biometric suit was filed against the company's Certegy Check Services, Inc. subsidiary. The judge recused himself in the action against Certegy because he was a potential member of the class. The lawsuit was then assigned to a new judge and Certegy filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted Certegy's motion to dismiss with prejudice in the third quarter of 2008. The company was formerly known as Certegy Inc. ChexSystems filed a motion to dismiss or stay its action based upon the earlier settlement and the Court granted the motion to stay pending resolution of the Florida case. The court dismissed the ChexSystems' lawsuit with prejudice against the remaining defendants in the third quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs moved the court to amend the dismissal to exclude defendants that were parties to the Florida settlement. That motion was granted. The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal. The plaintiffs' appeals of the dismissals in both lawsuits are pending. Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/-- is a provider of core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing and mortgage-related services to financial institutions, mortgage lenders, and servicers. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defending "Searcy" Nationwide Suit v. eFunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is defending the nationwide putative class-action suit styled, "Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation," according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. eFunds Corp. and its subsidiaries were acquired by the company on Sept. 12, 2007. The nationwide putative class-action lawsuit was originally filed against eFunds Corporation and its affiliate Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc. during the first quarter of 2008. The complaint alleges willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization Network ("SCAN"). Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA because the disclosures did not include: (i) all information in the consumer's file at the time of the request; (ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names of any persons who requested information related to the consumer's check writing history during the prior year. Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/-- is a provider of core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing and mortgage-related services to financial institutions, mortgage lenders, and servicers. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging WARN Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, March 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP and Berger & Montague, P.C. have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, "Justice v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:09- ap-01108-BB," on behalf of over 700 employees who were laid off by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. on Monday, March 9, 2009 without receiving any notice. Fleetwood filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 in Riverside, California. The lawsuit claims that Fleetwood violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") which provides that employers must give sixty days notice to employers prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the notice. The lead plaintiffs, Sandra Justice and Alicia Rice, were employed at Fleetwood's plant in Edgerton, Ohio that constructed travel trailers. Fleetwood stated in its bankruptcy filing that it will continue to make motor coaches and manufactured homes but is permanently shutting down at least three manufacturing plants and two service facilities. "Fleetwood appears to have engaged in a blatant violation of the WARN Act by failing to provide its employees sixty days advance notice of these plant closings and mass layoffs, and workers who are terminated without notice do not have time to search for new employment. For those living paycheck to paycheck, such notice is crucial to the ability to find substitute work and to support their families," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Co-counsel for the plaintiffs, Charles A. Ercole of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP, states, "We repeatedly see employers ignoring the WARN Act. The employees are the last ones to know and that is exactly what the WARN Act was meant to prevent." For more details, contact: Shanon Carson (scarson@bm.net) Phone: (215) 875-4656 Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com - and - Chuck A. Ercole (cercole@klehr.com) Phone: (215) 568-6060 or (215) 569-4282 Web site: http://www.klehr.com IMPAC MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Andrew J. Gilford filed the order in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to throw out a putative class-action lawsuit alleging securities law violations by Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Law360 reports. The suit is in connection with the company's offering of nontraditional, or so-called Alt-A, mortgage products, finding that the plaintiffs failed - after repeated attempts - to adequately plead their case, according to the Law360 report. MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Reinstating Class Status to Kelley Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corp. is opposing an attempt to reinstate class-action status to an ongoing lawsuit over Windows Vista entitled, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP," Elizabeth Montalbano of IDG News Service. In court papers filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Microsoft asked the court not to reconsider applying class-action status to the suit because people knew exactly which version of Vista they would receive through a coupon program called Express Upgrade Guarantee. The program allowed customers to buy PCs with Windows XP installed on them but then had to upgrade to Vista when the OS was released, according to the IDG News Service report. Microsoft also said that the plaintiffs took too long to ask for a narrowing of the class, even based on "theories known to them for more than a year," according to court papers obtained by IDG News Service. Joseph Tartakoff of the Seattle Post Intelligencer previously reported that the plaintiffs in a recently decertified class- action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for the alleged deceptive promotion of its flagship software, Windows Vista, have asked Judge Marsha Pechman to reinstate the class-action status of the case, under a narrower scope (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2009). In recent filing, plaintiffs asked Judge Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to certify a class-action under two more narrowed criteria. Initially, the class included anyone who bought Windows Vista Capable PCs. Now plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify the class based on two subgroups: Those who participated in a Vista upgrade program and those who purchased Vista Capable PCs that could not support a specific driver, which plaintiffs say is essential to run Vista. The motion for narrowed class certification is under seal, but it is described in another filing. A copy of the motion is available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a00. John Letzing of MarketWatch previously reported that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington decertified the class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009). In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting class-wide causation is decertification." Judge Pechman specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to the MarketWatch report. Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for Plaintiffs' individual claims." In essence, the ruling forces plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports MarketWatch. Case Background Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in a class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008). The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07- cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2008). In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista, called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com. The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false designation drove up demand for personal computers and, therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they are not. The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report. However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman dismissed plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought. She instead allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up prices. A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft appealed against the court's decision affording class action status to the Vista lawsuit. However, in a brief order dated April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's decision. In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008, the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify the class. "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves for summary judgment," the company's filing reads. In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain features, including the Aero interface. Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a distinct budget edition." They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical matter." In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs because of the program, reports seattlepi.com. The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/ e-mail: office@gordontilden.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Amended Overtime Complaint Pending in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint in the class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359" is pending, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a nationwide class. The suit is "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws of 13 additional states. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was filed in a consolidated purported class-action lawsuit against Prudential Financial, Inc., and Prudential Insurance Co. in California in connection with overtime pay and benefits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit, captioned "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," was filed on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial products. The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay overtime and provide other benefits in violation of state and federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. The suit is "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Larry Alan Burns, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) In September 2008, the Wang litigation was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the suit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359." (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws of 13 additional states, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Bid in "Saunders" Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to rule on motions filed by both parties in a purported class- action suit "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit was one of several consolidated under the multi- district proceeding entitled, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md- 15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864." In July 2006, in "Saunders," the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland had granted the plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law claims against and Prudential Securities, Inc. In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and the plaintiffs moved for class certification in "Saunders." No further updates were provided by the company in its latest Quarterly Report on Form 10-K dated Feb. 26, 2009. The suit is "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,, Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008) Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2009 for the proposed $165,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:01-cv-829," The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, located at the Frank R. Lautenberg U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Bldg., 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101 in the Courtroom of the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J. Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain named officers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008). These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material information and making material misstatements. Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues. These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001, purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001. The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class. For more details, contact: In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 1-877-451-2127 Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/ SKYBUS AIRLINES: Settles WARN Violations Suit by Former Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- Skybus Airlines has agreed to settle a class-action suit filed by former employees who say they weren't properly told of the airline's plan to shut down in 2008, The Associated Press reports. Attorney James Huggett, who represents the employees, tells The Associated Press that the amount of the settlement will likely be disclosed in an upcoming court filing. He also says the agreement must be approved in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The Associated Press previously reported that former employees of Skybus Airlines filed a class-action lawsuit against the company with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on April 15, 2008, saying they were not properly told of the airline's plan to shut down operations (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2008). According to the lawsuit, Skybus violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of any mass layoffs. AP says that in a court filing dated April 4 -- the last day Skybus was in operation -- the Columbus-based airline said it planned to lay off 450 employees in several phases, with the majority losing their jobs as of April 7. Of those, 365 were based in Columbus, with the remainder in Greensboro, N.C. Former Skybus Chief Executive Officer Mike Hodge told The Columbus Dispatch that the company believes it complied with the law. He cited a section of the WARN Act that grants an exception to companies that are actively seeking capital or business that, if obtained, would have allowed those companies to avoid or postpone a shutdown. Passed by Congress in 1988, the WARN Act was intended to protect workers and their families, the report explains. The law says employees who don't receive proper notice of plant closings or layoffs are entitled to 60 days pay. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unpaid wages, bonuses, retirement benefits and holiday pay that they would have received during the 60-day period. AP recounts that Skybus declared bankruptcy less than a year after beginning service. The low-cost carrier was known for its $10 fares and a la carte, pay-per-service flying. Like other airlines, it struggled with rising fuel prices and a slowing economy. TOMATO PROCESSORS: Calif. Court Consolidates Antitrust Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Morris C. England Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has consolidated four putative class-action suits over alleged anti-competitive conduct in the processed tomato market for pretrial purposes, Law360 reports However, in an order handed down on March 11, 2009, the judge deferred a decision on complete consolidation until more information is available, and held that a fifth case was distinct enough to make consolidation inappropriate, according to the Law360 report. UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in NetZero Suit Finalized on Jan. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in the consolidated consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed against NetZero, a brand name of United Online, Inc., became final on Jan. 5, 2009. On March 6, 2006, Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer class-action lawsuit before the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero, claiming that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after they cancel their Internet access account. On July 27, 2006, Donald E. Ewart filed another purported consumer class action suit in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero containing substantially similar allegations as the "Piercy" case. The plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits denying the material allegations of the complaints. Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the actions as class representatives. Then, on March 16, 2007, Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger, and Peter Chrisler were substituted as purported class representatives. On May 25, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases under the caption, "Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461." On July 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class-action complaint at which time Peter Chrisler was also substituted as a purported class representative. A settlement agreement has been entered into by all parties in this case and the settlement became final on Jan. 5, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a provider of consumer Internet and media services through a number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and MyPoints. WELLS FARGO: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Over Mortgages --------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Co. and HSBC face a purported class-action suit filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), claiming racial discrimination in mortgages, KABC reports. The civil rights group says that two major lenders forced black homebuyers into risky subprime loans, even when they had the same qualifications as white applicants, according to the KABC report. According to the lawsuits, African Americans are three and a half times more likely than white borrowers to be put into a subprime mortgage. White borrowers are six times less likely to get a subprime rate when refinancing, reports KABC. KABC reported that Los Angeles attorney Brian Kabateck, Esq., of Kabateck Kellner, LLP is representing the NAACP in the lawsuits. For more details, contact: Kabateck Kellner, LLP Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.217.5000 Fax: 213.217.5010 e-mail: info@kbklawyers.com Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com/ WILLIS GROUP: Defends Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. intends to continue to defend against the purported class actions filed against the company and its newly acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company (HRH), according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various other brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported class-action suits in various courts across the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated or are in the process of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ("MDL"). There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one that addresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one that addresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint"). HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since been voluntarily dismissed. HRH is a named defendant in the Commercial Complaint. The company is a named defendant in both MDL Complaints. The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief and make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that have been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in other improper activities. The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and the state claims were dismissed without prejudice from both Complaints. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding these dismissal rulings and oral arguments on this appeal are scheduled to be heard in April 2009. In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with prejudice from the EB Complaint. Additional actions could be brought in the future by individual policyholders. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Continues in Gender Discrimination Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a purported class-action suit against Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee, alleging gender discrimination, is ongoing. The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of present and former female employees alleging that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of trial. The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss. The suit was recently amended to include two additional plaintiffs. The parties are still in the discovery phase of the litigation, according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. New Securities Fraud Cases CORUS BANKSHARES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 2:39 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- MarketWire -- HARTFORD, CT - The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Corus Bankshares, Inc. ("Corus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CORS) between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges that Corus and its Chief Executive Officer violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false statements. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose: -- that Corus was failing to recognize losses on its condominium loans in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); -- that Corus and/or its affiliates were purchasing condominiums in developments Corus had financed in an attempt to: -- inflate the appraised values of condominiums to delay having to recognize losses on financing for such condominiums; -- inflate developers' sales figures to increase the likelihood of successful future sales; and -- create the illusion of successful sales histories in order to inflate appraisal values for the condominiums to ensure inflated future prices for the condominiums; and -- Corus was involved in detailed and in-depth negotiations with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency regarding its deteriorating pool of condominium loans. 