/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090423.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 23, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 79 Headlines ALCATEL LUCENT: EEOC Lawsuit v. Lucent Remains Stayed in Calif. CITY OF FARGO: Reaches Proposed $1.5M Settlement in "Sauby" Case COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: N.Y. Judge Favors Nixing of Hollander Suit GENERAL MOTORS: May 27 Conference Set For Faulty Coolant Lawsuit HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit in Texas HORIZON BLUE: N.J. Judge Gives Final Approval to "Drazin" Deal HOSPIRA INC: Trial in Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit To Begin MERIDIAN CAPITAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments OFFICE DEPOT: New Complaint Filed in Fla. Shareholders' Lawsuit OSI RESTAURANT: Defending Ervin Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations OSI RESTAURANT: Expects EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims STATION CASINOS: Defends Amended Complaint in "Murchison" Suit STATION CASINOS: Still Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nevada TD BANKNORTH: Coughlin Stoia Secures $50M Deal in Holders' Suit UCI HOLDCO: Bid in "Perrault" Case Pending Quebec Court Ruling UCI HOLDCO: Champion Faces Direct Purchasers' Consolidated Suit UCI HOLDCO: Motion in "Urlin" Suit Pending Ontario Court Ruling UCI HOLDCO: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Suit Pending UCI HOLDCO: "Peerali" Lawsuit v. Champion Laboratories Pending UNITED STATES: Judge Issues Ruling in Suit Over Residency Claims U.S. STEEL: Seeks Transfer of Pollution Lawsuit to Federal Court * Employees Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Reinstate RICO Case V. UAW New Securities Fraud Cases J.P. JEANNERET: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit MRU HOLDINGS: Murray, Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit REGIONS FINANCING: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Litigation in Colo. ********* ALCATEL LUCENT: EEOC Lawsuit v. Lucent Remains Stayed in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class-action lawsuit styled, "EEOC v. Lucent Technologies Inc." remains stayed pending the disposition of another case raising similar issues, according to Alcatel Lucent's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In September 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a purported class-action lawsuit against Lucent in the U.S. District Court in California. The case alleges gender discrimination in connection with the provision of service credit to a class of present and former Lucent employees who were on maternity leave prior to 1980 and seeks the restoration of lost service credit prior to April 29, 1979, together with retroactive pension payment adjustments, corrections of service records, back pay and recovery of other damages and attorney's fees and costs. The case is stayed pending the disposition of another case raising similar issues. In the related case, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found against the defendant employer. The defendant employer in the related case has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard argument of this case on Dec. 10, 2008. The Supreme Court has requested additional briefings based on the enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Paris-based Alcatel Lucent -- http://www.alcatel-lucent.com-- provides product offerings that enable service providers, enterprises and governments worldwide, to deliver voice, data and video communication services to end users. It offers fixed, mobile and converged broadband networking, Internet protocol (IP) technologies, applications and services. It has operations in more than 130 countries. The company operates in three business segments: Carrier, Enterprise and Services. CITY OF FARGO: Reaches Proposed $1.5M Settlement in "Sauby" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed $1.5 million settlement was reached in a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-KKK," Patrick Springer of INFORUM reports. The case, filed by Stephanie Sauby, a West Fargo woman, was certified as a class-action, with 54,000 drivers eligible to become part of the case who collectively paid fines exceeding those set by state law by $4.3 million, according to the INFORUM report. Dickinson Press previously reported that Judge Rodney Webb of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled that a West Fargo woman can continue her lawsuit against the city of Fargo over traffic fines. According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic fines than state law allows. The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit. The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to continue the case on two other counts. Specifically, Judge Webb threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has successfully raised equal protection and due process claims." Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms. Sauby's case class-action status, Dickinson Press relates. According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart, Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment. Ms. Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment. The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010- RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: N.Y. Judge Favors Nixing of Hollander Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a recommendation to dismiss a purported class-action against Columbia University, entitled, "Hollander v. Institute for Research on Women & Gender at Columbia University et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-07286," Joy Resmovits of CU Columbia Spectator reports. Corey Kilgannon, who writes for New York Times, previously reported that Columbia University is facing a lawsuit filed by Manhattan lawyer Roy Den Hollander, Esq., before the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The suit alleges that the university's offer of women's studies courses is discriminatory toward men (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2008). Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Institute for Research on Women & Gender at Columbia University, School of Continuing Education at Columbia University, Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, U.S. Department of Education, Margaret Spellings, Robert M. Bennett, Richard P. Mills, and James C. Ross. The NYT report points out that Mr. Hollander is a self-described antifeminist. According to NY Times, over the past year, Mr. Hollander has sued Manhattan nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence. Specifically, in July 2007, Mr. Hollander filed a class-action suit against prominent Manhattan nightclubs like Copacabana, China Club, Lotus and Sol, claiming they discriminated against men with their ladies' nights offering free or reduced admission, which allegedly violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. In addition, in February 2008, Mr. Hollander filed a suit against the federal government calling parts of the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional. These cases are still pending. In his latest class-action suit, Mr. Hollander accuses Columbia University of using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism." He also called women's studies "a bastion of bigotry against men" and said that the university's women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." Such academic programs at Columbia and at universities nationwide, Mr. Hollander's suit says, are "spreading prejudice and fostering animosity and distrust toward men with the result of the wholesale violation of men's rights due to ignorance, falsehoods and malice." "Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, Mr. Hollander claims, adding "Columbia has thrown its influence and prestige into violating the rights of men by offering a women's studies program but no men's studies program." NY Times relates that Mr. Hollander devotes much of his private practice to representing men in civil cases -- "antifeminist cases or guys'-rights cases," as he puts it -- and said his bitter 2001 divorce from a woman he married in Russia helped ignite his anger toward feminists and laws he sees as favoring women. Columbia University spokesman Robert Hornsby told NY Times that he could not comment on the lawsuit or even confirm that the university had been served with it. GENERAL MOTORS: May 27 Conference Set For Faulty Coolant Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dennis Ruth of the Madison County Circuit Court set a May 27, 2009 case management conference for a purported class-action lawsuit against General Motors Corp. that accuses the company of pouring defective coolant into 40 million new engines. In general, the lawsuit alleges that sludge accumulated in engines and caused mechanical problems. Matthew Armstrong, of King Marker Armstrong in St. Louis, sued General Motors in 2003, on behalf of Granite City residents Robin Flynn and Cheryl Hall. Mr. Armstrong sought to recover damage that sludge caused to Flynn's 2000 Chevrolet Impala and Hall's 2000 Oldsmobile Alero. Mr. Flynn and Ms. Hall also sought damages from coolant makers Shell and Chevron. Ernest Coy, Joe Whatley and Peter Burke of Birmingham, Ala., added their names to the complaint. GM removed the suit to federal court in East St. Louis, and District Judge Michael Reagan sent it back to Madison County Circuit Court. Mr. Armstrong asked Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to certify Flynn and Hall as class representatives for everyone who bought a General Motors vehicle since 1996. In 2004, Mr. Armstrong added a claim from plaintiff Harry Reed of Pontoon Beach, owner of a 1998 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Ms. Flynn, Mr. Hall and Mr. Reed later settled with Shell and Chevron. General Motors moved to dismiss, advising Judge Byron that it made 40 million vehicles in the class period. It also argued that the vast majority of buyers never had a sludge problem and never would have a sludge problem. In addition, General Motors also moved to strike class allegations. In November 2004, Judge Byron denied both motions. In January 2005, Mr. Hall withdrew as plaintiff, due to a "family situation." Mr. Flynn withdrew in March 2005, for the same reason. Mr. Reed remained as a the sole remaining plaintiff. HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Hooters of America, Inc. has reportedly settled a purported gender discrimination class-action suit in Corpus Christi, Texas that was filed by a man who claims he applied for a serving position and was denied because he's a male, according to an Onpointnews.com report. Onpointnews.com reported that court records show that the plaintiff and and Hooters reached a confidential settlement on April 13, 2009. It also reported that the settlement applies only to the Corpus Christi franchisee. KRIS-TV previously reported that the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Jan. 8, 2009 by Nikolai Grushevski under the caption, "Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00002" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15, 2009) Aside from Hooters, other defendants named in the suit are: -- Texas Wings, Inc., -- Corpus Christi Wings, Ltd., and -- TWI XXII, Inc. KRIS-TV reported that Mr. Grushevski unsuccessfully applied for a waiter's job with Hooters in May 2008. At the time, he claimed gender discrimination, but a complaint to the labor department went nowhere. Now, with the help of attorney Martin A. Shellist, Esq. of Shellist Lazarz LLP, he has filed a federal lawsuit against Hooters. Mr. Shellist told KRIS-TV that he believes they have a strong case. In his lawsuit, he said, "Hooters attempts to circumvent the law by referring to its waiters as 'Hooters Girls'." "I think we've got a strong case. I think if you take Hooters' logic to the extreme, it violates the law at every point. I think it's unfair," according to Mr. Shellist. In the mid-90s, the federal courts ruled that Hooters was allowed to only employ girls as Hooters Girls, but Mr. Shellist argues that his client's case is different. The complaint said, "Grushevski applied to become a food server, not a Hooters Girl." It also said that he is not trying to deprive Hooters of its right to employ Hooters Girls. Hooters representatives told KRIS-TV that they do hire men, just not as servers, but Mr. Grushevski argued that position should be gender neutral. Vice President for Hooters Restaurants in Texas, Mike Herrick, told KRIS-TV that it appears Mr. Grushevski is filing the lawsuit for the money. Mr. Shellist wants to turn the case into a class-action suit and find other men who claim they have also been discriminated against. He hopes the case will go before a jury sometime next year, reports KRIS-TV. The suit is "Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Janis Graham Jack, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Martin A. Shellist, Esq. (mshellist@eeoc.net) Shellist Lazarz LLP 1900 West Loop South Suite 1910 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: 713-621-2277 Fax: 713-621-0993 HORIZON BLUE: N.J. Judge Gives Final Approval to "Drazin" Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Faith Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey gave final approval