/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090319.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 55 Headlines AFFINION GROUP: Consumer Fraud Suit Still Pending in Washington AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined ENGLE HOMES: Roberts & Durkee Files Suit Over Chinese Drywalls IMAGEPOINT INC: Denies Allegations in Tenn. WARN Violations Suit ING GROEP: Faces Four U.S. Investors' Lawsuits Over "Perpetuals" JPMORGAN CHASE: Ninth Circuit Reinstates Calif. TILA Litigation NYSE EURONEXT: Remanded Specialists' Securities Lawsuit Pending SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaits Certification Order in ERISA Case v. Duke TREE.COM INC: Arbitration for "Bercaw" FCRA Breach Suit Pending TREE.COM INC: Arbitration of "Spinozzi" FCRA Lawsuit Pending TREE.COM INC: "Bradley" Lawsuit in Calif. Pending Arbitration TREE.COM INC: Calif. FCRA Violations Suit in Pending Arbitration TREE.COM INC: "Carson" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration TREE.COM INC: "Gonzalez" Suit v. HLC in Calif. Dismissed in Dec. TREE.COM INC: HLC Underwriting Clerks' Lawsuit Pending in Calif. TREE.COM INC: "Miller" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration TREE.COM INC: "Mitchell" Suit in Oklahoma Pending Arbitration TREE.COM INC: Primanto Seeks Suit Nixing to Join Richardson Deal WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Ga. Litigation Regarding Overdraft Fees WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Overdraft Fee Suits in Fla., N.J., Calif. New Securities Fraud Cases CENTURY ALUMINUM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit CORUS BANKSHARES: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing PERRIGO CO: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ********* AFFINION GROUP: Consumer Fraud Suit Still Pending in Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported consumer fraud class-action suit against Affinion Group, Inc., which, prior to 2007, was known as the Trilegiant Corp., remains pending in Washington court. On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County. The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection statutes. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the court. There has been limited discovery and motion practice to date, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Nov. 12, 2002, a class-action complaint was filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive practices act. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County. The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008. In granting the company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not class) basis. On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined ---------------------------------------------------------------- The scope and amounts of damages awarded in a consumer class- action lawsuit entitled, "Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc.," remain subject to additional fact-finding and resolution. The suit was filed by Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis on Oct. 28, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It alleges that the company unjustly and unreasonably billed customers for inside wire maintenance services. The plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and injunctive relief under various legal theories on behalf of a purported class of over two million customers in the company's telephone markets. On March 10, 2006, the court certified the suit as a class- action suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions the company used for these services during an approximately 18- month period between Oct. 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally insufficient. The company's appeal of this class certification decision was denied. Centurytel's preliminary analysis indicates that it billed less than $10 million for inside wire maintenance services under the billing descriptions and time periods specified in the District Court ruling. The Court's order does not specify the award of damages, the scope and amounts of which, if any, remain subject to additional fact-finding and resolution of what the company believes are valid defenses to plaintiff's claims, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case No. 1:02- cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Judge David M. Lawson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory J. Boulahanis, Esq. Boulahanis & Assoc. 21905 Garrison Avenue Dearborn, MI 48124 Phone: 313-277-2550 Fax: 313-277-2550 - and - Elwood S. Simon, Esq. (esimon@esimon-law.com) Elwood S. Simon Assoc. 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250 Birmingham, MI 48009 Phone: 248-646-9730 Fax: 248-258-2335 Representing the defendants are: Jennifer L. Frye, Esq. (jfrye@dickinsonwright.com) Dickinson Wright 301 N . Liberty, Suite 500 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 734-623-7075 Fax: 734-623-1625 - and - David J. Houston, Esq. (dhouston@dickinsonwright.com) Dickinson Wright 215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48933-1888 Phone: 517-371-1730 ENGLE HOMES: Roberts & Durkee Files Suit Over Chinese Drywalls -------------------------------------------------------------- Tue., 17 March 2009 11:05:50 GMT -- CAPE CORAL, Fla. -- (Business Wire) Attorney C. David Durkee, a partner with the Florida law firm Roberts & Durkee, announced the filing of a Florida class-action lawsuit against Engle Homes (Nasdaq: ENGL), alleging the national homebuilder used contaminated drywall imported from China to build homes in the Coral Lakes development in Cape Coral, Fla. The suit alleges the drywall is damaging the victims' health, homes and belongings. Durkee, along with the plaintiffs and M. Thomas Martin, president of Americas Watchdog consumer advocacy group, will provide a news conference at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 17, at the home of one of the plaintiffs, Joyce Dowdy, who lives at 2553 Deerfield Lake Court, Cape Coral, FL 33909. The group will answer residents' questions about Chinese-made drywall during a town hall meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, March 19, at the Coral Lakes community clubhouse, located at 1281 Coral Lakes Blvd., Cape Coral, FL 33909. The town meeting is free and open to the public. Attorney Wayne S. Kreger, with the national law firm Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, based in Santa Monica, Calif., will help lead the town meeting. Kreger is handling California class-action suits concerning toxic Chinese drywall and collaborating with Durkee and other attorneys nationwide. The class-action suit filed by Durkee in Lee County Circuit Court could ultimately