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/corusbankshares/ HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, March 13, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland" or the "Company") (NYSE:HPY), between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: -- that the Company's safety and security measures designed to protect consumers' financial records and data from security breaches were inadequate and ineffective; -- that the Company's payment processing system had been infected with malware as early as May 2008; -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach of Heartland's payment processing network; -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced liabilities associated with the breach and increasing costs associated with implementing appropriate security measures; -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at risk of losing customers; and -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER, March 14, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Denver-Based Dyer & Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("IPI" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) in or traceable to the Company's April 21, 2008 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The complaint charges IPI and certain of its senior officers with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint asserts that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus were materially false and misleading because, at the time of the IPO, defendant Patrick L. Avery did not possess the claimed academic credentials. Mr. Avery, who served as the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, did not receive a B.A. degree from the University of Colorado. Nor did Avery receive an M.S. degree from Loyola Marymount University. After the market closed on February 11, 2009, IPI issued a press release which disclosed that Mr. Avery was resigning, and confirmed that the statements contained in the Company's Registration Statement about his educational qualifications were false and that the "misrepresentation of his academic credentials was a violation under the Company's Code of Business Conduct." As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, IPI stock traded at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of IPI investors. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Milberg LLP Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 7:50 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- NEW YORK, N.Y. - The law firm of Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C shares of the Oppenheimer Rochester National Municipals fund (the "Fund") (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ: ORNBX) (NASDAQ: ORNCX) during the period from March 13, 2006 to October 21, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is captioned, "Bock v. Oppenheimer Rochester National Municipals, OppenheimerFunds, Inc. et al. (D. Colo.)." The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc., OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits materially false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. The Fund invests primarily in municipal securities. According to the complaint, during the Class Period the Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's investments, including, but not limited to, the Fund's overconcentration of investments in illiquid securities in violation of its cap of 15% by investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary municipal bonds/notes that could turn illiquid quickly. According to the Fund's registration statements and prospectuses, the Fund would invest no more than 15% of its assets in illiquid securities, which are securities that do not trade in an active market and are riskier because the fund may not be able to sell the securities at the desired price, if at all. Related to this representation, the Fund stated that its manager, OppenheimerFunds, would monitor the holdings of illiquid securities on an ongoing basis to determine whether to sell any holdings to maintain adequate liquidity. The complaint alleges that contrary to its representations, the Fund invested 25% of its holdings in illiquid tobacco bonds. In addition, the Fund failed to disclose in its Registration Statements that the market for the other municipal bonds/notes that the Fund invested in could become illiquid based on price volatility, which could cause the percentage of its illiquid securities to increase significantly and quickly, as in fact happened. In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and throughout 2008. By October 2008, however, those risks had already manifested, dealing substantial losses to investors. During the Class Period, the Fund lost approximately 60% of its net asset value. The Fund was crowned "the biggest loser in its category last year [2008]" by fund analyst Morningstar Inc., as reported in a January 29, 2009 article by Thomson Reuters PLC, after losing 49% of its value in 2008 due to, among other reasons, its investments in tobacco bonds. For more details, contact: Andrei Rado, Esq. Ann Marie Vu, Esq. Milberg LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (800) 320-5081 e-mail: contactus@milberg.com Web site: http://www.milberg.com/ PERRIGO CO: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 6:00 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- NEW YORK, March 13, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Perrigo Company ("Perrigo" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PRGO) between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint charges that Perrigo and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false statements regarding the Company's exposure to at least $18 million of Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"). In January and February of 2008, auctions of ARS began to fail, limiting the ability of holders to sell these securities. Nevertheless, Perrigo had a reasonable expectation of redeeming its $18 million in ARS until September 15, 2008 when Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman"), the bank that underwrote and sold the ARS to Perrigo, declared bankruptcy. On November 6, 2008, the beginning of the Class Period, defendants reported the "fair value" of Perrigo's ARS as $14,500,000, but concealed the impact of Lehman's bankruptcy on Perrigo's ARS. Then on February 3, 2009, defendants disclosed that Lehman had underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo and that the Company was writing off the entire value of its ARS, wiping out over a third of Perrigo's earnings. On this news, Perrigo's stock price fell 18%. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 4:11 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- MarketWire -- HARTFORD, Conn. - 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 District of New Jersey on behalf of those who acquired depositary shares of Prudential Financial, Inc. ("Prudential" or the "Company") 9% Junior Subordinated Notes (NYSE: PHR) pursuant and/or traceable to a registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Prudential's June 2008 initial public offering of the Securities (the "Offering"). The Complaint charges that Prudential and certain of its officers, directors, offering underwriters and its auditor violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued a materially false and misleading Registration Statement in connection with the Offering. According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- the Company's asset-backed securities collateralized with subprime mortgages were impaired to a greater extent than the Company had disclosed; -- the Company's goodwill associated with certain of its subsidiaries was impaired to a greater extent than Prudential had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; and -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its impaired assets. 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/prudentialfinancial/ ********* 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 * * *