to the proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, Civ. 6-6219," which generally alleges that the company wrongfully denied claims by eating-disorder patients, The National Law Journal reports. The settlement will require Horizon Blue to to expand benefits for 1.5 million eating disorder patients and pay up to $2.45 million to the plaintiffs lawyers. The National Law Journal reported that under the settlement, about 566 Horizon patients whose coverage for eating disorders was previously limited will now recover about $1.2 million for treatment they received. Horizon Blue also agreed to treat any future eating disorder claims the same way it treats biologically-based mental illnesses such as schizophrenia -- a move that will cost it an estimated $17.8 million. In so doing, the company will have to give up its current restrictions limiting treatment to 20 outpatient visits per calendar year and 30 days of hospitalization, according to the The National Law Journal report. HOSPIRA INC: Trial in Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit To Begin --------------------------------------------------------------- A trial in a class-action suit brought by former Abbott Laboratories employees alleging they lost benefits when the company spun off Hospira, Inc. in 2004 is finally set to start this week, and could lead to a ruling this autumn, Dow Jones Newswires reports. According to Steven Sprenger, Esq., counsel for the plaintiffs at the law firm Sprenger + Lang, the hearing is planned to last six days but in two chunks � one starting this week and the other in late July. This is due to Abbott's planned annual meeting Friday, which will prevent plaintiffs' attorneys from calling Abbott Chief Executive Miles White to testify. Mr. Sprenger told Dow Jones Newswires that he aims to call Mr. White in July and to call Hospira Chief Executive Christopher Begley this week. Mr. Sprenger estimated that judge's decision in the bench trial could come in September or October. Plaintiffs are "seeking to be put back into the same position that they would have been in but for the spinoff and the loss of their benefits," he tells Dow Jones Newswires. Hospira, Inc. continues to face a class-action lawsuit over allegations that the spin-off of the company from Abbott Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2009). The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc." On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The company has moved to dismiss the new claim. By order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action status to the lawsuit. The new claim in the amended complaint is not subject to the class certification ruling. As to the sole claim against the company in the original complaint, the court certified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations." In July 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants seeking summary judgment. Hospira denies all material allegations asserted against it in the complaint. In the third quarter of 2008, Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that Hospira indemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may incur in connection with this litigation. Hospira denies any obligation to indemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against Abbott in this litigation, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Paul William Mollica, Esq. Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-263-0272 Representing the company is: James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com) Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-558-5230 MERIDIAN CAPITAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments --------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Capital Partners and its investment manager, Meridian Diversified Fund Management LLC, are facing a purported class- action lawsuit in New York for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties in entrusting client money with convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff, Chad Bray of Dow Jones Newswires reports. The suit was filed on behalf of the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers by law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, according to the Dow Jones Newswires report. The Class Action Reporter previously reported that the law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class- action lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all investors who acquired shares in Meridian Capital Partners, Inc. funds of hedge funds managed by Meridian Diversified Fund Management, LLC between Jan. 2, 2008 and Dec. 11, 2008, seeking to recover losses resulting from Meridian Diversified's placement of significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by Bernard Lawrence Madoff and his firm, and who were damaged thereby. The action includes a sub-class of those employee benefit plans which invested with Meridian Diversified during the Class Period, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for breach of fiduciary duty (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2009). The complaint charges Meridian, Meridian Diversified and their officers and/or partners with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and ERISA. Meridian is an alternative investment adviser offering funds of hedge funds to institutional and high net worth investors and acts as the managing member of Meridian Diversified. The complaint alleges that Meridian Diversified placed significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by Madoff and his firm. Madoff has now been charged with running what may be the largest Ponzi scheme ever. Unknown to investors in its Funds, Meridian Diversified had invested 6% to 8% of its clients' funds in Madoff-managed investments. This was contrary to the duties Meridian Diversified had to its investors of good faith and fair dealing and contrary to the representations Meridian Diversified had made regarding its processes for selecting fund managers. As a result of defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and false statements, investors made additional investments in the Funds and/or held shares they would have redeemed. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all investors who acquired shares in Meridian Funds managed by Meridian Diversified during the Class Period and whose shares were invested in entities run by Madoff and all employee benefit plans which invested with Meridian Diversified and whose assets were invested in whole or in part by Meridian Diversified in any Madoff-related investment during the Class Period. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 20, 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/meridiancapital/ OFFICE DEPOT: New Complaint Filed in Fla. Shareholders' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated group of plaintiffs has filed a new complaint in a purported class-action lawsuit accusing Office Depot, Inc. and two of its principals of a massive financial fraud that erased billions in shareholder value, Law360 reports. The complaint was filed April 20, 2009 by lead plaintiff New Mexico Educational Retirement Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to the Law360 report. OSI RESTAURANT: Defending Ervin Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour law. On Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled, "Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. This lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back pay and attorney fees. The complaint alleges a class-action under state law and a collective action under federal law, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. -- http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system- wide restaurants. The Company operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly through company- owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of partnerships and franchises. OSI RESTAURANT: Expects EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. expects the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to pursue claims of gender discrimination against the company on a nationwide basis through other proceedings, according to its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services, Inc. are the defendants in a class-action lawsuit brought by the EEOC alleging that they have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against women on the basis of their gender with respect to hiring and promoting into management positions as well as discrimination against women in terms and condition of their employment and seeks damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 28, 2006, is styled, "EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. In addition to the EEOC, two former employees have successfully intervened as party plaintiffs in the case. On Nov. 3, 2007, the EEOC's nationwide claim of gender discrimination was dismissed and the scope of the suit was limited to the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. -- http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system- wide restaurants. The Company operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly through company- owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of partnerships and franchises. STATION CASINOS: Defends Amended Complaint in "Murchison" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Station Casinos, Inc. defends an amended complaint in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "S. Blake Murchison v. Station Casinos, Inc. et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 12, 2009, and brought on behalf of an individual noteholder, purporting to act on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated noteholders, of the company's outstanding senior and senior subordinated notes, alleges that he has been unfairly discriminated against in connection with the Company's pending solicitation of ballots in favor of a proposed plan of reorganization. The plaintiff alleges that the solicitation is an exchange offer that will give a limited number of holders of the company's outstanding notes the opportunity to obtain new notes which will be senior to the outstanding notes. The lawsuit names as defendants the company, its directors and certain of its executive officers. On Feb. 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the company from finalizing or consummating the exchange offer contemplated in the proposed plan of reorganization. On March 16, 2009, the company opposed plaintiff's motion, arguing that: 1) plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits in the underlying lawsuit because the reorganization plan proposes to treat all noteholders equally; and 2) plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction because he will have an opportunity to fully and fairly protect his interests in the bankruptcy court prior to consummation of the proposed plan and exchange offer. The Court has not ruled on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 25, 2009, plaintiff amended his Complaint, raising new claims, abandoning other claims asserted in the original complaint, and purporting to to act on behalf of a proposed class of all noteholders as to certain claims and for similarly situated noteholders as to other claims. The amended complaint asserts, among other things, that the plan of reorganization will grant only a limited number of holders of the Company's outstanding notes the opportunity to obtain new notes that are senior to the outstanding notes. According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, it believes that the lawsuit, as amended, is without merit because, among other reasons, all holders of the company's outstanding senior notes and senior subordinated notes, respectively, would receive the same consideration pursuant to the proposed plan of reorganization regardless of whether such holders were eligible to participate in the solicitation of votes for the plan and no old notes would remain outstanding following consummation of the proposed plan. Las Vegas-based Station Casinos, Inc. is a gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50% owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are 50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe. STATION CASINOS: Still Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- A labor-related class-action lawsuit remains pending against Station Casinos, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The purported class-action complaint against the company was initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company: -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, -- failed to pay overtime, -- failed to timely pay wages, and -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel. The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008. The parties are currently in the discovery process. The company has yet to file a response to the complaint. The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net) McInerney & Jones 9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103 Reno, NV 89521 Phone: 775-853-6440 Fax: 775-853-6445 - and - Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com) Righetti Law Firm, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-983-0900 Fax: 415-397-9005 Representing the defendants