/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090331.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 31, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 63 Headlines ACER AMERICA: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Vista-Equipped Notebook ALASKA: D.C. Judge Transfers Sarah Palin Juneteenth Litigation AMERICAN INT'L: Directors Sued to Force Return of Total Bonuses AVX CORP: Judge Says TCE Lawsuit Should Be Tried in State Court BANK OF AMERICA: Faces $400M Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Ponzi Schemer BLUE SHIELD: Fla. Court Dismisses Suit Alleging RICO Violations CANYON COUNTY: ACLU Files Motion in Case Over Jail Conditions DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Canadian Courts OK $6.7M Price-Fixing Deal EMAGEON INC: Settles Shareholders' Litigation Over Amicas Sale HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Litigation by Madoff-Hit Investors LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: District Court Ruling in McClain Suit Pending MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in New York Securities Suit MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settlement of Policyholder Suits OK'd in Feb. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Policyholders' Suits Pending in U.S., Canada MARSH & MCLENNAN: Putnam Funds' Investor Lawsuits Remain Pending MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Suits Over Insurance with Lloyd's MARSH & MCLENNAN: Suits Over ERISA Breach Remain Pending in Md. MUSHROOM MARKET: Pa. Judge Denies Motions in Antitrust Lawsuit REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Tex. Court Dismisses Suit Over P.I.'s License STANFORD GROUP: Tex. Investors' Lawsuits Temporarily Postponed STANLEY CHAIS: Seeks Transfer of Calif. Suit Over Madoff Scandal TRAVEL WEB SITES: Mich. Counties File Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit TRIPADVISOR LLC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Mass. Suit New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN EXPRESS: Alfred G. Yates Announces Stock Suit Filing H&R BLOCK: Carey & Danis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ill. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Suit ROCHESTER FUND: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ACER AMERICA: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Vista-Equipped Notebook --------------------------------------------------------------- ACER America Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit over its low-cost Aspire notebooks, claiming that the company pre- installed Windows Vista on machines ill-equipped to run Microsoft Corp.'s latest operating system, Cade Metz of Channel Register reports. The suit was filed on March 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Lora Wolph and Clay Wolph. The plaintiffs -- residents of Fostoria, Ohio -- seek damages and relief from the world's third-largest computer maker after purchasing a sub-$600 Aspire notebook that included Windows Vista Premium and a gigabyte of shared system and graphics memory, according to the Channel Register report. In its official "recommended system requirements," Microsoft recommends that an additional 128MB is required to run the Premium incarnation of its latest desktop operating system. According to the suit, "A notebook pre-installed with Vista Premium requires access to at least 1GB of system RAM plus 128MB of RAM dedicated to the graphics adaptor to run properly." It adds, "Acer's Defective Notebooks are inherently defective in that they do not contain enough RAM to properly run Vista Premium...despite being promoted and sold as a bundled product of both a notebook computer and a premium operating system," reports the Channel Register. The Channel Register reported that the plaintiffs purchased their Acer Aspire 4520-5458 notebook at a Wal-Mart in April 2008 for about $568.36. Shortly after purchasing, they discovered that "their computer would not run properly and that it experienced numerous 'crashes,' 'freezing,' and was operating very slowly." Some unnamed "computer professionals" told the Wolphs that extra memory was needed to effectively run Vista Premium, so they complained to Acer. According to their suit -- which seeks class action status -- a company support rep responded by pointing out that although Microsoft recommended a 1GB requirement, the "minimum requirement" is only 512MB. Microsoft states that the Premium, Business, and Ultimate editions of Vista will run on 512MB systems, but with certain O.S. features disabled. Eventually, the Wolphs shelled out an extra $157.40 for more memory "so that their notebook would run as marketed, advertised, promoted, warranted, and/or sold by Acer," reports the Channel Register. The suit is "Wolph et al v. ACER America Corporation, Case No. 3:09-cv-01314-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maria-Elena James, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. (mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com) Hausfeld, LLP 44 Montgomery Street Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-633-1908 Jori Naegele, Esq. (jnaegele@gntlaw.com) Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC 446 Broadway Lorain, OH 44052-1797 Phone: 440-244-4809 Fax: 440-244-3462 Alicia W. Roshong, Esq. 28 Middle Avenue Huron, OH 44839 Phone: 419-433-2525 Fax: 419-433-9636 - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. (dwarshaw@pswplaw.com) Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Fax: (818) 788-8104 ALASKA: D.C. Judge Transfers Sarah Palin Juneteenth Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton has issued an order transferring the Sarah Palin Juneteenth lawsuit, brought by America's Hot Musician judge Gregory Charles Royal, from Washington, DC to Alaska (previously filed as 09-cv-0484-new case number 1:09-cv-00428). Royal considers this a positive development because the case, which was reviewed by the judge prior to transfer, was not dismissed on the court's own motion as frivolous. Characterizing the case the court wrote: "This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint. The Court will transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Plaintiff alleges that he is an African-American musical performer, educator, and producer who has traveled to Alaska while touring with the Duke Ellington Orchestra. According to plaintiff, a bill enacted by the Alaska legislature requires that the Governor of Alaska issue a proclamation each year to commemorate Juneteenth. He alleges that Governor Palin not only failed to issue a proclamation in 2007, but also refused to issue a proclamation retroactively. As a result of Governor Palin's inaction, the activities of citizens and civil groups which had celebrated Juneteenth were disrupted, resulting in unrealized event revenues and event cancellations. Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages." Following the order, Royal filed a notice to the court of his intent to amend the complaint to add "one or more co- plaintiffs who are residents of Alaska", en route to seeking class action status. For a complete background on the case, visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2246264.htm AMERICAN INT'L: Directors Sued to Force Return of Total Bonuses --------------------------------------------------------------- On March 27, 2009, Freedom Watch announced the filing of a class action lawsuit by shareholders of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) to force the directors of the company to themselves pay back the millions in illicit bonuses, dividends and other perks they paid out to themselves and other officials who destroyed the company's financial standing. The lawsuit, filed in the federal court in Los Angeles, is wide reaching and will accomplish what Congress cannot, given the patent illegality of its taxing scheme, which violates the U.S. Constitution as it would tax ex post facto and discriminately. Larry Klayman, the Chairman and General Counsel of Freedom Watch, who represents the shareholders in their class action suit, issued this statement: "Today, the American people, not the compromised ruling elite in Washington, D.C., have begun a second American Revolution to take the country back from the con men on Wall Street, and on Pennsylvania Avenue - who under successive administrations played a central role in the meltdown of the U.S. financial system and economy. Freedom Watch will not rest until justice is done and it won't come from the Obama administration, bent on deceiving the U.S. taxpayer that it intends to clean up this corruption, all the while lining the pockets of its friends at AIG with government bailout money, who gave handsomely to have the President elected." The lawsuit also seeks to recover, from the directors, the losses of the shareholders of the last many months and years, as well as to make AIG whole under new leadership, without the use of government money. For more details, contact: Freedom Watch 601 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 900, South Bldg. Washington, DC 20004 e-mail: Klayman@FreedomWatchUSA.org Web site: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/ AVX CORP: Judge Says TCE Lawsuit Should Be Tried in State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that a purported class-action lawsuit that claim AVX Corp. ruined property values by polluting the groundwater in a Myrtle Beach neighborhood should be tried in a South Carolina circuit court, David Wren of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reports. The class-action case involves about 200 people and seeks unspecified financial compensation for property that owners say is worthless because of the contamination from a degreaser called trichloroethylene, also known as TCE, according to The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News report. The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reported that AVX had wanted to try the case in federal court along with a third lawsuit that involves federal Superfund laws. The company has indicated it will appeal the decision. Gene M. Connell Jr., Esq., a Surfside Beach lawyer represents property owners in the class-action case, reports The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. Case Background On Nov. 27, 2007, a purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged migration of certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to neighboring properties was filed in the South Carolina State Court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2009). In essence, the suit claims that property value had been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the company's property (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2009). The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. For more details, contact: Gene M. Connell Jr. Kelaher, Connell & Connor, P.C. P.O. Box 14547 1500 Us Hwy 17 N Surfside Beach, SC 29587-4547 Phone: (843) 238-5648 Web site: http://www.kccattorneysatlaw.com/ BANK OF AMERICA: Faces $400M Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Ponzi Schemer --------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America and the futures trading companies through which alleged Ponzi schemer Nicholas Cosmo lost nearly $100 million are facing a purported a $400 million class-action suit, David Winzelberg of the Long Island Business News reports. In the suit filed on March 26, 2009, Manhattan attorney Jacob Zamansky, Esq, of Zamansky & Associates claims that the bank "aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance" to the $380 million fraud federal prosecutors say was perpetrated by Mr. Cosmo's company, Agape World, Inc., according to the Long Island Business News report. The suit claims that the Bank of America branch in West Hempstead assigned more than one bank employee to work out of Mr. Cosmo's office in Hauppauge and supplied "bank equipment and/or computer systems and direct access to the bank�s accounts and systems," reports Long Island Business News. "Our investigation revealed that the Bank of America had a branch office at Agape," Mr. Zamansky told Long Island Business News. The Long Island Business News reported that the federal charges against Mr. Cosmo allege that he lost nearly $100 million in online futures trading and Zamansky claims the bank improperly approved those transfers of funds. The suit claims that the futures trading companies are also at fault because Mr. Cosmo had been barred from associating with the securities industry. The suit says that the trading companies should have also verified the "source and propriety" of the millions that came from a convicted felon. For more details, contact: Jacob Zamansky, Esq. Zamansky & Associates 50 Broadway - 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 742-1414 Fax: (212) 742-1177 BLUE SHIELD: Fla. Court Dismisses Suit Alleging RICO Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Blue Shield of California and several other Blues plans alleging they inflated profits by systematically short-changing payments to doctors, Kathy Robertson of the Sacramento Business Journal reports. On March 26, 2009, Judge Federico Moreno dismissed the case, "Love v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association et al.," noting that the complaint failed to provide sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to constitute a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to the Sacramento Business Journal report. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2003, alleged the Blues companies engaged in a conspiracy to inflate profits by systemically "denying, delaying and diminishing payments to physicians," the Sacramento Business Journal reported. CANYON COUNTY: ACLU Files Motion in Case Over Jail Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho asked a U.S. district court judge to order officials in Canyon County, Idaho to immediately fix a number of serious problems plaguing the Canyon County Jail in Caldwell that have left a number of prisoners physically sick and that threaten the health and safety of prisoners and staff. Today's motion seeking an immediate order comes a little more than three months after the ACLU first filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the indecent, cruel and inhumane conditions at the Canyon County Jail. "The dangerous conditions that have been allowed to exist are so hazardous to human life that they must not be tolerated any longer," said Stephen Pevar, a senior ACLU attorney. "It is shameful that county officials have allowed such horrendous conditions to persist." According to the motion, the jail has been overcrowded for more than a decade, and in 2008, more than 20 prisoners a day were forced to sleep on the floor due to lack of bed space. In addition, inspection reports from the Idaho Sheriff's Association show that the jail is poorly ventilated and unsanitary. In October 2008, Sheriff Smith notified the County Commissioners that a "large scale renovation" of the jail was needed, including "deep sanitizing and cleaning" of the housing unit, that sewer pipes inside the jail were leaking, and that the jail has a host of other problems. None of these problems were fixed prior to the filing of the lawsuit. According to the ACLU's motion, numerous complaints about the sanitary conditions of the detention center have been submitted by prisoners in recent months, including one by a prisoner with severe asthma who said the significant mold in her housing area was placing her health "in grave danger." Another prisoner complained that there appear to be "insects breeding in the stagnant water in the bathroom from the plugged floor drains and cracked floor seals." And a third complaint from a prisoner highlighted the fact that a mattress is not sanitized before it is issued to the next prisoner. These complaints are consistent with findings of the Idaho Sheriff's Association, which has found the jail in violation of its standards. "The law couldn't be clearer that all prisoners in this country have a constitutional right to live in sanitary conditions," said Lea C. Cooper, staff attorney with the ACLU of Idaho, who is co-counsel on the case. "Simply put, county officials are failing to uphold their constitutional obligations by forcing prisoners to live in the kind of squalor that has existed at the Canyon County Jail for years." The ACLU filed its federal lawsuit in January, but, due to a technicality, needed to refile it earlier this month. The lawsuit charges that the jail is overcrowded and shower facilities are teeming with toxic mold and rust. The lawsuit also charges that the detention center suffers from inadequate ventilation and temperature control, inadequate sanitation, and inadequate plumbing. "This case displays the need for us to move away from our state's over-reliance on incarceration," said Monica Hopkins, Executive Director of the ACLU of Idaho. "Implementing policies that emphasize alternatives to incarceration - especially for first-time and non-violent offenders - would be both more humane and fiscally prudent." A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction is available at: http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/39187lgl20090327.html. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Canadian Courts OK $6.7M Price-Fixing Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian courts have approved a CDN6.7-million class-action price-fixing settlement from Deutsche Lufthansa AG that will be used against other airlines, The Canadian Press reports. The B.C. Supreme Court has joined courts in Ontario and Quebec to sanction the settlement, which is part of a larger class- action lawsuit in the United States, according to The Canadian Press report. The Canadian Press reported that the German carrier has agreed to pay US$85 million in an American claim and US$5.34 million (CDN$6.7 million) in a Canadian settlement. It will also help prosecutors to build their case against dozens of airlines. Air Canada and carriers such as Air France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, Japan Airlines International, Korean Air Lines and KLM have chosen not to settle. The U.S. Justice Department has imposed criminal fine totaling US$1.2 billion against some of the airlines, reports The Canadian Press. The class-action was filed in 2006 on behalf of Canadians who bought air cargo shipping services between 2000 and 2006. They allege the airline imposed inflated surcharges resulting from higher fuel and security costs, The Canadian Press reported. EMAGEON INC: Settles Shareholders' Litigation Over Amicas Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Emageon, Inc. settled a purported class-action lawsuit with shareholders, paving the way to complete its sale to Boston- based Amicas, Inc., Jimmy DeButts of the Birmingham Business Journal reports. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. However, Emageon said in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that the settlement will allow its $39 million sale to Amicas, Inc. to move forward. The lawsuit, filed on March 11, 2009, alleged that the members of Emageon�s board failed to maximize value for the company's stockholders when negotiating and entering into the Amicas merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that Amicas aided and abetted those purported breaches, according to the Birmingham Business Journal report. The Birmingham medical imaging firm said that the settlement is subject to court approval. The company and the other defendants said in the filing �the lawsuit is completely without merit,� but it settled �to avoid costly litigation and eliminate the risk of any delay to the closing� of the Amicas deal, reports the Birmingham Business Journal. The Birmingham Business Journal reported that Emageon, which produces technology that helps doctors analyze images to diagnose and treat patients, expects its Amicas deal to close by the end of the second quarter of 2009. HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Litigation by Madoff-Hit Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ HSBC Holdings plc, Ernst & Young, and PricewaterhouseCoopers have been named as defendants in a $3 billion class-action lawsuit filed in New York by investors in offshore hedge funds who suffered losses in the Bernard Madoff scandal, according to a report in The Observer, London. The complaint is filed on behalf of investors in hedge funds controlled by Thema International of Ireland, Primeo and Bank Medici between March 1, 2001 and Dec, 10, 2008, according to a report by Wealth Bulletin. LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: District Court Ruling in McClain Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A ruling in the matter styled, "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 9:97-cv-00063-HC," a race discrimination lawsuit filed by present and former employees of the company, is expected by the end of the second quarter of 2009. An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas, in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas, in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and was completed in October 2004. The only claims