/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090603.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 108 Headlines ACE LTD: Final Approval Sought For $2M Securities Suit Agreement BANK OF AMERICA: California Supreme Court Dismisses $1B Verdict EXPEDIA INC: Judge Issues $184M Judgment in Wash. Litigation FIDDLER'S CREEK: Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Florida JP MORGAN: Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Appeals Court Upholds "Press" Certification PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Consolidated Brokers' Suit Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends "Saunders" Mutual Fund Suit in Md. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss "Garcia" Suit on Benefits PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss State Claims by Agents RCN CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Misclassification of Workers SCI FUNERAL: Fla. Judge OKs Distribution of Settlement Checks SKYBUS AIRLINES: Del. Court Approves $925,000 WARN Lawsuit Deal SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for "Katz" Suit Settlement SUPERVALU INC: Settles Minn. Litigation Over Loading Practices TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Consolidated ARS Lawsuit TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for "Elvey" Spam Suit Deal TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces "Ross" Lawsuit Over Yield Plus Fund THINKORSWIM GROUP: To Contest Lawsuit Over TD AMERITRADE Merger WCI COMMUNITIES: Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condo Units Still Stayed WCI COMMUNITIES INC: Lawsuit Over Defective Drywall Dismissed WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance WILLIS GROUP: Discovery in Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing New Securities Fraud Cases CHARTER COMMS: Walden Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing IDEARC INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing NORTEL NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* ACE LTD: Final Approval Sought For $2M Securities Suit Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have sought final court approval of a nearly $2 million settlement in multidistrict class-action securities litigation accusing insurer ACE Ltd. of failing to disclose its participation in contingent commission kickbacks and bid-rigging schemes, Law360 reports. Recently, lead plaintiffs the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and the Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking approval for the settlement. BANK OF AMERICA: California Supreme Court Dismisses $1B Verdict --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court dismissed a billion-dollar class- action verdict against Bank of America Corp. on the grounds that the bank's charges did not violate state law, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports. On June 1, 2009, the high court ruled that Bank of America need not pay a potential $1 billion or more to customers who claimed the bank illegally raided Social Security benefits to collect fees, according to the Reuters report. Plaintiffs in the class-action case, who are represented by James Sturdevant, Esq., had accused the largest U.S. bank of dipping into their Social Security direct deposit accounts between 1994 and 2003 to collect fees for overdrafts and other debts. In 2004, a San Francisco trial court ordered the Charlotte, North Carolina bank to pay $284.4 million of damages, plus up to $1,000 to each customer who suffered substantial emotional or economic harm, reports Reuters. Reuters reported that the case was filed on behalf of more than 1.1 million customers, many of whom were elderly or disabled. Paul Miller, a disabled former photojournalist, was the original plaintiff in the case, and a jury had awarded him $275,000. In 1974, the California Supreme Court had ruled that a bank may not satisfy a credit card debt by deducting fees owed from a separate checking account containing deposits that "derived from unemployment and disability benefits." However, in a unanimous ruling, the high court distinguished the current case by saying the transactions at issue occurred "within a single account" rather than in multiple accounts, Reuters reports. California's highest court said policy concerns about setting off independent debt, such as the importance of providing people "with a stream of income to defray the cost of their subsistence," were not present in this case. Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court, "We do not agree with plaintiffs that there is no meaningful difference between satisfying a debt external to an account and recouping an overdraft of an account from funds later deposited into that same account," reports Reuters. In essence, the ruling upheld a 2006 appeals court decision that had reversed the trial court ruling, according to the Reuters report. For more details, contact: The Sturdevant Law Firm A Professional Corporation 354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.477.2410 Fax: 415.477.2420 e-mail: intake@sturdevantlaw.com Web site: http://www.sturdevantlaw.com/ EXPEDIA INC: Judge Issues $184M Judgment in Wash. Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ A King County Superior Court judge ruled on May 28 that Expedia, Inc. (Nasdaq: EXPE), the world's leading online travel booking site, pay $184 million for repeatedly breaching its contractual obligations to consumers by charging service fees under false pretenses in millions of hotel transactions. The judgment is the largest in Washington state history for a consumer class action. Filed in 2005 by Steve Berman, managing partner of the Seattle law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) on behalf of Expedia customers, the suit claimed that the travel giant paid taxes based on the wholesale price, but collected taxes from consumers based the higher retail price, pocketing the difference. According to Andrew Volk, a partner at HBSS, the firm found that Expedia's scheme went further, involving the addition of a 'service fee' to each transaction, purporting to cover the company's expenses incurred in servicing a reservation. According to court documents, Expedia bundled the service- fee charges with taxes into a single line item, failing to disclose the separate amounts of each to consumers. "Because Expedia only remits taxes based on the wholesale price -- which it never disclosed to consumers -- the taxes appear higher to consumers than they actually are, and Expedia is able to mask the considerable size of its service fees," Volk added. In its Terms of Use agreement, which governs every hotel transaction, Expedia