represent all owners of Coral Lakes homes with contaminated Chinese-made drywall. According to the allegations, the defective drywall was negligently used from 2001-2008 at the height of the U.S. construction boom and installed in countless homes throughout Florida and the U.S. The suit says that up to 20 million square feet of Chinese drywall entered the U.S. since 2003, and more than 65,000 American homes could be affected by the hazardous drywall, which emits sulfur gases, corrodes wiring, contaminates furnishings and fabrics and damages air conditioners and appliances. "People are getting sick, families are being forced from their homes, enduring financial and emotional turmoil due to this negligence," Durkee said. "I have received numerous calls from people throughout Florida and will meet with them in the coming weeks. Rather than file a large national class-action suit with thousands of plaintiffs where our clients would be treated like a number and receive a fraction of the total damages awarded, our legal strategy is to file a series of local class-action suits on behalf of individual communities where our clients can be bigger fish in smaller ponds and ultimately stand to receive higher compensation for their losses." Added Martin: "Although we know that at least 65,000 new homes in the southeast, including at least 30,000 in Florida, could contain toxic Chinese drywall, we have reason to believe the number is much higher and the problem is widespread throughout the United States. We plan to issue a major call-to- action at the news conference to encourage homeowners to contact Americas Watchdog and get help if they believe their homes contain Chinese drywall." The suit names the publicly traded Engle Builders as the builder of the homes in the walled Coral Lakes community and alleges Engle obtained the toxic drywall after its manufacture in China. These allegations are the latest among numerous recent product-safety scandals involving Chinese imports, including milk formula, toothpaste, drugs, toys, seafood and pet food. In addition to Florida, lawyers in other U.S. coastal states where humidity can worsen the problem are also working on this matter. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently announced its investigation of the odors and problems attributed to the Chinese-made drywall. According to Americas Watchdog, the public may use the following criteria to assess whether homes and condos were built with Chinese-made drywall: -- They were built or remodeled between 2004 and 2008; -- They have a sulfur or rotten-egg smell, particularly when all windows and doors are shut; -- Residents suffer severe allergies, nose bleeds, upper- respiratory problems and other symptoms that disappear when they leave the homes for an extended time; and -- Air conditioning units have repeated corrosion of their coils. For details, contact: C. David Durkee, Esq. (durkee@rdlawnet.com) Roberts & Durkee P.A. Phone: (305) 442-1700 Web site: http://www.rdlawnet.com IMAGEPOINT INC: Denies Allegations in Tenn. WARN Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ImagePoint, Inc. denied the allegations in a purported class- action lawsuit for back wages that were filed by a former employee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Tennessee, The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports. The Knoxville News Sentinel previously reported that Rebecca Heifner, who lost her job on Jan. 9, 2009, seeks wages and benefits for 60 days under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, which requires that companies provide 60 days advance notice. No such notice was given, the lawsuit claims. On March 12, 2009, ImagePoint filed a response denying Ms. Heifner's claims and saying the law allows companies struggling to remain solvent to give shorter notice of termination to their workers, according to The Knoxville News-Sentinel report. The suit captioned, "Heifner v. Imagepoint, Inc., Case No. 3:09- cv-00022," was filed on Jan. 15, 2009. It seeks class action status for all former ImagePoint employees who lost their jobs as part of a mass layoff when the company shut down in January 2009. On Jan. 9, 2009, the sign manufacturer said it was closing and eliminating 450 jobs, including 270 at its downtown headquarters and 180 at its plant in Florence, Ky., a suburb of Cincinnati, according to the Knoxville News Sentinel report. The suit is captioned, "Heifner v. Imagepoint, Inc., Case No. 3:09-cv-00022," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David A Burkhalter, II, Esq. (david@burkhalterrayson.com) Burkhalter, Rayson & Associates P.O. Box 2777 Knoxville, TN 37901-2777 Phone: 865-524-4974 Fax: 865-524-0172 J. Cecil Gardner, Esq. (cgardner@thegardnerfirm.com) The Gardner Firm 1119 Government Street Post Office Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: 251-433-8100 Fax: 251-433-8181 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. (sjm@lankmill.com) Lankenau & Miller, LLP 132 Nassau Street Suite 423 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-581-5005 Fax: 212-581-2122 ING GROEP: Faces Four U.S. Investors' Lawsuits Over "Perpetuals" ---------------------------------------------------------------- ING Groep N.V. and a number of former executives are facing four separate class-action lawsuits from U.S. investors who have lost millions of euros on their investments, DutchNews.nl reports. According to a report by the Financieele Dagblad, the investors are claiming that ING should cover their losses because the company sold a type of share known as a perpetual using "a false and misleading registration statement and prospectuses." The complainants say ING issued perpetuals valued at a total of $4.5bn in June and September 2007 and June 2008. Since then their value has plummeted by $3.5bn, the paper says. JPMORGAN CHASE: Ninth Circuit Reinstates Calif. TILA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- In a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a class-action lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co. of violating the federal Truth in Lending Act by failing to notify cardholders in advance of interest rate increases resulting from late payments or defaults, Gina Keating of Reuters reports. James McCoy, the lead plaintiff, had accused Chase Manhattan Bank of applying a rate hike to his balance retroactively after his account was closed, but did not inform him until weeks later. The rate was raised after a late payment to Chase or another creditor -- a practice called "universal default" that is opposed by consumer advocates, according to the Reuters report. In its cardmember agreement, Chase said it disclosed conditions that Mr. McCoy had to comply with