/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090608.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 111 Headlines BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending BLU JAY: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Workers' Pay, Camp Conditions BODISEN BIOTECH: Consolidated Securities Case in N.Y. Closed CENTERLINE HOLDING: "Off" Still Stayed Pending "Carfagno" Result CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Dismissal of Federal Securities Suit GEORGIA NATURAL: Ga. Appeals Court Reinstates Overcharging Suit LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Pending Final OK LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage MEDIACOM COMMS: Unit Mulls Filing Motions on "Ogg" Case Verdict MELT INC: Appeal to Junked California Franchisees' Suit Pending MELT INC: "Jong Han" Franchise Acts Violations Lawsuit Pending ROGERS INT'L: Bids to Dismiss "Lane" Suit Still Pending in Ill. ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Suit Still Stayed Pending Outcome in Lane SOUTHSTAR ENERGY: Ga. Appeals Court Revives Overcharging Lawsuit STERLING CHEMICALS: Sept. 2009 Trial Set for Tex. Workers' Suit STONE & WEBSTER: Aug. 12 Hearing Set For $6.5M Suit Settlement TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for June 15 Conference ULTA SALON: Ill. Court Give Preliminary OK to Suit Settlement UNITED AIRLINES: EEOC Sues Over Handling of Disabled Workers WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Still Ongoing in Delaware Court New Securities Fraud Cases BIDZ.COM INC: Barroway Topaz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit BIDZ.COM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ********* BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., is a defendant in one remaining lawsuit arising out of the company's "no late fees" program, according to its May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2009. On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class-action suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- provides in- home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in- store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLU JAY: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Workers' Pay, Camp Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------- Blu Jay Farms and Macrie Bros. Blueberry Farm face a purported class-action lawsuit brought Haitian workers who claim that the defendants brought them into the country with false promises, then paid them less than minimum wage for working 10 to 12 hours a day seven days a week and housed them in a poorly maintained, bug-infested camp, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in the Superior Court on New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County on May 28, 2009 on behalf of 26 named plaintiffs, under Docket No. L-1885-09. Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are Dacosta Blueberry Farms Inc., Bluebuck Blueberry Farms Inc., Bluebuck Blueberry, Joseph Martinelli, Paul Macrie, and Andre Joseph, according to The Courthouse News Service report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3dad For more details, contact: Katherine S. Colon, Esq. Legal Services of New Jersey Workers Legal Rights and Farmworkers Projects 6 Sound Laurel St., 2nd Floor Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Phone: 1-888-576-5529 Web site: http://www.lsnj.org/ BODISEN BIOTECH: Consolidated Securities Case in N.Y. Closed ------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Bodisen Biotech, Inc. and the company's management in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is closed. In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York Global Group. The eight actions are: 1. "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13220 (filed November 2006)," 2. "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13254 (filed November 2006)," 3. "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13454 (filed November 2006)," 4. "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 13567 (filed November 2006)," 5. "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13739 (filed December 2006)," 6. "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006)," 7. "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 15179 (filed December 2006)," and 8. "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-15399 (filed December 2006)." The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages they seek. In 2007, the Court consolidated each of the actions into a single proceeding. In October 2008, the New York Federal Court presiding over the eight consolidated class-action lawsuits against Bodisen and its management granted the company's initial motion to dismiss the cases. In addition, the court has notified Bodisen that it also granted the company's second motion to dismiss, which challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the court over about 40% of the class and thus sought to reduce the number of potential class plaintiffs significantly. The Court entered a judgment in favor of the company and closed the case. Plaintiff had 30 days after the judgment to file an appeal but did not file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff's time to appeal the Court's decision has expired, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com) The Rosen Law Firm, PA Phone: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com Representing the defendants is: Judd Burstein, Esq. (jburstein@burlaw.com) Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P. 1790 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 974-2400 Fax: 212-974-2944 CENTERLINE HOLDING: "Off" Still Stayed Pending "Carfagno" Result ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class and derivative action lawsuit entitled "Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-VCP," remains stayed pending resolution of the "Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al." case, according to Centerline Holding Co.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative class and derivative action, entitled "Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468- VCP," was filed against the company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, LP, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit concerns the company's sale of a new issue of convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP. It alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from them as well as injunctive relief against all defendants. Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New York and in the Delaware Chancery Court. Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees breached their fiduciary duties to the company by allegedly violating the federal securities laws. The company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against the company in any of those cases. The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case are: 1. On Jan. 18, 2008, "Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No. 100861-08," was filed against the company and its board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court; 2. On Jan. 25, 2008, "Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al., No. 08 CV 00912," was filed against the company and its board of trustees with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; 3. On Jan. 30, 2008, "Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No. 3511," was filed against the company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the Delaware Court of Chancery; 4. On Feb. 22, 2008, "Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ. 