/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090513.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 93 Headlines ALCOA INC: Sept. 22, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit BIDZ.COM INC: Denies Claims in Calif. Investor's Litigation BIOVAIL CORP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Litigation BURGER KING: Franchisees File Calif. Suits Over Advertising Plan CASSELS BROCK: Faces Canadian Suit For Negligent Tax Opinion CDR FINANCIAL: Municipal Derivatives Price-Fixing Case Dismissed CHINESE COMPANIES: May 27, 2009 Hearing Set for Drywall Lawsuits COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel in Ala. Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Lawsuit Over Theft of Confidential Data FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Nevada FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Decision on Motorola's Appeal Pending HALIFAX BUILDING: Ninth Circuit Revives Calif. Investors' Suit HORIZON LINES: Price-fixing Complaints Still Pending Discovery HORIZON LINES: To Defend Two Securities Lawsuits in Delaware KLA-TENCOR: Appeal to Dismissed Derivative Suit Pending in Del. KLA-TENCOR CORP: "Crimi" Suit Over Stock Option Grants Dismissed MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE: Faces Litigation Over Toll Collection MORTGAGE LENDERS: Aug. 5 Hearing Slated for $2.7M Settlement SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Defends Claims in Consolidated Derivative Suit SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Diaz" Lawsuit Over Merger with CSR SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Reich" Suit on CSR Merger Agreement STATION CASINOS: Bondholder Nixes Nev. Suit Over Reorganization TD AMERITRADE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Client Information Theft UNION BANCAIRE: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Madoff-Related Investments UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Rejects UnitedHealthcare/Ingenix Deal New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ALCOA INC: Sept. 22, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A Sept. 22, 2009 trial is scheduled for the class-action suit, "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The suit was filed on Nov. 17, 2006, by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Co., and spouses and dependents of such retirees. It alleges that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring the plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. The plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits. They additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits and attorneys fees. Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009. Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement benefit liability of approximately $300 million and approximately $40 million of expense (includes an interest cost component) annually, on average, for the next 11 years, according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2006-cv- 00448," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. (katapano@gmail.com) 744 Broadway Albany, NY 12207 Phone: 518-463-7501 Fax: 518-463-7502 Representing the defendant is: John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. (jwoods@hunton.com) Hunton & Williams 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza East Tower Richmond, VA 23219-4074 Phone: 804-788-8629 Fax: 804-343-4794 BIDZ.COM INC: Denies Claims in Calif. Investor's Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Bidz.com, Inc. denied the claims in a lawsuit filed by Ramon Gomez in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and its chairman and chief executive officer, David Zinberg, RTT News reports. The company noted that the plaintiff's allegations are solely based on a report published by Citron Research on November 26, 2007. The company said it has publicly refuted all the claims made in the report, according to RTT News. Bidz.com believes the plaintiffs' claims are entirely without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously, RTT News reported. An investor in BIDZ.com, Inc., on May 7, 2009, has filed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Bidz.com (Nasdaq: BIDZ) during the period between Aug. 13, 2007 and Nov. 26, 2007 against Bidz.com and its chief executive over alleged Federal Securities Laws violations (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2009). According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Bidz.com and its chief executive violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between Aug. 13, 2007 and Nov. 26, 2007 a series of false and misleading statements intended to project the picture of a financially sound and well-operating company, when, in fact, BIDZ.com, Inc. was operating with material deficiencies and undisclosed substantial problems that went to the heart of its business model. BIOVAIL CORP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a proposed shareholder class-action lawsuit accusing Biovail Corp. of misleading investors about the antidepressant Aplenzin, calling the lawsuit a "prime exemplar of a legally baseless securities strike suit," Law360 reports. In a ruling issued on May 8, 2009, Judge McMahon granted the company's motion to toss the amended complaint in its entirety, according to the Law360 report. BURGER KING: Franchisees File Calif. Suits Over Advertising Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group representing Burger King Holdings Inc. (BKC) franchisees filed purported class-action lawsuits that seek to block plans by the parent company to divert rebates the store operators receive from buying soft drink syrup into a beefed-up national advertising budget, Paul Ziobro of Dow Jones Newswires reports. National Franchise Association, Inc., which represents over 75% of Burger King's U.S franchise operators, says that franchisees will lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade as the parent company uses long-standing funds the operators had received for advertising. The two complaints, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 4, 2009, also separately name Coca-Cola Co., and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., as defendants. Both are seeking class-action status, according to the Dow Jones Newswires report. Burger King is trying to tap up to 40% of the syrup rebate funds that all stores receive in order to increase its national advertising presence next year at a time of fierce fast-food competition. The chain also has a host of products it plans to launch for a new