promised that it would collect service fees only to "cover the costs" of servicing a given hotel reservation. The Court found that Expedia breached that promise by collecting service fees as pure profit. Superior Court Judge Monica Benton ruled that Expedia collected a total of $184,470,452 in service fees, which she is ordering the company return to consumers who purchased hotel or travel packages including a hotel stay from Feb. 18, 2003 to Dec. 11, 2006. "In actuality, Expedia used the service fees to sweeten the deal for the company at the direct expense of the consumer," Berman noted. "They apparently thought no one would notice if they padded each transaction by a few dollars, money that went straight to profit." In the court's ruling, the judge includes an excerpt from an e-mail dated Dec. 2001 between employees at Expedia explaining the additional fees, "As a company, this will add between $2-3 million in our net profit (the bottom line) next quarter." "This case revolved on the issue of transparency and honesty," said Steve Berman, managing partner of HBSS. "Consumers deserve to know what they are paying for, and companies like Expedia have an obligation to be upfront." The complaint also claimed that Expedia intentionally designed its invoices and Web site to de-emphasize the service- fee charges, and to lead consumers to believe the service fees are associated with legitimate expenses incurred as the result of a particular reservation. "We are obviously very pleased with the ruling and are heartened that we were able to help millions of Expedia consumers through this action," Berman added. "This is the largest judgment in a consumer class action in Washington state history." In her seven-page summary judgment ruling, Judge Benton ruled that Expedia breached its contract with its customers. Expedia still must defend charges it violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act in a trial slated for July in Kent. "Our goal is to get the money in the hands of consumers as quickly as possible," Volk noted. More about this lawsuit and court documents are available at: http://www.hbsslaw.com/expedia For more details, contact: Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 FIDDLER'S CREEK: Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Fiddler's Creek, LLC and several others are facing a purported class-action lawsuit by two couples who purchased golf membership contracts accusing defendants of taking more than $10 million they say was to be held in escrow, Aisling Swift of Naples Daily News reports. The suit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Glenn S. Vician, Dawn J. Vician, Richard Lohmeyer, and Kristi Lohmeyer, under the caption, "Vician et al. v. Fiddler's Creek, LLC et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00314." Aside from Fiddler's Creek, the other defendants listed in the suit are: GBP Development, LTD, GBP Development, LLC, The Golf Club at Fiddler's Creek, 951 Land Holdings, LTD., 951 Land Holdings, LLC, FC Golf, LTD and Aubrey Ferrao. The plaintiffs are alleging that the exclusive, private golf club they paid $90,000 to join as Gold Members, on top of paying $7,800 in annual dues, has been operated as a public golf course since last year, with the public being allowed to play through, paying daily greens fees and no initiation deposit, according to the Naples Daily News report. Responding to the allegations, one of the defendants, contends the conditions for keeping the money in escrow have been fulfilled and the lawsuit is baseless because it leaves out many facts, reports Naples Daily News. According to the suit, members learned the escrow account was empty at a recent advisory board meeting, but were not told why after demanding an accounting of their deposits, which were to be held in escrow until a second course and clubhouse were completed. "Their explanation was that despite what they put in writing, they don't have to put the funds in escrow," Robert Stochel, Esq., an Indiana lawyer, who along with Thomas Candler Chase, Esq. of Fort Myers, are serving as co-counsels in the case, tells Naples Daily News. The lawsuit says the defendants' conduct and breach of contract has caused irreparable damage and financial loss to plaintiffs. By allowing the public to pay a minor "seasonal" rate, the lawsuit says, the defendants have effectively eliminated new Gold Members, since virtually no one has an interest in paying a $90,000 initiation deposit if they can have full access without paying that. The plaintiffs are seeking recision of their membership agreement and a full refund, return of all annual dues for the 2008 and 2009 golf seasons, and compensation for the breach of contract. The lawsuit also seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty, dissipation of escrow funds, conversion, and theft, Naples Daily News reported. In addition, the suit alleges that Ms. Ferrao and GBP Development have failed or refused to pay real estate taxes and assessments on "scores of properties" owned by them in Fiddler's Creek development over the past eight months, "indicating that they are grossly mismanaging the economic operations...," according to Naples Daily News report. Naples Daily News reported that the lawsuit asks that a judge determine whether the defendants promised to maintain a private golf club, if they contracted with gold members to keep deposits in escrow until all golf facilities were built, whether they charged a deposit for a private course that was converted to a public course, and if Gulf Bay published false and misleading written information about the club and escrow of deposits. For more details, contact: Thomas C. Chase, Esq. (tchase@tchaselaw.com) Law Office of Thomas C. Chase, PA Suite 200 1404 Dean St Ft Myers, FL 33901-2858 Phone: 239/334-8850 Fax: 239/334-1963 Robert E. Stochel, Esq. Hoffman & Stochel One Professional Center, Suite 306 Crown Point, IN 46307 Phone: 219/662-0165 Fax: 219/662-2151 (fax) - and - Glenn S. Vician, Esq. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, PC 8605 Broadway Merillville, IN 46410 Phone: 219/769-6671 Fax: 219/738-3044 (fax) JP MORGAN: Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Several plaintiffs in the matter, "In Re JP Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-0732," have filed a proposed voluntary dismissal in connection to a portion of the case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to a recently issued notice, plaintiffs John Berotti, Annette Falchetti, Terri Melli and Perry Shapiro filed the proposed voluntary dismissal petition. The proposed voluntary dismissal, together with the court's December 2008 dismissal of certain claims in the case, will terminate all certified class claims in the action. The putative consolidated class-action complaint names the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan (together with the predecessor plans of the JPMorgan Chase & Co. predecessor companies) and the JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Director of Human Resources as defendants (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2008). Current and former participants in the Plans filed the lawsuit, alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged violations of ERISA arising from the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula under the Plans to calculate the participants' pension benefits. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that: -- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against age discrimination (age discrimination claim); -- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of pension benefits and created an impermissible forfeiture of accrued benefits; and -- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan participants the conversion to a cash balance formula and in general the nature of the Plan. In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the age discrimination and notice claims, but granted its dismissal request as it pertains to the backloading and forfeiture claims. On May 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class in this action. The class includes current participants in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan with claims relating to inadequate notice of plan changes for the current period back to Jan. 1, 2002, and age discrimination claims going back as far as Jan. 1, 1989. The class excludes former participants who have elected to receive a lump sum cash payment of their retirement benefits. The Court reserved the right to revisit class certification pending resolution of a similar case that is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 31, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and certification of the May 30, 2007 Order. Fact discovery, which was limited to the period Jan. 1, 2002, and thereafter, is now complete, and expert discovery is ongoing. On March 17, 2008, the District Court stayed the original cash balance plan litigation for up to one year pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in "Hirt v. The Equitable Ret. Plan of Employees, Manager & Agents, No. 06-cv- 4757," a case in which the company is not involved but which raises similar issues, including the question of whether the conversion to, and use of, a cash balance formula violates ERISA's proscription against age discrimination. The Hirt appeal was argued on April 22, 2008. The suit is "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732," filed before the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding. For more about this case, please visit http://www.JPMCCashBalanceLitigation.com/. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com) Kirby McInerney LLP 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-371-6600 Fax: 212-751-2540 Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com) Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-224-7562 Fax: 206-623-3384 - and - Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net) 144 East 44th Street, Suite 600 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-4000 Fax: 212 808-9808 Representing the defendants is: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-455-2000 Fax: 212-455-2502 LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Appeals Court Upholds "Press" Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the certification of a class-action lawsuit against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. that charges the state- sponsored insurer of failing to pay contractor overhead and profit on claims from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-Picayune reports. The Orleans Parish case, "Stephanie Press v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance Corp.," is one of three hurricane class actions pending against Citizens. In total, the cases have the potential to award tens of millions to policyholders and create financial problems for Citizens, which can pass on bills to taxpayers if it does not have enough cash on had to fulfill its obligations, according to The Times-Picayune report. John Wortman, chief executive of Citizens, told The Times- Picayune that the insurer plans to appeal the decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court. According to Mark Smith, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs, the is one of a number of cases nationwide involving what is called contractor overhead and profit. Mr. Smith explains to The Times-Picayune that anytime a repair job requires three or more tradesmen, such as a plumber, a roofer and an electrician, a policyholder is entitled to hire a general contractor to coordinate all the parties. The insurance company is supposed to pay an extra 20 percent on top of labor and material costs to cover the contractor's services and profit, he said. Mr. Smith alleged that Citizens paid contractor overhead and profit for a while after the 2005 storms, stopped doing so for a period of time and then resumed payment at some point, The Times-Picayune reported. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the dismissed claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. in the matter tagged, "In re Employee Benefit Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," are still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Purported class-action lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August and September 2007, the court dismissed the anti-trust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. In January 2008, the court dismissed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims with prejudice. In February 2008, the court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Class Action Reporter, March 18, 2009) No further developments in the consolidated matter were disclosed in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Consolidated Brokers' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A multidistrict litigation remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing Prudential Financial, Inc. of improperly classifying stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage and hour laws. The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinated trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC. Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v. Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of New York brokers. Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court and purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California brokers. These suits are captioned: 1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;" 2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated, Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;" and 3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and Prudential Securities Inc." The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice in May 2006. In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al." The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v. Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class- action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, March 18, 2009) No further developments in the consolidated matter were disclosed in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends "Saunders" Mutual Fund Suit in Md. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. remains a defendant in a mutual fund class action entitled, "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2004, the company and Prudential Securities were named as defendants in several class actions brought on behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual fund complexes. The actions are consolidated as part of a multi-district proceeding, "In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaints allege that the purchasers and holders were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive fees, caused by market timing and late trading, and seek unspecified damages. In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of the actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated proceeding. In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions, "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.," the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law claims against Prudential Securities. In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In June 2008, the company was dismissed with prejudice from the remaining actions consolidated in In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation other than Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al. In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and plaintiffs moved for class certification in Saunders, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. and several of its executives are facing purported class-action lawsuits in New Jersey, alleging that the insurer violated federal securities laws in a June 2008 public offering of junior subordinated notes. In March 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit, "Bauer v. Prudential Financial, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case names as defendants, the company, certain company Directors, the Chief Financial Officer, Controller and former Chief Executive Officer and former Principal Accounting Officer, underwriters and the company's independent auditors. The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's 9% Junior Subordinated Notes (retail hybrid subordinated debt), alleges that the company's March 2006 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus and the June 2008 Prospectus Supplement, both of which incorporated other public filings, contained material misstatements or omissions. In light of the company's disclosures in connection with its 2008 financial results, plaintiffs contend that the earlier offering documents failed to disclose impairments in the company's asset-backed securities collateralized with subprime mortgages and goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries and other assets, and that the company had inadequate controls relating to such reporting. The complaint asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging Section 11 claims against all defendants, Section 12(a) (2) claims against the company and underwriters and Section 15 claims against the individual defendants, and seeks unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages, interest, costs, fees, expenses and such injunctive relief as may be deemed appropriate by the court. In April 2009, two additional purported class-action complaints were filed in the same court, "Haddock v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al.," and "Pinchuk v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al." The complaints essentially allege the same claims and seek the same relief as Bauer, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Bauer v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-01120-jll-ccc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Jose L. Linares, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. (psp@njlawfirm.com) Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP Park 80 Plaza West One Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Phone: (201) 845-9600 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss "Garcia" Suit on Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss a purported nationwide class-action suit, "Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America," in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The complaint, which was filed in November 2008, is brought on behalf of beneficiaries of Prudential policies whose death benefits were placed in retained asset accounts. It alleges that by investing the death benefits in these accounts, Prudential wrongfully delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits. It alleges claims of breach of the contract of insurance, breach of contract with regard to the retained asset accounts, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The suit seeks an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest. In March 2009, Prudential filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss State Claims by Agents ------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss certain state claims in a consolidated purported nationwide class-action complaint filed on behalf of agents in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. "Bouder" Lawsuit In October 2006, a class-action lawsuit, "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that the Prudential Insurance failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered representatives in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. "Wang" Litigation In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance," on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial products. The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. Consolidated Proceeding In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter. In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws of thirteen additional states. In