is: Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper US LLP 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: 702-677-3900 Fax: 702-737-1612 TD BANKNORTH: Coughlin Stoia Secures $50M Deal in Holders' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP secured a settlement of $50 million in cash for a class of TD Banknorth, Inc. shareholders. Plaintiffs in a related action previously attempted to settle the case for under $3 million, or $.03 per TD Banknorth share. This victory for shareholders provides members of the class with an exponentially greater recovery than the related action was poised to provide before plaintiffs City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System and H. Louis Farmer, Jr. successfully objected to that settlement and took over the case. The $50 million settlement, before fees and expenses, is more than 16 times the amount shareholders would have received under the previously proposed settlement. The Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on April 20, 2009 and the settlement is subject to approval by the Court. "We always believed that TD Banknorth's shareholders deserved more than mere pennies, and we're pleased that we were able to obtain substantially more than the originally proposed settlement," said John J. Riley II, the Treasurer of the City of Dearborn Heights. This class action was filed on behalf of former stockholders of TD Banknorth, arising out of the April 20, 2007 going-private merger in which Toronto-Dominion Bank, TD Banknorth's majority stockholder, cashed out TD Banknorth's public stockholders for $32.33 per share. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to TD Banknorth's shareholders because the terms of the going-private merger were unfair and the result of an unfair process. A number of plaintiffs filed complaints in Delaware and attempted to settle the case quickly. At the same time, Farmer filed an action in Maine state court and aggressively litigated the case. After obtaining strong evidence in support of his claims, Farmer, along with Dearborn Heights, took his case to Delaware and successfully objected to the settlement reached by the original Delaware plaintiffs. As the Court later summarized: While Farmer took extensive discovery in the Maine litigation, including nine depositions, the Original Plaintiffs did little to advance the litigation in Delaware, seemingly satisfied with negotiating a very modest settlement. Aware of these negotiations and concerned by what he saw as the Original Plaintiffs' lack of diligence, Farmer stipulated to stay the Maine litigation and, with the other plaintiff currently seeking certification, the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System ("Retirement System"), filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware litigation. On March 23, 2007, two days after the filing of the motion to intervene, the Original Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of settlement, agreeing to the certification of the class and the appointment of the Original Plaintiffs as class representatives. The terms of the settlement also included certain corrective disclosures, and an increase of $.03 per share in the merger price.... Farmer and Retirement System filed their objection, amply supported by the extensive discovery taken in the Maine action, and, on July 19, this court rejected the settlement.... "We firmly believed in the strength of our claims and were forging ahead towards trial prior to reaching a settlement with defendants. We consider this an exceptional result for our clients and the class," said Coughlin Stoia partner Samuel H. Rudman. The case "In re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation, No. 2557-VCL," was led by Coughlin Stoia partners Samuel H. Rudman and Evan J. Kaufman. Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. partners Michael Hanrahan and Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. served as Delaware counsel. For more information, you can review the Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto on the Coughlin Stoia web site () and at For more details, contact Dan Newman (DNewman@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: (800) 449-4900 Web sites: http://www.csgrr.comand http://www.TDBanknorthShareholdersLitigation.com UCI HOLDCO: Bid in "Perrault" Case Pending Quebec Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to have the matter styled "Jean-Paul Perrault v. Champion Labs. et al.," proceed as a class action remains pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10- K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Champion was named as one of five defendants in the class-action lawsuit filed in Quebec, Canada, on April 25, 2008. This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle replacement parts market in North America and Europe. UCI HOLDCO: Champion Faces Direct Purchasers' Consolidated Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Champion Laboratories, Inc. faces a consolidated amended putative class-action complaint filed by direct purchasers of aftermarket filters, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. As of March 15, 2009, United Components, Inc. (UCI) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Illinois alleging conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present. Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name UCI. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated Amended Complaint. Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle replacement parts market in North America and Europe. UCI HOLDCO: Motion in "Urlin" Suit Pending Ontario Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to have the matter styled "Urlin Rent A Car Ltd. v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al," proceed as a class action remains pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Champion was named as one of 14 defendants in a class-action lawsuit filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada. This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14 defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and $15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on. Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle replacement parts market in North America and Europe. UCI HOLDCO: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss a consolidated putative class-action complaint filed by indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters against Champion Laboratories, Inc., is pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. United Components, Inc. (UCI) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named as two of multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. Champion, but not UCI, was also named in 3 similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of California. These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present. The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America ("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name UCI. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. On that same date, Champion, UCI and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009. The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed until after it rules on the motions to dismiss. Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle replacement parts market in North America and Europe. UCI HOLDCO: "Peerali" Lawsuit v. Champion Laboratories Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action suit styled "Peerali v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., No. BC405424," is pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Jan. 12, 2009, United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., was named as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle replacement parts market in North America and Europe. UNITED STATES: Judge Issues Ruling in Suit Over Residency Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California tentatively ordered the Department of Homeland Security to reopen cases of 22 people who were denied green cards because their American spouses died during the application process, The Associated Press reports. Judge Snyder issued the preliminary ruling on April 20, 2009, and is expected to make a final decision after a hearing on April 22, 2009. These rulings are in connection to a class- action lawsuit captioned, "Carolyn Robb Hootkins et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al. Case No. CV07-05696 CAS," according to the AP report. The judge's ruling cited a 2006 appeals court decision that said applicants don't lose their status as spouses of U.S. citizens if the spouse dies before the government rules on their permanent residency applications, reports The Associated Press. The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that the Department of Homeland Security is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging its erroneous legal standard has stripped numerous foreign spouses of U.S. citizens of their right to legal residency (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2007). This action arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), 8 U.S.C. Section 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C. Section 1255. A citizen may apply for adjustment of status for a non-citizen spouse as an immediate relative. A non-citizen spouse may apply if he or she has been married to a citizen for two years or more and the citizen spouse dies. If the citizen dies before the second anniversary of the marriage, the non-citizen is no longer considered a spouse, and thus loses all rights. Because the department is not punctual in processing their claims, numerous spouses had lost the right to become legal residents under this system. The plaintiffs seek writ of mandamus and an injunction. The suit is "Carolyn Robb Hootkins et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al. Case No. CV07-05696 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Brent W. Renison, Esq. (brent@entrylaw.com) Parrilli Renison LLC 5285 SW Meadows Rd., Ste 175 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Phone: (503) 597-7190 Fax: (503) 726-0730 - and - Alan R. Diamante, Esq. (diamantelaw@aol.com) Law Office of Alan R. Diamante 523 W. Sixth Street, Ste. 210 Los Angeles, California 90014 Phone: (213) 943-4555 Fax: (213) 943-4553 U.S. STEEL: Seeks Transfer of Pollution Lawsuit to Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Steel is seeking for the transfer a class-action lawsuit against the company and 10 other Lake County polluters from state court to federal court, because more than $5 million could be at stake, the Gary Post Tribune reports. Company attorney Terence M. Austgen, Esq., filed the paperwork on April 17, 2009 Friday requesting the move. In the notice of removal, Mr. Austgen said federal court has jurisdiction because claims are more than $5 million and because at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from separate states, reports the Gary Post Tribune. In March, a group of parents filed a class-action suit against 11 of Lake County, Indiana's worst air-pollution emitters claiming the companies foul the region's air with toxic pollutants to such a degree that children in the area could face life-long development and health issues (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2009). Among the parties sued in the case are United States Steel Gary Works; ArcelorMittal USA Indiana Harbor East and West; Dover Chemical Corp. in Hammond; Edw. C. Levy Co., Harsco Corp., the Marley-Wylain Co., Pollution Control Industries Inc.; Rhodia Inc., UGN Inc., and Union Tank Car Co., according to Gary Post Tribune report. Parents filed the suit after a series of studies revealed children in Lake County - which includes the heavily industrialized cities of East Chicago and Gary - are exposed to higher levels of airborne toxins including cadmium, manganese and lead than elsewhere in the United States. The studies show exposure to these toxic emissions during childhood can lead to increased risk of cancer, damage to developing lungs and other organs, damage in the development of the respiratory, nervous, endocrine and immune systems, as well as behavioral problems, and mental disabilities. "The plight of these children is nothing short of a healthcare crisis for those living in this area," said lead attorney and HBSS managing partner Steve Berman. The Political Economy Research Institute, joined by USA Today, concluded that the air quality in Lake County, Indiana is among the worst in the country, and that school-aged kids in the region inhale or ingest more toxins than nearly any other area in the U.S. According to the research, of air quality outside 127,800 schools nationwide, four of the schools in East Chicago, Indiana - including Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Benjamin Franklin Elementary School, East Chicago Lighthouse, and Eugene Field Elementary School - ranked in the first percentile, the most toxic air in the nation. No East Chicago school ranks above the sixth percentile in the study, the suit states. Mr. Berman noted that children are at an increased risk of the effects of airborne toxins and need long-term medical monitoring. "A child, running and playing can take in as much as 50 percent more air through their lungs than an adult doing the same activity," Mr. Berman noted. "We have no way of