/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 112 Headlines CA INC: Rulings on Wyly Litigants' Appeals Remain Pending CELLFISH MEDIA: Faces Wash. Litigation Over Billing Aggregator CHINA SHENGHUO: Mulls Filing Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit CLEARWIRE CORP: Not Yet Served with King County, Wash. Complaint CONSTAR INT'L: Expects July '09 Oral Argument For Lawsuit Appeal CONVERTED ORGANICS: Lawsuit by FTA Purchasers Pending in Del. HEALTH BENEFITS: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Still Pending HEALTH BENEFITS: Former Employees' FLSA Suit Dismissed in April HEELYS INC: Merged Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: July 27 Final Settlement Approval Trial Set HORIZON BANK: Expects Final OK of Ind. Suit Settlement in Aug. INFOSONICS CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on May 5 MBNA CORP: Delaware Judge Give Preliminary OK to $25M Settlement MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Bacteria Found in Listerine MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denied Appeal Bid "Tele-Aid" Lawsuit NETLIST INC: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Ongoing in Calif. NEUROMETRIX INC: Mediation on Securities Fraud Suit Set for June OPTIONABLE INC: Plaintiff Seeks to File Amended Shareholder Suit PALM INC: Treo 600 Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Accessory Litigation Settled POMEROY IT: Directors Face Suit Over Proposed Deal With Founder RESERVE GOLF: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale to McConnell Golf S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. Over Windex YANKEE HOLDING: Paid Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Last April 3 New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* CA INC: Rulings on Wyly Litigants' Appeals Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Decisions on the appeals by Sam Wyly and certain related parties from the court-approved settlement of stockholder class-action lawsuits against CA, Inc. that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York are pending, according to CA, Inc.'s May 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M. Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998 were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance. In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned, "John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Federal Court. The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount. On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of fiduciary duty. As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits, including payment of attorneys' fees. The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys in legal fees and related expenses. On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants. The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present and former officers of the Company. The motion stated that the moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the Company. In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003 settlements. On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the August 2 decision. On Aug. 16, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion. On Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions denying the motions to amend or clarify. On Sept. 18, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12 decision. The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007. On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening briefs. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals. Also on Sept. 11, 2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P. de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals. On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions. Oral argument on the Wyly Litigants' appeals and cross-appeals occurred on March 11, 2009, and decisions are pending. Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage, security, and other systems. CELLFISH MEDIA: Faces Wash. Litigation Over Billing Aggregator -------------------------------------------------------------- Cellfish Media LLC faces a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of of letting aggregators charge cellphone customers for services they didn't ask for, Rhett Pardon of XBIZ.com reports. The suit was filed in King County Superior Court by Washington state resident Joshua Nicol, who claims that the mobile services operator is illegally charging customers for the content. It seeks class-action status, reports XBIZ.com. According to the suit, "Unlike transactions made using checks and credit cards, which require a signature or a highly private 16-digit credit card number, the only information a mobile content provider needs to charge a consumer for its products is the consumer's cellphone number, it can cause that consumer to be billed for services and products irrespective of whether the consumer actually agreed to purchase them," XBIZ.com reported. Cellfish, which did not respond to XBIZ for comment on the suit, contracts billing to a third-party billing aggregator -- in the suit's case, m-Qube Inc. -- and not the cellphone carrier. The billing aggregator then instructs the relevant cellular carrier to add the charges to the bill associated with the cellphone number, according to the XBIZ.com report. The suit contends that due to Cellfish's business model, the likelihood of false charges are enormous. "If Cellfish wanted to end this illegal billing, it could do so in an instant," the suit said. "All it would have to do to ensure that it is obtaining the consent of the charged party is agree to use a unique access code for each customer account." "But instead of implementing such a simple safeguard, Cellfish has intentionally created and maintained a system that encourages wrongdoing at every step. Such system results in the wrongful charging of small amounts of money to large numbers of people." The suit seeks an award for damages against the class, as well as attorneys fees, XBIZ.com reports. CHINA SHENGHUO: Mulls Filing Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. mulls filing motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in New York. Putative class-action lawsuits have been asserted against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Only one complaint, "Beni Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., Gui