/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090525.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 101 Headlines 3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant 3M CO: Still Faces Employees' Lawsuits Over Age Discrimination 3M CO: Trial on Remaining Property Damage Claims to Begin in May 3M CO: "Whitaker" Class Certification Ruling Reversed in April ARIEL FUND: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court CADENCE DESIGN: Defending Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: August 14, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Liendo" Settlement Finalized in Dec. 2008 COCA-COLA CO: Consumer Group Files Lawsuit Over "Vitaminwater" DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron FRANKLIN BANK: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas Court LDK SOLAR: Cohen Milstein Distributes Class Certification Notice LEAP WIRELESS: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit LIVEDOOR CO: Shareholders Win Damages From Company Founder MONEYGRAM INT'L: Minn. Judge Allows Securities Suit To Proceed MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York MRU HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California OIL REFINERIES: Faces Litigation in Haifa Over Smoke Emissions OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.J. OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pa. TELUS SOURCING: Faces Litigation Over Payroll, Benefits Errors ********* 3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. continues defending purported class-action lawsuits involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the company's Decatur, Ala. manufacturing facility. A former employee filed a purported class-action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The Circuit Court in 2005, granted the company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the action described above filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. 3M CO: Still Faces Employees' Lawsuits Over Age Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. continues to face purported class-action lawsuits filed by employees over age discrimination charges, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Three former employees filed age discrimination charges against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agencies in Minnesota, Texas and California during 2005. Such filings include allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf of certain current and former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota and New Jersey. In 2006, one current employee filed an age discrimination charge against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in Missouri, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain former salaried employees who worked in Missouri and other states other than Minnesota and New Jersey. In 2007, a former employee filed an age discrimination charge against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in California, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain former salaried employees who worked in California. In January 2009, two former employees filed age discrimination charges against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in Minnesota. The filings include allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf of certain current and former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota. The same law firm represents the plaintiffs in the "Whitaker" lawsuit as well as the claimants in each of these EEOC proceedings. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. 3M CO: Trial on Remaining Property Damage Claims to Begin in May ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial on the remaining property damage claims based on negligence and trespass in an action filed against 3M Co. was scheduled to begin on May 4, 2009. Two residents of Washington County, Minnesota, filed in October 2004, a purported class action in the District Court of Washington County on behalf of Washington County residents who have allegedly suffered personal injuries and property damage from alleged emissions from the former perfluorooctanyl production facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and from historic waste disposal sites in the vicinity of that facility. After the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the claims for medical monitoring and public nuisance in April 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations involving other perfluorinated compounds manufactured by the company, alleging additional legal theories in support of their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking relief based on alleged contamination of the City of Oakdale municipal water supply and certain private wells in the vicinity of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding two additional plaintiffs. The two original plaintiffs then dismissed their claims against the company. On June 19, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the litigation as a class action. Two of the remaining named plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their claims. In December 2008 and January 2009, the Court granted the company's summary judgment motions dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act and all claims for personal injury and emotional distress, but allowed the plaintiffs to add a claim for punitive damages with respect to their property damage claims. In March 2009, the Court granted the company's summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' private nuisance and trespass to blood claims, but denied the company's summary judgment motion with respect to the plaintiffs' negligence and trespass to soil and water claims, and denied the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Subsequent rulings by the Court in April 2009, have limited the plaintiffs to property damage claims based on negligence and trespass, and punitive damages if plaintiffs prove their trespass claim, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. 3M CO: "Whitaker" Class Certification Ruling Reversed in April -------------------------------------------------------------- The Minnesota Court of Appeals, on April 28, 2009, reversed the District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota's decision granting class certification in the "Whitaker" case. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. One current and one former employee of the company filed a purported class action in the District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in December 2004, seeking to represent a class of all current and certain former salaried employees employed by the Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46 or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined by the Court (the "Whitaker" lawsuit). The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees. In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed following an individual settlement. The class certification hearing was held in December 2007. On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of their employment with 3M. On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the company's petition for interlocutory review of the District Court's decision granting class certification in the case. On April 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued its decision, reversing the District Court's class certification decision. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for certification of a class under Minnesota law and had deferred resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the class certification requirements. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings in line with the evidentiary standards defined in its opinion. No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set at this time, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. ARIEL FUND: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor with Ariel Fund Limited has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who invested in Ariel Fund during the period December 22, 2003, through and including December 16, 2008 against the Fund and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed the class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who invested in Ariel Fund Limited during the period December 22, 2003, through and including December 16, 2008 against the Fund, Gabriel Capital Corporation, J. Ezra Merkin, Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd., Fortis Prime Solutions (Cayman) Ltd., Fortis Bank, Fortis Prime Solutions (USA) LLC, BDO Tortuga, and BDO International (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2009). This case arises from a massive, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff through his investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), and others, and which was facilitated by defendants named herein. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading information and financial statements concerning, among other things, the Fund's reported net asset value, the manner in which the Fund's assets were invested, the extent of the defendants' due diligence of Madoff and BMIS, and the true state of supervision and oversight over the Fund's assets. Defendants caused and permitted 24 percent of the Fund's total assets to be handed over to Madoff to be "invested" for the benefit of plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff's investments with the Fund were decimated as a direct result of the fraud perpetrated by Madoff and BMIS and the complete failure of BDO Tortuga and BDO International to perform adequate audits and create its annual audit reports in conformance with generally accepted auditing standards despite the existence of a myriad of "red flags" indicating a high risk to Ariel Fund from concentrating its investment exposure in Madoff. On December 10, 2008, Madoff informed certain senior BMIS employees (reported to be his sons) that BMIS' investment advisory business was an utter fraud. Madoff also stated that he estimated the losses from this fraud to be approximately $50 billion. On December 11, 2008, SEC and criminal charges were brought against Bernard Madoff. He was arrested and admitted to a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent that "there is no innocent explanation" for BMIS' losses and that he "paid investors with money that wasn't there." One of Madoff's client's was defendant Ariel Fund, which, unknown to Plaintiff and other class members, and notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, failed to monitor or supervise the investments made with Madoff and BMIS, and failed to perform adequate due diligence. Investors who entrusted their savings are now ruined. Indeed, scores of charities were destroyed and have either closed their doors or canceled their proposed grants. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com/ CADENCE DESIGN: Defending Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Cadence Design Systems, Inc. is defending a consolidated securities class-action complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any other securities lawsuits that may be filed, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009. Three securities class-action complaints that allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, were filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints are captioned: (1) "Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik," filed on Oct. 29, 2008; (2) "Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, and Kevin S. Palatnik," filed on Nov. 4, 2008; and (3) "Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William Porter," filed on Nov. 21, 2008. On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating these three complaints and captioning the consolidated case "In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation." The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated litigation. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between April 23, 2008 and Dec. 10, 2008, or the Alleged Class Period. This consolidated action alleges that Cadence and the individual defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have been recognized in subsequent quarters. The lead plaintiff requests certification of the action as a class action, unspecified damages and interest, the plaintiffs' reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/-- develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and hardware. The Company licenses software, sells or leases hardware technology, and provides design, methodology and education services throughout the world to help manage and accelerate electronics product development processes. Its range of products and services are used by the electronics companies to design and develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and electronics systems. The Company offers its customers three license types for its software: perpetual, term and subscription. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: August 14, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 14, 2009 hearing has been set for final approval of the settlement of a consolidated class-action suit in California that was filed by former store employees against CEC Entertainment, Inc. Initially, on Nov. 19, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit against the company entitled "Ana Chavez v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC380996," was filed in the Central District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. The company received service of process on Dec. 21, 2007. The Chavez Litigation was filed by a former store employee purporting to represent other similarly situated current and former employees of the company in the State of California from Nov. 19, 2003, to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages, meal periods, wages due upon termination, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On Jan. 9, 2008, a second purported class action lawsuit, entitled "Cynthia Perez et. al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC3853527," was filed against the company in the Central District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. The company was served with this complaint on Jan. 30, 2008. The Perez Litigation was filed by former store employees purporting to represent other similarly situated current and former employees of the Company in Los Angeles County from Jan. 8, 2004 to the present. The lawsuit also alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, retaliation, unfair competition, and constructive trust and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. The company removed the two cases to federal court on Jan. 18, 2008, and Feb. 29, 2008, respectively. In March, the Chavez Litigation was remanded back to state court and in April, it was the Perez Litigation that was remanded. The two cases were then consolidated by the court for procedural purposes in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County on June 18, 2008. The company attended formal mediation with representatives of the plaintiffs in both suits and reached a tentative settlement for all of the claims alleged on Nov. 17, 2008. On Dec. 3, 2008, following the tentative settlement, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint combining the allegations of the two actions in accordance with the tentative settlement agreement. The company then filed an Answer to the Consolidated Complaint on Dec. 16, 2008. The tentative settlement is subject to both preliminary and final approval by the court. On March 11, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The company commenced efforts to administer the settlement and notice of the settlement, claim forms and opt-out forms were sent to approximately 18,500 class members on March 31, 2009. The hearing for final approval of the class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 14, 2009, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009. CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business. The company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of the company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar, sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities. The company and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five foreign countries/territories. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Liendo" Settlement Finalized in Dec. 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. has finalized a settlement with the plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Liendo, et al., v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., Cause No. BC395195." On July 25, 2008, the Liendo purported class-action suit against the company was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The company received service of process on July 28, 2008. The Liendo Litigation was filed by two alleged customers of the company's Chuck E. Cheese's stores in California purporting to represent all mobility impaired/wheelchair bound individuals in the State of California who were allegedly denied the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 and California state laws. The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 25, 2008. The Liendo plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout the months of November and December 2008, the company engaged in informal settlement negotiations with the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit and finalized a settlement with these individuals on Dec. 31, 2008, according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009. CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business. The company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of the company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar, sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities. The company and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five foreign countries/territories. COCA-COLA CO: Consumer Group Files Lawsuit Over "Vitaminwater" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a purported class-action lawsuit against Coca-Cola Co., accusing the company of making deceptive health claims about its Vitaminwater beverages, Martinne Geller and Lisa Richwine of Reuters reports. The lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the Reuters report. The U.S. consumer group said that the company made a range of claims about Vitaminwater that go beyond those allowed by the Food and Drug Administration. In a press statement, CPSI said, "Coke markets Vitaminwater as a healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words as 'defense,' 'rescue,' 'energy' and 'endurance,'" Reuters reported. The company also claims the drinks reduce the risk of chronic disease and eye disease, promote healthy joints and support immune function, according to the CSPI. "In fact, according to CSPI nutritionists, the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of Vitaminwater do more to promote obesity, diabetes and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles," the consumer group said, reports Reuters. DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International, Inc., is still facing several lawsuits that accuse the company of engaging in a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were commenced based on allegations similar to those in the DoJ case, on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in 17 states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. At the company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class action suits to pursue damage claims. The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which largely upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the plaintiffs' damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance between the company and its tooth dealers. The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied. The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws. DENTSPLY and the dealers have filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price maintenance claims. The District Court granted the motions filed by DENTSPLY and the dealers, leaving only the resale price maintenance claim. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims to the Third Circuit. Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the company's tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of the antitrust law. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 1, 2009 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal with regard to the decertification of a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan, D.D.S., filed a class-action complaint in San Francisco County, California. The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006, with respect to the suit's breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients. The company filed a motion for decertification of the class, which request was granted. The plaintiffs have appealed this decertification order to the California Court of Appeals. The company reported no development in the matter in its May 1, 2009 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty. The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, D.D.S., and Robert Jaffin, D.D.S., filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs have filed their request for class certification to which the company has filed its response. The company reported no development in the matter in its May 1, 2009 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. (aklein@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey (rplacey@mmwr.com) Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 FRANKLIN BANK: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas Court --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Franklin Bank Corporation Series A Non- Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of investors, who purchased Series A NON-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock issued by Franklin Bank Corp. pursuant or traceable to Franklin Bank's May 05, 2006 initial public offering. If you are an investor in Series A NON-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock issued by Franklin Bank Corp. and purchased those shares pursuant or traceable to Franklin Bank's May 5, 2006 initial public offering you have certain options and there are strict and short deadlines running. Deadline is on July 03, 2009. According to the complaint filed May 04, 2009, this lawsuit is related to a pending case in the same Court against the parent company. The lead plaintiff in that case has not asserted any claims on behalf of Franklin's preferred stock purchasers. The claims asserted within the complaint are not all of the claims that can or should be asserted on behalf of preferred stock purchasers, but they are asserted herein