March 2009, a second amended complaint was filed, which dropped the breach of contract claims. The company moved to dismiss certain of the state claims in the consolidated complaint, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. RCN CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Misclassification of Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- RCN Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a former cable installer who is seeking unpaid overtime, insurance benefits, compensation for medical bills for an on-the-job- injury, and expenses for using his own vehicle and tools, Donna Goodison of The Boston Herald reports. The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by Fritz Elienberg of Roxbury on June 1, 2009 in th U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Elienberg, who is represented by Harold Lichten, Esq., is claiming that the company misclassified him and as many as 1,000 other U.S. installers as "independent contractors" so it could deprive them of overtime and other benefits, reports The Boston Herald. According to his complaint, from 2005 until February 2009, Mr. Elienberg was employed as an "independent contractor" in Massachusetts by Pennsylvania-based Custom Cable Concepts, which provided installation work solely for RCN, The Boston Herald reported. The lawsuit alleges that RCN, RCN Telecom Services of Massachusetts, and Custom Cable Concepts violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts' independent contractor and overtime laws, according to The Boston Herald report. For more details, contact: Harold Lichten, Esq. Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Phone: 617-994-5800 Fax: 617-994-5801 Web site: http://www.llrlaw.com/ SCI FUNERAL: Fla. Judge OKs Distribution of Settlement Checks ------------------------------------------------------------- Members of the 2001 Menorah Gardens class-action suit will soon be receiving checks after the presiding judge approved recommendations that would facilitate the distribution of settlement. On Dec. 19, 2001, Plaintiffs brought a case in Broward County Circuit Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, against SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. and Service Corporation International, who own and operate Jewish cemeteries known as "Menorah Gardens." The cemeteries are located at 21100 West Griffin Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33332, and 9321 Memorial Park Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33412. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants buried the remains of their relatives in the wrong locations and/or in a way that encroached on other plots. They also claimed that the defendants plotted and sold burial plots with insufficient space so there was inadequate room to place bodies in their proper locations. On Dec. 2, 2003, counsel for all parties reached an agreement on a class-wide settlement. The settlement agreement provides for $65 million ($40 million for compensatory damages and $25 million for punitive damages) to be divided among class members. On April 27, 2009, Broward County Circuit Judge Ronald Rothschild approved final recommendations that clears the way for payments to about 350 remaining members of the litigation. For more details, contact: Menorah Gardens Settlement Administrator The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 8856 Melville, NY 11747-8856 Phone: 1-866-808-3581 e-mail: cemeteryclaimsinquiry@gardencitygroup.com Web site: http://www.cemeteryclaims.com/ SKYBUS AIRLINES: Del. Court Approves $925,000 WARN Lawsuit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware approved a $925,000 settlement reached in a purported class-action lawsuit against Skybus Airlines, Inc., alleging it violated federal employment law when it abruptly cut its work force upon filing for bankruptcy protection in 2008, The Business First of Columbus reports. Under the settlement, $5,000 will be split between the two workers who led the 342-person class, while more than $300,000 is headed to the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The remaining more than $613,000 will be split with employees, coming out to about $1,800 a person, according to The Business First of Columbus report. Previously, The Associated Press reported that Skybus Airlines agreed to settle a class-action suit filed by former employees who say they weren't properly told of the airline's plan to shut down in 2008 (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2009). Attorney James Huggett, who represents the employees, tells The Associated Press that the amount of the settlement will likely be disclosed in an upcoming court filing. He also says the agreement must be approved in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The Associated Press previously reported that former employees of Skybus Airlines filed a class-action lawsuit against the company with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on April 15, 2008, saying they were not properly told of the airline's plan to shut down operations (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2008). According to the lawsuit, Skybus violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of any mass layoffs. AP says that in a court filing dated April 4 -- the last day Skybus was in operation -- the Columbus-based airline said it planned to lay off 450 employees in several phases, with the majority losing their jobs as of April 7. Of those, 365 were based in Columbus, with the remainder in Greensboro, N.C. Former Skybus Chief Executive Officer Mike Hodge told The Columbus Dispatch that the company believes it complied with the law. He cited a section of the WARN Act that grants an exception to companies that are actively seeking capital or business that, if obtained, would have allowed those companies to avoid or postpone a shutdown. Passed by Congress in 1988, the WARN Act was intended to protect workers and their families, the report explains. The law says employees who don't receive proper notice of plant closings or layoffs are entitled to 60 days pay. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unpaid wages, bonuses, retirement benefits and holiday pay that they would have received during the 60-day period. AP recounts that Skybus declared bankruptcy less than a year after beginning service. The low-cost carrier was known for its $10 fares and a la carte, pay-per-service flying. Like other airlines, it struggled with rising fuel prices and a slowing economy. SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for "Katz" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will hold a fairness hearing on June 12, 2009 at 2:15 p.m for the proposed settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending against Sourcefire, Inc. A putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit is captioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009). Since then, two other putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company and certain of its officers and directors and other parties making similar allegations. These two additional suits are: 1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc.. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01351-JFM," and 2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01425-WMN." In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors and other parties making similar allegations. The fourth suit is captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH." Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered on June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the company's initial public offering. The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with allegedly material misleading statements and omissions contained in the registration statement and prospectus. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and costs on behalf of a putative class. On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel. The court granted Ms. Amrhein's request. On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been asserted in one or more of the four original actions. On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part. In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order. On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, for the appointment of class representative and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for the class. The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before Jan. 9, 2009. On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an opportunity to conduct a mediation. The initial meeting with the mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008. On Feb. 11, 2009, the company filed a settlement stipulation and related papers with the Court, tentatively settling all claims in the litigation. If finally approved, the settlement will result in the dismissal of the claims against all defendants. The proposed settlement will include a cash payment of $3.2 million by the defendants, $3.1 million of which will be paid by the company's insurer and $0.1 million of which will be paid by Sourcefire. Neither the company nor any of the other defendants admitted any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed settlement. The settlement will require final approval from the Court before it becomes effective. A hearing at which the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement has been scheduled for June 12, 2009. No assurances can be given that the settlement ultimately will be approved, according to the company's May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com - and - Tydings & Rosenberg LLP 100 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone: 410-752-9700 Fax: 410-757-5460 e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com SUPERVALU INC: Settles Minn. Litigation Over Loading Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu, Inc. settled a purported class-action lawsuit that accused the grocery retail giant of coercive unloading practices, Sandi Soendker of Land Line Magazine reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Dec. 6, 2006 by Joe Rajkovacz and Carl Schaefer Jr., under the caption, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. et al v. Supervalu, Inc., Case No. 0:05-cv- 02809-JRT-JJG." It challenged Supervalu's policy of requiring drivers to show proof of insurance coverage grossly over and above what was required by federal statute and regulation. Without that insurance, truckers had no choice but to use the only lumping service available to unload Supervalu�s cargo; they could not unload it themselves, according to the Land Line Magazine report. For more details, contact: Paul D. Cullen, Jr., Esq. (pxc@cullenlaw.com) The Cullen Law Firm 1101 30th St NW Ste 300 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-944-8600 - and - Andrew J. Morrison, Esq. (morrison@kmchlaw.com) Koll Morrison Charpentier & Hagstrom 332 Minnesota St Ste W-1430 St Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-291-9155 Fax: 651-223-5362 TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Consolidated ARS Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. seeks to dismiss an amended complaint in consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned, "In re Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various financial services firms by customers related to their investments in auction rate securities. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal securities laws. Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned, "Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al." The second case, filed on April 17, 2008, is captioned, "Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al." Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge. The company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation. The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the motion. The cases, which are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, have been consolidated under the caption, "In re Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." An amended complaint was filed in February 2009. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, equitable relief, interest and attorneys' fees. In April 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for "Elvey" Spam Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A Sept. 10, 2009 final hearing has been set for the proposed settlement of a lawsuit against TD Ameritrade Inc. that accuses the company of illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers. Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed on May 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that TDA Inc. disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addresses of account holders to spammers, who then sent the account holders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks. The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California and federal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty and requests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages. As disclosed in a press release dated Sept. 14, 2007, the company discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its systems that allowed access to an internal database. The discovery was made as the result of an internal investigation of stock-related spam. The company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of the breach. The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12 months and found no evidence of identity theft. A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," was filed on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a purported nationwide class of account holders. The factual allegations of this complaint and the relief sought are substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit. The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TD Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation." The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class basis subject to court approval. A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008. At the hearing, one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement. Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion for preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the parties to provide supplemental information to assist the court in evaluating the proposed settlement. On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs provided supplemental information in response to the court's direction and in further support of the proposed settlement. After additional submissions were made by the parties, the Court held a further hearing on Oct. 7, 2008. On May 1, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which had been revised, and set a hearing on final approval for Sept. 10, 2009. The settlement is not expected to have a material effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv- 02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com) Kamber & Associates, LLC 11 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-920-3072 Fax: 212-202-6364 - and - Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb 2757 Leonis Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90058 Phone: 323-585-8696 Fax: 323-585-8198 e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces "Ross" Lawsuit Over Yield Plus Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. continues to face a purported class action lawsuit captioned "Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November and December 2008, two purported class action lawsuits were filed with respect to the Reserve Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuits are captioned: -- Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; and -- Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff in the Hamilton case dismissed his complaint without prejudice on March 2, 2009. The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. The complaint names as defendants a number of entities and individuals related to The Reserve. The company is also named as a defendant. The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the fund. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. THINKORSWIM GROUP: To Contest Lawsuit Over TD AMERITRADE Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- thinkorswim Group Inc. intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims in three purported class actions lawsuits filed in relation to the proposed merger with TD AMERITRADE Holdings Corporation. On Jan. 8, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with TD AMERITRADE, Tango Acquisition Corporation One, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub One") and Tango Acquisition Corporation Two, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub Two") pursuant to which TD AMERITRADE would acquire the company, pursuant to a merger, for a combination of cash and shares of TD AMERITRADE common stock valued at that time at approximately $606 million (the "TD AMERITRADE Merger"). In January and February 2009, three purported class actions lawsuits were filed on behalf of thinkorswim stockholders related to the TD Ameritrade Merger. No further details regarding the suits were provided in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. thinkorswim Group Inc. -- https://www.thinkorswim.com -- formerly Investools Inc., operates in two segments: Brokerage Services and Investor Education. The company offers online brokerage, investor education and brokerage and related financial products and services for self-directed investors and traders. WCI COMMUNITIES: Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condo Units Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit against WCI Communities, Inc., and its subsidiary, The Resort at Singer Island Properties, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, remains stayed, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit was filed in January 2008 on behalf of all persons who purchased one or more of the 239 hotel condominium units in the Singer Island Resort. The Singer Island Resort is located in Palm Beach, Florida (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008). These purchasers have entered into rental management agreements with respect to those condominium units, whose purchase price aggregated to approximately $138.7 million. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section 12(a) (1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77(l)(a) (1), by failing to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the public offering of the Hotel Units. The complaint also alleges that defendant WCI violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77o, by controlling the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant Singer Island Resort, in offering the Hotel Units for sale without registering them with the SEC. The plaintiffs seek to rescind their acquisition of the Hotel Units and want rescissory or other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The complaint seeks rescission of the condominium purchase agreements and rental management agreements. On Aug. 4, 2008, WCI and 126 of its subsidiaries (excluding its Watermark real estate brokerage, its WCI Mortgage business and certain other joint ventures in which it is a partner) filed voluntary petitions for reorganization relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington, Case No. 08�11643 (KJC). The case has been stayed as a result of the company's Chapter 11 filing. The suit is "Mastrella et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc. et al., Case Number: 9:2008cv80055," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, presiding. WCI COMMUNITIES INC: Lawsuit Over Defective Drywall Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-60371), has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, according to WCI Communities, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On March 10, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-60371), against Knauf Plasterboard, Tianjin Co., Knauf Gips KG, Rothchilt International Ltd., and WCI Communities, Inc. on behalf of all owners who purchased homes in Florida from WCI Communities, Inc. that allegedly contain defective drywall. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the company, without prejudice, after the plaintiffs were notified of the company's pending Chapter 11 proceeding. WCI Communities, Inc. -- http://www.wcicommunities.com/-- is a homebuilding and real estate services company engaged in the design, construction and operation of leisure-oriented, master- planned communities. The company's principal business lines include single and multi-family (traditional) homebuilding, mid- and high-rise (tower) homebuilding, and real estate services. It also develops and operates amenity facilities, sell selected land parcels, and enter into real estate joint ventures, generally within its communities. As of Dec. 31, 2008, WCI conducted development and homebuilding operations in Florida, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and Maryland. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had 54 locations, where it is building single- and multi-family homes or mid- and high-rise residential units or operating amenity facilities. In total, WCI controls over 12,000 acres of land. WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend the purported class-action suits filed against the company and its newly acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company (HRH), according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various other brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported class-action suits in various courts across the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated or are in the process of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ("MDL"). There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one that addresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one that addresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint"). HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since been voluntarily dismissed. HRH is a named defendant in the Commercial Complaint. The company is a named defendant in both MDL Complaints. The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief and make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that have been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in other improper activities. The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and the state claims were dismissed without prejudice from both Complaints. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding these dismissal rulings and oral arguments on this appeal were heard in April 2009. In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with prejudice from the EB Complaint. Additional actions could be brought in the future by individual policyholders. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Discovery in Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit against Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee, alleging gender discrimination. The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of present and former female employees alleging that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of trial. The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss. The suit was recently amended to include two additional plaintiffs. The parties are still in the discovery phase of the litigation, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. New Securities Fraud Cases CHARTER COMMS: Walden Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Walden Law Firm, PLLC announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of purchasers of Charter Communications, Inc. securities between October 23, 2006, and February 12, 2009. The complaint charges Charter and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Charter operates a broadband communications business in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's ability to service its debt, its potential for mergers, and the value of its stock. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that Charter would not be able service its debt to September 2010, but rather Charter would file bankruptcy in March of 2009. Also, the Defendants issued misleading statements about Charter's potential for mergers. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Charter's securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $4.800 on July 19, 2007. On February 12, 2009, Charter issued a press release stating that it would file for bankruptcy before April 1, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Charter's securities during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Richard E. Walden, Esq. Walden Law Firm, PLLC Phone: 501-907-7000 e-mail: charterlitigation@gmail.com Web site: http://www.waldenlawfirm.com/Cases/Charter/Charter.html IDEARC INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased shares of Idearc, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: IDARQ) between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that certain executives and officers of Idearc made false and misleading statements to the public with regard to its credit and collection policies. The lawsuit alleges the Company artificially increased its revenue by selling its products to customers who were not credit-worthy which, the lawsuit alleges, resulted in millions of dollars of receivables being written off. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 7, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 NORTEL NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nortel Networks Corp. (PINKSHEETS: NRTLQ) during the period between May 2, 2008 and September 17, 2008, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that demand for the Company's products was declining; that the Company's financial results were materially overstated from a failure to properly write down goodwill; that notwithstanding restructuring, the Company was struggling to cut costs and improve profitability; and as a result of the foregoing, that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business, operations, earnings and prospects. According to the complaint, on September 17, 2008, after the Company announced its preliminary view on certain third quarter results and that it was engaging in a comprehensive review of its business, the value of Nortel's stock declined significantly. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 20, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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 * * *