/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 62 Headlines ALABAMA: Official, Corporations Face Litigation Over PACT Losses AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Successfully Defends Against N.Y. Lawsuit CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Morris Polich Helps Obtain $256.52M Judgment DELL INC: Denies Allegations in California Discrimination Suit ELI LILLY: Continues to Face Zyprexa Suits in U.S. and Canada ELI LILLY: Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Remains Pending in Ind. ING GROEP: Faces Another Securities Fraud Litigation in New York INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Arizona J. ARON: Faces $150M Litigation by Oklahoma Oil, Gas Producers KRAFT GLOBAL: Faces Water, Air Pollution Lawsuit in Indiana LOS ANGELES: Faces Probation Officers' Overtime Wage Litigation LOUISIANA PACIFIC: TrimBoard Settlement for Homeowners to Expand MEDIACOM COMMS: Mo. Jury Awards $44T To Plaintiffs in "Ogg" Case MOUNT CLEMENS: Nurses' Lawsuit to Improve Staffing Moves Forward PARTNER COMMS: Faces Subscribers' Litigation in Israeli Court PFIZER INC: End-Payor Plaintiffs Drop Claims in Neurontin Case PHILIP MORRIS: Court Allows "Light Cigarettes" Suit to Proceed TIDEWATER MARKETING: Faces Suit Over Unredeemable Gas Vouchers WYETH: Appeal to Vacated Order in Engineers' Union Suit Pending WYETH: April 1 Certification Hearing Set for "Swanston" Action WYETH: Briefing on Appeal in Section 340B Suit Set for 2Q 2009 WYETH: Consolidated Antitrust Suit by Protonix Purchasers Stayed WYETH: Hormone Therapy Personal Injury Litigation Still Ongoing WYETH: Motion to Dismiss Pristiq-Related Litigation Pending New Securities Fraud Cases GENERAL ELECTRIC: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* ALABAMA: Official, Corporations Face Litigation Over PACT Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two individuals who bought into Alabama's Prepaid Affordable College Tuition (PACT) Program filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the state and several corporations over the program's steep losses, Marie Leech of The Birmingham News reports. The PACT trust fund has lost almost half its value since mid- 2007. At their current value, the fund's assets are sufficient to refund the money paid into it but far short of the amount needed to pay participants' tuition in the coming years, according to The Birmingham News report. The lawsuit, filed on March 19, 2009 in Calhoun County Circuit Court, lists Allen R. Hudson and Nina H. McGinnis as the plaintiffs. It was filed by Anniston-based lawyer Donald W. Stewart, Esq., and is seeking class-action status. The Birmingham News reported that State Treasurer Kay Ivey, chairman of the PACT Program, is the lead defendant. Other defendants are several corporations that plaintiffs say participated in the crisis: -- Callan Associates; -- Intech Investment Management; -- Rumbline Advisors; -- C.S. McKee LP; -- Earnest Partners; -- Turner Investment Partners; -- Acadian Asset Management; -- Principal Global Investors; -- Western Asset Management Co.; and -- Sterne, Agee and Leach. According to the lawsuit, "Due to the defendants' collective negligence, wantonness, breach of contract and/or failure to properly administer, invest and/or manage the investments relevant to the PACT plan, the plaintiffs ... will be unable to attend college as the PACT plan intended." At the beginning of the month, Ms. Ivey sent letters to participants in the state's PACT Program warning that the trust fund backing the program had suffered steep losses, reports The Birmingham News. The fund, which lost 46 percent of its value over 18 months, remains invested mostly in stocks. Valued at $899 million in 2007, it was worth $484 million at the end of 2008. The Birmingham News reported that the trust fund was financed by payments from parents and grandparents who bought prepaid tuition contracts. Officials have said the state may refund participants' original investments instead of honoring the contracts and paying students' tuition. PACT officials have said the program's assets were not insured or backed by the state, despite explicit guarantees in many contracts that participants' tuition would be paid. The lawsuit states that Mr. Hudson bought a PACT contract in October for Emma L. Hathaway for a lump-sum payment of $24,149. Emma's projected college enrollment date is 2026. It also states Mr. Hudson and Ms. McGinnis bought a PACT contract in December for Stevie A. Graves for a lump-sum payment of $22,031. Stevie's projected college enrollment date is 2025, according to The Birmingham News report. AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Successfully Defends Against N.Y. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice shareholder class actions filed between June and August 2005 against Authentidate Holding Corp., a worldwide provider of secure Health Information Exchange and workflow management services, and certain current and former directors and former officers. The Company has no information as to whether plaintiffs intend to appeal this decision. "We are pleased that the Court has dismissed this action in favor of Authentidate," stated Ben Benjamin, President of Authentidate Holding Corp. "Authentidate's Board of Directors and management team will continue to concentrate their time and resources on developing the Company's business." Authentidate Holding Corp. -- http://www.authentidate.com/is a worldwide provider of secure Health Information Exchange and workflow management services. The Company's software and web- based services enable healthcare organizations and other enterprises to increase revenues, improve productivity and reduce costs by eliminating paper and manual work steps from clinical, administrative and other processes and enhancing compliance with regulatory requirements. The web-based services are delivered as Software as a Service (Saas) to customers. These solutions incorporate rules-based electronic forms, intelligent routing, transaction management, electronic signatures, identity credentialing, content authentication and automated audit trails. Both web and fax based communications are integrated into automated and trusted workflow solutions. The Company has offices in the United States and Germany. In the United States, Authentidate offers its patent pending content authentication technology in the form of the United States Postal Service(R) Electronic Postmark(R) (EPM). CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Morris Polich Helps Obtain $256.52M Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- Morris Polich & Purdy LLP successfully represented plaintiffs against one of the nation's leading credit counseling firms and its founders for non-compliance with the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) and other claims. Cambridge Credit Counseling, Inc. misleadingly