out of an abundance caution because of the impending expiration of the repose period under the Securities Act." The plaintiff alleges specifically that on August 6, 2008, Franklin disclosed that it needed to restate its previously disclosed financial results not merely for the third quarter of 2007, but for all of fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2006. These shocking disclosures revealed not only that the Bank's financial results for the past several years were unreliable but also that the Bank's accounting procedures and internal controls, as well as its lending practices, were severely deficient and as a result the Bank's financial position was imperiled. As a result of these disclosures, several disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by Franklin with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its Preferred IPO which commenced on or about May 6, 2006, have proved to be materially false and/or misleading, to the injury of investors who purchased preferred shares in or traceable to that May 2006 offering. For more details, contact: Shareholders Foundation, Inc. Phone: +1 (858) 779-1554. LDK SOLAR: Cohen Milstein Distributes Class Certification Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announced that notices were recently sent to class members in the In Re LDK Solar Co. Ltd. class action litigation. The case, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that LDK (NYSE:LDK) and certain of its officers and directors engaged in improper accounting practices and, specifically, that they fraudulently misled investors about the Company's profitability and the status of its raw material inventory. LDK is a China-based company which manufactures solar wafers, a component of solar cells, and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The notice describes the case, which was filed in late 2007, and how class members may opt out of it if they do not want to remain members of the class. On January 28, 2009 the District Court authorized the case to go forward as a class action and certified a class generally consisting of "all persons and entities that (a) purchased LDK Solar Co., Ltd. American Depository Shares, (b) purchased call options for LDK American Depository Shares, or (c) sold put options for LDK American Depository Shares from June 1, 2007, through October 7, 2007." On May 4, 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Defendants' request that it hear an appeal of the District Court's order certifying the class. A copy of the notice is available free of charge at: http://www.abdataclassaction.com/Cases.aspx?CaseID=164 For more details, contact: Laura Armstrong Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 202-408-4600 - and - Notice Administrator Phone: 866-905-8127 LEAP WIRELESS: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was filed in a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On March 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the case filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint after the defendants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Leap Wireless International, Inc., and the individual defendants filed on Aug. 28, 2008, three separate motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and on Jan. 9, 2009, the District Court Judge issued three orders granting the defendants' three motions to dismiss the consolidated class-action complaint without prejudice. Initially, lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, between November 2007 and February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2009). The company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these lawsuits. The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about the company's business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007 announcement of its financial restatement. Some of the lawsuits also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The class-action complaints seek determinations that the suits are proper class actions. They also seek unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Aug. 28, 2008. On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On Feb. 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint, which does not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Defendants' motions to dismiss are due on April 9, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com) Latham and Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Phone: 619-236-1234 Fax: 619-696-7419 LIVEDOOR CO: Shareholders Win Damages From Company Founder ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders won damages from Takafumi Horie, founder of Internet startup Livedoor Co., in a class-action lawsuit that claimed people had been duped into making dubious investments in the Japanese company, The Associated Press reports. Kyodo News reported that the court awarded damages totaling 7.6 billion yen ($81 million). It said 3,340 individual and corporate shareholders had filed the lawsuit, which had demanded 23 billion yen. In general, the lawsuit says that shareholders racked up massive losses when Livedoor stock plunged, according to The Associated Press report. MONEYGRAM INT'L: Minn. Judge Allows Securities Suit To Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that a class-action lawsuit accusing St. Louis Park-based MoneyGram International, Inc. and several of its current and former executives of securities fraud can proceed, Nicole Garrison-Sprenger of the Pioneer Press reports. However, Bill Putney, MoneyGram's CIO from November 2005 until his resignation in April 2008, was dismissed from the list of 10 defendants that includes the company and former CEO Philip Milne, who resigned in June, reports the Pioneer Press. The order -- issued by Judge Doty on May 20, 2009 -- gives the plaintiffs the green light to begin discovery in the case, according to the Pioneer Press report. On March 28, 2008, the City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement System filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against the company and three of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and alleges against company officers violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 8, 2009). The suit alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely manner, the nature and risks of the company's investments, as well as unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments related to certain of the company's investments. The suit also seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members in connection with their purchases of the company's securities. In April 2008, three others, Willie R. Pittman, Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust, and Manzoor Hussain, separately filed complaints in the same court, making substantially the same claims. The Goodman matter names the company and four of its officers and certain members of its board of directors. In July 2008, the four cases were consolidated into one case captioned, "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation." The Consolidated Complaint was filed on Oct. 3, 2008, and alleges against each defendant violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and alleges against Company officers violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Consolidated Complaint alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely manner, the nature and risks of the Company's investments, as well as unrealized losses and other- than-temporary impairments related to certain of the Company's investments. The complainant seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members in connection with their purchases of the Company's securities, according to its Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:08-cv-00883-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge David S. Doty, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com) Zimmerman Reed, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Phone: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 - and - Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. (jangelovich@npraustin.com) Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP 205 Linda Dr Daingerfield, TX 75638 Phone: 903-645-7333 Representing the defendants is: Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com) Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP 45 S 7th St, Ste 3300 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-607-7264 Fax: 612-607-7100 MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the below stated Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc against the company and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities laws. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed the class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued between December 2005 and November 2007 by Morgan Stanley Capital (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2009). The Class includes purchasers of Certificates of the following trusts: -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5AR -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6AR -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-5AX -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8AR -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4SL -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-9AR -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-7AX -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-11 -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-9SL -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-11AR -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-10XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-15XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12 -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AX -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-13 -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-17XS -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-14AR -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-15AR The complaint charges Morgan Stanley Capital and certain of its officers and directors, the issuers and underwriters of the Certificates and the rating agencies that rated the Certificates with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Morgan Stanley Capital is engaged in the securitization of loans and the business of acting as depositor of trusts that issue series of certificates that represent interests in the assets of the trust. The complaint alleges that on December 23, 2005 (with amendments on February 17, 2006 and March 14, 2006), Morgan Stanley Capital and the defendant issuers caused the Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection with the issuance of billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were supported by large pools of mortgage loans. The Registration Statement discussed the underwriting standards purportedly used in connection with the underwriting of the underlying mortgage loans and included numerous representations about the loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers, the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgages and the maximum debt-to-income ratios permitted on the mortgage loans. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omitted and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the underlying mortgages to Morgan Stanley Capital were issuing many of the mortgage loans to borrowers who: -- did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income ratio purportedly required by the lender; -- did not provide adequate documentation to support the income and assets required for the lenders to approve and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders' own guidelines; -- were steered to stated income/asset and low documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders' correspondents or lenders' agents, such as mortgage brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for mortgage loans that required full documentation; and -- did not have the income required by the lenders' own guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before April 6, 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/morganstanleycapital/ MRU HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California ------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in shares of MRU Holdings, Inc. (OTC: UNCLQ; formerly NASDAQ:UNCL) filed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU Holdings during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008 against the company and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed the 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 (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009). The complaint charges MRU and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges 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 OIL REFINERIES: Faces Litigation in Haifa Over Smoke Emissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Oil Refineries, Ltd. (TASE: ORL.TA), Israel's largest oil refiner, announced that on May 17, 2009 a request for the classification of a legal claim as a class action claim, as defined in Action Law - 2006 (hereinafter: the "Request"), was filed with the Haifa District Court against the Company and Carmel Olefins Ltd. (hereinafter: the "Responders"). The Request was filed with respect to non-monetary damages caused, according to the Requestor, as a result of two smoke emissions events which occurred on September 15, 2003 and October 5, 2003 (hereinafter: "the Events"), with regards to which three prior requests for classification of the claims as class action have already been submitted, two of which are still pending. The Requestors claims that each of the members of the Group is to be compensated NIS 1,500 with respect to, among others, health risks, damage to autonomy, distress and discomfort as well as for damages to Requestors resulting from global warming, caused, according to the Requestors, as a result of the events. The Requestors ask, in their Request, to represent the citizens of Kiryat Tivon, Kfar Hassidim, Nofit, Sha'ar Ha'amakim and Rehassim (hereinafter: "the Group"). According to the Requestors, the Group comprises of approximately 22,500 people and the total amount that the Responders need to compensate the Group is approximately NIS 34 million. It should be noted that the majority of the causes of action claimed herein, appear in the previous claims and the amounts noted in the Request are lower than the amounts noted in prior request to which the Company is a party to. As part of the Request, the courts have been asked to review the Request together with the prior requests. The Company is currently studying the Request with the assistance of its legal advisors. Oil Refineries Ltd. -- http://www.orl.co.il-- located in the bay area of the city of Haifa, is Israel's largest oil refinery. ORL operates sophisticated and state-of-the-art industrial facilities with refining capacity of 9 million tons of crude oil per year, with a Nelson complexity index of 7.4, providing a variety of quality products used in industrial operation, transportation, private consumption, agriculture and infrastructure. The Company is also