/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090421.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 77 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Certification of Ross Suit Applied March 24 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Remaining Claims in Labor Suit AEROFLUX INC: June 30 Hearing Set for Shareholders' Suit Deal AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over July 23 Oil Spill Pending in La. BJ'S WHOLESALE: "Caissie" Suit for Overtime Compensation Pending BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Has Yet to Issue Written Ruling COMPREHENSIVE CARE: $325,000 Award in Merger Suits Paid in Jan. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces FLSA Violations Litigation in New Jersey GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations GENERAL MOTORS: Calif. Court Approves Saturn VTi Suit Settlement IMAGINASIAN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y. NEW MOTION: Disputing Allegations Over Marketing Practices PARK WEST: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Sales of Artwork RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Pursuing Bid to Add Individuals Into Deal RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still in Discovery Stage SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in South Dakota SMITH & NEPHEW: Discrimination Claims v. Unit Settled in 2008 TICKETRESERVE INC: Faces Customers' Lawsuit Over NFL Tickets TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending UNITED RENTALS: Amended Complaint in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM I Set for June Trial VESTIN REALTY: June Trial Set for Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' Suit Pending in Illinois New Securities Fraud Cases COACH INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation DEUTSCHE BANK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Announces Lawsuit Filing ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Certification of Ross Suit Applied March 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class certification motion in a consolidated securities fraud suit against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. was submitted on March 24, 2009, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005. The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005. The suit also named as defendants the company's officers. In September and October of 2005, five other purported class- action suits were filed against the company and other defendants with the same court. All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005. On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. The company joined in that motion. On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings. A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2006. On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. On Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their purported class. After briefings and argument, the motion was submitted on March 24, 2009. The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Keith W. Schneider, Esq. (kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com) Maguire & Schneider 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-224-1222 Fax: 614-224-1236 Representing the defendants are: Philip Albert Brown, Esq. (pabrown@vssp.com) Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Phone: 614-464-6400 Fax: 614-464-6400 Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. (rsugarman@keglerbrown.com) Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter 65 E State Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-4294 Phone: 614-462-5400 Fax: 614-462-5422 - and - Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. (mrs@mcnamaralaw.us) McNamara and McNamara 88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-228-6131 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Remaining Claims in Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. are continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006. She, along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006. The parties engaged in discovery. On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims in the action. The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004 (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2008). On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed partial settlement. The partial settlement does not affect claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing on April 30, 2004. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men, women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL brands. AEROFLUX INC: June 30 Hearing Set for Shareholders' Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court in the State of New York, County of Nassau will hold a fairness hearing at 11:00 a.m. on June 30, 2009 for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re: Aeroflex, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (Index No. 003943/2007)." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Justice Ira B. Warshawsky in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, IAS Part 12, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New York 11501. In March 2007, four separate plaintiffs filed putative class- action lawsuits in the Supreme Court, State of New York, County of Nassau concerning the proposed acquisition of the Company by entities directly and indirectly owned by an investment group consisting of investment entities affiliated with General Atlantic LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P. pursuant to a merger agreement dated March 2, 2007. The plaintiffs have since moved to consolidate the four putative class actions. They seek, among other things, an order of the court that would prevent the consummation of the merger and direct defendants to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the shareholders. On April 23, 2007, plaintiff Jack Trugman filed an amended putative class action complaint, generally alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a transaction that benefits themselves, to the detriment of the Company's stockholders, and that the Company, General Atlantic LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties. On the same day, defendants: -- moved to dismiss Mr. Trugman's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and -- filed their opposition to Mr. Trugman's application for expedited discovery. On May 3, 2007, the Court denied Mr. Trugman's application for expedited discovery. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss has been set for May 10, 2007. By order entered May 10, 2007, the Court consolidated the four shareholder actions pending in Nassau County under the case name, "In re: Aeroflex Shareholders Litigation, Case No. 07- 003943." On that same day, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class -action complaint in the consolidated case and requested a conference with the Court to schedule a hearing for a prospective motion to enjoin the special meeting of stockholders of the Company to be held on May 30, 2007. On May 11, 2007, the Court set a hearing date of May 24, 2007. The Court also stayed discovery by plaintiffs until further order of the Court, according to the company's May 15, 2007 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. For more details, contact: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/ AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over July 23 Oil Spill Pending in La. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing several purported class-action lawsuits over an incident at the Mississippi River that resulted in an oil discharge, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The company has been notified that it has been named as a defendant in the following class action lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the company and American Commercial Lines LLC (ACLLLC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the company: * "Austin Sicard et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012," filed on July 24, 2008; * "Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007," filed on July 24, 2008; * "George C. McGee, and Sherral Irvin, and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co., Ltd., DRD Towing Co, LLC, American Commercial Lines, LLC and New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4025," filed on July 25, 2008; * "Bernadette Glover, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, DRD Towing Company, LLC, and American Commercial Lines, Inc., Case No. 08-4031," filed on July 25, 2008; * "James Roussell, Daniel Hingle, and Prince Seals on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4058," filed on July 29, 2008; * "James Joseph, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4059," filed on July 29, 2008; * "Jefferson Magee and Acy J. Cooper, Jr. vs. American Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4055," filed on July 29, 2008; * "Vincent Grillo and Anthony Buffinet vs. American Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4060," filed on July 29, 2008; * "Donetta Cheramie vs. American Commercial Lines, Inc., D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, M/V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd. And Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4317," filed on Aug. 29, 2008; and * "Tri Native Contractors, Inc., Russell Easley d/b/a K and R Pipeline Services and Brandon Cavallier v. American Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co. LLC, M/ V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd., and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4505," filed on Sept. 30, 2008. These claims stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company, L.L.C., an independent towing contractor. The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area. It was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of # 6 oil. The tank barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk, while there was no damage to the towboat. There were no injuries reported to the crews of either vessel in the incident. The Timtomara incurred minor damage. The amount of oil discharged from the barge is unknown at this time. The actions include various allegations of adverse health and psychological damages, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and seek unspecified economic and compensatory damages for claims of negligence, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, and claims under Oil Pollution Act of 1990. American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is a marine transportation and service company. ACL provides barge transportation and related services, and manufactures barges, towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tank barges. Barge transportation accounts for the majority of the Company's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal, steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S. ACL operates in two primary business segments: transportation and manufacturing. ACL's transportation segment includes barge transportation operations in North America, and domestic fleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaning and repair services at various locations along the inland waterways. The manufacturing segment constructs marine equipment for external customers, as well as for the company's transportation segment. BJ'S WHOLESALE: "Caissie" Suit for Overtime Compensation Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class-action complaint styled, "Caissie v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., Case No. 3:08cv30220," is pending, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. In November 2008, BJ's was sued in federal court in Massachusetts in a purported class action brought on behalf of "current and former department and other assistant managers," in which plaintiffs principally alleged that they have not been compensated for overtime work as required under federal and Massachusetts law. The Complaint seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and benefits; liquidated, consequential, punitive and multiple damages; interest, costs, and attorneys fees; as well as various forms of equitable relief. BJ's filed its answer to the Complaint on Feb. 25, 2009. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. -- http://www.bjs.com/-- is a warehouse club operator in the eastern United States. BJ's revenues are derived from the sale of a range of food and general merchandise items, the sale of gasoline and from membership fees. BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Has Yet to Issue Written Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to provide Bodisen Biotech, Inc. the written decision granting the company's initial motion to dismiss in relation to a consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against it and its management In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York Global Group. The eight actions are: 1. "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13220 (filed November 2006)," 2. "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13254 (filed November 2006)," 3. "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13454 (filed November 2006)," 4. "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 13567 (filed November 2006)," 5. "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13739 (filed December 2006)," 6. "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006)," 7. "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 15179 (filed December 2006)," and 8. "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-15399 (filed December 2006)." The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages they seek. In 2007, the Court consolidated each of the actions into a single proceeding. In October 2008, the New York