made at trial were those of discrimination in initial assignments and promotions. On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back- pay award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4 million -- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a formula for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to backpay with interest, the District Court enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered the company to pay court costs and expenses. The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the company appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Feb. 29, 2008, that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division. The appellate court also denied the plaintiff's appeal for class certification in order to claim disparate treatment. The plaintiff's claim on the issue of the company's promotional practices was affirmed but the backpay award was vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion. The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of the plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the district court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing authority. The plaintiff and the company subsequently filed requests for rehearing with the court on March 20, 2008, in order to address significant issues. On April 10, 2008, the company was informed that the Fifth Circuit had denied both requests for a rehearing. At present, however, the district court will conduct further proceedings on the injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. The Fifth Circuit's opinion to reverse and affirm portions of the District Court's decision, together with the assignment of a different judge for this case in the District Court (the trial judge who wrote the trial court decision is deceased) prevents the company from estimating the back pay or attorneys' fees award at this time. The District Court will interpret the Fifth Circuit's instructions and take additional evidence to determine these issues. On July 2, 2008, the company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the court review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's petition on Oct. 6, 2008. The company, with the assistance of outside counsel, is reviewing its appellate options at this time as well as its position in future proceedings in the District Court. At present, however, pursuant to the court of appeal's mandate, the District Court will conduct further proceedings on the injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. The Fifth Circuit's opinion to reverse and affirm portions of the District Court's decision, together with the assignment of a different judge for this case in the District Court (the trial judge who decided the case is deceased) prevented the company from estimating the back pay or attorneys' fees before the commencement of proceedings in the District Court. The District Court will interpret the Fifth Circuit's instructions and take additional evidence to determine these issues. On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the company has reviewed the plaintiff's submissions which describe the formula and underlying assumptions that support their positions on attorney fees and damages. After review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the company continues to have significant differences regarding legal issues that materially impact the plaintiff's requests. Additional court proceedings are scheduled and the company expects the District Court to reach a decision by the end of the second quarter of 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 "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 9:97-cv-00063-HC," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Judge Howell Cobb, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mjb@gdblegal.com) Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800 Fax: 1-510-835-1417 Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq. (tbgstugar@cox-internet.com) Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter 2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902 Phone: 936-560-6020 Fax: 1-936-560-9578 Representing the company is: Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. (cbacon@velaw.com) Vinson & Elkins 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: 713-758-2222 Fax: 1-713-615-5014 MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit in New York against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, is still in discovery. The purported class-action lawsuit is pending against MMC and various current and former employees, officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of an MMC retirement plan. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in light of the alleged misconduct described in a lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General, the defendants knew or should have known that the investment of the plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent; that certain defendants failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate information about MMC stock; that certain defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA; and that MMC knowingly participated in the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. The suit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Discovery is underway in this matter, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in New York Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities class-action suit against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., its subsidiary Marsh and certain of their former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs make factual allegations similar to those asserted in a civil complaint filed in New York State court by the New York State Attorney General in October 2004 ("NYAG Lawsuit"), including that MMC artificially inflated its share price by making misrepresentations and omissions relating to Marsh's market service agreements and business practices. The plaintiffs also allege that MMC failed to disclose alleged anti-competitive and illegal practices at Marsh, such as "bid- rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages. MMC has responded to the complaint and discovery in this matter is ongoing, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settlement of Policyholder Suits OK'd in Feb. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the commercial and employee benefit policyholder putative class-action lawsuits against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. was approved on Feb. 18, 2009. Various putative class-action lawsuits purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders were consolidated into two actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (one on behalf of a purported class of "commercial" policyholders and the second on behalf of a purported class of "employee benefit" policyholders). The actions alleged a variety of legal theories, including those related to state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, federal and state antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) theories, and sought a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages, treble damages, disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The court dismissed all of the federal antitrust and RICO claims and all of the state law claims asserted in both actions, and the plaintiffs appealed. In June 2008, plaintiffs and the Marsh defendants entered into an agreement to settle the commercial and employee benefit policyholder putative class actions using the remainder available from the $850 million fund created in connection with the settlement of a civil complaint filed in New York State court by the New York State Attorney General in October 2004 ("NYAG Lawsuit"). The court approved the settlement on Feb. 18, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Policyholders' Suits Pending in U.S., Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. continues to face various lawsuits, including class-action lawsuits, by policyholders in U.S. State courts and in Canada. Four class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders are pending in state courts. Nineteen actions instituted by individual policyholders and others are pending in federal and state courts relating to matters alleged in a civil complaint filed in New York State court by the New York State Attorney General in October 2004 ("NYAG Lawsuit"). Two putative class-action suits and an individual policyholder action are pending in Canada, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Putnam Funds' Investor Lawsuits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two putative class-action lawsuits by investors in certain Putnam mutual funds are still pending against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.'s former business unit, Putnam Investments Trust. Great-West Lifeco Inc. completed its purchase of Putnam in 2007. One action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The other action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of all Putnam Funds under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. Both suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly suffered by the Putnam Funds and their investors as a result of purported market-timing and late trading activity in certain Putnam Funds. On Dec. 30, 2008, the court granted in part Putnam's motion for summary judgment in the non-derivative action, and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending resolution of all summary judgment issues. In the derivative action, the court denied Putnam's motion for summary judgment, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Suits Over Insurance with Lloyd's --------------------------------------------------------------- Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. continues to face lawsuits purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders with respect to insurance coverage placed with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. In July 2007, two putative class actions against the company, its subsidiary, Marsh Inc., certain insurers and other insurance brokers purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York. These actions relate to the same practices alleged in a civil complaint filed in New York State court by the New York State Attorney General in October 2004 ("NYAG Lawsuit"), but with respect to insurance coverage placed with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. These actions have been transferred to the District of New Jersey, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MARSH & MCLENNAN: Suits Over ERISA Breach Remain Pending in Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and Putnam Investments Trust, which was purchased by Great-West Lifeco Inc. from MMC, continues to face two purported class-action lawsuits in Maryland, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Aside from MMC and Putnam, certain of the two companies' current and former officers, directors and employees were named defendants in the purported class action suits -- one brought by participants in an MMC retirement plan and the other brought by participants in a Putnam retirement plan -- which are generally alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to plan participants. Both actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief. Following a September 2006 dismissal of the action regarding the Putnam plan, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The action regarding the MMC plan had been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal, 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. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker, intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology. MUSHROOM MARKET: Pa. Judge Denies Motions in Antitrust Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas N. O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania overseeing litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the mushroom market has denied summary judgment motions by defendants who argued they were immune to antitrust charges, Law360 report. On March 26, 2009, Judge O'Neill ruled that the defendants in the consolidated class-action litigation were not exempt, according to the Law360 report. REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Tex. Court Dismisses Suit Over P.I.'s License -------------------------------------------------------------- Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., the largest provider of photo enforcement systems for roads and highways in the U.S., announced that a Texas Federal Court has dismissed in its entirety a class action lawsuit against the company seeking damages for Redflex's alleged failure to maintain a private investigator's license. On November 24, 2008, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Redflex in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The class action lawsuit alleges that Redflex was negligent in failing to maintain a private investigator's license as purportedly required by the Texas Occupations Code. The plaintiffs sought to recoup from Redflex the fines they paid after receiving citations for running red lights. On March 24, 2009, United States District Court Judge Michael Schneider, the judge overseeing the class action lawsuit, ruled from the bench and issued a minute order dismissing the plaintiffs' entire complaint against Redflex. A formal order dismissing the case has been issued. Judge Schneider concluded that the individual plaintiffs and class representatives lacked standing to assert any claims against Redflex. Judge Schneider's opinion is consistent with that of the Texas Private Security Bureau, the division within the Texas Department of Public Safety charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the licensing provisions of the Texas Occupations Code. This body recently issued an advisory opinion concluding that companies administering red light camera programs, such as Redflex, are not required by Texas law to maintain a private investigator's license. "This is a dual