Hua Lan, Qiong Hua Gao, Gene Michael Bennett, And Yunhong Guan, Index No. 08 CIV. 7422," has been served on the company thus far. The complaints allege, among other things, that certain of the company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the company's securities. On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each of the actions seek an unspecified amount of damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the company's Nov. 19 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, on Oct. 20, 2008, the company and counsel to the plaintiff in the Varghese Action filed a stipulation with the Court in which the parties agreed that the plaintiff may file a consolidated, amended complaint within 60 days after the entry of an order appointing and approving lead counsel, and that the company's time to answer that complaint is extended until 60 days after the filing of the consolidated complaint. On Feb. 12, 2009, an amended complaint was served on the company by new lead counsel for the class, consolidating the putative class actions and bearing the caption, "Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08 CIV. 7422." The defendants include the company, its controlling shareholders, Lan's International Medicine Investment Co., Limited, its chief executive officer, Gui Hua Lan, its former chief financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and its independent registered public accounting firm, Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C. During the second quarter of 2009, the company plans to file motions to dismiss the complaint, according to its May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is primarily engaged in the research, development, production and marketing of pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products. The company's core offering, Xuesaitong Soft Capsules, is a pharmaceutical product developed to treat the symptoms of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. This drug is designed to invigorate the circulation of blood and improve microcirculation. Nearly all of Shenghuo's products are derived from the medicinal herb Panax notoginseng, also known as Sanqi, Sanchi or Tienchi. Shenghuo's research and development efforts focus on pharmaceutical products and over-the-counter (OTC) products that are based on traditional Chinese medicines. CLEARWIRE CORP: Not Yet Served with King County, Wash. Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation has not been served with the complaint in a purported class action lawsuit pending before the Superior Court in King County, Washington, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company in Superior Court in King County, Washington by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington. The lawsuit generally alleges that the company disseminated false advertising about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment of customers. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of the company's Terms of Service, including the early termination fee provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the company from collecting early termination fees and further false advertising; restitution of any early termination fees paid by the company's subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet communications. Its wireless broadband networks cover entire communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that not only creates a new communications path into the home or office, but also provides a broadband connection anytime and anywhere within its coverage area. It offers services in both domestic and international markets. The company's services consist primarily of providing wireless broadband connectivity, but in some of its domestic markets, it also offers voice-over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony services. CONSTAR INT'L: Expects July '09 Oral Argument For Lawsuit Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A July 2009 oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is expected for the class certification appeal in a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against Constar International, Inc. The company and certain of its present and former directors, along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV- 05020." This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints: -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al., Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003. A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. They seek class-action certification and an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses. Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters, the company has incurred certain indemnification and contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to this lawsuit. The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The company filed objections to the Report and Order. The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling. On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting the company's Rule 23(f) Petition. The parties have briefed the appeal. The company expects that oral argument, if required, will be held in July 2009. At the company's request, the Special Master and the District Court have agreed to stay all further proceedings before the District Court pending the outcome of the appeal, with the exception of certain limited discovery, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Edmund V. Ludwig, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. (beige@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 Andrew J. Brown, Esq. (andrewb@lcsr.com) Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP 401 B. Street, STE. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 - and - Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Representing the defendants are: Steven B. Feirson, Esq. (steven.feirson@dechert.com) Michael L. Kichline, Esq. (michael.kichline@dechert.com) Scott A. Thompson, Esq. (scott.thompson@dechert.com) Dechert, Price & Rhoads 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Phone: 215-994-2749 215-994-2390 Fax: 215-994-2222 CONVERTED ORGANICS: Lawsuit by FTA Purchasers Pending in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit captioned "Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc.," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The company received notice that a complaint had been filed in a putative class-action lawsuit on behalf of 59 persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing terms agreement dated April 11, 2006 ("FTA"), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the redemption of the company's Class A warrants in November 2008. The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to the redemption of the Class A warrants. In February 2009, the company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint. Converted Organics Inc. -- http://www.convertedorganics.com/-- operates processing facilities that use food waste as raw material to manufacture all-natural soil amendment products combining nutritional and disease suppression characteristics. In addition to its sales in the agribusiness market, the company sells and distributes its products in the turf management and retail markets. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company operated two facilities: Woodbridge facility and Gonzales facility. HEALTH BENEFITS: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Health Benefits Direct Corp.'s motion to dismiss a national class-action complaint filed by a former employee of the company in the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County, Case No. 062008 CA 042798 XXX CE, remains pending. On Aug. 28, 2008, the plaintiff filed the complaint alleging that the company breached a contract with employees by failing to provide certain commissions and/or bonuses. The complaint also contains claims for an accounting and for declaratory relief relating to the alleged compensation agreement. The plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of a class of current and former insurance sales agents. The plaintiff seeks payment from the company of all commissions allegedly owed to him and the putative class, triple damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has not yet been heard by the court, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. -- http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct marketing and distribution of health and life insurance products. The Company operates though two segments, Telesales and Atiam. HEALTH BENEFITS: Former Employees' FLSA Suit Dismissed in April --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative collective action filed by a former employee of Health Benefits Direct Corp. alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was dismissed on April 21, 2009. On Aug. 7, 2008, a former employee of the company filed a putative collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case no. 08-CV-61254-Ungaro- Simonton, alleging that the company and a co-defendant, who is an officer of Health Benefits, unlawfully failed to pay overtime to its insurance sales agents in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of current and former insurance sales agents who were classified as non-exempt by the company and compensated at an hourly rate, plus commissions ("Agents"). On Oct. 16, 2008, the Court conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA covering all Agents who worked for the company within the last three years. Plaintiff and all Agents who opt to participate in the collective action seek payment from the company of compensation for all overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. On March 2, 2009, the parties reached an agreement to settle this case. On April 21, 2009, the Court entered an Order of Final Dismissal with Prejudice, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. -- http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct marketing and distribution of health and life insurance products. The Company operates though two segments, Telesales and Atiam. HEELYS INC: Merged Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has yet to approve the proposed settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Heelys, Inc. The company, its former chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, and its directors, who signed the company's registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its Dec. 7, 2006 initial public offering -- along with Capital Southwest Corp., Capital Southwest Venture Corp., and the underwriters for the IPO -- are defendants in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 27, 2007, by plaintiff Brian Rines, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO registration statement. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiff seeks an order determining that the action may proceed as a class action, awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. Four similar lawsuits were also filed in September and October 2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, by plaintiffs Vulcan Lee, John Avila, Gerald Markey, and Robert Eiron on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making substantially similar allegations under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeking substantially similar damages. These lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge and have been consolidated into a single action. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on March 11, 2008. The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus used in connection with our IPO contained misstatements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading relating to among other allegations, safety concerns and injuries associated with the company's products and their alleged impact on demand, visibility into its sales channel and competition from knockoffs, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and requests substantially similar damages and relief as previously mentioned. On May 12, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On Aug. 14, 2008, the Court denied Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and discovery commenced. During a mediation conducted by the Hon. Nicholas H. Politan (ret.), Plaintiffs and Defendants reached a settlement pursuant to which Defendants will pay Plaintiffs and a proposed plaintiff settlement class a total of $7.5 million, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The company has reached an agreement in principal with its insurers for its insurance policies to fund the majority of this settlement amount. This settlement is subject to final documentation and approval by the Court. The