claimed to consumers that it was a non-profit organization, but those claims have now been adjudged false and fraudulent. The $256,527,000 class action judgment against John and Richard Puccio and several other entities related to the credit counseling organization issued following summary judgment being entered against the defendants by United States District Court Judge Michael A Ponsor of the Massachusetts District. Advertisements for credit counseling have bombarded viewers and listeners of the Internet, TV, and late-night Radio for the past ten years: "Are you in debt? We are a non-profit organization that will negotiate with your creditors to lower your interest rates and improve your credit." Such a claim, according to David J. Vendler, a partner at Morris Polich & Purdy LLP, is common of credit counseling organizations. "What consumers never knew was that the majority of these "non-profit" debt counseling entities were a sham, and were really operated as for-profit commercial enterprises," says Vendler. The case "Zimmermann v. Cambridge Credit Counseling, Inc.," was originally filed in 2003, and was initially dismissed on the defendants' Rule 12 motion on the ground that the credit counseling entity could not be held liable under the CROA due to its non-profit 501(c)(3) status. In a case of first impression nationwide, however, the First Circuit reversed, holding that credit repair companies are not automatically excluded from the definition of a "credit repair organization" simply because they are organized as non profit tax exempt entities. The court held that, in order to be immune from suit under the CROA, the defendant must prove that it actually operates in a manner consistent with both of those statuses. The named plaintiffs were a Virginia couple who paid approximately $1,000 in 2002 for a customized debt management program with Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation. "The success rates for debt management plans are terrible," Vendler says, "yet Congress nonetheless chose to make credit counseling a requirement to filing bankruptcy as part of the new Bankruptcy Reform Act." After several months on the Cambridge debt management program, the Zimmermanns owed more money to creditors, and had worse credit scores, than before they contacted Cambridge. They sued the company, its owners John and Richard Puccio, as well as several related entities for violations of the CROA, alleging that Cambridge's non profit status was a sham, and that John and Richard Puccio had, through a complex series of corporate maneuvers, personally made millions from America's most vulnerable consumers, i.e. those already severely overburdened by debt, who are willing to do and pay almost anything to avoid bankruptcy. The Zimmermanns' case is not the only class action suit handled by Vendler and Morris Polich & Purdy. A similar case alleging nonprofit fraud in the credit counseling industry was settled for approximately $35,000,000 (with the FTC as a co- plaintiff) in 2005. The main defendant in that case was Andris Pukke, a convicted felon, who founded Ameridebt, Inc., Debticated Consumer Counseling, Inc. and several other ostensibly "non-profit" tax exempt credit counseling entities. There have been Congressional hearings regarding such rampant abuses in the credit counseling industry, and the IRS has revoked the tax-exempt status of many credit counseling agencies, but the actual consumers/victims have seen little relief. While Vendler is sure that the full amount of the judgment will never be satisfied, he is confident that consumers will be reimbursed for at least a portion of their losses. Also, because of the injunctive relief that was entered as part of the judgment, he is sure that the perpetrators of this fraud will never be allowed to repeat it. Morris Polich & Purdy LLP was co-counsel in both cases with the Charlottesville, Virginia office of Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel PLLC, as well as Charlottesville attorney Gregory Duncan. Massachusetts attorney Steven G. Hennessy also represents plaintiffs in the Zimmermann case. For more details, contact: David Vendler, Esq. Polich & Purdy LLP Phone: (213) 417-5100 Web site: http://www.mpplaw.com DELL INC: Denies Allegations in California Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dell, Inc. denied allegations in a lawsuit that accuses it of discriminating against women and older workers, saying that it had treated employees unfairly and said no layoffs were made on the basis of age or sex, Agam Shah of IDG News Service reports. In a recent filing, the company said that the layoffs were consistent with Dell's business needs and not targeted at particular employees, the company said in a court filing on March 18. Dell announced in May 2007 that it planned to lay off 8,800 workers, or about 10 percent of its workforce, as part of its efforts to cut costs, according to the IDG News Service report. Antone Gonsalves of InformationWeek previously reported that Dell, Inc. is denying allegations that massive layoffs at the computer maker have unfairly targeted women and employees over 40 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008). The allegations stem from a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California by four women, all former senior employees in Dell's human resources department. The suit is captioned, "Chapman et al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945-MHP." In addition to discrimination in layoffs, the plaintiffs claim Dell systemically discriminates in blocking women across the company from entering the top ranks, according to InformationWeek. The four senior HR women, namely Mildred J. Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey and Bethany Riches, accuse the world's second largest computer manufacturer of systemic discrimination in blocking women across the company from breaking into the top ranks of what a Dell male Vice President, Michael Summers, calls the "old boy networks in Dell" (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31 ,2008). The plaintiffs, who as HR specialists are intimately familiar with the company's employment practices, seek to change Dell's discriminatory policies regarding pay, job placement, promotion, and termination. The lawsuit demands $500 million in damages for a class of thousands of current and former Dell female managers and executives, and older employees disproportionately affected by the company's mass layoffs in 2007 and 2008. InformationWeek reports that the plaintiffs are claiming that Dell engineered layoffs of more than 8,000 employees, singling out women and older employees. As a result, Dell's upper- management ranks have swelled to about 80% male. The suit claims each of the plaintiffs lost more than $1 million in projected salary increases, promotion grants, and short- and long-term incentive