victory. The ruling, together with the Texas Department of Public Safety's, reinforces our belief that our operations are fully consistent with Texas law," said Karen Finley, president and CEO of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. "Equally significant is that this ruling should dissuade other suits of this nature." Red light camera programs have proven to decrease drastically the incidence of red light running and collisions all over the nation. In a recent study conducted by Texas A&M University's Transportation Institute, monitored intersections have shown an overall 30 percent decrease in collisions and dangerous right angle collisions were reduced by 43 percent. For the full study, go to: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/trf/final_report_rlc_1008.pdf. For more details, contact: Shoba Vaitheeswaran Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Phone: 623-207-2000 e-mail: media@redflex.com Web site: http://www.redflex.com STANFORD GROUP: Tex. Investors' Lawsuits Temporarily Postponed -------------------------------------------------------------- Three purported class-action lawsuits against Robert Allen Stanford, the Stanford Group Co., and related individuals and companies are being postponed until another federal court grants permission for them to proceed, Examiner.com reports. The three cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas are entitled, -- "Adams v. Stanford Group Company (case number 4:09cv00474)," -- "Cohron v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. (case number 4:09cv00511)," and -- "Kyle v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. (case number 4:09cv00525)." On Feb. 16, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint (case number 3:09-cv-00298) against Mr. Stanford, three of his companies, and two of the companies� officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The SEC has accused the Stanford defendants of securities fraud, according to the Examiner.com report. Examiner.com reported that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas froze the defendants' assets; appointed a receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, to control the property; and took other steps to protect the assets of the Stanford entities. This order contained provisions that restrain and enjoin creditors and other persons from filing or continuing related lawsuits in other courts without permission from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuits -- who purchased certificates of deposit or made other investments through the Stanford companies -- filed their complaints four days after Northern District case began. On March 10, 2009 Judges Vanessa Gilmore and Keith Ellison signed orders that abated or stayed the Adams and Cohron lawsuits, respectively, until Judge David Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas grants permission for the cases to proceed. U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal entered a similar order in the Kyle case two days later, Examiner.com reported. The three Houston lawsuits will, therefore, be postponed until the Northern District grants relief from the restraining order and injunction, Examiner.com reports STANLEY CHAIS: Seeks Transfer of Calif. Suit Over Madoff Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Chais, a Beverly Hills money manager and philanthropist who steered hundreds of millions of dollars into investments overseen by Bernard L. Madoff, is seeking to move one of several lawsuits against him from state court to federal court in Los Angeles, Stuart Pfeifer of The Los Angeles Times reports. Investors have filed at least three lawsuits against Mr. Chais, 82, accusing him of failing to properly safeguard their money and of not disclosing that he was investing with the disgraced New York swindler. According to an investor lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court that seeks class-action status, Mr. Chais collected hundreds of millions of dollars and invested with Mr. Madoff. The suit by Hancock Park investor Daphne Brogdon accuses Mr. Chais of "breach of fiduciary duty" for failing to account for how Mr. Madoff handled the investments. She said the money was from an individual retirement account she started at age 16, The Los Angeles Times reported. "On the one hand, you feel like a knucklehead for getting in it. But a lot of people were in it who seemed to be doing well," she tells The Los Angeles Times. Reed Kathrein, Esq., a Berkeley attorney representing Brogdon and other investors, told The Los Angeles Times that the evidence at this point best supports a claim that Mr. Chais failed to notice "red flags" Mr. that Madoff was operating a massive Ponzi scheme. According to her, Mr. Chais should have looked at where Mr. Madoff was putting the money, "who was doing the audits, who was the custodian, so then it would be safe. The returns were unrealistic. It had the earmarks of a Ponzi scheme, which sophisticated investors did realize." Earlier this month, Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty in federal court in Manhattan to 11 securities-related fraud counts related to his $65-billion investment fraud that victimized an estimated 4,800 people, reports The Los Angeles Times. Many of Mr. Madoff's victims invested through third parties such as Mr. Chais. Because Ms. Madoff's assets are tied up in federal Bankruptcy Court and are worth only a fraction of the loss, many victims are targeting money managers such as Mr. Chais in an effort to recoup their losses. Until his assets were obliterated in Mr. Madoff's fraud, Mr. Chais had been known as a major philanthropist, giving millions of dollars to Jewish charities here and abroad. The Chais Family Foundation -- which reported assets of $178 million in 2007 -- was wiped out in the Madoff fraud, his attorney said. Chais attorney Eugene Licker, Esq. said his client had no knowledge that Madoff, a former Nasdaq chairman, was running a Ponzi scheme. Instead, Chais was a victim like the other investors, Mr. Licker, of the law firm Loeb & Loeb tells The Los Angeles Times. "My client lost virtually everything he had. His kids and grandchildren lost their entire investment. Their losses are staggering. There can be no better evidence of what ought to be obvious: He had no knowledge of the Madoff fraud," according to Mr. Licker. Mr. Chais' attorneys have sought to move Ms. Brogdon's lawsuit from Superior Court to federal court in Los Angeles, a move that ultimately could lead the case to be transferred to New York, according to The Los Angeles Times report. TRAVEL WEB SITES: Mich. Counties File Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Calhoun County is one of four counties in Michigan filing a class-action lawsuit against online travel Web sites, which the counties claim have been underpaying hotel occupancy taxes, Darby Prater of the Battle Creek Enquirer reports. According to Calhoun County Treasurer Ann Rosenbaum, the county collects taxes equal to 5 percent of a hotel's room rental, but when customers book online at sites such as