active in the area of Aromatics and Polymers through wholly-owned Gadiv Petrochemical Industries Ltd. and 50% owned Carmel Olefins Ltd. ORL is traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the ticker ORL. OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------ An investor in a Oppenheimer AMT-FREE Municipals Fund has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Oppenheimer AMT-FREE Municipals Fund A, B, and C (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX) from May 13, 2006 through October 21, 2008 against Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed the class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Oppenheimer AMT-FREE Municipals Fund (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX) from May 13, 2006 through Oct. 21, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2009). The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. (OFI) and certain of its Trustees violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing prospectuses which misled investors concerning the risks of investing in the Fund. These undisclosed risks are alleged to have been the cause of a severe decline in the value of the Fund's shares, far exceeding the decline of competing municipal bond funds. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009. For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in the Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund and others on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A, Class B and/or Class C shares of Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) from April 24, 2006 through and including October 21, 2008 pursuant to various Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund. The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C shares of the Fund from April 24, 2006 through and including October 21, 2008 pursuant to various Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Fund during the Class Period (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009). The complaint alleges that the Fund and certain of its trustees and officers and also Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits materially false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. In addition, the Fund failed to disclose that its use of derivative instruments known as "inverse floaters" which, under certain conditions, could (and did) effectively force the Fund to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions. In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement alerting investors of the true risks of its investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007, and throughout 2008. By October 2008, however, those risks had already manifested themselves dealing substantial losses to investors causing shares to lose approximately 30% of their net asset value between January 2008 and October 2008. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class and are represented by the law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 23, 2009. For more information, contact: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com) Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: 800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570 OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf on behalf of purchasers of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund (NASDAQ:OPATX) (NASDAQ:OPABX) (NASDAQ:OPACX) Class A, Class B and/or Class C shares from November 28, 2005 through and including November 28, 2008 against the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund, Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of persons and entities that purchased shares of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009). The complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Fund, Oppenheimer Funds and certain of its officers and trustees violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 by departing from the stated investment premise and otherwise injured Fund shareholders. The Pennsylvania Fund is a municipal bond fund yielding interest income exempt from federal and Pennsylvania income taxes. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Registration Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about the Fund's investment objectives, policies and the underlying risk by characterizing its investments as consistent with preservation of capital. In fact, the Fund lost over 33% of its net asset value ("NAV") in 2008 compared with an average peer group loss of approximately 9.5%. The complaint alleges that capital preservation was disregarded as the Fund significantly increased exposure through excessively risky strategies not properly disclosed to investors. Specifically, the overarching principle of capital preservation was compromised by concentrating large positions in low rated bonds, bonds not reviewed by an independent rating agency and by portfolio concentration in high risk securities including, Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds, and Inverse Floaters. Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages on behalf of all investors in Pennsylvania who purchased or held shares between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009. For more information, contact: Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA, 92101 Toll free: 877-493-5366 Fax: 619-238-5425 e-mail: jrk@classaction.com TELUS SOURCING: Faces Litigation Over Payroll, Benefits Errors -------------------------------------------------------------- Health-care workers throughout the former Calgary Health Region have launched a $50M Class Action Lawsuit against Telus Sourcing Solutions Inc., the region's payroll and benefits provider, for years of payroll errors that include missed pay periods, wage overpayments and underpayments, insufficient or nonexistent health benefit coverage and ongoing pension contribution blunders. "When you go to work, you show up on time and expect to be paid on time, right? Well so do we," said Maureen Mackrory, a Social Worker employed at Calgary's Peter Lougheed medical centre and one the initial plaintiffs listed in the class action suit. "Health-care workers are no different. We have families to feed, mortgages and car payments to make like the rest of Canadians, and we're tired of crossing our fingers hoping our wages and benefits will be there every two weeks. "It's been exhausting since Alberta Health Services contracted out the payroll and benefits system to TSSI in 2003, and we want it brought back in-house. We had few problems when payroll services were administered in-house." The class action suit was filed on behalf of more than 4,000 health-care workers, following years of problems surrounding payroll and benefit errors experienced by employees throughout the former Calgary Health Region. "I have never seen a class action with so many class members experiencing so many problems so often," said Clint Docken, legal representation for the health-care workers. "These health-care professionals have lived with these chronic payroll and benefits problems on a daily basis." Docken is encouraging other Calgary health-care workers to document their stories and join the class action lawsuit against TSSI by visiting http://www.tssiclassaction.com,a website launched specifically for Calgary Health Region health-care workers to document their stories and register as a member of the $50M lawsuit. The class action suit must now be certified by the Court of Queens Bench before it can proceed. For more details, contact: Clint Docken, Legal Counsel Phone: (403) 269-3612 ********* 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 * * *