01827," was filed against the company, its board of trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; 5. "On Feb. 27, 2008, "Broy v. Centerline Holding Company et al., No. 08 CV 01971," was filed against the company and certain of its officers and trustees with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; 6. On April 10, 2008, "Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index No. 601043-08," was filed against the company and its board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and 7. On April 10, 2008, "Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index No. 601044-08," was filed against the company and its board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court. On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of trustees in "Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS)," pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class- action suit on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who qualified to purchase our 11.0% preferred shares under the rights offering but who did not do so. In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants reached a basis of settlement which would require a reduction in the rate payable on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by TRCLP and its affiliates to 9.5% and an increase in the conversion price from $10.75 to $12.35. A Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009 and a fairness hearing for approval of the settlement has been scheduled for May 18, 2009. A settlement with the plaintiff in the Off case based on the rights offering was negotiated, but on Nov. 26, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected the settlement and stayed any further proceedings in the action, pending resolution of the Carfagno case. As a result, several of the other derivative lawsuits that had been voluntarily stayed by the plaintiffs, including the Kramer, Ciszerk and Kanter actions are now subject to various stipulations deferring further activity in those actions until a decision on the Stipulation of Settlement in Carfagno or, in the case of Kastner and Kostecka, pending further activity in the consolidated securities class action. The Carfagno Stipulation of Settlement is contingent upon the dismissal with prejudice of the overlapping Off and Ciszerk actions pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery. Should the District Court find the Carfagno settlement to be fair, it will enter the Final Judgment approving the Settlement, which will become effective once the Delaware Court of Chancery dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters with prejudice. Upon entry of the Final Judgment by the District Court, defendants intend to move for dismissal in the Court of Chancery of the Off and Ciszerk matters with prejudice. A fairness hearing has been scheduled by the District Court for May 18, 2009. In addition, the outside members of the Board of Trustees have received a letter from one of our purported shareholders demanding that they investigate potential claims against the company's officers and others arising out of the allegations asserted in the federal securities litigation. The independent Trustees determined, at their meeting on March 11, 2009, to defer further consideration of the letter until after the District Court had decided the motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real estate funds and financing. The Company had $11.9 billion of assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2007. Organized as a statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its business through its subsidiaries generally under the designation Centerline Capital Group. The Company operates in four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Portfolio Management group monitors and services the investments within its funds and servicing portfolio. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing in syndicated corporate debt. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Dismissal of Federal Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Centerline Holding Co. seeks to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in the matter "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 08 CV 00505," according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities cases was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Five other, essentially duplicative putative class- action suits were then filed in the same court. The complaint in each case asserted that the Company and other defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007 transaction with Freddie Mac. On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group, which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for these cases. Under the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 7, 2008 in this action, "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 08 CV 00505." The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with its announcement of the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the Company's business model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007 through Dec. 28, 2007. The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008, and the plaintiff's brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by Nov. 14, 2008. The defendant's reply brief will then be due Dec. 12, 2008. The motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12, 2009. Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The lead Plaintiff has until June 12, 2009, to file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants have been given until June 30, 2009, to file their reply to any opposition motion filed by the Plaintiffs. The suit is "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00505-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 - and - James Clayton Kelly, Esq. (jkelly@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-451-9635 Fax: 212-486-2093 Representing the defendants are: Jennifer Fletcher Beltrami, Esq. (jbeltrami@wolfblock.com) Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen, LLP 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177 Phone: 212-883-4955 Fax: 212-672-1155 - and - Daniel J. Leffell, Esq. (dleffell@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-373-3218 Fax: 212-492-0218 GEORGIA NATURAL: Ga. Appeals Court Reinstates Overcharging Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A Georgia appeals court overturned a lower court's ruling to dismiss a case that sought class-action status for customers of Georgia Natural Gas, who said they were overcharged by the natural gas marketer, P�ralte C. Paul of The Atlanta Journal- Constitution reports. The ruling -- issued on June 2, 2009 -- means the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Charles H. Ellison and Susan B. Bresler, can go back to the lower court to seek class-action status, reports The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. More than 300,000 customers could be included in the class, according to Jason Doss, Esq. and Anne Lewis, Esq., the Atlanta attorneys representing the plaintiffs, The Atlanta Journal- Constitution reported. LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Pending Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to grant final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action suit against Leadis Technology, Inc. On March 2, 2005, a securities class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Leadis Technology, Inc., certain of its officers and its directors. The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and misleading statements in the company's registration statement and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for Leadis' initial public offering. A similar additional action was filed on March 11, 2005. On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the parties to this litigation reached a tentative settlement of all claims. The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement in February 2009, and the company anticipates that the District Court will provide final approval of the settlement in the second quarter of 2009, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Leadis Technology, Inc. -- http://www.leadis.com/-- designs, develops and markets analog and mixed-signal semiconductor products that enable and enhance the features and capabilities of portable and other consumer electronic products. The company's product offerings include light-emitting diode (LED), drivers, power management, touch technology and consumer audio analog integrated circuits (ICs). LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action suit styled, "Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc.," pending in King County (Washington) Superior Court. On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against the company in King County (Washington) Superior Court. GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks, as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class. LiveDeal has denied the allegations. Legal proceedings in the matter are ongoing, and discovery began in late January 2009, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium- sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via the Internet. Through its online property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize their Internet search advertising campaigns. Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. MEDIACOM COMMS: Unit Mulls Filing Motions on "Ogg" Case Verdict --------------------------------------------------------------- Mediacom LLC, one of Mediacom Communications Corporation's wholly owned subsidiaries, intends to file motions with respect to the verdict in a putative class action in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg. Mediacom LLC is named as a defendant in a putative class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC," pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April 2001. The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners to place the company's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from other third parties. While the parties continue to contest liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages. Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million. Legal fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million. The plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of $42.0 million in compensatory damages. Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3 million. This estimate does not include any estimate of damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages. On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives. On March 19, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive damages of $35,000. This verdict is not yet final, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com-- is a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns in the United States. The company provides its customers with an array of products and services, including video services, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone service. MELT INC: Appeal to Junked California Franchisees' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal by the plaintiffs in a dismissed purported class- action lawsuit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'s franchisees remains pending in California. On Sept. 19, 2007, a punitive class-action lawsuit was filed against the company, its affiliates, and its officers and employees alleging damages and injunctive relief under state Franchise Acts, restitution and injunctive relief under unfair business practices act, damages and injunctive relief under the "Cartwright" act, fraud, interference with prospective economic advantage, and declaratory relief. The suit, "David Gold, Elena Gold, EAOA, Inc., Steven Field, MMS Management, LLC, MMS Coconut Point, LLC, Jong Han, Yon Ho Kim, Young Suk Kim, Kang Won Lee, Yoo & Lee Enterprises, Inc., Charindra Liyanage, Liyange Investments, LLC v. Melt, Inc., Melt (California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin, Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman, Scott Miller, and Alin Cruz," purports to represent a class of the company's franchisees. As of June 30, 2008, the court tentatively dismissed five of the six allegations contained in the complaint. The plaintiffs thereafter made an application to dismiss the action in its entirety. The company has filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. On June 30, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit. On Aug. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. Kang Won Lee, You & Lee Enterprises Inc, Yon Ho Kim and Young Suk Kim have withdrawn their appeals, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a holding company for its operating subsidiaries. Its wholly owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under the name of Melt - gelato italiano, Melt - caf� & gelato bar and Melt - gelato & crepe caf� as well as the sale and distribution of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of royalties. MELT INC: "Jong Han" Franchise Acts Violations Lawsuit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Melt, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit styled, "Jong Han v. Melt, Inc., Melt (California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin, Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman,and Alin Cruz." On Aug. 22, 2008, Jong Han filed a Complaint against the company similar to the purported class action suit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'s franchisees that was dismissed by the California court. According to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, Han seeks damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief under state franchise acts, restitution and injunctive relief under the unfair business practices act, damages and relief under the Cartwright Act, fraud, interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. In October 2008, the company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On or about Dec. 8, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration. As of April 20, 2009, no arbitration has been filed, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a holding company for its operating subsidiaries. Its wholly owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under the name of Melt - gelato italiano, Melt - caf� & gelato bar and Melt - gelato & crepe caf� as well as the sale and distribution of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of royalties. ROGERS INT'L: Bids to Dismiss "Lane" Suit Still Pending in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The motions to dismiss the consolidated amended derivative and class-action complaint remain pending, according to Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.'s May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant, in a class-action and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust dated April 10, 2001. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers International assets to Refco Capital Markets. The suit seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers International's limited partners. Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Walter Thomas Price was not named as a defendant in the state court complaint. The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District of New York. On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers in the matter. This personal jurisdiction dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing. On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended derivative and class action complaint. The amended complaint adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs. All defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court has entered a briefing schedule on these motions which shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2008. Oral argument on the motions was held May 7, 2009. Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois limited partnership that was established in May 2000. It trades a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts, principally on recognized exchanges. The Company's General Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Suit Still Stayed Pending Outcome in Lane ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) remains stayed, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets. The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets, or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other relief. Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007, for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond. On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Lane Case The Lanes filed a class-action and derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's limited partners. Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of New York. On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers. On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an amended complaint. A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8, 2007. The Watkins matter is stayed pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in the Lane case. Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois limited partnership that was established in May 2000. It trades a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts, principally on recognized exchanges. The Company's General Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. SOUTHSTAR ENERGY: Ga. Appeals Court Revives Overcharging Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia reinstated a proposed class-action lawsuit filed against natural gas marketer Southstar Energy Services LLC, alleging that the company overcharged its customers under the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act, Law360 reports. In a split decision, the court on June 2, 2009, reversed a decision by a lower court, which dismissed the case, according to the Law360 report. STERLING CHEMICALS: Sept. 2009 Trial Set for Tex. Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for a purported class-action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Sterling Chemicals, Inc. is scheduled for September 2009. On Feb. 21, 2007 the company received a summons naming it as a defendant in a class action titled, "Evans et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625." The plaintiffs comprising the proposed class are employees and retired employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of the company's former subsidiaries that was sold in connection with its Plan of Reorganization in 2002. They are alleging that the company was not permitted to increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the company, and Cytec Industries Inc. governing its purchase of Sterling Chemicals' former acrylic fibers business in 1997. At the time of Sterling Chemicals' bankruptcy, it specifically rejected this asset purchase agreement. The plaintiffs are asserting claims for breach of contract and claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and seek damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on July 6, 2007, based on the rejection of the asset purchase agreement in its bankruptcy case. However, the court denied the company's motions for dismissal, for reconsideration and to allow the company to take an interlocutory appeal. The parties expect to complete discovery in the next few months. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and for class certification related to their claims for denial of benefits under our retiree medical plans. The defendants filed a cross- motion for summary judgment on the denial of the benefits claim. The court certified the class of plaintiffs for the denial of benefits claim, but denied both motions for summary judgment and identified issues for trial, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Evans et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq. (mweber@davis-davislaw.com) Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-781-5200 Fax: 713-781-2235 STONE & WEBSTER: Aug. 12 Hearing Set For $6.5M Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 12, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed $6,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Stone & Webster, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. Case No. 00-CV- 10874-RWZ." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210. Shareholders sued Stone & Webster for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the company fraudulently concealed the loss of a contract with another company and inflated revenues (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006). The district court dismissed the shareholders' original complaint, and the shareholders appealed. The shareholders were then allowed to submit an amended complaint on remand. The shareholders moved to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. In the proposed amended complaint, the shareholders alleged that the company paid an undisclosed $147 million kickback to a third party in a contract that it signed with them. Section 10(b) violations must be brought within one year of alleged fraud. The court noted that the kickback allegations were new and did not relate back to save the claim. The district court denied the shareholders' motion to amend their complaint, ruling that the new claim was time-barred, and the original claims were insufficient. For more details, contact: Stone & Webster, Inc. Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217-8042 Phone: 800-254-2939 Web site: http://swsecuritiessettlement.com - and - Cynthia A. Calder, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7010 e-mail: ccalder@gelaw.com TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for June 15 Conference --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported shareholder class-action suit styled "Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," is set for a status conference on June 15, 2009. Talon International Inc. was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc. On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov. 14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005. On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2006. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's financial situation and its relationship with certain of its large customers during the purported class period. The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1, 2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007. On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. The plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class certification. Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007. In addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007 - - the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007. The company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007. The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008. On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class, reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision. The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009). The District Court has rescheduled the status conference for June 15, 2009, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Jules Brody, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com) Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 - and - Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Panteha Abdollahi, Esq. (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-668-6200 ULTA SALON: Ill. Court Give Preliminary OK to Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (NASDAQ:ULTA), announced that it had reached a preliminary settlement in its class action lawsuit. The Company previously disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 17, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which the Company and its CEO and CFO were named as defendants. On May 29, 2009, the Company and its primary insurance carrier engaged in a mediation with counsel representing the putative class. Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting this matter behind it, the Company and its insurer have reached a tentative settlement with plaintiffs, subject to agreement on comprehensive settlement documentation and approval by the Court. All amounts to be paid under the tentative settlement will be paid out of proceeds of the Company's D&O insurance coverage. The suit is "Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007cv07083," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. (LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com) Miller Law LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-332-3400 Fax: 312-676-2676 Carol V. Gilden, Esq. (cgilden@cmht.com) Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-357-0370 Fax: 312-357-0369 - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. The Wanamaker Building 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Representing the defendants is: Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq. (sean.berkowitz@lw.com) Latham & Watkins LLP (IL) 233 South Wacker Drive 5800 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 UNITED AIRLINES: EEOC Sues Over Handling of Disabled Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a purported class-action lawsuit against United Airlines, saying the airline made it too hard for workers who became disabled to switch to other jobs they could still perform. The agency's San Francisco office named five plaintiffs for the class-action lawsuit. Five others appeared to be victims as well, according to EEOC attorney William Tamayo. Mr. Tamayo told AP that the agency held settlement talks with United Airlines before filing the lawsuit but no deal resulted. In general, the lawsuit accuses United Airlines of "malicious and reckless conduct" and seeks lost wages and punitive damages for victims and an order that United stop discriminating against disabled workers. WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit that challenges a tender offer by one of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders remains stayed. On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not already owned by the principal holder. Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share. On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was filed before the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Orange. The complaint in the California Action names the company and certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders. The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to the litigation. On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender Offer. The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the company filed a motion to stay the California Action. On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's motion to stay the California Action. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada. The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets. WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Still Ongoing in Delaware Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The remanded case captioned "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" is proceeding in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. Case Background On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not already owned by the principal holder. Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share. Two purported class-action complaints were filed on behalf of the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender offer and challenging related actions of the company and the directors of the company. The suits are: 1. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and 2. "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21, 2006. Both suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as defendants. They allege, among other things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related corporate activities. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to the litigation. On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had appointed a special committee of independent directors who are not members of the company's management or employed by the company to consider the tender offer. The members of the Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and Dr. Arthur Laffer. The company also announced that the Special Committee had retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel. Consolidation and Settlement On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N." On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's approval. Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended Schedule Tender Offer. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class." The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and tender their shares. Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to April 28, 2006. Certification & Dismissal On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a stipulation of settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the class. On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument, and later referred the matter for consideration by the Court en Banc. In December 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee award to the plaintiff's counsel. Under the appealed award, the company has no expected liability for the plaintiffs' counsel fees, which are expected to be paid by General Lyon. On Dec. 1, 2008, the Chancery Court heard oral argument and reserved decision regarding the fee award to Plaintiffs' counsel, which is expected to be paid by General Lyon, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada. The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets. New Securities Fraud Cases BIDZ.COM INC: Barroway Topaz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&S TORY=/www/story/06-04-2009/0005038921&EDATE= The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP has been updated filed a a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of securities of Bidz.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: BIDZ) between August 13, 2007 and November 27, 2007 inclusive. The Complaint charges Bidz.com and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bidz.com is an online retailer of jewelry, featuring a live auction format. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the Company engaged in a practice known as "shill bidding" which artificially raised the auction price of its products; -- that the Company was not forthright with its customers regarding "retail value" or "appraised value" of its products; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On November 26, 2007, a Citron Research ("Citron") article appeared on the website, Stocklemon.com, which revealed a number of problems with the Company's business model. Among other things, the article exposed the Company's questionable bidding and appraisal practices. Then, on November 28, 2007, a second Citron article was published providing additional details regarding the Company's questionable bidding practices including the practice known as "shill bidding" in order to drive up the price of items up for auction. The article disclosed that certain items were bid on hundreds of times by the same few bidders. On the negative news regarding the Company's business practices, the Company's stock dropped from a closing price of $19.94 per share on Friday, November 23, 2007, to a low of $10.10 per share on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, for a loss of nearly 50 percent on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@btkmc.com BIDZ.COM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0507883. htm Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bidz.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDZ) common stock between August 13, 2007 and November 27, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges Bidz and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Bidz investors. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.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 * * *