to remain eligible for a preferred interest rate, as well as the maximum interest rate that could apply if he violated those terms, reports Reuters. The panel though ruled that Mr. McCoy can maintain a claim if Chase failed to notify him of the hike because of a delinquency or default or if his cardmember contract does not spell out specific terms for an increase, reports Reuters. The majority held that the Federal Reserve, in a rule issued in December, requires notice when a cardholder's interest rates rise due to a default and specifies that the notice may be contemporaneous with the rate hike. Thus, the appeals court sent the case back to the California district court that had dismissed it, according to the Reuters report. NYSE EURONEXT: Remanded Specialists' Securities Lawsuit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Further proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have not been scheduled for the remanded consolidated action styled, "In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation," according to NYSE Euronext's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10- K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In 2003, the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") filed a class action complaint, later consolidated with related actions, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the NYSE, NYSE specialist firms, and others, alleging various violations of federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty, on behalf of a purported class of persons who bought or sold unspecified NYSE- listed stocks between 1998 and 2003, and seeking unspecified money damages. In 2005, the district court granted the NYSE's motion to dismiss, holding that the NYSE, as a self-regulatory organization, is immune from private lawsuits challenging the manner in which it exercises its regulatory function, and thus dismissed all the claims asserting that the NYSE had failed to effectively regulate specialists during the relevant period. The district court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert that the NYSE made false and misleading statements concerning the regulation and operation of its market. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 2007, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the district court's decision. The Second Circuit upheld the district court's ruling as to the NYSE's self-regulatory immunity, but vacated the district court's holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims that the NYSE made false and misleading statements. The appeals court remanded the matter to the district court for consideration of other grounds for dismissal that the NYSE had asserted in its motion to dismiss, including the plaintiffs' failure to allege reliance or loss causation. NYSE Euronext -- http://www.nyse.com-- operates a liquid exchange group. The Company's family of exchanges, located in six countries, include the New York Stock Exchange, a cash equities market; Euronext, a cash equities market; Liffe, an European derivatives exchange; NYSE Liffe, the Company's U.S. futures business, and NYSE Arca Options, an U.S. options trading platform. NYSE Euronext offers an array of financial products and services for issuers, investors and financial institutions in cash equities, options, futures and derivatives, exchange traded funds (ETFs), bonds, market data, and commercial technology solutions. NYSE Euronext is home to approximately 4,600 listed issues. SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaits Certification Order in ERISA Case v. Duke ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spectra Energy Corp. awaits the U.S. District Court for the District Court of South Carolina's decision on class certification of the remaining claims in a purported class- action suit filed against Duke Energy Corp. over alleged discrimination and violation of pension laws. Initially, a class action was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District Court of South Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. Various causes of action are alleged, including violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Power Company Employees Retirement Plan into the Duke Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. This group is estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons. Duke Energy filed its answer to the complaint in March 2006. A motion to certify a class action was filed by the plaintiffs and Duke Energy filed its response in opposition to this motion. A hearing on the class certification motion as well as other dispositive motions was held in December 2007, and the Court took the matters under advisement. A second class-action lawsuit was filed with the federal court in South Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking to represent the same class of defendants. The second case has been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice. In connection with the spin-off from Duke Energy in January 2007, Spectra Energy has agreed to share with Duke Energy any liabilities or damages associated with this matter that relate to Spectra Energy employees that may be members of the plaintiff class. The Court issued a series of rulings in June 2008, denying the plaintiffs' class certification motion, dismissing certain of the causes of action originally filed by plaintiffs and allowing other causes of action to proceed. As a result of these rulings, the plaintiffs re-filed a new Amended Class Action Complaint in June 2008, asserting and re-pleading the claims which the Court is allowing to proceed. Duke Energy filed a motion to dismiss in July 2008, requesting the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims. Plaintiffs filed a new motion to certify a class action in August 2008, and Duke Energy has filed a response to this motion. All motions are pending before the Court. A new scheduling order has been entered and it is expected that certain discovery activities will ensue with respect to the surviving causes of action, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Henry F. Floyd presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com) Gilreath Law Firm P.O. Box 2147 Greenville, SC 29602 Phone: 864-242-4727 Fax: 864-232-4395 Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com) Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC P.O. Box 8086 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: 803-799-9400 Fax: 803-799-2017 - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com) Wallace and Graham 525 North Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Phone: 704-633-5244 Fax: 704-633-9434 Representing the defendants is: Robert Oliver King, Esq. (robert.king@odnss.com) Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart P.O. Box 2757 Greenville, SC 29602 Phone: 864-271-1300 Fax: 864-235-8806 TREE.COM INC: Arbitration for "Bercaw" FCRA Breach Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit captioned, "Amy Bercaw v. LendingTree, LLC, No. SACV08-660 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)," is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. On June 13, 2008, Amy Bercaw, Russell Winsett and Ty Woods filed this putative class-action suit against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiffs allege that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiffs also assert claims against LendingTree for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of confidential information in violation of California Civil Code Section 17980.89, and violation of the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"). Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and Mitchell cases. While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the Bercaw lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina. On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September 2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. At the hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: Arbitration of "Spinozzi" FCRA Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Constance Spinozzi v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-229 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.)," is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. On May 15, 2008, Constance Spinozzi filed this putative class action against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on July 8, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration. On Aug. 21, 2008, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding. On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted Plaintiff's motion, transferring all of the related lawsuits to the Western District of North Carolina. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: "Bradley" Lawsuit in Calif. Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit tagged, "Bradley v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal.)," is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. On July 10, 2008, Geraldine Bradley, Joy Paxton-Collis, James Larson and Mark Swearingen filed this putative class-action suit against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiffs allege that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). According to Plaintiffs, LendingTree has intentionally violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiffs also allege LendingTree negligently violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to protect Plaintiffs' personal and financial information. Plaintiffs also assert claims against LendingTree for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of confidential information in violation of California statute, and violation of California's unfair competition law. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and Mitchell cases. While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the Bercaw lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina. On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September 2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. At the hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: Calif. FCRA Violations Suit in Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Shaver's putative class-action suit against LendingTree, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. The suit styled, "Shaver v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal.)," was filed on July 10, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). According to Plaintiff, LendingTree has intentionally violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiff also alleges LendingTree negligently violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to protect Plaintiff's personal and financial information. Plaintiff also asserts claims against LendingTree for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of confidential information in violation of California statute, and violation of California's unfair competition law. Plaintiff purports to represent all similarly situated persons, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and Mitchell cases. While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the Bercaw lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina. On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September 2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. At the hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: "Carson" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit styled, "Sylvia Carson v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-247 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.)" is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. On May 30, 2008, Sylvia Carson filed this putative class action against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on July 8, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration. On Aug. 21, 2008, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding. On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted Plaintiff's motion, transferring all of the related lawsuits to the Western District of North Carolina. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: "Gonzalez" Suit v. HLC in Calif. Dismissed in Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit filed by Daniel Gonzalez against a Tree.com, Inc. subsidiary, Home Loan Center, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California was dismissed in December 2008. HLC operates primarily under the brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)." The putative class-action suit styled, "Gonzalez v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. CV06-5007 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)" was filed on Aug. 9, 2006. Plaintiff, a former HLC loan officer, asserted that HLC failed to pay overtime; failed to pay wages due upon termination; failed to provide proper wage statements; failed to reimburse employees for expenses and/or improperly deducted wages for business-related expenses; and failed to provide meal and rest periods. Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserted violations of various California wage and hour laws, conversion, and violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"). Plaintiff purported to represent a class of loan officers employed by HLC in California since Aug. 9, 2002, and seeks damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On Dec. 