batch broiler. According to the lawsuit, the total money diverted will be $25 million in 2010 and almost $40 million a year until 2022, when National Franchise Association estimates the agreement between the company and drink suppliers will expire, reports Dow Jones Newswires. At issue is whether the parent company can control the use of money from a soft drink contract entered into by Burger King and the two drink companies in 1999. That contract was set to expire once all stores purchase a combined 600 million gallons of syrup, which the lawsuit says will occur in 2022. Dow Jones Newswires reported that based on how much soft drink syrup each store purchases, the owner of the store received rebates for store repairs, equipment maintenance and local promotions. The store operators say they are the intended beneficiaries of the agreement and the parent company cannot "unilaterally strip" the stores of this funding without the franchisees' consent. CASSELS BROCK: Faces Canadian Suit For Negligent Tax Opinion ------------------------------------------------------------ A class-action was instituted against Cassels Brock & Blackwell by disaffected individuals who participated in a timeshare program operated and promoted by the Athletic Trust of Canada, Julius Melnitzer of The National Post reports. The plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Gottlieb, Davit Akman and Derek Ricci of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, allege that the law firm's Lorne Saltman negligently prepared a tax opinion leading them to believe that they could both support amateur athletics and reduce their tax liability, according to The National Post report. The participants received timeshare weeks and donated them, together with cash donations, to registered Canadian amateur athletic organizations, The National Post reported. In return, they were issued charitable donation receipts and claimed the related tax credits. Ultimately, the CRA denied the timeshare portion of the donations, and the plaintiffs were collectively required to pay million of dollars in arrears of interest, reports The National Post. None of the allegations, of course, have been proven, but the statement of claim is available online, The National Post reports. CDR FINANCIAL: Municipal Derivatives Price-Fixing Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed most of the class-action claims filed in 2008 by five municipal issuers that alleged Wall Street and other firms engaged in a secret, anticompetitive price- fixing conspiracy of municipal derivatives and guaranteed investment contracts, Andrew Ackerman of Bond Buyer reports. The class-action suit was led by Hinds County, Miss., and included as co-plaintiffs Fairfax County, Va., Mississippi, Baltimore, and the Central Bucks, Pa., School District. It alleged that 37 banks, brokers, insurance companies, and investment advisory firms -- including CDR Financial Products, JP Morgan, and Bank of America -- conspired to fix the municipal derivatives market in violation of federal antitrust law, according to the Bond Buyer report. As a result, the suit claimed, issuers were hurt by alleged widespread price fixing and bid-rigging in the multimillion- dollar municipal derivatives industry since 1992, reports Bond Buyer. Bond Buyer reported that the class-action lawsuit stemmed from several individual suits filed in multiple federal courts that were consolidated in the New York court in 2008 after the Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Internal Revenue Service launched parallel criminal and civil investigations of alleged antitrust and anti-competitive practices in municipal investments and derivatives, including bid-rigging and price fixing. In a 50-page order issued on April 29, 2009, Judge Marrero said that the class-action suit, instead of making specific allegations of anti-competitive behavior, simply listed "basically every type of conspiratorial activity that one could imagine," reports Bond Buyer. The handful of specific allegations of abuse that are cited all fall outside a four-year statute of limitations and the issuers did not indicate the defendants concealed the conduct, proof of which would be needed to get around the four-year limitation, according to Judge Marrero, Bond Buyer reports. Of the 37 firms named in the class action, few were tied to specific instances of anti-competitive behavior, the judge noted. The states and localities argued these firms were a part of a conspiracy. However, plaintiffs rested their arguments on a number of claims that Judge Marrero rejected as proof of a conspiracy such as that they issued and sold municipal derivatives to plaintiffs; that there is a history of anticompetitive behavior in the muni market; that there are a number of ongoing criminal investigations tied to swaps and GICs; and that the firms are members of some of the same trade associations and attended industry conferences, according to the Bond Buyer report. CHINESE COMPANIES: May 27, 2009 Hearing Set for Drywall Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- A panel of federal judges appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court will hold a hearing on May 27, 2009 on where to consolidate several lawsuits filed against Chinese companies that manufactured allegedly defective drywall, The Times-Picayune reports. Attorney Daniel Becnel Jr., Esq., who filed a class-action suit against the manufacturers in federal court in New Orleans, told The Times-Picayune that the cases would most likely be consolidated here, in Miami or in Fort Myers, Fla. Homeowners have complained that the Chinese drywall emits sulfur compounds that corrode air-conditioning coils and other household appliances and lead to nosebleeds and other respiratory problems, according to The Times-Picayune report. COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel in Ala. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP announced that the Firm has been appointed Lead Counsel in the securities class action litigation against Colonial BancGroup, Inc. on behalf of the Court- appointed Lead Plaintiffs State-Boston Retirement System, Norfolk County Retirement System, City of Brockton Retirement System, and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Lead Plaintiffs represent a class of purchasers of Colonial's securities between January 23, 2008 and January 27, 2009, inclusive. The case is pending in the Middle District of Alabama in front of the Honorable Myron H. Thompson. The case stems from allegations that, despite the continued softening of the real estate and credit markets in the first half of 2008, Defendants repeatedly assured Colonial investors that the Company had taken the appropriate steps to decrease its exposure to troubled mortgages. On October 22, 2008, Colonial suspended its dividend and announced its third quarter 2008 financial results: a net loss of $71 million due in substantial part to a sharp increase in its nonperforming assets and charge- offs. Colonial's stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels as this revelation, along with others made during the remainder of the Class Period, was accompanied by denials and continued misrepresentations by Defendants. After the market closed on January 27, 2009, Colonial announced its fourth quarter and full year 2008 financial results: a net loss of $825 million for the quarter due in substantial part to a $575 million goodwill impairment charge, a $415 million charge to write off troubled assets and an increase to its loan loss reserve. For the first time, Colonial further disclosed that its receipt of $550 million from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP") was conditioned upon the Company raising an additional $300 million in equity. Colonial has been lambasted by analysts and investors for failing to timely disclose this significant TARP contingency. Christopher Keller, partner, Labaton Sucharow said, "Investors lost millions due to Colonial's false statements regarding it's exposure to risky mortgages and the financial health of the company. Lead Plaintiffs seek to do all they can to best protect their employees and retirees' pension assets against this fraudulent behavior." For more details, contact: Stacey Szluka, Esq. (sszluka@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow LLP Phone: 212-907-0664 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A New York federal court set an Oct. 16, 2009 final approval hearing for the proposed settlement of a class-action suit over Costco Wholesale Corp.'s annual membership renewal practices, Diane Lade of the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports. In general, the suit claims the company unlawfully shortchanged five million consumers who renewed after their Costco memberships had expired by not resetting the renewal date, according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel report. For example, a Costco customer whose membership expired on Jan. 31, 2008 did not renew until March 30, 2008. But his new enrollment period then was from Jan. 31, 2008 to Jan. 1, 2009, meaning he paid for two months of membership during which he had no benefits. While there is no law specifically prohibiting this practice, attorneys for Long Island Costco customer Rhonda Dupler and the class, including Michael Berg of Meiselman, Denelea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, argued that the wholesaler did not disclose the practice to consumers and breached the contract by not giving members all the months they paid for, reports the South Florida Sun Sentinel. Under the settlement, Costco would agree to provide between one to three months free membership, valued at between $4.17 and $25, as part of the settlement, valued at around $40 million. The action would apply to present and former members, and to all types of memberships, which cost $50 or $100 annually. Consumers nationwide who were members between March 1, 2001, and March 31, 2009, and who renewed more than three weeks late, may qualify and have been notified by Costco, the South Florida Sun Sentinel reported. For more details, visit http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cc0. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Lawsuit Over Theft of Confidential Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging that it allowed unknown people to gain confidential information of its members, Joe Harris of the Courthouse News Service. John Amburgy, the lead plaintiff in the case, claims Express Scripts got an extortion letter in October 2008, threatening to publish confidential information of millions of Express Scripts members on the Internet. The letter included confidential information of 75 members, including Social Security numbers and prescription information, according to the suit. Mr. Amburgy claims that the company waited nearly a month to issue a vague statement on its Web site on Nov. 6, 2008 and a second statement on Nov. 11, 2008 that admitted some Express Scripts members had received similar letters, reports the Courthouse News Service. The suit states that Express Scripts announced that it knows where the information was accessed but was still investigating how it was accessed. Five months later though Express Scripts still has not announced how many members have had their confidential information compromised, according to the suit. Mr. Amburgy claims Express Scripts has a history of being dishonest with its customers. Thus he seeks damages and wants Express Scripts to provide credit monitoring for class members, the Courthouse News Service reported. FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------- FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc. (FPFG) faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Nevada that was filed shareholder of the company. On February 13, 2009, James P. Hanson, for himself and purportedly on behalf of other FPFG shareholders, filed a lawsuit in Nevada state court seeking, among other things, to enforce a 2006 settlement agreement between FPFG and its shareholders which requires certain annual distributions to be made by FPFG to the shareholders from funds received by the FPFG Grantor Residual Trust from the FPFG Creditor's Trust. The lawsuit requests class certification for the plaintiffs, but it has not been certified as a class action at this time. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Decision on Motorola's Appeal Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision on Motorola Inc.'s interlocutory appeal in the purported class- action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," remains pending, according to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2009. A purported class-action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed against Motorola and various of its directors, officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005. On March 19, 2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal. Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2002. On Sept. 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope of the class. Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain aspects of the class certification order. On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class, and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff, Howell, would be immediately appealable. The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001 with certain exclusions. On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its codefendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class. Those motions are currently pending before the District Court. On Feb. 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed to hear Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order certifying the class. This hearing occurred on Oct. 23, 2008. As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter. The company continues to assess the merits of this action as well as the potential effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities in embedded processing. The Company's product portfolio are Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors. HALIFAX BUILDING: Ninth Circuit Revives Calif. Investors' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a California putative class-action suit alleging the Halifax Building Society deceived investors regarding the bank's conversion into publicly traded company Halifax PLC, Law360 reports. On May 8, 2009, Judges Susan P. Graber, Richard R. Clifton and David G. Trager of Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision in the matter, ruling that the claims are not time- barred, according to the Law360 report. HORIZON LINES: Price-fixing Complaints Still Pending Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- The price-fixing class-action complaints filed against Horizon Lines, Inc. and other domestic shipping carriers are pending discovery, according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 22, 2009. On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. Subsequent to the commencement of the Department of Justice's investigation into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business, a number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic shipping carriers. Fifty-six cases have been filed in the following federal district courts: eight in the Southern District of Florida, six in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in the District of Puerto Rico, eleven in the Northern District of California, two in the Central District of California, one in the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of Washington, and one in the District of Alaska. All of the district court cases that related to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the District of Puerto Rico. All of the district court cases that related to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of Washington. One district court case remains in the District of Alaska, relating to the Alaska tradelane. Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean carriers. The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and integrated logistics company. The company's subsidiaries include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC (Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. (HLPR). With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets. The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated logistics services including relationships with third-party truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets. It ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials used in manufacturing. HORIZON LINES: To Defend Two Securities Lawsuits in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Lines, Inc. intends to defend two securities class- action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, naming the company and five current and former employees, including its Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The first complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2008, and the second complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2009, but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. Each complaint purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from March 2, 2007 through April 25, 2008. The complaints allege, among other things, that the company made material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws. The company says in its April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 22, 2009, that it has appropriate disclosure practices. Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and integrated logistics company. The company's subsidiaries include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC (Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. (HLPR). With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets. The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated logistics services including relationships with third-party truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets. It ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials used in manufacturing. KLA-TENCOR: Appeal to Dismissed Derivative Suit Pending in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court filed by the plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor Corp. shareholder is pending, according to the company's April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted a separate putative class action claim against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from historical stock option granting practices. On March 17, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the putative class action claim. Plaintiff sought leave to appeal the stay decision, and the Company opposed plaintiff's application. On April 14, 2009, the Chancery Court denied plaintiff's application to appeal. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Chancery Court's denial of the application to appeal. KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a supplier of process control and yield management solutions for the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries. Its products are also used in a number of other industries, including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage manufacturing, and solar process development and control. The Company's portfolio of products, services and software are designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research and development to final volume production. In June 2008, KLA- Tencor completed its acquisition of ICOS Vision Systems Corporation NV, a supplier of packaging and interconnect inspection solutions for the semiconductor industry. Its offerings are categorized into four groups: Defect Inspection, Metrology, Product related services and Software. In October 2008, the Company acquired Microelectronic Inspection Equipment (MIE) business unit of Vistec Semiconductor Systems. KLA-TENCOR CORP: "Crimi" Suit Over Stock Option Grants Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit against KLA-Tencor Corp. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara has been dismissed. The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and Sept. 27, 2006. The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants. It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission. Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are: -- Edward W. Barnholt, -- H. Raymond Bingham, -- Robert T. Bond, -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr., -- Stephen P. Kaufman, -- Kenneth Levy, -- Michael E. Marks, -- Dean O. Morton, -- Kenneth L. Schroeder, -- Jon D. Tompkins, and -- Richard P. Wallace. The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that the claims have no merit. On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California Corporations Code on April 1, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the action in the Northern District of California, which was granted in part, with the remaining claims being remanded to the California Superior Court on Sept. 12, 2008. The company has filed a demurrer to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 6, 2009. The plaintiff responded by agreeing to dismiss the action with prejudice, bringing an end to this action, according to the company's April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249- CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com) Attorney at Law One Market, Spear Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Phone: 415-442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE: Faces Litigation Over Toll Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Jan Schlichtmann, Esq. filed a purported class-action lawsuit claiming tolls collected on the Massachusetts Turnpike are an illegal tax, The Boston Herald reports. The suit, filed on May 9, 2009 in the Middlesex Superior Court on behalf of three drivers who use the highway, seeks a refund that could amount to $300 million, according to The Boston Herald report. Mr. Schlichtmann tells The Boston Herald tolls collected on the Pike are "an unconstitutional expropriation of money" because they are used to pay for other projects, including the $15 billion Big Dig. He says there is legal precedent supporting his clients. MORTGAGE LENDERS: Aug. 5 Hearing Slated for $2.7M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ A bankruptcy court in Delaware has set an Aug. 5, 2009 hearing for the proposed settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit against now-defunct Mortgage Lenders Network, The Hartford Courant reports. More than 1,600 employees of company are expected to share in the proposed $2.7 million settlement, according to The Hartford Courant report. The lawsuit accused the Middletown-based subprime lender, which shut down abruptly in early 2007 and filed for bankruptcy, of failing to comply with federal regulations that require employers to give 60 days notice before shutting down a company, reports The Hartford Courant. The settlement, which was given preliminary approval on May 111, 2009, covers wages that would have been paid in the 60-day period covered by the class-action lawsuit, The Hartford Courant reported. SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Defends Claims in Consolidated Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. intends to defend the class- action allegations asserted in the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit, according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. In February 2008, two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for Santa Clara County, against certain of SiRF's officers and directors. These complaints allege breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the California Corporations Code. These cases have been consolidated, and an amended complaint was filed on Nov. 18, 2008. On Jan. 21, 2009, the parties submitted a stipulation to the court adjourning defendants' response to the derivative complaint pending resolution of SiRF's motion to dismiss the securities litigation pending in the Northern District of California. On Feb. 27, 2009, plaintiffs in the derivative litigation filed an amended, consolidated complaint, which added a purported class action claim against SiRF and SiRF's Board of Directors in connection with the Merger Agreement. The class action allegations asserted in the consolidated amended complaint are substantially similar to the allegations set forth in the "Diaz v. Banatao, et al.," and "Reich v. SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. et al." actions, although the class action allegations asserted in the consolidated amended complaint contain the additional allegation that SiRF entered into the Merger Agreement for the purpose of evading alleged liability relating to the derivative claims. Plaintiffs also seek to compel certain changes in SiRF's corporate governance. On March 27, 2009, the court ordered the Diaz and Reich actions consolidated with the shareholder derivative lawsuit, and affirmed its prior appointment of co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action. The court further directed plaintiffs to submit a second amended consolidated compliant within 45 days of its order of consolidation. SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location technology solutions designed to provide location awareness capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial applications. The company's products use GPS to provide longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled devices. SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS markets. SiRF markets and sells its products in four major markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones; automotive electronic systems, including navigation and telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems, including personal digital assistants, notebook computers, universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet devices. SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In February 2008, multiple putative class-action lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its officers and directors. These complaints allege that the defendants made misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's