knowing the long- term effects of these contaminants." "Air they breathe today could cause asthma or lung cancer 10 years down the line," Mr. Berman added. Mr. Berman also noted that the population of Lake County is economically disadvantaged, with about 12 percent of the residents living below the poverty line. "Most people in Lake County don't have the ability to pull up their stakes and move away to find a healthy place to raise their kid; they are stuck there," Mr. Berman added. "Regardless of how poor they are, we think Lake County children should have the right to breathe air that won't make them ill, or worse." Ron Kurth, a parent from Lake County city Crown Point filed the suit in Lake County Superior Court on behalf of all the region's residents whose children have attended Lake County schools. In addition to medical monitoring, the suit asks the court to order a public awareness campaign about the dangers of these chemicals, air quality monitoring throughout Lake County and a citizen advisory board to allow continued input on the medical monitoring program. Additional defendants in this case include Dover Chemical Corp., The Marley-Wylain Co., Pollution Control Industries, Rhodia Inc., UGN Inc., Union Tank Car Co., and HARSCO Corp. For more details, contact: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (708) 776-5600 Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/lakecounty e-mail: lakecounty@hbsslaw.com * Employees Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Reinstate RICO Case V. UAW ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, on April 21, 2009, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to uphold workers' challenge to a secret quid pro quo agreement intended to install the United Auto Workers (UAW) union at Freightliner plants in North and South Carolina. With free legal aid from the Foundation, five employees at three plants operated by Daimler Trucks subsidiary Freightliner filed a class-action federal racketeering lawsuit in 2006 challenging an illegal scheme in which union officials agreed in advance to significant concessions at the expense of the Freightliner workers at its non-union facilities in North Carolina in exchange for valuable company assistance in organizing those workers. Federal law bars companies from giving "things of value" to unions or union officials, and it is also illegal for company and union agents to negotiate terms and conditions of employment before the union hierarchy has proven a majority of employees actually want it to represent them. But in a secret "Preconditions to Card Check Procedure" pact inked before employees even knew they were a UAW union organizing target, Freightliner and the UAW union expressly agreed to limitations on wages, an increase in the health care costs shouldered by employees, and other concessions. In return, Freightliner gave the UAW union organizers direct access to propagandize employees at compulsory "captive audience" meetings and to harangue them in company break rooms, granted union organizers access to employees' private home addresses, agreed not to provide truthful information to employees about the downsides of unionization, and agreed to automatically recognize the union without a secret ballot vote when presented the requisite number of signed union authorization cards. In such "card check" organizing drives, employees are frequently coerced or misled into signing such cards, which are then counted as "votes." Workers have also complained that signed cards are difficult to revoke. In December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld union lawyers' motion to dismiss the case. Foundation attorneys argue the lower court erroneously limited "things of value" to only tangible and explicit monetary benefits. But given the millions of dollars unions spend on corporate campaigns to obtain the advantages delivered by Freightliner in this case, the UAW clearly obtained "things of value." Moreover, the court could have simply remanded for fact finding as to monetary value, which can easily be established. "We urge the Supreme Court to do what the lower courts have refused: restore the rights of American workers victimized by sweetheart deals between management and union bosses," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. The employees seek financial restitution to all employees at the Mount Holly, Gastonia, and Cleveland, North Carolina, facilities in the form of treble damages for all dues seized and earnings lost as a result of the unlawful pact. Additional Freightliner plants known to be covered by the once-secret agreement are located in High Point, North Carolina, and Gaffney, South Carolina. For more details, contact: National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. 8001 Braddock Road Springfield, Virginia 22160 Phone: (703) 321-8510 or (800) 336-3600 Fax: (703) 321-9613 or (703) 321-9319 Web site: http://www.nrtw.org/ New Securities Fraud Cases J.P. JEANNERET: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against defendants J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc., John P. Jeanneret, Paul L. Perry, Ivy Asset Management Corporation, Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, and Margolin, Winer & Evens LLP, on behalf of all persons, other than Defendants, who invested in Income-Plus Investment Fund, from January 1, 1999 to the present, to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and common law claims, including breach of fiduciary duties. The case name is styled, "Local 73 Annuity Fund, et al. v. J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc., et al." This Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, unknown to Income-Plus Investors, Defendants failed to perform the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to perform as investment advisors, managers and fiduciaries, and proximately caused millions of dollars in losses by placing the Plaintiffs' investment assets of Income-Plus in entities managed by Bernard Madoff. Defendants either knew or were reckless in not realizing that the Income-Plus Investment Fund's assets that were placed with Madoff were at risk because his enterprise was a massive Ponzi scheme. Defendants ignored numerous red flags, including the abnormally high and stable positive investment results reportedly achieved by Madoff regardless of market conditions; inconsistencies between Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC's publicly available financial information concerning its assets and the purported amounts that Madoff managed for clients; and the fact that BMIS was audited by a small, obscure accounting firm. Jeanneret issued an Offering Memorandum for Income-Plus Investment Fund that was false and misleading because it falsely stated that Jeanneret would conduct thorough due diligence with respect to Income-Plus' investments. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Jeanneret, Ivy, and Ivy's parent company, Bank of New York, failed to perform the represented due diligence and oversight, and abdicated their fiduciary duties to the investors by entrusting the Plaintiffs' assets with Madoff. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Margolin negligently failed to conduct a proper audit of Income- Plus' financial statements. Plaintiffs have alleged claims on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009. For more details, contact: Barbara Hart (Bhart@lowey.com) Thomas M. Skelton (Tskelton@lowey.com) Vincent Briganti (Vbriganti@lowey.com) Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C. White Plains Plaza One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601-2310 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Web site: http://www.lowey.com MRU HOLDINGS: Murray, Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU Holdings, Inc. during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges MRU and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants' public statements failed to disclose, among other things, that: -- the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"), which the Company issued in its first student loan securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim of the broker-dealers; -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker- dealers allowed the Company to securitize its student loans on favorable terms; -- that once the true nature of the ARS market became known, the terms of future securitizations by the Company would not be favorable to the Company; and (4) -- that without the favorable terms available in the ARS market as a result of manipulation by the broker- dealers, the Company would not have sufficient capital to originate loans, making the Company's business model untenable. On July 7, 2008, the Company revealed the unfavorable terms of its second securitization, causing the price of its securities to drop to $2.27 per share - a one day decline of $0.23 per share, or 9.2%. Then, on August 18, 2008, Moody's Investors Service placed the ARSs issued by MRU on review for downgrade, driving the price of MRU shares even further, to $1.05 per share. After the market closed on September 5, 2008, the Company ceased originating student loans, which caused MRU's stock price to fall even further, closing on September 6, 2008 at $0.71. Finally, on February 9, 2009, MRU announced that it had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. The Company's shares have been delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange, and currently trade at less than $.01 per share. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009. For more details, contact: Eva Hromadkova Brian Brooks Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076 e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com REGIONS FINANCING: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 purchasers of the 8.875% Trust Preferred Securities of Regions Financing Trust III (NYSE: RF-PZ) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the April 2008 Offering. The Complaint charges Regions Financial Corporation and certain of its officers and directors, its auditor, and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Regions engages in consumer and commercial banking, trust, securities brokerage, mortgage and insurance products and services. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's Offering, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that the Company improperly accounted for goodwill; -- that the Company improperly accounted for impaired assets; -- that the Company improperly recorded provisions for loan losses; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; -- that the Company was not as well capitalized as represented; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On or about April 28, 2008, the Company conducted the Offering. In connection with the Offering, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the SEC. The Offering was a financial success for the Company, as it was able to raise over $345 million by selling 13.8 million shares of the Securities to investors at a price of $25 per share. On January 20, 2009, Regions announced dismal financial results for the fourth quarter of 2008. Details included a $6 billion non-cash charge for impairment of goodwill, a $469 million loss resulting from non-performing assets, and an increase in the loan loss provision to $1.150 billion. Then, on February 2, 2009, it was reported that Moody's had downgraded the Company, largely due to its deteriorating loan portfolios in the troubled Florida market. As a result of these disclosures, the price of the Securities has declined significantly. 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 June 1, 2009. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, 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 ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Litigation in Colo. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYXI) formerly known as Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYNX) securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009 inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado as case no. 09-CV-780. The Complaint charges Zynex, its chief executive officer, Thomas Sandgaard, and chief financial officer, Fritz Allison, with violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Zynex's issuance of materially false financial statements to the investing public during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, the Defendants, in violation of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Zynex's own internal polices, misstated the Company's reported net revenues and accounts receivable for the first three quarters of fiscal 2008. On April 1, 2009, Zynex announced that its unaudited financial statements and press releases issued on results for the first three quarters of 2008 can no longer be relied upon and would have to issue restated financial results to reflect adjustments to accounts receivable and net revenue for such periods. The Company announced that it believed the cumulative impact of these adjustments would be $5.1 million. This adverse news caused Zynex's stock price to fall dramatically, injuring Zynex shareholders. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 8, 2009. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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 * * *