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding two additional plaintiffs, David Nottingham and Jeffrey Howerton. Because these new plaintiffs had signed agreements with HLC to arbitrate all employment-related claims, HLC filed a motion to compel arbitration. Following a mediation held in September 2007, the parties entered into an agreement to settle this action, subject to court approval. Under the settlement agreement, HLC agreed to pay a maximum of $4.0 million, inclusive of payments to class members as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On May 13, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On June 13, 2008, the court, following a hearing, granted Plaintiffs' motion and preliminarily approved the settlement. The court also scheduled a final approval hearing for Dec. 16, 2008. As of Sept. 30, 2007, LendingTree, LLC's reserve for this matter was approximately $2.1 million. The number of class members actually submitting claims for payment was higher than expected, resulting in a larger overall settlement than originally forecasted. As a final settlement, in December 2008, HLC disbursed $3.4 million to the class members collectively, of which approximately $1.0 million is subject to contractual indemnification by the former HLC stockholders. Plaintiffs' claims were then dismissed on Dec. 18, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: HLC Underwriting Clerks' Lawsuit Pending in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit styled, "Artzi v. LendingTree, LLC, IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 00180037 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)," remains pending. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. Home Loan Center is a subsidiary of the company that operates primarily under the brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)." In September 2008, Elion Artzi and Shannon Kostadinov served this putative class-action suit against LendingTree, IAC/InterActiveCorp and HLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. Plaintiffs, former HLC underwriting clerks, allege that HLC denied overtime compensation in violation of California labor law; failed to pay wages for compensable meal breaks in violation of California labor law; failed to pay timely wages in violation of California labor law; failed to furnish itemized wage statements in violation of California labor law; and based upon the foregoing, committed unfair business practices in violation of the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"). Plaintiffs purport to represent all underwriting clerks employed by HLC in California since July 27, 2004. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. No trial date has been set. A status conference is set for March 9, 2009. No further updates were provided in the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: "Miller" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action lawsuit captioned, "Miller v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08cv2300 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill.)" is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003. On April 22, 2008, Eugene Miller filed this putative class- action case against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy and misappropriation of confidential information. Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on June 23, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration. On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the Miller lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina. On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's June 2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. At the hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: "Mitchell" Suit in Oklahoma Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit styled, "Mitchell v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 08-303-RJC (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. N.C.)," is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Home Loan Center, a subsidiary of the company, operates primarily under the brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)." On April 28, 2008, Angela Mitchell filed this putative class action against HLC and LendingTree, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, negligence and negligence per se. Plaintiff purports to represent all similarly situated persons, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On LendingTree's demand, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting transfer of the lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina on June 18, 2008. The motion was granted and the lawsuit was transferred to the Western District of North Carolina on June 26, 2008. On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers; and (2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson plaintiffs in support of this motion. While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on July 8, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration. On Aug. 21, 2008, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding. On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted Plaintiff's motion, transferring all of the related lawsuits to the Western District of North Carolina. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREE.COM INC: Primanto Seeks Suit Nixing to Join Richardson Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Primanto seeks dismissal of his putative class-action suit against a Tree.com, Inc. subsidiary, Home Loan Center, Inc., to participate in the settlement of the case styled Richardson v. Home Loan Center, Inc. On Sept. 28, 2007, William Primanto filed a putative class- action suit against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County, captioned, "Primanto v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 07CC01382 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)." Plaintiff, a former HLC loan officer, alleges that HLC failed to pay overtime and asserts violations of various California wage and hour laws and of the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (the "UCL"). Plaintiff purports to represent all loan officers employed by HLC in California since Sept. 28, 2003, and seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, restitution and attorneys' fees. On December 13, 2007, the court, at the request of the parties, entered an order staying the action pending resolution of the "Gonzalez" action. The case remains stayed. On Jan. 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a dismissal with the court because Plaintiff will be participating in the Richardson settlement, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Ga. Litigation Regarding Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Wachovia Bank, N.A. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in connection to overdraft fees, R. Robin McDonald of the Fulton County Daily Report reports. The suit was filed by Fulton County, Ga., resident Ken Vollmer on March 2, 2009 under the caption, "Vollmer v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:09-cv-00560-CC." It generally accuses the bank of deceptive practices intended to maximize bank profits at the expense of their customers and challenges bank policies governing the assessment of overdraft fees, according to the Fulton County Daily Report. Mr. Vollmer's suit claims that Wachovia has a "routine practice" of posting charges to consumer bank accounts in such a way as to maximize overdraft fees, even at times when the actual funds in the account are sufficient to cover the transaction. According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the Fulton County Daily Report, those practices, include posting to a consumer account charges that pass through the bank in the course of a single day in order of the largest amount to the smallest, even when larger charges occur days after smaller charges. They also include "intentionally delaying and rearranging the posting of transactions to accounts" and assessing overdraft fees even when customers have sufficient funds in their account to cover debits as they come due, according to the complaint. Mr. Vollmer's suit doesn't dispute Wachovia's right to assess overdraft fees if an account is legitimately overdrawn, Fulton County Daily Report reported. However, Mr. Vollmer's lawyers, E. Adam Webb, Esq., and G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq., argue, "Because the occurrence, amount and frequency of overdraft charges are set unilaterally by [the bank], [it] has an obligation to assess and impose overdraft charges on consumers' bank account in good faith." The bank breached that obligation, and acted in bad faith, they add, "by intentionally delaying and rearranging the posting of transactions to accounts in order to maximize the amount of overdraft charges imposed," according to the Fulton County Daily Report. The suit is "Vollmer v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:09-cv- 00560-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. (flemond@webbllc.com) Edward Adam Webb, Esq. (eadamwebb@hotmail.com) The Webb Law Group, LLC Suite 480 1900 The Exchange, SE Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: 770-444-9325 Fax: 770-444-0271 Representing the defendant is: Jason M. Beach, Esq. (jbeach@hunton.com) Hunton & Williams LLP 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Phone: 404-888-4000 WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Overdraft Fee Suits in Fla., N.J., Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Wachovia Bank, N.A. is facing nearly identical overdraft fee lawsuits by irate customers in federal courts in Miami, Fla., Camden, N.J., and in the northern district of California -- all of which are seeking class-action status. Those suits accuse the bank of deceptive practices intended to maximize bank profits at the expense of their customers and challenge bank policies governing the assessment of overdraft fees. New Securities Fraud Cases CENTURY ALUMINUM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Mar 17, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- On March 12, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the shares of Century Aluminum Company ("Century Aluminum" or the "Company") [NASDAQ:CENX] pursuant or traceable to the Company's January 28, 2009 Secondary Offering (the "Secondary Offering" or the "Class Period") against the Company, certain officers and directors, and the underwriters pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o (the "Class"). The case name is styled, "Abrams v. Century Aluminum Company, et al." On or about January 29, 2009, the Company completed its Secondary Offering in which it sold 24.5 million shares and received proceeds of approximately $104.7 million. In connection with the Secondary Offering, the Company issued a registration statement and prospectus (together, the "Secondary Offering Documents") which incorporated by reference the Company's financial results for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2008, June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2008. The Complaint alleges that the Secondary Offering Documents were materially false and misleading because it failed to include the information contained in the Company's 8-K of March 2, 2009 that the initially reported cash flows associated with the termination of forward financial sales contracts by issuing $929 million of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock were improperly reported "on a net basis as an operating activity" rather than "on a gross presentation basis as both an operating activity and a financing activity to reflect the cash receipts and disbursements associated the transaction." Century Aluminum's 8-K also reported that, as a result of this improper accounting, the financial statements reported in the Form 10-Q for three quarters in 2008 "should no longer be relied upon." As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in by each of the defendants in issuing materially false and misleading Secondary Offering documents, plaintiff and the other members of the Class have sustained substantial damage in connection with the purchase of the securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the Offering Documents. For more details, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Martin E. Restituyo, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com CORUS BANKSHARES: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., March 17, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Corus Bankshares, Inc. ("Corus Bankshares")(Nasdaq: CORS) between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Corus Bankshares' business, operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Corus Bankshares common stock. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 PERRIGO CO: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- 2009-03-17 17:53:01 -- Business Wire 2009 -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Perrigo Company (NYSE:PRGO) between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Perrigo's financial condition and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Perrigo securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented Perrigo's exposure to at least $18 million of auction rate securities held by the Company. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 ********* 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 * * *