Federal Court presiding over the eight consolidated class-action lawsuits against Bodisen and its management granted the Company's initial motion to dismiss the cases. In addition, the court has notified Bodisen that it also granted the Company's second motion to dismiss, which challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the court over about 40% of the class and thus sought to reduce the number of potential class plaintiffs significantly. The court has not provided the company this written decision, however, Bodisen Biotech hopes to receive it soon, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com) The Rosen Law Firm, PA Phone: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com Representing the defendants is: Judd Burstein, Esq. (jburstein@burlaw.com) Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P. 1790 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 974-2400 Fax: 212-974-2944 COMPREHENSIVE CARE: $325,000 Award in Merger Suits Paid in Jan. --------------------------------------------------------------- The $325,000 award to the plaintiffs' counsel involved in class- action suits that were filed against Comprehensive Care Corp. in connection with the company's now mutually terminated Agreement and Plan of Merger with Hythiam, Inc., was paid in January 2009. Initially, the company and nine current and former board members were named as defendants in two class action complaints filed by two shareholders on Jan. 23, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2007, respectively. In the similar complaints, filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware, the plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent Hythiam from acquiring 49.95% of the company's outstanding common shares that it does not currently own (either directly or through its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP [Woodcliff]) from the remaining minority shareholders. The plaintiffs allege that the consideration proposed to the minority shareholders by Hythiam is inadequate, through coercive means, without fair process and through material misleading information. On May 25, 2007, the parties mutually terminated the Agreement and Plan of Merger. The plaintiffs' counsel has acknowledged that the lawsuits are now moot and has agreed to dismiss them. On Aug. 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their case without prejudice, with the court reserving jurisdiction for their fee application. On Oct. 10, 2007, the company requested that the court dismiss the case with prejudice, and not allow legal fees to be awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel. On June 19, 2008, the Chancery Court awarded $325,000 in fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel. The award was paid in January 2009, from funds provided by a claim against the company's directors' and officers' insurance policy, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Comprehensive Care Corp. -- http://www.compcare.com/-- primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary, Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc., provides managed care services in the behavioral health and psychiatric fields. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces FLSA Violations Litigation in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A franchise of Domino's Pizza, Inc. at 60 Main St., in the borough, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit by two New York City men who are claiming that it violated state and federal wage laws by failing to pay them overtime, Ken Serrano of mycentraljersey.com reports. The suit was filed on Jan. 8, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by Ping Chen and Jian Yang under the caption, "Chen et al v. Domino's Pizza, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00107." Aside from Domino's Pizza, other defendants named in the suit are: Domino's Pizza, LLC, A Slice Above The Rest, Inc., A Slice Above The Pie, Inc., Dunka Slice, Inc., Marci Hawkins, Yoke Lan Lee, and John Doe. According to the suit, the plaintiffs worked from 60 to 70 hours a week and were paid from $350 to $400, plus tips for the work week. The work entailed delivering and making pizzas, buffalo wings and sauces, folding pizza boxes, working in the stock room, taking orders over the phone, and cleaning the kitchen and restroom at the business, the suit states. The suit alleges that employees told both men at times to punch in several hours after they started work. It generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. "They were not paid minimum wage, they were not paid overtime and illegal deductions were taken from their pay," Darnley Stewart, Esq. of New York, one of the attorneys for the men tells mycentraljersey.com. The men are seeking unpaid overtime and money for the cost of maintaining their cars and purchasing and cleaning their uniforms. GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- The Gap, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege that the company violated federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by insurance. No specific details regarding the pending lawsuits were disclosed in the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. The Gap, Inc. -- http://www.gapinc.com/-- is a global specialty retailer offering clothing, accessories and personal care products for men, women, children and babies under the Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Piperlime and Athleta brands. The company operates stores in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland and Japan. It also has franchise agreements with unaffiliated franchisees to operate Gap and Banana Republic stores in many other countries worldwide. GENERAL MOTORS: Calif. Court Approves Saturn VTi Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, on April 16, 2009, granted final approval of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against General Motors (Cause No. 07-CV-02142). The lawsuit alleged that Saturn VTi transmissions were defective. "This settlement offers more relief to class members, in terms of dollars per person, than any other class action settlement that this firm knows of," said Rob Schmieder, head of the complex-litigation department at LakinChapman, LLC. The class consists of all persons who are residents of the United States and who purchased a new or used 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005 model year Saturn VUE or 2003 or 2004 model year Saturn ION equipped with a continuously variable VTi transmission. Certain automobile dealers and people who sued GM seeking damages for alleged personal injury or property damage in connection with a VTi transmission are excluded from the class. "Saturn Vue and Ion owners can rejoice," said Brad Lakin, Managing Partner of LakinChapman LLC. "This is a tremendous settlement that provides Class Members, amongst other relief, the ability to get reimbursed thousands