Hotels.com or Travelocity.com, the booking company keeps part of that tax revenue. "Let's say you are willing to pay $90, but Orbitz got (the room) for $60," Ms. Rosenbaum explained. "The hotel pays the county the 5 percent accommodation tax on the $60." Calhoun County collected approximately $1 million in hotel occupancy taxes in 2008, Ms. Rosenbaum tells the Battle Creek Enquirer. Calhoun, Ingham, Saginaw and Genesee counties filed the lawsuit against 17 online travel companies and their affiliates in Ingham County Circuit Court, according to the Battle Creek Enquirer report. Dwight Butt, president of the Greater Battle Creek/Calhoun County Convention & Visitors Bureau, told the Battle Creek Enquirer that he is confident the counties will win the lawsuit. According to Mr. Butt, "No dollar amount has been listed (in the suit). It may be that during the course of the lawsuit a judge may determine that an audit may be necessary to determine the amount." The Battle Creek Enquirer reported that the Greater Battle Creek/Calhoun County Convention & Visitors Bureau receives a portion of the occupancy tax money collected to fund operations. "Other county (convention and visitors bureaus) have signed on," Mr. Butt tells the Battle Creek Enquirer. "We think we're going to win. There was no cost involved for us to participate." The Michigan counties are being represented by Lansing law firm Kelley Cawthorne, reports Battle Creek Enquirer. TRIPADVISOR LLC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Mass. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Web content editors suing TripAdvisor LLC have amended their class-action complaint to charge the Newton-based travel website with retaliating by firing them after their lawsuit was filed, Robert Weisman of The Boston Globe reports. Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., who is representing the editors, estimated that hundreds of them were e-mailed by TripAdivsor last week and in January and told their services were no longer required. Many were replaced by temporary workers, Ms. Liss-Riordan tells The Boston Globe. The original complaint, filed in July 2008, alleged the company had misclassified them as independent contractors and not as employees entitled to benefits under state law. The editors wrote articles and edited user-generated reviews of hotels and restaurants, according to The Boston Globe report. The Boston Globe reported that a scheduling conference for the litigation has been set for May 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The amended complaint said TripAdvisor terminated an unspecified number of Web content editors this year, though it rehired some as employees. It seeks unspecified damages and a declaratory judgment that the editors should have been considered employees, reports The Boston Globe. By firing the editors, Mr. Liss-Riordan told The Boston Globe, the company was tacitly admitting they should have been classified as employees. "This is an acknowledgment that they had wrongly classified these people as independent contractors," she adds. New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN EXPRESS: Alfred G. Yates Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of American Express Company, between March 1, 2007 and November 12, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges American Express and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. American Express is currently the world's largest issuer of charge cards and credit cards as measured by purchase volume. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements, among other things, misled investors by falsely representing American Express's exposure to the riskiest credit card holders and failed to disclose the Company's increasing reliance on riskier credit card programs. On November 10, 2008, the Company won Federal Reserve System approval to convert to a bank holding company, making it eligible for government help under the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). The new American Express bank could qualify for up to $3.5 billion of the Treasury Department's money-a capital infusion required to save the Company from its riskier endeavors. As a result of the Company's shift to risky card issuances, American Express stock has plunged approximately 65% since March 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more information, contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. (yateslaw@aol.com) Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh Phone: 800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164 Fax: 412-471-1033 H&R BLOCK: Carey & Danis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Carey & Danis LLC filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased auction rate securities from H&R Block, Inc., and H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., between Aug. 26, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 and who continued to hold the securities as of Feb. 13, 2008. The class action lawsuit, "La Grave v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., 08-cv-667," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The suit alleges that H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiary H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which the securities are traded. Auction rate securities are municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks that pay interest at rates set through periodic auctions. The instruments typically have long- term maturity dates or no maturity date. The suit filed on Sept. 24, 2008 claims that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, H&R Block offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management instruments and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. On Feb. 13, 2008, all of the major broker-dealers, including H&R Block, withdrew their support for the auctions. The suit claims that, as a result, investors have been unable to liquidate their auction rate securities. The lawsuit alleges that H&R Block failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: -- The auction rate securities were not cash alternatives like money market funds but were instead complex long- term financial instruments with 30-year maturity dates. -- The auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of the sale because H&R Block and other broker- dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability. -- H&R Block and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in the auctions for their own benefit to set rates and to prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions. -- H&R Block continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments even after H&R Block and other broker-dealers determined that they would likely be withdrawing support for the periodic auctions and that a freeze of the auction rate securities market would result. Investors who purchased or acquired auction rate securities from H&R Block between Aug. 26, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, and who continued to hold the securities as of Feb. 13, 2008, may request appointment as lead plaintiff by the Court on or before May 26, 2009. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members. To be appointed, the Court must conclude that the investor's claims are typical of other class members' and that the investor will adequately represent the class. The investor's ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact: Joseph P. Danis, Esq. (jdanis@careydanis.com) Michael J. Flannery, Esq. (mflannery@careydanis.com) Corey D. Sullivan, Esq. (csullivan@careydanis.com) Carey & Danis LLC Phone: 1-800-721-2519 Web site: http://www.careydanis.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 09-cv-01264), on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. during the period between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Heartland together with its subsidiaries provides bank card payment processing services to more than 250,000 merchants and businesses nationwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: -- that the Company's safety and security measures designed to protect consumers' financial records and data from security breaches were inadequate and ineffective; -- that the Company's payment processing system had been infected with malware as early as May 2008; -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach of Heartland's payment processing network; -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced liabilities associated with the breach and increasing costs associated with implementing appropriate security measures; -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at risk of losing customers; and -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. On January 20, 2009, Heartland revealed that the Company's payment processing network had been breached by malicious software, exposing tens of millions of debit cardholders to fraud. As consumers used their debit cards, so-called "sniffer software" had been capturing, among other things, card numbers, expiration dates and cardholder names. According to an article published that same day in The New York Times, the breach occurred as early as May 2008. On this news, shares of Heartland declined $1.26 per share, or 8.16%, to close on January 20, 2009, at $14.18 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Over the next two days, shares of Heartland further declined $6.00 per share, or an additional 42.31%, to close on January 22, 2009 at $8.18 per share. On February 24, 2009, Heartland again shocked investors when it reported earnings for the 2008 fiscal year and fourth quarter. The Company posted a lower-than-expected quarterly profit and disclosed that it might incur losses from the recent security breach of its system and that the Company could not estimate the amount of losses that might be incurred in connection with the security breach. On this news, shares of Heartland declined $2.31 per share, or 30.20%, to close on February 24, 2009, at $5.34 per share, on unusually heavy volume. During the Class Period, shares of Heartland's common stock declined $21.84 per share, or approximately 65%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per share on September 19, 2008. 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: 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 INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Shuman Law Firm filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc., between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, certain Insight Enterprises senior officers and directors knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Insight Enterprises' business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that the Company was improperly accounting for trade credits; -- that, as a result, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 9, 2009, Insight Enterprises revealed that the Company's management and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors had determined that Insight Enterprises would have to restate its previously reported earnings as a result of its historical accounting treatment of aged trade credits included in the Company's most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December 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 Enterprises declined $2.85 per share, more than 48%, to close on February 9, 2009, at $3.05 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. Subsequently, the Company further disclosed that on March 19, 2009, the Company received an informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting certain documents and information relating to its historical accounting treatment of aged trade credits. For more information, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/ OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf all persons or entities who purchased or held shares of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: OPCAX) (NASDAQ: OCABX) (NASDAQ: OCACX) offered by OppenheimerFunds, Inc. in connection with its September 27, 2006, March 8, 2007 and October 31, 2007 offerings. The lawsuit alleges that OppenheimerFunds, along with other defendants, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by misrepresenting the Fund's investment strategy and omitting material facts from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in connection with the Offerings. Specifically, the complaint alleges the Fund significantly increased its risk in hopes of providing higher returns. The complaint alleges defendants concealed the Fund's increased exposure in these excessively risky bets. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com ROCHESTER FUND: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of shares of Rochester Fund Municipals from February 26, 2006 through October 21, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund, misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund, resulting in a more than 30% decline in the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (RMUNX), B Shares (RMUBX) and C Shares (RMUCX). The complaint further alleges that the Registration Statements through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the Fund for repayment of principal. This caused the Trusts to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. Consequently, the Fund was forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions and accept prices significantly below the values at which the bonds were carried on its books. Although this risk factor was always present wherever inverse floaters were employed, it was not disclosed in any of the Prospectuses, which were filed as part of Registration Statements with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares. Plaintiff alleges that this lack of disclosure caused the Fund's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters. As of October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at $12.35 per share, down from $18.00 per share at the beginning of the year. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 ********* 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 * * *