company expects that the proposed settlement will be submitted to the Court for preliminary approval within the next month. If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, notice will be provided to shareholders, who will be provided an opportunity to object to the settlement or to opt out of the proposed settlement class, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Rines v. Heelys Inc., et al,. Case No. 3:07-cv- 01468-K," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Ed Kinkeade, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Willie Briscoe, Esq. (wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com) Preston Commons West 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 Phone: 214-706-9314 Fax: 214-706-9315 - and - Roger F. Claxton, Esq. (roger@claxtonhill.com) Claxton & Hill PLLC 10000 N. Central Expwy., Suite 725 Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: 214-969-9029 Fax: 214-953-0583 Representing the defendants are: Karen L. Hirschman, Esq. (khirschman@velaw.com) Vinson & Elkins 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-220-7795 Fax: 214-220-7716 - and - Rodney Acker, Esq. (racker@fulbright.com) Fulbright & Jaworski 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-2784 Phone: 214-855-7446 Fax: 214-855-8200 HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: July 27 Final Settlement Approval Trial Set --------------------------------------------------------------- A July 27, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the settlement of a consolidated class-action suit filed against Himax Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers. On July 30, 2007, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entitled, "Vivian Oh v. Max Chan, CV07-04891-DDP." The suit was allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to its initial public offering on or about March 30, 2006. The complaint named the company's Chief Financial Officer, Max Chan, as the sole defendant, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount, rescission of the initial public offering, and attorney's fees and costs. On Aug. 30, 2007, a similar class-action suit was filed in the same court entitled, "Michael Pfeiffer v. Himax Technologies, Inc., Max Chan, and Jordan Wu, CV07-05468-JFW." The suit was allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's ADSs issued in its initial public offering. The complaint named the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Jordan Wu, and its Chief Financial Officer, Max Chan, as defendants, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs. On Oct. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate the cases, appoint lead plaintiffs and approve lead plaintiffs' selection of counsel. That motion was granted on Feb. 5, 2008. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2008. The amended complaint again names as defendants the company, Jordan Wu, and Max Chan, and adds Chairman Biing-Seng Wu, director Jung-Chun Lin and CMO as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by failing to disclose certain facts related to CMO's inventory. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorney's fees and expenses, and rescission of the initial public offering. On Jan. 22, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement to settle the class action lawsuit, which must be approved by the court, following notice to members of the settlement class. The court issued an order on April 23, 2009, granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and will hold a hearing on July 27, 2009 to determine whether to approve the proposed settlement. If final approval is granted, the settlement will result in a dismissal of all claims against us and the other defendants. In entering into the settlement agreement, the defendants explicitly denied any liability or wrongdoing of any kind. The amount of the settlement is $1.2 million, which was fully covered by the company's insurance carrier. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the proposed settlement, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Himax Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.himax.com.tw/-- is a holding company that operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, Himax Technologies Limited (Himax Taiwan). Through Himax Taiwan and its subsidiaries, it designs, develops and markets semiconductors that are critical components of flat panel displays. Its principal products are display drivers for large-sized thin film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT- LCD) panels, which are used in desktop monitors, notebook computers and consumer electronics products, such as display drivers for small- and medium-sized TFT-LCD panels, which are used in mobile handset, digital cameras, mobile gaming devices and car navigation displays. In addition, it has expanded its product offering to include television semiconductor solutions, as well as liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) products. It has four principal product lines: display drivers and timing controllers; display drivers and timing controllers; LCOS products, and power management integrated circuit (ICs). HORIZON BANK: Expects Final OK of Ind. Suit Settlement in Aug. -------------------------------------------------------------- Final approval of the settlement in a purported class-action suit against Horizon Bank, N.A., the bank subsidiary of Horizon Bancorp, over repossessed vehicles, is expected by Aug. 17, 2009. On Aug. 5, 2008, Maria Coto filed a putative class action complaint in the Porter County Superior Court, Porter County, Indiana, on behalf of herself and others who have had their vehicles repossessed by the Bank during the four years prior to the filing of the action. The complaint alleges that the Bank's post-repossession notice to defaulting borrowers does not comply with certain aspects of Indiana law. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages and costs. The parties agreed to settle this action in April 2009, and the court preliminarily approved the settlement on April 24, 2009. Final court approval is expected on or around Aug. 17, 2009. According to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as part of the settlement, Horizon agreed to pay $200 to the lead plaintiff, agreed not to pursue deficiency judgments against the class members and agreed to pay up to $28,000 towards the attorneys' fees and costs of the class plaintiffs. Horizon Bancorp -- http://www.accesshorizon.com/-- is a bank holding company based in Michigan City, Indiana. It provides a range of banking services in Northwestern Indiana and Southwestern Michigan through its bank subsidiary, Horizon Bank, N.A., and other affiliated entities. Horizon operates as a single segment, which is commercial banking. The Bank is a full-service commercial bank offering commercial and retail banking services, corporate and individual trust and agency services and other services incident to banking. On April 23, 2007, the Bank opened a full service branch in Benton Harbor, Michigan and on Jan. 28, 2008 the Bank opened its second full service branch in Valparaiso, Indiana. The Bank maintains 14 other full service facilities in Northwest Indiana and Southwest Michigan. The Bank also maintains a loan production office in Lake County Indiana. INFOSONICS CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on May 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, on May 5, 2009, approved the settlement in the consolidated class-action lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231." Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231." The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in connection with the company's restatement announced June 12, 2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with VK Corp. The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified relief. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006. On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. In April 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion. In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2008). On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismiss or other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidated complaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the case. On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case, which provides the securities class action settlement is contingent on preliminary and final Court approval (after appropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivative action against the company, among other contingencies, and provides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by the Company or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusive of any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by the Court). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will be funded entirely by the Company's insurer. The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants deny any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no admission of any wrongdoing. On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oral argument the request for an order preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement. On Jan. 20, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying the class, preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement, providing for notice to the class, and setting a fairness hearing on April 23, 2009. On Feb. 10, 2009, the company's insurer funded the full settlement payment. On April 23, 2009, the Court held the hearing for final approval of the Securities Settlement. On May 5, 2009, the Court entered an order approving the Securities Settlement as fair and reasonable, directing the clerk to enter final judgment and dismissing the action with prejudice. The Securities Settlement is contingent upon final court approval of the derivative action, which is still under submission with the Court, according to its May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com) Latham and Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Phone: 619-236-1234 Fax: 619-696-7419 MBNA CORP: Delaware Judge Give Preliminary OK to $25M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware gave preliminary approval to $25 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against MBNA Corp., Law360 reports. The lawsuit generally accuses MBNA and some of its officers and directors of failing to disclose the true financial condition of the company and making false and misleading statements to investors, according to the Law360 report. MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Bacteria Found in Listerine ---------------------------------------------------------------- McNeil-PPC, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Florida over its Listerine mouthwash, Susan Salisbury of The Palm Beach Post reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 4, 2009 by Kayla Hess and Susan McKenzie under the caption, "Hess et al v. McNeil - PPC, Inc., Case N0. 9:2009-cv-80840." When Ms. Hess, then 10 years old, used Listerine Agent Cool Blue mouthwash in 2007, she became ill with repeated strep throat infections and stomach cramps. She even cracked a permanent molar tooth, according to The Palm Beach Post report. Recalled in April 2007, the Listerine mouthwash contained four kinds of bacteria, according to Brian Smith, Esq., a West Palm Beach attorney representing Kayla and her mother Ms. McKenzie, in the lawsuit, reports The Palm Beach Post. The bacteria found included klebsiella oxytoca, which can cause urinary-tract infections and blood poisoning; serratia marcecens, linked to bloodstream infections; enterobacter cloacae, tied to respiratory infections; and pseudomonas fluorescens, which is harmless to most people, The Palm Beach Post reported. "People thought that because it was a Listerine product, it contained antiseptic, but it did not," Mr. Smith told The Palm Beach Post. Damages in excess of $5 million are being sought in the class- action suit, which names Skillman, N.J.-based McNeil-PPC. Ms. McKenzie told The Palm Beach Post that her daughter, who had never had strep throat, began having repeated bouts of the illness beginning in November 2006. That's when she began using the Agent Cool Blue rinse her dentist recommended. "The dentist recommended she start using this to make sure the plaque was not building up on her teeth," according to Ms. McKenzie. But afterwards, "She was consistently on antibiotics for five months," The Palm Beach Post reports. For more details, contact: Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq. 914 Waters Avenue Suite 20 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 832-715-2788 - and - Brian William Smith, Esq. (bws@smithvanture.com) Smith & Vanture, LLP 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-684-6330 Fax: 561-688-0630 MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denied Appeal Bid "Tele-Aid" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily denied on June 4, 2009 the petition for leave by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC to appeal the decision of the district court to grant class- action status to a lawsuit. Charles Toutant of The New Jersey Law Journal reported that Judge Dickinson Debevoise of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a class-action case alleging that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC sold cars equipped with an emergency-response system that the company knew would soon become obsolete (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2009). In granting class-action status to the case, Judge Debevoise ruled that the plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss because they bought vehicles designed to last 20 or more years, while the emergency system became useless after 2007. "A class action will be the most efficient method for adjudicating plaintiffs' claims," Judge Debevoise ruled on April 24, 2009, finding the claims met the class-action criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation, according to The New Jersey Law Journal report. The case, "In Re: Mercedes-Benz Tele-Aid Contract Litigation, MDL 1914," consolidates 10 suits filed in six states against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC of Montvale, N.J. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that the plaintiffs assert violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and a cause of action for unjust enrichment. They claim that Mercedes made statements or omissions of material facts that it knew or should have known were false or misleading when promoting vehicles equipped with "Tele Aid," an emergency response system that linked subscribers to roadside assistance operators through global positioning and cellular technology through AT&T Wireless Services Inc., for a subscription fee. The system ran on analog signals, not digital, and Mercedes-Benz continued to sell vehicles so equipped from 2002 to 2007 even though it knew as early as August 2002 that a change in Federal Communications Commission regulations would allow AT&T to discontinue its analog cellular service in 2008, rendering the system inoperative, the plaintiffs allege. Mercedes-Benz placed a notice about discontinuation of the analog Tele Aid service on its Web site in November 2006. But many car owners did not learn about the change until AT&T sent them letters upon the expiration of their subscriptions in 2007, reports The New Jersey Law Journal. The class certified by Judge Debevoise -- who estimated the class at more than 100,000 members -- consists of two groups of owners who bought a Mercedes-Benz after Aug. 8, 2002: consumers who paid to have their car retrofitted to accommodate a digital version of Tele Aid and those who paid subscription fees for the analog service until it ended in 2007. Compensatory damages for consumers whose cars were retrofitted would come to about $1,000 per vehicle, lead plaintiffs counsel Jonathan Selbin of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in New York tells The New Jersey Law Journal. Mr. Selbin furhter told The New Jersey Law Journal that compensatory damages would be somewhat more for consumers who paid subscription fees until 2007; they would receive $1,000 for retrofitting as well as compensation for the period they went without Tele Aid service. NETLIST INC: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Ongoing in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit, captioned "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC (MLGx)," is ongoing, according to Netlist's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009. Initially, in May 2007, Netlist and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in four purported shareholder class-action suits, two of which were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the other two filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The New York suits are: 1. "Tran v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 3754;" and 2. "Benjamin v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV5518." The California suits are: 1. "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 DOC (MLGx);" and 2. "Swofford v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. CV07-04006 PSG (FMOx)." These purported class-action suits were filed on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's Nov. 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering. The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued by the company in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of Securities Act of 1933. They seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action, under th caption, "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC (MLGx)," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov. 5, 2007, generally asserting the same claims. The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 9, 2008. The motions to dismiss were taken under submission on April 28, 2008, and on May 30, 2008, the court granted the defendants' motions. However, the plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 15, 2008. Generally, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued by the Company in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of Securities Act of 1933. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Jan. 9, 2009, and on April 17, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. However, plaintiffs were again granted the right to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is due on or before May 21, 2009. Defendants' responses to that complaint are due June 22, 2009. The suit is "Bruce Belodoff v. Netlist Inc et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00677-DOC-MLG," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-7423 - and - Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com) Curtis V. Trinko Law Office 16 West 46th Street 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-490-9550 Representing the defendants are: Sean T. Prosser, Esq. (sprosser@mofo.com) Morrison and Foerster LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-2040 Phone: 858-720-5100 - and - Keith E. Eggleton, Esq. (keggleton@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Rd Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 NEUROMETRIX INC: Mediation on Securities Fraud Suit Set for June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mediation on a consolidated putative securities class-action complaint against NeuroMetrix, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is scheduled for June 2009. On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class-action complaint was filed in the Massachusetts District Court against the company and certain of its current and former officers. On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities-class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the same defendants. These two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On Nov. 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed, which alleges, among other things, that between Oct. 27, 2005 and Feb. 12, 2008, defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information to the investing public. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. On Jan. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In March 2009, the parties mutually agreed to participate in mediation to attempt to resolve the litigation, and the court entered an order staying the proceedings until the mediation is complete, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- designs, develops and markets medical devices used to help physicians diagnose and treat diseases of the nervous system, such as neuropathies, which are disorders of the peripheral nerves and parts of the spine, and neurovascular disorders such as diabetic retinopathy. The Company is also developing medical devices designed to be used to provide regional anesthesia and pain control. The Company's focus has been on products that help physicians with the diagnosis or detection of neuropathies and neurovascular disorders. It has two product lines cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration that are being marketed primarily to physicians and clinics: the NC-stat System for the assessment of neuropathies and the DigiScope for the detection of eye disorders such as diabetic retinopathy. OPTIONABLE INC: Plaintiff Seeks to File Amended Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a shareholder class-action lawsuit against Optionable Inc. seeks to file an amended complaint, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These suits are: -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB)," Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: 1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed on May 16, 2007; 2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P. Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc- Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on May 17, 2007; 3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884 (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007; 4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed on May 24, 2007; and 5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed on June 22, 2007. Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the directors and officers of the company. The directors and officers of the company that were named as defendants include: * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company; * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice- Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company; * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of the Board of Directors; and * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company. By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily dismissed. By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel, Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07-CV- 3753 (LAK)." By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC. On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The complaint seeks unspecified damages arising from alleged violations of the federal securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to disclose certain information in public filings and statements, made materially false and misleading statements and misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its relationship with BMO. The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares of common stock of the company. On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions were opposed by the plaintiffs. On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the plaintiffs' oppositions. Thus, in April 2008, the company filed its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint, and the individual defendants filed their joint reply memorandum of the same. Earlier, Optionable, Inc., sought the dismissal of the consolidated shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)" (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008). On Oct. 20, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion in all respects, and a final judgment of dismissal was entered on Oct. 23, 2008. On Jan. 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from the Oct. 23, 2008 Final Judgment and seeking to file an amended complaint. The suit is "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-1980 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P. 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 212-230-8800 Fax: 212-230-8888 - and - Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com) Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP 750 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-912-2736 Fax: 212-308-4844 PALM INC: Treo 600 Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Accessory Litigation Settled --------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action suit filed against Palm, Inc., and Sprint Nextel Corp. in 2004 has now led to a settlement for affected customers, Humberto Saabedra of PhoneNews.com writes. The suit was filed with the plaintiffs alleging claims from both companies of WiFi and Bluetooth expansion cards for Treo 600 smartphones were untrue because no Bluetooth or WiFi cards were ever developed that are compatible with the Treo 600, reports PhoneNews.com. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, class members who are current Sprint subscribers are eligible to receive a $20 bill credit, with class members who are not current Sprint subscribers are eligible for a $27.50 credit that may be used for a purchase at Palm's online store, PhoneNews.com reported. The deadline for filing a claim if affected is Sept. 15, 2009, according to the PhoneNews.com posting. POMEROY IT: Directors Face Suit Over Proposed Deal With Founder --------------------------------------------------------------- Directors of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit over a deal wherein David Pomeroy would buy back the company he founded. The suit was filed by Kenneth Hanninen to prevent the deal where Mr. Pomeroy made a $5.02 per share offer. In a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Boone County Circuit Court, Mr. Hanninen claims directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by accepting the offer. RESERVE GOLF: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale to McConnell Golf ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reserve Golf Club faces a purported class-action lawsuit in connection to the proposed sale of the private club in Pawleys Island to McConnell Golf, LLC, Alan Blondin of The Myrtle Beach Sun News reports. The plaintiffs -- four resigned members of Reserve Golf -- claim there are approximately 100 resigned members who are to be reimbursed their initiation fee as new members join the club, and they would not be entitled to the reimbursement under terms of the sales agreement, according to The Myrtle Beach Sun News report. They request repayment of initiation fees to all inactive members prior to the sale. Court documents show the resigned members are also seeking actual and punitive damages for breach of contract, conspiracy and negligence, reports The Myrtle Beach Sun News. The individual plaintiffs in the class-action suit are Michael Sacco, William Buss, Vito Novembrino, and Frank Stiglin, The Myrtle Beach Sun News reported. According to plaintiffs' attorney Gene Connell, Esq. of the Kalaher, Connell & Conner law firm, initiation fees for the resigned members who no longer pay monthly dues were between $12,000 and $35,000, The Myrtle Beach Sun News reports. S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. Over Windex ---------------------------------------------------------------- S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. faces a federal lawsuit in California, alleging that the maker of Windex is misleading consumers about the "environmental safety and soundness" of the cleaning product, Tresa Baldas of The National Law Journal reports. At issue is S.C. Johnson's use of its "Greenlist" trademark, which the lawsuit claims is misleading because it's not a third- party endorsement, but rather a mark owned by S.C. Johnson, according to The National Law Journal report. YANKEE HOLDING: Paid Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Last April 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yankee Holding Corp. made the settlement payment in a wage and hour class-action lawsuit on April 3, 2009, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009. A class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in February 2005, for alleged violations of certain California state wage and hour and employment laws with respect to certain employees in Yankee's California retail stores. In December 2007, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached pursuant to mediation. Pursuant to the agreement, the company would pay a total of $950,000 (inclusive of attorneys' fees and administrative expenses) into a settlement fund. Yankee Holding Corp. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and distribution of scented candles in the United States. During the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007 (fiscal 2007), the Company offered approximately 2,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) of candle products in approximately 400 fragrances, which included a range of jar candles, Samplers votive candles, Tarts wax potpourri, pillars and other candle products, which are marketed under the Yankee Candle brand. The company also sells a range of other home fragrance products, including Yankee Candle branded electric home fragrancers, potpourri, scented oils, reed diffusers, room sprays, Yankee Candle Car Jars auto air fresheners, and candle-related home decor accessories. During fiscal 2007, the company operated 459 specialty retail stores (including 30 Illuminations stores) in 43 states. New Securities Fraud Cases SEQUENOM INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, against Sequenom, Inc. (SQNM) and certain of its top officials. The class action (09-cv-976) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Ace and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Sequenom is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis company. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued public statements concerning the Company's "crown jewel" -- SEQureDx Down syndrome test ("SEQureDx") -- which is intended to detect Down Syndrome in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Defendants consistently reported that clinical results concerning the Down syndrome test trials for the product were extremely favorable, with 100% detection and no false positives, compared to only 70-90% detection and 5% false positives in competing tests. Moreover, the Company represented that the product would be ready for sale by June 2009. Defendants' public statements were false and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, i.e., (1) Sequenom employees "mishandled" test data and results regarding SEQureDx clinical trials; (2) SEQureDx did not offer verifiable, statistically significant improvement over competing tests; and (3) due to undisclosed problems with the clinical tests data and results, Sequenom would be unable to bring SEQureDx to the market by June 2009. On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release revealing the foregoing facts, and stating that the Company's press releases and SEC filings going back to June 4, 2008 could no longer be relied upon. On this news, Sequenom's stock price fell by $11.29, or more than 75%, on extremely high trading volume of over 88 million shares. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 ********* 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 * * *