awards, according to the InformationWeek report. The plaintiffs allege that chief executive Michael Dell, along with others on the 14-member executive leadership team and other senior male executives, carried out or assisted in the discriminatory acts described in the complaint. The four plaintiffs and the class are represented in this matter by Steven L. Wittels, David W. Sanford, and Janette Wipper, who head teams of lawyers from Sanford Wittels & Heisler's San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and New York City offices. On Nov. 3, 2008, Dell denied the allegations. A Dell spokesman told InformationWeek "We believe the claims in the suit are without merit." The spokesman added, "Dell does not tolerate discrimination in any aspect of employment and will vigorously defend any claim that we are not acting in accordance with the law or our policies." The suit is "Chapman et al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945- MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Thomas Marc Litton, Esq. (tmlitton@gmail.com) Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP 120 Montgomery Street Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-421-4770 Fax: 415-421-4784 ELI LILLY: Continues to Face Zyprexa Suits in U.S. and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Co. continues to face several purported class- action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the side effects and marketing of Zyprexa. U.S. Lawsuits In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide class action suits on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which is brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of New York in 2006 on similar grounds. In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as described in the New York cases. In general, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. In September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and individual consumers. The company appealed the certification order, and Judge Weinstein's order denying Eli Lilly's motion for summary judgment, in September 2008. The Pennsylvania case is set for trial in October 2009. Canadian Lawsuits In early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took Zyprexa. One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and British Columbia. The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in the litigation pending in the U.S., 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. Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and sells products in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. The company also has an animal health business segment. It manufactures and distributes its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S., Puerto Rico and 25 other countries. Eli Lilly and company's products are sold in approximately 135 countries. The company also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food production. Its principal products include Neurosciences products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products, Cardiovascular products, Animal health products and Other pharmaceuticals. ELI LILLY: Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Remains Pending in Ind. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action suit filed against Eli Lilly and Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for alleged racial discrimination remains pending. The suit was filed in April 2006 by several workers of the drug company who allegedly experienced racial discrimination. Three former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged that the company paid black employees less than their white counterparts, passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them. The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003. One of the plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an unrelated reason. The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000 black employees. It is asking unspecified damages, lost compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future discrimination. The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A. Davis of Memphis, Tennessee; and two former sales reps, Jarmaine Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina. In November 2007, the plaintiffs amended their original complaint to add 50 new plaintiffs, as well as the national and local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Under the current schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their class certification motion in March 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. The suit is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06- cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Richard L. Young, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joshua Rose, Esq. (daver@roselawyers.com) Terri N. Marcus, Esq. David L. Rose, Esq. Rose & Rose, P.C. 1320 19th St., N.W., Suite 601 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-331-8555 Fax: 202-331-0996 Representing the defendants is: Ellen E. Boshkoff, Esq. (ellen.boshkoff@bakerd.com) Baker & Daniels 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-237-1266 Fax: 317-237-1000 ING GROEP: Faces Another Securities Fraud Litigation in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- ING Groep NV faces another purported securities fraud class- action lawsuit alleging that the Dutch financial services giant deceived the public about its parlous mortgage-related exposures, Law360 reports. The complaint, lodged on March 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was filed by Murray, Frank & on behalf of investors who purchased billions of dollars of securities from the company, according to the Law360 report. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading registration statement, prospectuses, and other documents (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2009). These documents failed to disclose risks that: -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage- related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- The Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and -- ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would have to raise an additional EUR10 billion by selling equity in the Company to the Dutch government. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more information, contact: Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801 New York, NY 10016-1101 Phone: 212-682-1818 800-497-8076 e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/ INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Arizona --------------------------------------------------------------- Insight Enterprises, Inc. is facing several purported class- action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging securities fraud violations, Stephen Taub of CFO.com reports. The computer products reseller is being sued by shareholders in Arizona federal court. At least four law firms have announced the filing of class-action lawsuits on behalf of investors who purchased securities between Jan. 30, 2007, and this Feb. 6, 2009, according to the CFO.com report. One such complaint was filed by the Izard Nobel LLP. The law firm announced on March 25, 2009, that a lawsuit seeking class action status had been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2009, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2009). The Complaint charges that Insight and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false statements. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the following: -- Insight was improperly accounting for trade credits; -- the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- Insight lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. On Feb. 9, 2009, Insight revealed that it would restate its previously reported earnings as a result of its historical accounting treatment of aged trade credits. Insight also announced that it expects to restate financial statements included in the Company's most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, and in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008. On this news, shares of Insight fell $2.85 to close at $3.05 per share. 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/insightenterprises J. ARON: Faces $150M Litigation by Oklahoma Oil, Gas Producers -------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Oklahoma suppliers owed money by SemGroup LP filed a federal class-action lawsuit seeking nearly $150 million from J. Aron & Co., a Goldman Sachs subsidiary which ultimately bought that oil and gas from the bankrupt Tulsa energy company, Rod Walton of Tulsa World reports. The suit, entitled, "IC-CO Inc. et al v. J. Aron & Company, Case No. 6:09-cv-00122-RAW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on March 25, 2009 by IC-CO Inc., W.E.O.C., Inc. and Reserve Management, Inc., which own wells in Oklahoma. The complaint alleges that J. Aron & Co. is also responsible for SemGroup's lack of payment to producers. J. Aron originally owed $434 million to SemGroup for oil and gas purchases, but has agreed to pay only $89.8 million, according to court records, copies of which were obtained by Tulsa World. The producers charge that J. Aron holds another $345.6 million in unpaid oil and gas production from SemGroup. The petitioners allege that they personally suffered almost half of those damages, reports the Tulsa World. According to the complaint, a cop of which was obtained by Tulsa World, "As a direct and proximate cause and result of the wrongful acts of J. Aron, the class has suffered a cumulative loss of approximately $143,126,088." SemGroup LP reportedly owes as much as $1 billion to oil and gas producers for production it picked up on credit in the month before its July 22, 2008, bankruptcy petition. The privately held Tulsa firm sought Chapter 11 protection in Delaware after piling up debts that also included $2.4 billion in lost margins on oil futures trades, according to reports. Producers nationwide have sought repayment from SemGroup LP through the Delaware bankruptcy case, according to the Tulsa World report. KRAFT GLOBAL: Faces Water, Air Pollution Lawsuit in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- Kraft Global Foods Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by Attica, Indiana homeowners who are alleging that the water and air pollution in the area is hurting property values and risking their health, The Journal and Courier reports. The chemicals are from a nearby, now-defunct Radio Materials Corp. factory, which Kraft acquired through mergers. The lawsuit alleges that chemicals found are known to cause cancer, according to The Journal and Courier report. The suit was filed on March 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana by Susan Stoll, Patrick Stoll, Mary Bowles and Charles Bowles. The suit is "STOLL et al v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:09-cv-00364-LJM-DML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Larry J. McKinney, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Cory Stephen Brundage, Esq. (cb@brundagelaw.com) 1700 One American Square Box 82053 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0003 Phone: (317) 639-4875 Fax: (317) 639-4882 LOS ANGELES: Faces Probation Officers' Overtime Wage Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Bentley, on March 25, 2009, filed a federal court lawsuit on behalf of himself and all Los Angeles County Probation Officers alleging that he worked overtime hours without getting paid. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the County from engaging in this unlawful practice and monetary compensation. Mr. Bentley is represented by noted civil rights law firm Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP. The lawsuit alleges: "The probation officers are essential to the County's ability to deter crime. Yet, the County requires many officers to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to unreasonable hours without pay. We believe this violates the law." "The probation officers are essential to the County's ability to deter crime. Yet, the County requires many officers to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to unreasonable hours without pay. We believe this violates the law. "The probation officers are essential to the County's ability to deter crime. Yet, the County requires many officers to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to unreasonable hours without pay. We believe this violates the law. Timothy Bentley, a 17-year veteran Probation Officer for the Los Angeles County Probation Department, filed the Collective Action Law Suit in Federal Court on behalf of himself and other similarly situated probation officers for overtime wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under this federal law, employees may sue collectively, providing them with a mechanism for legal recourse similar to class action law suits. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles (Timothy Bentley v. County of Los Angeles, Central District of California, Case No. CV09 2063 JSL (CWK)), alleges that Los Angeles County failed to pay overtime wages to its Probation Officers within the Suitable Placement Division for the past three years. The complaint seeks both a preliminary injunction to stop the County from its unlawful practice as well as monetary damages for all employees covered under the law suit. The lawsuit states, "In order for Plaintiff to reasonably manage his caseload without having to work overtime, he should have had approximately 30 to 40 cases. Between October 2006 and November 2007, Plaintiff had a case load between approximately 70 to 90 active cases. The Probation Department, makes it a practice to overload its PO's with so many cases that it is impossible for a PO to accomplish their job duties without working substantial overtime. Thus, Plaintiff and other PO's spend considerable hours working overtime at home, after work hours and on the weekends to keep up with their caseload. Yet, the Probation Department does not pay these PO's for the overtime they worked." V. James DeSimone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP, attorneys for Mr. Bentley said: "The probation officers are essential to the County's ability to deter crime. Yet, the County requires many officers to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to unreasonable hours without pay. We believe this violates the law." For more details, contact: V. James DeSimone Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP Phone: (310) 396-0731 Web site: http://www.losangelesemploymentlawyer.com LOUISIANA PACIFIC: TrimBoard Settlement for Homeowners to Expand ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Lucey of Lucey Law firm and Paul Dominick of Nexsen Pruet law firm, in 2008, reached a class action settlement (Case No. 2:05-1515-PMD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina Charleston Division with Louisiana Pacific for compensation to home owners and others for damaged TrimBoard on their structures. The plaintiff alleged that the TrimBoard was unsuitable for exterior use, and that it often failed prematurely due to water absorption, resulting in swelling or decay. Many homeowners were negatively impacted by this defective product, including a loss in overall resale value of their homes, and a second class action to include residents outside of Charleston County, SC, is now pending. TrimBoard is a manufactured or composite wood trim product, sometimes referred to as medium density fiberboard, which is used as trim on the exterior of structures. It comes in different widths, and is often used as trim around windows and doors, at corners of structures as corner board, as or over the band board at the base of the first floor, as fascia or soffit near the roof line, and/or as decorative trim on columns, rail posts, and along porches or stair stringers. It was sold to customers as "easier to use" and "more durable" than other trim products, despite the fact that Louisiana Pacific was aware of its defective nature, particularly with installations in coastal South Carolina, which is recognized as being in a severe weather belt. The product was commonly used during periods of rapid neighborhood development in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Prior to the settlement in Charleston County, Louisiana Pacific would inspect the house, deny any product defect, blame the installer, and then offer a small "policy" settlement for some damaged wood, at $5.00 or so per foot of damaged board. If a homeowner has TrimBoard on their structure, the settlement provides for compensation of $17 per foot for partial replacement of damaged TrimBoard or $14 per foot for complete replacement of damaged TrimBoard, less attorney fees of one- third. The settlement also provides for a greater amount of the TrimBoard to be eligible for compensation. The Charleston County settlement received final court approval in January and class counsel is now attempting to secure similar benefits for the rest of the state in a second class action pending in the same court. For more details, contact: Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A. 415 Mill Street Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 849-8400 or (843) 720-1736 Web site: http://www.lucey-law.com/LPTrimClaims.html http://www.nexsenpruet.com MEDIACOM COMMS: Mo. Jury Awards $44T To Plaintiffs in "Ogg" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Clay County, Mo. jury has ordered cable television provider Mediacom Communications Corp. to pay a Missouri farming couple almost $44,000 in damages for installing cable on their property without permission, The Associated Press reports. The case, entitled, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC," has been certified a class action that could cover up to 1,400 people in Missouri, according to The Associated Press. Middletown, N.Y.-based Mediacom told AP that it plans to appeal the verdict. It argued it didn't need to get permission from Gary and Janice Ogg in 1999 because it had permission from a state highway commission and an electric utility that already held rights of way on their property, reports The Associated Press. The Associated Press reported that the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that those easements weren't binding on the Oggs and that the company should have gotten separate permission from them. Mediacom LLC, one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries, is named as a defendant in the putative class action, captioned, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC," pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, by which the plaintiffs are seeking class-wide damages for alleged trespasses on land owned by private parties. The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2001. It alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners to place its fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from other third parties. An order declaring that this action is appropriate for class relief was entered in April 2006. While the parties continue to contest liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages. Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claimed compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million. Legal fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million. The plaintiffs have recently proposed an alternative damage theory of $40.0 million in compensatory damages. On July 23, 2008, Mediacom LLC filed a motion to strike the expert testimony presented by plaintiffs in its first damage theory and another motion to preclude plaintiffs' presentation of the second alternative damage theory. A trial date of Nov. 3, 2008 was set for the claim by the class representatives, Gary and Janice Ogg, but has been postponed until Jan. 26, 2009. In the interim, motions to strike testimony from plaintiff's experts and the recently restated theory that plaintiff's espouse were argued before the court. Mediacom LLC has tendered the lawsuit to the company's insurance carrier for defense and indemnification. The carrier has agreed to defend Mediacom LLC under a reservation of rights, and a declaratory judgment action is pending regarding the carrier's defense and coverage responsibilities. Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com-- is a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns in the United States. The company provides its customers with an array of products and services, including video services, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone service. MOUNT CLEMENS: Nurses' Lawsuit to Improve Staffing Moves Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------- A landmark lawsuit filed by registered nurses in Detroit over efforts by hospitals in their area to conspire to hold down wages for nurses-even in the face of a chronic shortage of nurses willing to work in acute care hospitals-will move forward after a federal judge rejected attempts to have the case dismissed. Judge Gerald Rosen of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rejected arguments from Mount Clemens General Hospital that the nurses' suit has no merit and ordered the case to go forward. "This puts us one step closer to giving direct care nurses a more powerful voice about how our profession deals with the chronic shortage of nurses working in hospitals. Nurses, our patients, and their families will all be better off when nurses' hard work is valued and more nurses can remain in their careers," said Cathy Glasson, RN, of the Nurse Alliance of SEIU. According to a report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, over 1.2 million nursing positions will need to be filled nationally over the next five years. The report shows that the shortage is due in part to artificially low wages caused by collusion among hospital employers. A growing body of research has linked nurse staffing to the quality of patient outcomes in hospitals. Nurses filed lawsuits in 2006 against hospitals in Albany, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, and San Antonio after research showed that nurses' real wages are not rising despite ongoing shortages of staff nurses in hospitals. Nurses assert that hospitals are colluding to hold down wages instead of boosting pay to recruit and retain enough nurses to provide higher quality care. The Nurse Alliance of SEIU has played a leading role in supporting empirical research that has exposed the national problem of employer collusion around nurse wages, shown the link between wage levels and the shortage of bedside nurses, and demonstrated the importance of staffing levels for improving patient care. With more than 84,000 nurses in 23 states, the Nurse Alliance of SEIU is one of the largest nurse organizations in the country. Through the Nurse Alliance, nurses are uniting across the country to pursue any and all solutions to bring nurses back to the bedside and raise the standard of care, from enforcement of existing laws, to calling for new legislation protecting nurses and patients, to giving nurses a voice in the delivery of patient care. PARTNER COMMS: Faces Subscribers' Litigation in Israeli Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd. (TASE:PTNR), a leading Israeli mobile communications operator, was served on March 24, 2009 with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action, filed against Partner in the District Court of Haifa. The claim alleges that Partner should not have charged its subscribers for various different services in certain circumstances. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from Partner is estimated by the Plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 1,250,000,000. Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if any, with any degree of certainty. PFIZER INC: End-Payor Plaintiffs Drop Claims in Neurontin Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Five end-payor plaintiffs, including Vista HealthPlan Inc., have voluntarily dismissed all claims against Pfizer, Inc. in a consolidated class-action suit that accused the pharmaceutical giant of a scheme to delay generic competition for the epilepsy drug Neurontin, Law360 reports. Vista HealthPlan, a painters union and three individual consumer plaintiffs lodged stipulations of voluntary dismissal on March 24, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the Law360 report. PHILIP MORRIS: Court Allows "Light Cigarettes" Suit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on March 16, 2009 that Massachusetts smokers can use a consumer protection law to sue Philip Morris, Inc. for the way it marketed Marlboro Lights, The Associated Press reports. The ruling means a class-action lawsuit brought by smokers who claim deceptive marketing can move forward, reports the Associated Press. The suit, launched way back in 1998, claimed that Philip Morris engaged in deceptive marketing since Marlboro Lights did not in fact deliver lowered tar and nicotine to smokers (due to their tendency to puff harder and longer on the less potent cigarettes), Michael Krauss at Point of Law reported. The Massachusetts court found it to have been validated by the Good decision, according to the Point of Law report. But Philip Morris publicly claimed that the statutory suit could not produce the desired consumer damages. "Potential class members generally have no claim for damages because each of them paid the same price for Marlboro Lights as they would have paid for [higher-tar] Marlboros. In addition, many of these potential class members have continued to smoke Marlboro Lights [even after the company ceased using the phrase "lower tar and nicotine" on packages in 2003] despite their claims," argues Altria associate general counsel Murray Garnick, reports Point of Law. TIDEWATER MARKETING: Faces Suit Over Unredeemable Gas Vouchers -------------------------------------------------------------- Tidewater Marketing Global Consultants and retailers BOTK LLC and Big O Tires are facing a national class-action lawsuit that was filed by a Dayton, Ohio resident who was unable to redeem $500 in gas vouchers, Diane C. Lade of the South Florida Sun- Sentinel reports. Cincinnati attorney Saba Alam said her firm is looking at other merchants, including some in Florida, as possible defendants, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that Tidewater, a marketing and redemption center, operated under multiple names, including GasolineRedemption.com and Freebeegas.com. Distributors would purchase certificates from Tidewater, reselling them to retailers for use in giveaways. Certificate holders then paid Tidewater a $5 enrollment fee and submitted $100 in gas receipts monthly in exchange for free gas cards, reports the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. For more details, contact: Saba Alam, Esq. (salam@statmanharris.com) Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC 441 Vine Street Suite 3700 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 621-2666 Fax: (513) 345-1756 or 513-587-4477 Web site: http://www.statmanharris.com WYETH: Appeal to Vacated Order in Engineers' Union Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An interlocutory appeal to the vacated order in "International Union of Operating Engineers, et al. v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al., No. MON-L-3136-06, Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty., NJ," is set for arguments in the first quarter of 2009, according to Wyeth'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 lawsuit is one of the two private class-action suits filed on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments and private health plans and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans that purchase drugs based on Average Wholesale Price (AWP). In 2008, the plaintiff announced that it would not proceed with the case. The court dismissed the case without prejudice but vacated that order four months later when plaintiffs' counsel attempted to substitute in two new union plaintiffs. Defendants were granted leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the vacation order by the New Jersey Appellate Division. That appeal will be argued in the first quarter of 2009. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. WYETH: April 1 Certification Hearing Set for "Swanston" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A class certification hearing has been set for April 1, 2009, in a private class action, Swanston v. TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc., et al., No. CV2002-004988, Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty., Ariz., which names Wyeth as a defendant. The private class action was filed on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments, as well as private health plans and ERISA plans that purchase drugs based on AWP. The Swanston case is a putative statewide class action. The parties have been engaged in motion practice attempting to determine the extent to which the defendants, claims and drugs in this matter overlap those in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding, 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. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. WYETH: Briefing on Appeal in Section 340B Suit Set for 2Q 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing on the interlocutory appeal in the putative class- action lawsuit, "County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., et al., No. C 05 3740-WHA, U.S.D.C, N.D. Cal.," will take place during the second quarter of 2009, before the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Wyeth is one of numerous defendants named in the putative class action lawsuit allegedly filed on behalf of entities covered under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 256b. Section 340B requires that certain pricing discounts be provided to charitable institutions and provides methods for the calculation of those discounts. Plaintiff alleges that each defendant violated these statutory pricing guidelines and breached the Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement that it entered into with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to which the applicable plaintiff is not a party. The complaint seeks an accounting, damages for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and unjust enrichment damages. Plaintiff requests a judgment requiring defendants to disclose their Best Prices (as defined under the Medicaid Drug Rebate statute) and Section 340B ceiling prices and injunctive relief. On Feb. 14, 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all four of plaintiff's causes of action but allowed plaintiff 15 days to attempt to replead its California False Claims Act cause of action with more specificity. Plaintiff did so, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which was dismissed by the court in its entirety without leave to amend on May 17, 2006. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which motion was denied on July 28, 2006, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The sole issue on appeal was whether covered Section 340B entities are "intended third-party beneficiaries" of the Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreements between the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and each of the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Ninth Circuit ruled that covered Section 340B entities are such beneficiaries and therefore have the right to sue for reimbursement of allegedly excess payments; they were not, however, entitled to challenge as false or inaccurate the reported Average Manufacturer Prices (AMP) reported to HHS for each drug. Upon remand, the district court entered a protective order precluding discovery into the calculation of defendants' AMPs, but then sua sponte certified the question of the scope of allowable discovery for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has now accepted that appeal, and briefing will take place during the second quarter of 2009, 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. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. WYETH: Consolidated Antitrust Suit by Protonix Purchasers Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated antitrust class-action case filed by purchasers of Protonix, which names Wyeth as a defendant, remains stayed pending resolution of the underlying patent litigation. The company is a named defendant, along with its marketing partner on Protonix, Altana Pharma AG (since acquired by Nycomed GmbH), in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New Jersey, by two direct purchasers of Protonix, purporting to represent a putative class of direct purchasers of Protonix. The suit is captioned "Dik Drug Company, et al. v. Altana Pharma AG, et al., Civil Action No. 07-5849 (JLL/CCC), U.S.D.C., D.N.J." Plaintiffs allege that the company and Altana have violated the federal antitrust laws by engaging in a scheme to block generic competition to Protonix, including procuring the patent that covers the active ingredient in Protonix, pantoprazole, by fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and wrongfully listing the patent in the Orange Book. Plaintiffs further allege that the Company and Altana instituted baseless patent infringement litigation against two potential generic competitors to keep a lower-priced substitute from the market. The complaint seeks treble damages, declaratory relief and costs, including attorneys' fees. In addition, two actions have been brought against the company, Altana and Nycomed by indirect purchasers of Protonix, purporting to represent putative national classes of indirect purchasers of Protonix. The actions are styled: "Fawcett v. Altana, et al., Civil Action No. 07-6133 (JLL)," and "Painters' District Council No. 30 v. Altana, et al., Civil Action No. 07- 6150 (JLL)." Both actions have been filed in federal court in New Jersey. Plaintiffs in these actions allege various violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as violations of various state consumer protection statutes. These plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a course of anticompetitive conduct intended to secure an unlawful monopoly through procurement of an unenforceable patent and to extend that alleged unlawful monopoly by preventing entry of generics. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, as well as restitution, disgorgement, constructive trust and unjust enrichment. All three antitrust cases have been consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the underlying patent litigation, 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. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. WYETH: Hormone Therapy Personal Injury Litigation Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Litigation, including class-action lawsuits, alleging injury as a result of the plaintiffs' use of one or more of Wyeth's hormone or estrogen therapy products, including PREMARIN and PREMPRO, is ongoing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was defending approximately 8,700 actions brought on behalf of approximately 10,800 plaintiffs in various federal and state courts throughout the United States (including, in particular, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) for personal injuries, including claims for breast cancer, stroke, ovarian cancer and heart disease, allegedly resulting from their use of PREMARIN or PREMPRO. The plaintiffs have dismissed the putative province-wide personal injury class action pending in Alberta, Canada, "Alcantara v. Wyeth, et al., No. 0601-00926," Court of Queens Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, Canada. A putative Canadian nationwide personal injury class action remains pending in a British Columbia court. Of the 31 hormone therapy cases alleging breast cancer that have been resolved after being set for trial, 24 now have been resolved in the Company's favor (by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs (14), summary judgment (6), defense verdict (3) or judgment for the Company notwithstanding the verdict (1)), several of which are being appealed by the plaintiffs. Of the remaining seven cases, four such cases have been settled; one resulted in a plaintiffs' verdict that was vacated by the court and a new trial ordered (which plaintiffs have appealed); and two (Rowatt and Scroggin) resulted in plaintiffs' verdicts that the Company is appealing. Additional cases have been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs before a trial setting. Additional trials of hormone therapy cases are scheduled for 2009. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has recorded $174.3 million in insurance receivables relating to defense and settlement costs of its hormone therapy litigation. The insurance carriers that provide coverage that the Company contends is applicable have either denied coverage or have reserved their rights with respect to such coverage. The Company believes that the denials of coverage are improper and intends to enforce its rights under the terms of those policies, 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. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. WYETH: Motion to Dismiss Pristiq-Related Litigation Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative class- action suit styled, "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 07-CV-10329, U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y." remains pending. On Nov. 14, 2007, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed alleging that the Company and Robert Essner, the Company's former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, made false and/or misleading statements about the safety of Pristiq and failed to disclose hepatic and cardiovascular events seen in the Pristiq clinical trials, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased Wyeth securities during the alleged class period (Jan. 31, 2006 through July 24, 2007) and to have been damaged by the drop in the Company's share price following the announcement of the FDA's approvable letter for Pristiq for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) on July 24, 2007. In April 2008, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which, inter alia, named several additional employee defendants and shortened the class period by approximately six months (the new class period beginning on June 26, 2006). A motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint has been filed and is awaiting a decision from the court, 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. Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health). Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products. Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-counter. Principal Animal Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants. New Securities Fraud Cases GENERAL ELECTRIC: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Bottini, LLP, on March 5, 2009, filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) during the period January 23, 2009 through February 27, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that on January 23, 2009, the Company's Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, stated unequivocally that GE would maintain its quarterly $.31 per share dividend, having sufficient cash on hand and cash flow to achieve that goal. In direct contradiction to Immelt's assurance, on February 27, 2009, GE announced it was cutting the dividend to $.10 per share. The next day, GE shares fell from $8.51 per share to $7.60 per share. Shockingly, Mr. Immelt sold over 52,000 shares of GE stock at $11.10 per share and other officers of the Company sold over 380,000 shares at that same price during the short Class Period. Mr. Immelt then repurchased 50,000 shares after the announcement at between $7.51 and $8.30 per share. As a result, Mr. Immelt and the other officers allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements and selling their personally held GE shares at inflated prices based on those statements. For more information, contact: Frank A. Bottini, Esq. (frankb@johnsonbottini.com) Derek Wilson, Esq. (derekw@johnsonbottini.com) Johnson Bottini, LLP Phone: 619-230-0063 INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2009, inclusive. Insight and certain of its executive officers are charged with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. On February 9, 2009, Insight shocked investors when it revealed that it would have to restate previously reported earnings as the result of improperly accounting for trade credits. Insight expected to restate for the year ended December 31, 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008. On this news, Insight shares fell $2.85 per share, almost 50%, to close at $3.05 per share on February 9, 2009. Thereafter, the Company disclosed that the SEC has requested documentation related to its historical treatment of trade credits. No class has yet been certified in this action. For more details, contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 ********* 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 * * *