business and operating results in violation of the federal securities laws. These cases have been consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 28, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2008). On Sept. 26, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the consolidated amended complaint. The motion has been fully briefed, according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. The suit is "In re SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:2008cv00856," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M. Chesney, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 2600 Phone: San Francisco, CA 94111 Fax: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 Representing the defendants is: David Malcolm Furbush, Esq. (david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-233-4500 Fax: 650-233-4545 SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Diaz" Lawsuit Over Merger with CSR -------------------------------------------------------------- SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. intends to defend the purported class-action lawsuit, "Diaz v. Banatao, et al.," according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Feb. 13, 2009, a complaint regarding the purported class- action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against SiRF and SiRF's Board of Directors in connection with the Merger Agreement with CSR. The complaint alleges, among other things, that: (1) SiRF's Board of Directors violated its fiduciary duties to SiRF's stockholders by approving the Merger and certain terms set forth in Section 5.4 of the Merger Agreement related to SiRF's ability to solicit, consider or accept alternative proposals, (2) SiRF aided and abetted its Board of Directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) the Merger Consideration is unfair for reasons including, but not limited to, a temporarily low stock price and that the book value of a share of stock allegedly exceeds the Merger Consideration per share. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction prohibiting SiRF and CSR from consummating the Merger, rescission of the Merger if the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of final judgment by the court, an accounting by the defendants to the plaintiffs for all damages caused by them and an accounting for all profits and any special benefits obtained by the defendants as a result of any breach of fiduciary duty and attorneys' fees and expenses. SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location technology solutions designed to provide location awareness capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial applications. The company's products use GPS to provide longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled devices. SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS markets. SiRF markets and sells its products in four major markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones; automotive electronic systems, including navigation and telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems, including personal digital assistants, notebook computers, universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet devices. SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Reich" Suit on CSR Merger Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. intends to defend the purported class-action lawsuit, "Reich v. SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. et al.," according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Feb. 20, 2009, a complaint regarding a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against SiRF and SiRF's Board of Directors in connection with the Merger Agreement with CSR. The complaint alleges that, in approving the Merger, SiRF's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, among other things, (I) agreeing to sell SiRF without first taking steps to ensure that SiRF's stockholders would obtain adequate, fair, and maximum consideration under the circumstances and (ii) engineering the Merger to benefit themselves and/or CSR without regard for SiRF's stockholders. The complaint further alleges that SiRF aided and abetted SiRF's Board of Directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, to compel SiRF's Board of Directors to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to SiRF's stockholders, to impose a constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiffs, upon any benefits improperly received by SiRF's Board of Directors as a result of their wrongful conduct and to award the plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the class action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location technology solutions designed to provide location awareness capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial applications. The company's products use GPS to provide longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled devices. SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS markets. SiRF markets and sells its products in four major markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones; automotive electronic systems, including navigation and telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems, including personal digital assistants, notebook computers, universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet devices. STATION CASINOS: Bondholder Nixes Nev. Suit Over Reorganization --------------------------------------------------------------- S. Blake Murchison, a bondholder challenging Station Casinos Inc.'s plan for a prepackaged bankruptcy filing and debt exchange has dismissed without prejudice his lawsuit against the Las Vegas company, its board of directors, and its key executives, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. The notice of dismissal simply cites a lack of action in parts of the case: The defendants didn't file an answer or motion for summary judgment on Murchison's amended complaint, no trial date has been set and the court has not certified the case as a class action, Mr. Murchison's filing said, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. On April 23, 2009, the Class Action Reported reported that Station Casinos, Inc. is defending 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 (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009). 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. Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- 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. TD AMERITRADE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Client Information Theft ---------------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. reached a settlement for a class- action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over the theft of client contact information, Josh Funk of The Associated Press reports. The plaintiffs -- current and former customers of the online brokerage -- said they received unwanted e-mail ads about certain stocks. The ads appeared to be designed to manipulate the value of thinly traded stocks, according to the AP report. Anyone who held an Ameritrade account or provided an e-mail address to the company before Sept. 14, 2007, could benefit from the lawsuit. The database that was breached included information on 6.2 million people, reports The Associated Press. A hearing has been scheduled for Sept. 10, 2009 to determine whether the settlement should receive final approval, The Associated Press reported. UNION BANCAIRE: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Madoff-Related Investments --------------------------------------------------------------- Swiss private bank Union Bancaire Privee (UBP), its asset management unit, and several executives are facing a purported class-action lawsuit over investments through feeder funds with convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff, Chad Bray of Dow Jones Newswires reports. The investor lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 8, 2009, alleges the bank, its asset management business and several executives were "gross negligent" and breached their fiduciary and professional duties to conduct adequate due diligence of Mr. Madoff and his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, according to Dow Jones Newswires. According to the lawsuit, "As a result of defendants' wrongful conduct, including the failure to conduct due diligence into the legitimacy of BMIS, the UBP Funds' investments have been wiped out, thereby damaging plaintiff and the other members of the class." The Geneva-based bank has said it had about $700 million in Madoff-related investments through its funds-of-funds and client portfolios, reports Dow Jones Newswires. The litigation is seeking class-action status for investors in UBP Funds as of Dec. 11, 2008, when the Madoff fraud came to light. It was filed on behalf of New York investor Andrea Barron by law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Dow Jones Newswires reports. Dow Jones Newswires reported that the complaint is seeking damages, including the return of management fees. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Rejects UnitedHealthcare/Ingenix Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lawrence M. McKenna of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to approve the proposed settlement in the class-action lawsuit, "UnitedHealthcare v. AMA," which names a business of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. as a defendant, according to hanys.org. The plaintiffs, including some Healthcare Association of New York State's (HANYS) members, alleged that United, through the Ingenix database of "usual, customary, and reasonable" rates, underpaid patients and doctors for out-of-network services. The proposed settlement equaled $350 million minus class notice, administration costs, and attorney fees, reports hanys.org. According to the plaintiff's counsel, the judge found that the proposed settlement amount was too small, particularly because administration costs would reduce the settlement. The judge indicated that more information is needed for a final settlement, including the number of class action plaintiffs, hanys.org reported. UnitedHealth Group Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/-- is a diversified health and well-being company which offers offers a broad spectrum of products and services through six operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, Specialized Care Services and Ingenix. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Sequenom, Inc. (Nasdaq: SQNM) and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing Sequenom common stock during the period beginning June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009, inclusive, including those who purchased in Sequenom's July 1, 2008 offering priced at $15.50 per share. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Sequenom, a genetic diagnostics company, made materially false and misleading statements regarding the clinical performance of the Company's developmental Down syndrome screening test. After repeated announcements by Sequenom to its investors touting positive clinical results, the Company shocked the market when, on April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing that it was suspending the expected launch of its Down syndrome screening test, SEQureDx, due to the Company's mishandling of R&D test data. As a result, the Company stated that the clinical results reported to investors could no longer be relied upon. As the market reacted to this disclosures, Sequenom's stock collapsed over $11 per share overnight, closing at $3.62 per share the following day -- a one-day decline of more than 75%, on volume of more than 88 million shares. Indeed, the complaint alleges, it became clear at the end of the Class Period that Sequenom misinformed the investing public that: -- the data being collected in R&D testing of SEQureDx was reliable; -- the product's testing process was effective and the Company was exercising the requisite control over access to and accountability for the data being gathered; -- SEQureDx could identify the extra copy of genetic material on the 21st chromosome needed to predict Down Syndrome with the level of accuracy being claimed; -- the June 2009 product release was based on reliable data; and -- the Company's financial reports and projections, which were heavily reliant upon a June 2009 launch of SEQureDx Technology, were accurate. Because the misinformation disseminated by the Company, Sequenom stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $27.76 per share on September 24, 2008. This inflated stock price permitted Sequenom to raise the $92 million in the July 1, 2008 follow-on stock offering, acquire a diagnostic company for fewer shares of Sequenom stock than would have been necessary absent the inflation and commence a stock-based tender offer for another company. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Scott+Scott, LLP 108 Norwich Avenue P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.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 * * *