of dollars, in most cases, for out-of-pocket expenses incurred to replace their transmission," Lakin said. The benefits available to Class Members offer reimbursement for past and future expenses. Settlement benefits include: -- reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses relating to the previous repair, replacement, or inspection of Vti transmissions, -- reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses based on a previous trade-in of a Class Vehicle with VTi transmission failure; and -- reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses relating to the future repair, replacement, or inspection of Vti transmissions. To be reimbursable, the expense must be incurred within 125,000 miles of the original retail sale or lease of the vehicle and within certain time limitations. One Hurricane Katrina survivor and class member, Joy Boggi of Louisiana said, "At the time I needed to pay to replace the VTi transmission in my 2004 Saturn Vue, I was just getting my head above water from the financial status I was in from Hurricane Katrina. Once I was told it would cost me over $4,500 to replace the transmission, I felt financially drained and emotionally spent. There were times I would just cry about the financial and emotional distress I was under due to money needed to replace the transmission. The settlement provides great financial relief, and I am ecstatic about the settlement." Ms. Boggi and thousands of other Saturn Vue and ION owners will get reimbursed for transmission replacements and other benefits under the settlement. For more details, contact: Bradley M. Lakin Wood River, Illinois Phone: (618) 208-4240 or (866) 839-2021 Fax: (618) 254-0193 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/ IMAGINASIAN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Imaginasian Entertainment, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in New York, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Anime News Network reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 9, 2009 in he U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption, "Cha et al v. Imaginasian Entertainment, Inc et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv- 01120." It was filed by 10 employees laid off by the company in late 2008. The employees are: Jumi S. Cha, Tricia Lee, Daniel DeLorenzo, Calene Chun, Jasmine Jiamin Chen, Cyril Vladamir Chapateu, Carmelo Tino Calabria, Gregory Chang, James Paul Matison, and Mariko Zervos. The plaintiffs are alleging that they were not paid up to four months' worth of back pay. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the former employees are seeking US$250,000 in unpaid wages, a figure that may grow if additional plaintiffs join the suit. Nearly all of the plaintiffs were laid off between October and December of 2008, when the company shed over 75% of its workforce, according to the ANN report. The suit names ImaginAsian Entertainment and three key shareholders in the company, namely Augustine Hong, Adam Ware, and J. Edward Lee, as defendants. Troy Kessler, Esq., the plantiffs' Long Island-based attorney, tells ANN that shareholders are personally responsible for employee pay under New York state and federal law. NEW MOTION: Disputing Allegations Over Marketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Motion, Inc. is disputing allegations concerning the company's marketing practices associated with some of its services billed and delivered via wireless carriers. The company is named in two class action lawsuits, in Florida and California, involving these allegations. In one of these matters, the company has received a Summary Judgment on its Motion to Dismiss related to a number of the allegations made in the original complaint. The company has accrued for the related costs through purchase accounting in the amount of $0.275 million in connection with these matters, according to the company's March 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. New York-based New Motion, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- doing business as Atrinsic, Inc., is a digital advertising and entertainment network in the United States. Atrinsic is organized around two divisions: Networks, which offers service online marketing and distribution, and Entertainment that offers its content direct to users. PARK WEST: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Sales of Artwork --------------------------------------------------------------- Park West Gallery, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit that accuses it of dealing in fraudulent sales of artwork aboard cruise ships and violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Mike Martindale of The Detroit News reports. The lawsuit was filed on April 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Joseph Bohm and John Lee of New York state, against Park West Gallery of Southfield, PWG Florida, Vista Fine Art/Park West at Sea, Park West CEO Albert Scaglione and "1-100 John Does" employed as auctioneers. Captioned, "Bohm et al v. Park West Gallery, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-11392," it was filed by attorney E. Powell Miller, Esq. Messrs. Bohm and Lee allege they bought $25,000 in artwork from Park West on Caribbean cruises in 2002 and 2004. In 2008, the pair said they contacted 40 galleries to try to resell the art but no one responded. The lawsuit alleges the amount in controversy likely exceeds $5 million and a class in excess of 100 people, according to The Detroit News reports. The lawsuit claims the auctions are part of racketeering activity in which participants engage in a fraudulent scheme to auction "low-value, forged or worthless artwork" and sell "phony" appraisals to support the value of the art, The Detroit News reported. The gallery has been in business for 40 years and has held auctions on eight cruise lines and 80 ships, featuring works of Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso and Rembrandt, according to the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by The Detroit News. RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Pursuing Bid to Add Individuals Into Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.'s motion requesting a California court to include certain individuals in the $7.5-million settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the company that relates to how the company classified certain employees under California overtime laws is still pending. Initially, in 2001, two similar class-action lawsuits were filed against the company. These lawsuits were consolidated into one action. The consolidated action involves the issue of whether current and former employees in the general manager and assistant manager positions who worked in the company's California restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay. It also asserts claims for alleged missed meal and rest breaks. In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees that these former employees purport to represent. On March 19, 2007, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the class action representatives to settle the matter. Although the company denies the allegations underlying the consolidated action, it has agreed to the proposed settlement to avoid significant legal fees, other expenses and management time that would have to be devoted to pursue a victory in litigation. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $7.5 million in the aggregate (including attorneys' fees and costs, fees for administering the settlement and any employer taxes). The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 23, 2007. The settlement agreement was then approved on a final basis by the court in June 2007. The total settlement amount is payable in three installments. The first $2.5 million installment was paid on Aug. 31, 2007. The second $2.5 million installment is due on or before Dec. 28, 2008. The third and final installment of $2.5 million is due on or before June 28, 2010. The company recently learned that approximately 160 current and former employees who qualified to participate as class members in this class action settlement were not included in the settlement list approved by the court, and some number of these individuals may file claims to participate in the class action. It has filed a motion requesting the court to include these individuals in the approved settlement and to provide that their claims are payable out of the aggregate settlement payment, as the company believes the parties intended when they reached a settlement. The matter has not yet been resolved, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns, operates and franchises restaurants. As of March 25, 2008, the company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants, three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico. The company has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc. Its restaurants are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah. The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's Meals. RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still in Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action suit in a California state court, alleging that Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. failed to provide former employees with certain meal and rest period breaks and overtime pay is still in the pre-class certification discovery stage. The lawsuit was filed on March 24, 2005, by a former employee of the company. The parties moved the matter into arbitration, and the former employee amended the complaint to claim that he represents a class of potential plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleges that current and former shift leaders who worked in the company's California restaurants during specified time periods worked off the clock and missed meal and rest breaks. This case is still in the pre-class certification discovery stage, and no class has been certified, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns, operates and franchises restaurants. As of March 25, 2008, the company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants, three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico. The company has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc. Its restaurants are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah. The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's Meals. SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in South Dakota ---------------------------------------------------------------- Siouxland Urology Associates P.C. Faces a purported class-action lawsuit for allegedly exposing patients to blood-borne infectious diseases, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on April 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota by Theresa Kinney, Katherine Moir, Gloria Todd, James Peters and William P. Collins, under the caption, "Kinney et al v. Siouxland Urology Associates P.C. et al., Case No. 4:2009-cv-04051." The federal complaint was filed in Sioux Falls against Siouxland Urology Center in Dakota Dunes and its owners: Drs. John A. Wolpert, David D. Howard, Patrick M. Walsh, Kenneth E. McCalla, Timothy G. Kneib, and Craig A. Block, according to the AP report. The center sent letters on April 13, 2009 to more than 5,000 patients telling them that single-use products such as saline solution bags and tubing were used on more than one patient before being discarded, which created a minimal risk of exposure to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, reports The Associated Press. SMITH & NEPHEW: Discrimination Claims v. Unit Settled in 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- The claims in a class action lawsuit filed against Smith & Nephew plc's subsidiary, The Smith & Nephew Group, for discriminatory practices were settled in 2008. In 2006 and 2007, a number of charges were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Memphis, Tennessee, alleging that the Group's employee hiring, training or promotion practices were discriminatory. A class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Memphis in September 2006, with the same allegations. In 2008, the EEOC dismissed the claims filed with it, and the claims in the lawsuit were settled for an amount that will be paid in full by the Group's employment practices insurer. No further details regarding the class action lawsuit were disclosed in the company's March 27, 2009 Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. London-based Smith & Nephew plc -- http://global.smith- nephew.com/master/6600.htm -- is a global medical devices company engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of medical devices in the sectors of orthopedic reconstruction, orthopedic trauma and clinical therapies, endoscopy and advanced wound management. It has four business segments: reconstruction, trauma and clinical therapies, endoscopy and advanced wound management. TICKETRESERVE INC: Faces Customers' Lawsuit Over NFL Tickets ------------------------------------------------------------ The Ticketreserve, Inc., d/b/a FirstDIBZ.com, a forward ticket Web site, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit from eight disgruntled customers who accuse FirstDIBZ of allegedly reneging on thousands of dollars worth of "DIBZ" payments surrounding tickets for the recently completed NFL playoffs and Super Bowl, Alfred Branch Jr. of The Ticket News reports. The alleged payments were the subject of the massive scam that nearly felled the company over the winter, for which FirstDIBZ tried to settle by paying reparations to dozens of aggrieved customers, according to The Ticket News report. While FirstDIBZ has said it has tried to make good on as many of the payments to customers as possible, the company has been dogged continually by reams of complaints the last couple of months from brokers and fans for more supposed fraudulent orders, unresponsive customer service and not making full and complete restitution. The company claimed it had fallen victim to a massive scam where DIBZ orders were illegally sold by a few hustlers, and then those orders were resold by unsuspecting customers, reports The Ticket News. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 20, 2009 by Andrew Duffy, George Adams, Gregg Harder, Christopher Jackman, Jason Lee, Jose Ordaz, Vincent Ruggiero and Sohail Shah under the caption, "Duffy et al v. The TicketReserve, Inc., Case No. 1:2009-cv- 01746." The plaintiffs claim that FirstDIBZ "allowed fraudulent sellers to conduct transactions in the uDIBZ marketplace, and users, consumers, subscribers, and customers of FirstDIBZ.com were detrimentally affected and suffered economic damages." The company also was told by customers "that the uDIBZ marketplace was vulnerable to fraudulent activity in the Fall of 2008, when hundreds of fraudulent DIBZ for the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox to advance to the World Series were sold on the uDIBZ marketplace," The Ticket News reported. According to the lawsuit, "On and before January 2009, Defendant had knowledge that FirstDIBZ.com was vulnerable to fraudulent sellers entering the marketplace. Despite this knowledge, Defendant failed to employ reasonable and available procedures and safeguards to protect the users, consumers, subscribers, and customers of FirstDIBZ.com from fraud." The Ticket News reported that throughout the lawsuit, the plaintiffs detail the painful amounts of money they allegedly lost as a result of the scam and FirstDIBZ's subsequent inaction on their behalf. The lawsuit also said that the company "has purposefully retained monies due to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and has failed to refund monies that are rightfully Plaintiffs and Class Members. Upon information provided by Plaintiffs and Class members, Defendant has and intends to continue depriving Plaintiff and Class members of their money for periods exceeding 45 days without payment of any interest," The Ticket News reports, The plaintiffs are seeking "compensatory damages, interest and allowable costs of suit," but a specific amount is not disclosed, reports The Ticket News. TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. -- formerly Axonyx, Inc. Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February 2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005. Director and former Axonyx chief executive officer, Dr. M. Hausman, and current Axonyx CEO Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named as defendants in the lawsuits. These suits were consolidated into a single class action in January 2006. The plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase III Phenserine trial to show efficacy. They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the price of the company's shares during the class period. On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company filed its answer to that complaint on May 26, 2006. The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 26, 2006, and was submitted to the court for a decision in September 2006. The motion to dismiss is still pending. No further developments in the matter were reported by the company in its March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "In Re: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05- cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Thomas P. Griesa, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Evan Jay Kaufman, Esq. (ekaufman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com) Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C. 240 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: 516-741-4977 Representing the defendants are: May Orenstein, Esq. (morenstein@brownrudnick.com) Sigmund Samuel Wissner-Gross, Esq. (swissnergross@brownrudnick.com) Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-209-4800 212-209-4930 Fax: 212-938-2804 UNITED RENTALS: Amended Complaint in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders of United Rentals Inc. have filed a second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit accusing the company and two of its executives of misrepresenting facts about a failed buyout deal, in an attempt to address deficiencies a judge found in the original pleading, Law360 reports. Previously, Law360 reported that Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut dismissed a proposed securities fraud class-action lawsuit related to a 2007 buyout deal gone bad between United Rentals Inc. and Cerberus Capital Management LP, saying the plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2009). Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that affiliates of Cerberus had notified the company that they were not prepared to proceed with the purchase of the company on the terms set forth in a merger agreement, three putative class- action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2008). The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007, and Nov. 14, 2007. The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that the named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading statements and material omissions relating to the contemplated merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in: -- proxy materials that the company disseminated and filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19, 2007 special meeting of stockholders; and -- certain of the company's filings with the SEC and other public statements. On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs, expenses and fees. On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions and appointing the Institutional Investor Group, consisting of First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni Partners LLP, as lead plaintiffs for the purported class. The actions are now consolidated under the caption, "Vincent DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al." On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among other things: -- amended the purported class period to include purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities from July 23, 2007, to Nov. 14, 2007; -- dropped as defendants one of the company's officers and all but one of the company's directors; -- named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of its affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of its managing directors; and -- withdrew the previously asserted claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder. On May 16, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in this action. Briefing with respect to those motions is complete, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Vincent DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01708-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. (rcappucci@Entwistle-Law.com) Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP 280 Park Ave., 26th Fl. West New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-894-7200 Fax: 212-894-7272 - and - Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 Fax: 212-279-3655 Representing the defendants are: David J. Elliott, Esq. (djelliott@daypitney.com) Day Pitney LLP 242 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-1212 Phone: 860-275-0100 Fax: 860-275-0343 - and - Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com) Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-715-9300 Fax: 212-715-8000 VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM I Set for June Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial on a contract breach class action against Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. (VRM I) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. is scheduled to begin on June 19, 2009, according to Vestin Fund III, LLC's March 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. VRM I and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund I, LLC (Fund I) into VRM I. The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders who voted against the merger of Fund I into Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. The terms of VRM I's management agreement and Fund I's Operating Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby Vestin Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for indemnification by VRM I with respect to the action. Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com-- is investing in commercial real estate. Through subsidiaries, the firm originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities. Its Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages and deeds of trust. VESTIN REALTY: June Trial Set for Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial on a contract breach class action against Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRM II) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. is scheduled to begin on June 19, 2009, according to Vestin Fund III, LLC's March 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. VRM II and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund II, LLC (Fund II)into VRM II. The court certified a class of all former Fund II unit holders who voted against the merger of Fund II into VRM II, and a subclass of all class members who were over the age of 60 and Nevada residents at the time of the merger. The terms of VRM II's management agreement and Fund II's Operating Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby, Vestin Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for indemnification by VRM II with respect to the action. Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com-- is investing in commercial real estate. Through subsidiaries, the firm originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities. Its Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages and deeds of trust. WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' Suit Pending in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreen Co. and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer continue to defend against the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund's putative class-action suit, according to the company's March 26, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. On April 16, 2008, the Pension Fund filed a putative class- action suit against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of company common stock during the period between June 25, 2007, and Nov. 29, 2007. The complaint, which was amended on Oct. 16, 2008, charges the company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors by failing to disclose declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and a contract dispute with a pharmacy benefits manager that allegedly had a negative impact on earnings. Based in Deerfield, Ill., Walgreen Co. is principally a retail drugstore chain that sells prescription and non-prescription drugs and general merchandise. New Securities Fraud Cases COACH INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Coach, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between January 23, 2007, and October 22, 2007, for violations of the federal security laws. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants reported strong growth for the Company and forecast similar growth going forward. However, defendants failed to disclose that the Company's growth rate was, in fact, unsustainable. Then, on October 23, 2007, before the market opened, Coach announced that although its fiscal first-quarter profit rose 23%, traffic in its U.S. retail stores was weak and the Company expected a slow-down in the coming holiday season. As a result of this announcement, Coach's stock price dropped $4.87 per share (or 12%) to close at $36.60 per share on October 23, 2007. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who acquired preferred securities pursuant or traceable to a materially false and misleading registration statement filed with the SEC on October 10, 2006 by Deutsche Bank AG. These preferred securities include the 6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII (NYSE:DUA); the 6.55% Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust II (NYSE:DXB); the 6.625% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust IX (NYSE:DTT); the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X (NYSE:DCE); the 7.60% Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust III (NYSE:DTK); and the 8.05% Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust V (NYSE:DKT) offered in October 2006, May 2007, July 2007, November 2007, February 2008 and May 2008, respectively. The complaint charges DB, certain of its subsidiaries, its senior insiders, the investment banks that underwrote the Offerings and DB's auditors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. DB is an investment bank headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, which has offices in the United States. The complaint alleges that from October of 2006 through May of 2008, DB consummated the Offerings pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement, selling over 248 million shares of the Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of more than $6.2 billion. After the Offerings, on January 14, 2009, DB issued a press release announcing disappointing fourth quarter 2008 financial results, including a loss after taxes of EUR4.8 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008, reflecting market conditions that severely impacted results in the sales and trading businesses, "most notably in Credit Trading including its proprietary trading business, Equity Derivatives and Equities Proprietary Trading." As a result of this disclosure, the prices of the Securities fell dramatically According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- the Company failed to properly record provisions for credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline insurers; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent it from improperly recording provisions for credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate loans, and the Company's exposure to monoline insurers; -- the Company's internal risk management systems were inadequate to limit the Company's exposure to credit trading, equity derivatives, and proprietary equity trading; and -- the Company 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 German government. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offerings. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before April 24, 2009. For more details, contact: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/deutschepreferred/ DEUTSCHE BANK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the 7.60% Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust III, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Securities of Deutsche Bank AG pursuant or traceable to the Company's February 2008 Offering. The Complaint charges Deutsche Bank and certain of its officers and directors, underwriters and auditor with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Deutsche Bank AG, headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany, is a global investment bank. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the Company improperly recorded provisions for commercial real estate losses, credit losses, and residential mortgage-backed securities; -- that the Company was not as well capitalized as it had stated; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal risk management systems; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On or about February 12, 2008, the Company completed the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus. The Registration Statement incorporated the Company's 2007 financial results and certain statements made in the Company's 2006 Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC. The Offering was a financial success for the Company, as it was able to raise over $1.75 billion by selling 70 million shares of the Securities to investors at a price of $25 per share. Subsequently, on January 14, 2009, Deutsche Bank announced that it anticipated a loss after taxes of approximately EUR 4.8 billion for the 2008 fiscal fourth quarter. Then on February 5, 2009, the Company issued a press release announcing a net loss of EUR 3.9 billion for fiscal year 2008 and a loss before income taxes of EUR 5.7 billion. As a result of these disclosures, the Securities declined significantly, closing on February 5, 2009 at $13.11. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 29, 2009. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@btkmc.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (NYSE:HPY) for violations of the federal securities laws. The suit was filed on behalf of a Class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Heartland's publicly traded securities between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009. 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. Once the Company revealed the breach and its potential impact on the Company, the price per share of Heartland's stock declined precipitously -- losing approximately 65% of its value. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: (651) 633-5685 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who acquired Prudential Financial, Inc. 9% Junior Subordinated Notes (NYSE:PHR) pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Prudential's June 2008 initial public offering of the Securities. The Complaint charges Prudential, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of the Offering and Prudential's auditor with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The lawsuit alleges that defendants consummated the Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement, selling 36.8 million shares of the Securities at $25 per share, for proceeds of over $920 million. The Registration Statement incorporated Prudential's financial results for 2007 and the first quarter of 2008. Prudential ultimately announced write downs associated with its exposure to subprime mortgages. The Registration Statement failed to disclose that: -- the Company's asset-backed securities collateralized with subprime mortgages were impaired to a greater extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; and -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its impaired assets. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 11, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Announces Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the depositary shares of the 9% Junior Subordinated Notes of Prudential, who purchased the securities pursuant to the Company's June 2008 initial public offering of the Securities, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. On June 24, 2008, the Company conducted an Offering of securities with the filing of a Prospectus Supplement, which is part of the Registration Statement, with the SEC. The Offering was successful as the Company was able to raise over $920 million by selling 36.8 million shares of the Securities to investors at a price of $25 per share. The Complaint alleges that Prudential and certain of its officers, directors, underwriters and auditor with violations of the Securities Act for issuing a false Prospectus. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented: -- that the Company's goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries was more greatly impaired than the Company had disclosed; -- that the Company's asset-backed securities collateralized with subprime mortgages were more greatly impaired than the Company had disclosed; -- that the Company did not properly record losses for impaired assets; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus was false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 4, 2009, Prudential began to announce write- downs of the Company's goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries, as well as write-downs associated with the Company's exposure to subprime mortgages. Then, on February 19, 2009, a press release issued by Fitch Ratings revealed that the Company's exposure to volatile credit and investment market conditions was negatively impacting its investment results, earnings performance and capital levels. Additionally, the article revealed that Prudential had above average exposure to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities. As a result of the disclosures and adverse news, the price of the Securities declined in value, closing on February 19, 2009 at $16.09. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 11, 2009. For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman, Esq. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 888-844-5862 e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *