/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090818.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 18, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 162 Headlines ALLSTATE CORP: Reaches Settlement in "Strasen" Case in Illinois APPLE INC: Faces Illinois Suit Over MMS Functionality in iPhones CANADIAN GOV'T: Appealing Dismissal of Chemical Spraying Case CAVAN CONSTRUCTION: Conshohocken Fire Victims Still Seek Justice COOK COUNTY: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Misuse of Advertising Money COOK COUNTY: Jury Finds in Favor of Inmates in Strip Search Suit COVENTRY HEALTH: One Remaining "Harrison" Claim in Arbitration COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Appeals Summary Judgment in Providers Suit DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tex. Litigation for Circumventing State Laws DEERE & CO: Sept. 21 Trial Scheduled for Iowa "Brubaker" Lawsuit ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Lawsuit FUWEI FILMS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Suit GLOBAL CLIENT: Faces Wash. Suit Over "Illegal Fees" in Program HSBC BANK: Faces Calif. Suit for Reneging on "Nonexistent Gifts" JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Certification Bid in Fraud Suit Pending MEDIACOM LLC: Unit Continues to Defend Claims in "Ogg" Case REPUBLIC SERVICES: Fees in Lawsuit Over Allied Waste Deal Paid STAMPS.COM: Sept. '09 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement TV GUIDE: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Suit Over "Special Issues" U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $3.5M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits UNIFUND CCR: Reaches Settlement for Debt Collection Suit in Neb. UNITED PARCEL: Defends Lawsuit Alleging Price-Fixing in New York UNITED PARCEL: To Defend Calif. Franchisees' Rebranding Lawsuit UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif. UTSTARCOM INC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for $9.5M Suit Settlement VALERO ENERGY: Discovery in Kan. Fuel Temperature Suits Ongoing VALERO ENERGY: Remanded "Rosolowski" Case Ongoing in Trial Court VALUECLICK INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Suit Settlement W.R. GRACE: Suits Over ZAI Damages Pending in U.S. and Canada WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman, LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy New Securities Fraud Cases ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing CONSECO INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit HURON CONSULTING: Glancy Binkow Announces Securities Suit Filing MIND C.T.I.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit STURM RUGER: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing STURM RUGER: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Fraud Suit TEXTRON INC: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ********* ALLSTATE CORP: Reaches Settlement in "Strasen" Case in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Insurance Company and The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) entered into a settlement of the nationwide class action lawsuit entitled Strasen v. Allstate, No. 99-L-1040 (Cir. Ct. 3d J. Dist., Madison Cty., Ill.), which has been pending for almost 10 years. This settlement includes all Allstate and Encompass entities. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on July 16, 2009. Plaintiffs alleged that Allstate utilized a computerized medical bill review system provided by ADP which failed to correctly calculate medical expenses from automobile and homeowner's claims. Allstate says it continues to believe its medical bill review practices were and are appropriate and fully comply with the law, but agreed to resolve the case on terms Allstate considered fair and appropriate to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. Among other things, the Settlement provides that Class Members who submit a Valid Claim Form will, subject to the applicable policy limits, receive 60% of the difference between the amount of the bills submitted and the amount previously paid by ALLSTATE, as established by the documentation submitted by the Class Member or ALLSTATE. ALLSTATE has also agreed not to contest a request by Class Counsel for a maximum award of $9,000,000 in fees and costs. Judge Ruth will convene a final fairness hearing at 10:30 a.m. on November 25, 2009. Objections to the Settlement and requests for exclusion from the class must be filed and served by October 26, 2009. The Settlement Class includes all Persons who, during the period from October 26, 1989, through July 16, 2009, were injured in an automobile accident while drivers or passengers in an automobile insured by ALLSTATE or submitted a homeowner's claim to ALLSTATE under a homeowner's policy, and (a) who submitted claims under PIP or MedPay coverage for payment of medical bills to ALLSTATE; (b) had those medical MedPay or PIP claims adjusted with the use of an ADP/MBRS computer recommendation; (c) received an amount less than the amount of the submitted medical expenses; and (d) received or were tendered an amount less than the full amount of the stated Medpay or PIP policy limits; as well as all medical providers and entities who, by written assignment, have the right to assert the claims. The Settlement Class excludes directors and officers of ALLSTATE and all members of the settlement class in Coffell v. Allstate, No. 05-2-33183-6 (Super. Ct. Wash. for King County). For more details about the Strasen lawsuit and settlement, visit http://www.strasensettle.com/ The Plaintiffs and the Class in this lawsuit are represented by: Bradley Lakin, Esq. LAKIN CHAPMAN LLC 300 Evans Ave. Wood River, IL 62095 Email: Medpay.classaction@Lakinlaw.com - and - Paul M. Weiss, Esq. FREED & WEISS LLC 111 W. Washington, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: Info@Freedweiss.com - and - William J. Harte, Esq. William J. Harte, Ltd. 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1110 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: wharte@williamharteltd.com - and - Timothy Campbell, Esq. Campbell & McGrady 3017 Godfrey Road P.O. Box 505 Godfrey, IL 62035 Email: tim@campbellmcgrady.com; - and - Arthur Aufmann, Esq. Edward T. Joyce & Associates, P.C. Eleven South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: aaufmann@joycelaw.com - and - Robert Holstein, Esq. Holstein Law Offices, LLC 100 West Monroe Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: holsteinlaw@sbcglobal.net - and - Michael J. Freed, Esq. Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC 2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 - and - Larry D. Drury, Esq. Larry D. Drury, Ltd. 205 West Randloph, Suite 1430 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: ldrurylaw@aol.com - and - Klamann & Hubbard, P.A. 929 Walnut Street, #800 Kansas City, MO 64106 - and - Ray Hodge & Associates, LLC 135 North Main Street Wichita, KS 67202 - and - Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chartered 2600 Grand Boulevard, #550, Kansas City, MO 64108-4627; - and - Hayes and Kieler, LLC 7300 W. 110th Street, #900 Overland Park, KS 66210 ALLSTATE is represented by: Steven M. Levy, Esq. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) is the nation's largest publicly held personal lines insurer. Widely known through the "You're In Good Hands With Allstate(R)" slogan, Allstate touts that it is reinventing protection and retirement to help more than 17 million households insure what they have today and better prepare for tomorrow. Consumers access Allstate insurance products and services through Allstate agencies, independent agencies, and Allstate exclusive financial representatives in the U.S. and Canada, as well as via http://www.allstate.com/and 1-800 Allstate(R). APPLE INC: Faces Illinois Suit Over MMS Functionality in iPhones ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., and AT&T Mobility, LLC, face a purported class- action lawsuit, Meeker v. Apple, Inc., et al., 09-00607 (S.D. Ill.), alleging that they touted the iPhone as supporting multimedia messaging service, but have not as yet provided the service, MacNN reports. The suit -- brought on behalf of Tim Meeker and other unnamed plaintiffs -- accuses Apple and AT&T of having "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted material facts as to the iPhone having MMS functionality," according to MacNN. Mr. Meeker is represented by: Joel J. Schwartz, Esq. Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, Glass, P.C. 120 South Central Avenue, Suite 130 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-4332 E-mail: jschwartz@rsrglaw.com CANADIAN GOV'T: Appealing Dismissal of Chemical Spraying Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A decision to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against the Canadian government for exposure to toxic chemicals sprayed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown for more than five decades is being appealed, Shawn Berry at The Daily Gleaner reports. Justice Stephen J. McNally of the Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the suit recently, noting that the proposed classes of claimants would include hundreds of thousands of people, and that those eligible for the class action weren't required to have any exposure to the chemicals, writes Mr. Berry. "I find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish an identifiable class, to define workable and manageable common issues and to establish that a class action would be the preferable procedure for proceeding," according to Justice McNally. The class-action case was filed against the Canadian government by Charles Bryson and Donald Murrin. It was originally filed by Mr. Bryson in June 2006, and names Dow Chemical Company and Pharmacia Corp. as third-party defendants. The case would have extended to all persons who "claim to have suffered injury" who resided, were employed or visited the base or any area within 10 kilometres of the perimeter. It also would have provided coverage to their family members, Mr. Berry reported. In addition, the case would have included a medical monitoring regime for everyone who may have been affected. Nathalie Maude, Esq., at Barry Spalding, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, confirmed that they have filed a notice to start an appeal to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. She told the Gleaner they expect to present a motion on Oct. 16, 2009. CAVAN CONSTRUCTION: Conshohocken Fire Victims Still Seek Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Irwin Becker never believed that one year after fire drove him and his wife out of their Conshohocken apartment the retired couple would still be "living like gypsies" and agonizing over uncompensated losses. "We are lucky to be alive," says Dr. Becker, "but life since the fire last August has been hell. You can't go a day without remembering what was lost, especially the family keepsakes, and recall those responsible saying they were sorry and would make us whole for our losses. In our case, time hasn't healed our wounds." Dr. Becker and his wife, Marci, were among the more than 200 residents of the Millennium apartments who became homeless as a result of the eight-alarm fire that began with the unsafe and improper use by a Cavan Construction welder of a highly volatile, 3,500-degree oxyacetylene torch used to cut a steel balcony away from the bone dry, mostly wooden building -- known as The Stables -- in the Riverwalk complex along the Schuylkill River. The couple is among the former residents in a class action proceeding (No. 08-23265, Montgomery County, Pa. Court of Common Pleas). It alleges that negligence on the part of workers employed by Cavan Construction of Aston, Delaware County -- and others with roles in the construction, management and development of the complex -- contributed to the devastating losses suffered by the residents. "The Beckers and the other victims are shocked that they continue to feel the pain of deep losses one year after the accident, and that Cavan, which started the fire, hasn't offered a single penny to right their wrong," said Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq., of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, PC, who was appointed by Judge Gerald Corso in December 2008 as Interim Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel for the proposed class. "There isn't one shred of evidence to contradict the finding that Cavan's welders were responsible for starting this fire, and yet the victims continue to be burned by the company's indifference." Mr. Mongeluzzi said the official investigation reports concluded that the reckless handling of a welder's torch by Cavan's workers initially started the inferno at the Stables and set off a combustible chain reaction at the neighboring Riverwalk apartment buildings. Newly released, eyewitness photos obtained by SMBB pinpoint the exact location of the fire's origin. The gutted building is being rebuilt by the same developer -- O'Neill Properties and its billionaire president, Brian O'Neill -- but under a new name and reportedly with enhanced fire-safety features. Besides Cavan, defendants named in the Complaint are Pennsylvania businesses: -- O'Neill Properties Group, King of Prussia; -- Merion Construction, Inc., King of Prussia; -- Lynch2, Inc. construction managers, Leesport; and -- Bozutto Construction, of Greenbelt, Maryland. The SMBB firm in recent years has successfully represented victims of numerous construction disasters, including the collapses of the Tropicana casino garage, Pier 34, and the Kimmel parking garage. In addition to Mr. Mongeluzzi, the SMBB counsel team includes Larry Bendesky, Esq. Michael F. Barrett, Esq., and Patrick Howard, Esq.. For more details, contact: Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215.496.8282 Fax: 215.496.0999 E-mail: info@smbb.com Web site: http://www.smbb.com/ COOK COUNTY: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Misuse of Advertising Money ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cook County Circuit Court and Clerk Dorothy Brown face a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses Ms. Brown of soliciting advertising for a court Web site and using the money, along with millions of dollars in court filing fees, as a slush fund to buy cars, pay for campaign events, hire vaguely defined "consultants" and outfit a personal "protective detail," Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports. The suit, Perkins v. County of Cook, et al., Case No. 09-04930 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on Aug. 11, 2009, by Eric S. Perkins and names as defendants, Ms. Brown, Cook County, and Chicago attorney Paul Bubaris, Esq., and Allstate Insurance Co., which purchased advertising on the court Web site. The complaint claims that Ms. Brown, with the sanction of Cook County, sells ad space on the court Web site to attorneys, insurance companies and others and uses the site to promote herself and her political career, writes Mr. Hull. The ads give the appearance that certain attorneys and services are "officially sanctioned" by the court, and the revenue is used in whatever way Brown sees fit, according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the Courthouse News Service. "The funds obtained from this unauthorized and illegal advertising . . . are deposited by Ms. Brown into her own bank accounts and later used -- at least in part -- as part of the general revenue of Cook County," the lawsuit states. The suit also accuses Ms. Brown and Cook County of diverting millions of dollars in court filing fees meant to pay for court automation and document storage into a county slush fund referred to as "Fund 883", which has taken in $14 million to $20 million per year for two decades, reports Mr. Hull. "Defendants admit that these fees, as well as all other fees collected by the Clerk of the Court, are placed directly in the General Revenue Fund of Cook County and thereby used as discretionary general income funds for whatever purpose defendants may deem appropriate rather than used as required by statute," according to the lawsuit. The money is used, according to the Cook County annual budget, for "attorneys' fees ostensibly incurred by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, vehicles purchased for her personal use, gasoline and maintenance of those vehicles, as well as to create funds of several million dollars per year for unrestricted and discretionary use by Brown to hire 'consultants,'" the complaint states. "No restriction or limitation on use of those consultant fees is placed on Ms. Brown," and "no identification of these 'consultants' or evidence of their work is available to the public," according to the complaint. Mr. Hull reported that the plaintiff demands that Ms. Brown be removed from office, repayment of all fees she allegedly converted for unauthorized or personal use, and unspecified damages. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4206 Representing the plaintiff is: David A. Novoselsky, Esq. David A. Novoselsky & Associates 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 346-8930 E-mail: dnovo@novoselsky.com COOK COUNTY: Jury Finds in Favor of Inmates in Strip Search Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court jury sided with inmates in a class-action lawsuit against the Cook County Sheriff's Department for illegally strip-searching inmates at the Cook County Jail, The Associated Press reports. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said damages from last week's verdict could total hundreds of millions of dollars, but Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Patterson said an appeal is likely, according to the AP report. Loevy & Loevy, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, said thousands of searches were performed at the jail from February 2007 to March 2009, AP reports. For more details, contact: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Loevy & Loevy 312 North May Street, Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: (312) 243-5900 Fax: (312) 243-5902 Web site: http://www.loevy.com/ COVENTRY HEALTH: One Remaining "Harrison" Claim in Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss is pending in the class action captioned Harrison v. Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc. (CHCGA) -- a tag-along action that is included in In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334; Master Docket No. __-_____ (S.D. Fla.) (Moreno, J.) -- which names Coventry Health Care, Inc., as defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims asserted in Charles B. Shane, et al. v. Humana, Inc., et al., and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment. The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class- action complaints by other health care providers such as chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed health care professionals. Each of these actions has been transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along" actions. There are three tag-along actions currently filed against the company. The trial court had entered an order which stayed all proceedings in these tag-along actions. Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay and to file any new motions. On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court ordered to arbitration. In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider contracts with CHCGA. The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute. On March 13, 2009, the plaintiffs in The Harrison tag-along action filed their Demand for Arbitration. The Demand, which is a purported class action on behalf of all Georgia physicians who had written provider contracts with CHCGA, alleges that CHCGA breached those contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute and by applying certain claim edits which reduced the amount of reimbursement paid to the plaintiffs. CHCGA denies the allegations and has filed a motion to dismiss the class action and prompt pay claims, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation services companies. COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Appeals Summary Judgment in Providers Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Health Group Corp, Inc., a subsidiary of Coventry Health Care, Inc., is appealing the entry of a partial summary judgment in a class action lawsuit filed by four provider plaintiffs. Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state court class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging that FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act, which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider network contract to give a one time notice 30 days before that payor uses the discounted rate in the preferred provider network contract to pay the provider for services rendered to a member insured under that payor's health benefit plan. These provider plaintiffs allege that the Any Willing Provider Act applies to medical bills for treatment rendered to injured workers and that the Act requires point of service written notice in the form of a benefit identification card. If a payor is found to have violated the Act's notice provision, the court may assess up to $2,000 in damages for each instance when the provider was not given proper notice that a discounted rate would be used to pay for the services rendered. In response to the state court class action, FHGC and certain payors filed a suit in federal court against the same four provider plaintiffs in the state court class action seeking a declaratory judgment that FHGC's contracts are valid and enforceable, that its contracts are not subject to the Any Willing Provider Act since that Act does not apply to medical services rendered to injured workers and that FHGC is exempt from the notice requirements of the Act because it has contracted directly with each provider in its network. The federal district court ruled in favor of FHGC and declared that its contracts are not subject to the Any Willing Provider Act, that FHGC was exempt from the Act's notice provision notice because it contracted directly with the providers, and that FHGC's contracts were valid and enforceable, i.e., the four provider plaintiffs were required to accept the discounted rate in accordance with the terms of their written contracts with FHGC. Despite the federal court's decision, the provider plaintiffs continued to pursue their state court class action against FHGC and filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages of $2,000 for each provider visit where the provider was not given a benefit identification card at the time the service was performed. In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed in the state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federal court which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the four provider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claim against FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act. Despite the issuance of this federal court injunction, the provider plaintiffs and their counsel pursued their motion for partial summary judgment in the state court action. Before the state court held a hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis that the four named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the federal court from pursuing their claims against FHGC. The state court denied the motion to decertify the class but did enter an order permitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of the state court's denial of the motion. Even though FHGC had filed its appeal and there were no class representatives since all four named plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against FHGC, the state court held a hearing and granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion despite the fact that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction due to the appeal filed by FHGC challenging the denial of its motion to decertify the class; (2) there were no named class representatives because all four named plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against FHGC; (3) none of the providers in the class ever submitted a claim for payment to FHGC and therefore FHGC never made any discounted payments to any of the providers in the class in the absence of notice; (4) FHGC has contracted directly with every provider in the class and therefore, under the Act's express language, FHGC was exempt from giving notice under the Act; and (5) the claims of the provider plaintiffs are time barred. The amount of the partial judgment was for $262 million. FHGC has taken an immediate appeal from the entry of that judgment seeking to vacate its entry as invalid as a matter of law and will file a motion with the federal court for sanctions against the provider plaintiffs and their counsel for violating the injunction issued by the federal district court which barred and enjoined them from pursuing their claims against FHGC in the state court action, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation services companies. DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tex. Litigation for Circumventing State Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys from The Palmer Firm, P.C., and The Seidman Law Firm, P.C., which created Debt Relief Group, LLC, face a purported class-action lawsuit accusing them of "masquerading as attorney referral services [and] unregulated debt negotiators," and conspiring to create the "debt relief program" to duck Texas laws on attorney solicitation and advertising and debt management services, Kelli Vangilder at Courthouse News Service reports. The lawsuit, Wall, et al. v. Debt Relief Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-00637 (W.D. Tex.), was filed on Aug. 6, 2009, by James R. Wall, Vickie L. Wall, and James W. Bagby. In addition to the two law firms, others listed as defendants in the matter are: Debt Relief Group, Epic Financial Management, Inc., Robert Ancel Palmer, III, Scott R. Seideman, Gregory M. Fitzgerald, Keith J. Waring, and Joan Kearns. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants created the Debt Relief Group to try "to elude strict attorney advertising and solicitation restrictions," and "give potential debtor clients the false impression" that their services have "the aura of legitimacy," Ms. Vangilder reported. According to the complaint, Scott R. Seidman, Esq., and his firm "conceived, developed and copyrighted the debt management services scheme" at issue, and used it with Messrs. Palmer, Fitzgerald, and co-defendants Epic, Keith Waring and Joan Kearns "to defraud debtor clients nationwide," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Courthouse News Service. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to disclose to the Texas State Bar Advertising Committee that they provide services out of California, and are the creators and sole principals of the Debt Relief Group. "The Texas Finance Code . . . provides that a fee related to a debt management plan service may not be charged until the provider has registered" with the Texas Consumer Credit Commissioner, which the defendants have failed to do, the class claims. Nor does the State Bar of Texas show any applications "for advertising approval to establish and maintain" the multiple Web sites the defendants use, according to the complaint. The suit claims that the Debt Relief Group "served as the front to provide the debtor client referral source to the Palmer Firm for debt management services disguised as legitimate services," reports Ms. Vangilder. The plaintiffs seek damages for conspiracy and violations of the Debt Management Service Act, according to the report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4204 Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas A. Crosley, Esq. The Crosley Law Firm, P.C. 755 E. Mulberry, Suite 250 San Antonio, TX 78212 Phone: (210) 354-4500 Fax: 210/354-4034 E-mail: tom@crosleylawfirm.com - and - Charles E. Ames, Esq. Attorney at Law 2712 Timberleaf Drive Carrollton, TX 75006-2103 Phone: (214) 390-8111 Fax: (214) 390-8112 E-mail: charles@charlesames.com DEERE & CO: Sept. 21 Trial Scheduled for Iowa "Brubaker" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative Sept. 21 trial is slated for the purported class- action lawsuit, Brubaker, et al. v. Deere & Company, Plan Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the John Deere Health Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees, et al., Case No. 08-00113 (S.D. Iowa), Ann McGlynn at The Quad-City Times reports. The Honorable Charles Wolle issued an order this month that said while he has not made his final decision regarding the parties' motions for summary judgment, "my present view from work I have done on the motions so far is that all or most issues will remain for trial." The Flex Retirees Organization filed the purported class-action lawsuit in September 2008. It alleges that changes Deere made to the plaintiff's health, dental and vision insurance benefits violated promises the company made to 5,000 retired employees. Those changes went into effect Jan. 1, 2008. The group asked the court to order Deere to restore the benefits pending the outcome of the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2009). The named plaintiffs in the suit are retirees Dora Brubaker, of Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, of Dubuque, Iowa; and Michael Stohlmeyer, of East Moline, who also is an FRO leader. Although the suit names three individual retirees as the plaintiffs, the purported class-action suit represents "all those similarly situated," Daniel Bonnett, Esq., the FRO's attorney, told the Times. The class includes former salaried and non-union wage Deere employees who retired on or after July 1, 1993, and were eligible to receive medical and health benefits. Also included are the retirees' eligible spouses and dependents. The Quad-City Times notes that the suit asserts "Deere implemented radically inferior healthcare benefits and coverage in comparison to the benefits and coverage provided to plaintiffs while working." Among the changes the suit alleges are: -- significantly higher deductibles for both in- and out-of- network benefits as well as a significant increase in the maximum out-of-pocket expenses (co-payments); and -- elimination of any maximum on the amount of out-of-pocket expenses. "As a result, many providers including hospitals such as the Mayo Clinic are now prohibitively expensive and completely out of reach for Class members," the suit adds. It also says prescription drug benefits were dramatically reduced. Representing the plaintiffs is: Earl A. Payson, Esq. 1313 Harrison Street Davenport, IA 52803 Phone: 563-323-8054 Fax: 563-323-9112 E-mail: eappc@aol.com Representing the defendants is: Frank B. Harty, Esq. Hyemaster Goode West Hansell & O'brien PC 700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309-3899 Phone: 515-283-3170 Fax: 515-283-8045 E-mail: fharty@nyemaster.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madden NFL game purchasers will soon have their day in court after a U.S. District Judge recently denied Electronic Arts, Inc.'s (Nasdaq: ERTS) motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that claims the company engaged in unlawful and anticompetitive agreements that monopolized the market for football videogames and nearly doubled the price of its popular game, Madden NFL. The lawsuit alleges Electronic Arts established agreements with the National Football League, The NFL Players Union, Arena Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, that drove competition out of the market and prevented new competitors from entering. The agreements resulted in the company's flagship product, Madden NFL, to increase 70 percent from a cost of $29.99 to $49.99, the suit states. "There is nothing wrong with good, strong competition in a free market, but we believe EA rigged the game to take advantage of consumers," said Steve Berman, Esq., lead attorney and managing partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. In 2004, EA experienced a blow to sales when competitor game NFL 2K5 gained popularity forcing EA to lower the price of its popular Madden NFL game and other football games. Soon after, EA entered into an agreement with the NFL and NFL Players Union that prevented any other company from producing NFL- branded interactive football software, the suit states. EA followed that agreement by entering into additional agreements with the NCAA and Arena Football League. "EA knows that the demand for these games is based on how realistically the players and teams are portrayed," said Berman. "When EA signed into exclusive agreements it knowingly killed the only competing game of comparable quality, NFL 2K5." The suit claims that EA's manipulation of the market allows the company to sell Madden for as much as $59.95 a game. In the company's annual report to investors, EA notes, "that if it were unable to maintain licenses with major sports leagues and players associations, revenue and profitability will decline significantly." In February 2008, EA extended its anticompetitive agreements with the NFL and NFL Players Union until 2012. Two weeks after signing the extension, EA announced a $2 billion offer for Take Two Interactive, the maker of NFL 2K5. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks to represent anyone who purchased Madden NFL, NCAA or Arena Football branded videogames from Electronic Arts from August 2005 until present. Recently, the court dismissed two counts against EA, allowing four to move forward including violation of the federal Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act, violation of California's unfair competition act and unjust enrichment. For more details, contact: Steve Berman, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/maddennfl FUWEI FILMS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co. Ltd. (Nasdaq: FFHL), a manufacturer and distributor of high-quality BOPET plastic films in China, announced on July 20, 2009, that it received a Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the shareholder class action suit. The Court granted the defendants' motions in part and denied them in part. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were based upon Fuwei's alleged failure to disclose the DMT arbitration proceeding. On March 14, 2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Fuwei, certain of its present and former officers, directors, and shareholders, and the underwriters for Fuwei's December 19, 2006, initial public offering, alleging that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information in violation of federal securities laws. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on May 14, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, July 22, 2009). At this preliminary stage of the litigation, the Court is required to assume that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. Applying that standard, the Court granted the defendants' motions in part and denied them in part. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were based upon Fuwei's alleged failure to disclose the DMT arbitration proceeding. The Court also dismissed certain of plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were brought on behalf of shareholders who did not purchase their shares directly in the IPO. The Court sustained plaintiffs' remaining claims. However, the Court noted that the defendants may be able to assert affirmative defenses provided by the federal securities laws in a motion for summary judgment, which could resolve the case before trial. Now that the motions to dismiss have been ruled upon, the defendants must submit responsive pleadings to the Complaint and discovery will proceed. GLOBAL CLIENT: Faces Wash. Suit Over "Illegal Fees" in Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Global Client Solutions, LLC, faces a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of charging illegal fees for its "debt settlement program," Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports. Carlsen, et al. v. Global Client Solutions LLC, et al., Case No. 09-00246 (E.D. Wash.), was filed on Aug. 7, 2009, by Chad M. Carlsen, Shasta L. Carlsen, Carl Popham, and Mary Popham. The suit claims that the defendant is allowed to charge up to $25 for its initial services, but the lead plaintiffs -- two married couples -- say they were charged $6,944 and $2,053 up front, Mr. McCann reported. According to the complaint, the company works with more than 400 debt adjusters and manages more that 600,000 accounts. Global claims to help consumers settle credit card debts through monthly payments. The suit claims Washington's Debt Adjusting Statute prevents debt collectors from retaining more than 15 percent of a debtor's payment. But Global's "program fees typically consumed the entirety of the initial monthly payments made by the debtor," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Courthouse News Service. Global had authority to send the debtors' money to Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust, a Colorado bank, but closed those settlement accounts on Aug. 6, 2009, without notifying the debtors, the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs demand punitive damages, according to Mr. McCann. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4205 Representing the plaintiffs are: Darrell W. Scott, Esq. Scott Law Group PS 926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 583 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509-455-3966 Fax: 509-455-3906 E-mail: scottgroup@mac.com - and - Timothy W. Durkop, Esq. Timothy Durkop Law Office 2312 N. Cherry, Suite 100 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Phone: 509-928-3848 Fax: 509-928-0125 E-mail: tim@durkoplaw.com HSBC BANK: Faces Calif. Suit for Reneging on "Nonexistent Gifts" ---------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Bank faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court that accuses it of failing to deliver on promises of gifts to customers who deposited $50,000 or more in "Premier Relationship" accounts, but the bank reported the nonexistent gifts to the IRS, so depositors had to pay taxes on something they never got, Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports. The lead plaintiffs, Hiu Win Wong and Ying Liu Guo, allege unfair and fraudulent business practices, false advertising, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, writes Ms. Banicki. The suit claims HSBC and its co-defendant marketing company TLC Americas promised plane tickets to customers who kept their $50,000 Premier account open for 6 months, kept at least $100,000 in combined personal deposit and investment balances, or $500,000 in combined personal deposit, investment or credit- mortgage balances. However, the customers say they never received their vouchers for international plane tickets -- one of four gifts they could choose -- and others received vouchers but never could get in contact with a TLC representative to confirm their flight, Ms. Banicki reported. The suit alleges that despite reneging on those gifts, HSBC still sent tax forms to the IRS reflecting the cash value of the tickets as taxable income, according to the complaint. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jan Alison Yoss, Esq. 5959 W. Century Blvd., Ste. 1118 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: 310-693-6180 JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Certification Bid in Fraud Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for class certification in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit styled In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-04327 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware, J.), is pending. On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint, Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ (N.D. Calif.), was filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The plaintiff filed a corrected complaint on July 28, 2006. The Garber lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003, and May 22, 2006. On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint, Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06 5303 JW (N.D. Calif.), was filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The Peters lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003, and Aug. 10, 2006. Both purported class-action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock option grants. Both suits were later consolidated. On Nov. 20, 2006, the court appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated class action complaint in January 2007. The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003, through and including Aug. 20, 2006. It alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. In February 2007, the parties agreed in a court-approved stipulation that the plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days after the company files its restated financial statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007. In March 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14, 2001. The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, the plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. All of the plaintiffs' other claims were upheld. The plaintiffs did not amend their complaint. The defendants filed their answer on June 23, 2008. On March 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification for a modified plaintiff class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly- traded securities from July 11, 2003, through Aug. 10, 2006. The defendants filed their opposition to the motion for class certification on June 1, 2009. Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification is due on Aug. 7, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com) Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C. White Plains Plaza 1 North Broadway, 5th Floor White Plains, NY 10601-2310 Phone: 914-997-0500 - and - William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com) Audet & Partners 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-982-1776 Fax: 415-576-1776 Representing the defendants is: Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 MEDIACOM LLC: Unit Continues to Defend Claims in "Ogg" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Mediacom LLC, one of Mediacom Communications Corporation's wholly owned subsidiaries, continues to defend claims in a putative class action filed by 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 (Cir. Ct. of Clay Cty., Mo.), 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 $100,000to $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. The Court did not enter a final judgment on this verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at this time be judicially collected, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 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. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Fees in Lawsuit Over Allied Waste Deal Paid -------------------------------------------------------------- Republic Services, Inc., after the fairness hearing in May 2009, paid an unspecified amount for plaintiffs' attorney's fees in accordance with the stipulation of settlement of class-action lawsuits in Delaware and Florida over its planned merger with Allied Waste Industries, Inc. On July 25, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed, and on Aug. 15, 2008, was amended, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by the New Jersey Carpenters Pension and the New Jersey Carpenters Annuity Funds against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors, individually. On Aug. 21, 2008, a second putative class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by David Shade against the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, individually, and Allied. On Sept. 22, 2008, the New Jersey Carpenters and the Shade cases were consolidated by the Court of Chancery, and on Sept. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Delaware case, now known as "In Re: Republic Services Inc. Shareholders Litigation," filed a verified consolidated amended class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On Sept. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, by the Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors, individually. Both the Delaware consolidated action and the Florida action were brought on behalf of a purported class of the Company's shareholders and primarily sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction between Republic and Allied, as well as damages and attorneys' fees. The actions also sought to compel the Company to accept the unsolicited proposals made by Waste, or at least compel the Company's board of directors to further consider and evaluate the Waste proposals, which proposals were subsequently withdrawn. On Sept. 24, 2008, the defendants in the Florida litigation filed a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss the lawsuit in light of the consolidated Delaware class action. On Oct. 17, 2008, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to require the defendants to make certain additional disclosures prior to the shareholder vote on the merger. On Oct. 29, 2008, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Delaware and Florida actions. As of Jan. 16, 2009, following completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to plaintiffs, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement received court approval at a fairness hearing on May 19, 2009. The stipulation of settlement resolved all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the actions being settled, including all claims relating to the merger transaction, the merger agreement, the company's rejections of the unsolicited Waste proposals, and any disclosures made in connection therewith. The time for appeal of the settlement has now expired with no party filing a notice of appeal, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Republic Services, Inc. -- http://www.republicservices.com/-- is a provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid waste industry. Its operations primarily consist of the collection, transfer and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. The company provides non-hazardous solid waste collection services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers through 136 collection companies in 21 states. It also owns or operates 94 transfer stations, 58 solid waste landfills and 33 recycling facilities. As of Dec. 31, 2007, its operations were organized into five regions: Eastern, Central, Southern, Southwestern and Western. Each region is organized into several operating areas and each area contains multiple operating locations. Each of the company's regions and substantially all its areas provide collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services. STAMPS.COM: Sept. '09 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A fairness hearing in September 2009, is set for the proposed settlement relating to purported class-action lawsuits filed against Stamps.com Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its current and former board members and officers, as a defendant in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would not have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that the class could not be certified as defined. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an alternative class definition in related litigation. In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which has been documented and filed with the court for its review and approval. As with the company's previously proposed settlement, this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make any payments. The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in June 2009 and is scheduled to be the subject of a fairness hearing in September 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Stamps.com Inc. -- http://www.stamps.com/-- is a provider of Internet-based postage solutions. Its customers use the company's service to mail and ship a variety of mail pieces, including postcards, envelopes, flats, and packages, using a range of United States Postal Service (the USPS) mail classes including First Class Mail, Priority Mail, Express Mail, Media Mail, Parcel Post, and others. The company's customers include home businesses, small businesses, corporations, and individuals. It is an USPS-licensed vendor that offers personal computer (PC) Postage in a software-only business model. TV GUIDE: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Suit Over "Special Issues" -------------------------------------------------------------- TV Guide, Inc., faces a purported class-action suit in Los Angeles Superior Court that claims the company sends its three million subscribers fewer issues of its magazine than it promised, Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports. John Burke, the lead plaintiff, says TV Guide unfairly counts its "special issues" as two issues, though they contain neither twice the pages nor twice the content of a regular issue. Mr. Burke says the "special" or "double issue" is more like a "slightly expanded single issue." He claims TV Guide uses the ruse to cheat its three million subscribers, writes Ms. Brown. The plaintiff demands punitive damages for fraud, breach of contract and consumer law violations, according to Courthouse News Service. Mr. Burke is represented by: Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. Girardi & Keese 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904 Phone: 213.977.0211 Fax: 213.481.1554 Web site: http://www.girardikeese.com/ U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $3.5M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Concrete, Inc., at June 30, 2009, accrued $3.5 million for potential damages associated with four separate class actions pending against the company in Alameda Superior Court (California). The class-action suits were filed between Apr. 6, 2007, and Sept. 27, 2007, on behalf of various Central Concrete Supply Company, Inc., ready-mixed concrete and transport drivers, alleging primarily that Central failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required under California law. The company has entered into settlements with one of the classes and a number of individual drivers. The other three classes have been consolidated and a single class was certified on July 24, 2009. The company's accrual is based on prior settlement values, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. U.S. Concrete, Inc. -- http://www.us-concrete.com/-- is a producer of ready-mixed concrete, precast concrete products and concrete-related products in select markets in the United States. The company operates its business through its ready- mixed concrete and concrete-related products segment, and its precast products concrete segment. As of March 12, 2009, the Company had 132 fixed and 12 portable ready-mixed concrete plants, seven precast concrete plants, one concrete block plant and seven producing aggregates facilities (including 27 fixed ready-mixed concrete plants and one masonry block plant operated by its 60%-owned Michigan subsidiary). The company operates in two business segments: ready-mixed concrete and concrete-related products, and precast concrete products. UNIFUND CCR: Reaches Settlement for Debt Collection Suit in Neb. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Unifund CCR Partners settled a purported class-action lawsuit in Nebraska over its debt collection practices, Virgil Larson at The Omaha World-Herald reports Williamson, et al. v. Unifund CCR Partners, et al., Case No. 08-cv-00218 (D. Neb.), was filed on May 26, 2008, by Christina Williamson and Galin R. Brown. In addition to Unifund, other defendants named in the suit are Unifund's general partners, Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc., and ZB Partners; 10 John Does, who worked as collectors; and Bellevue attorney Dean Jungers, Esq., who represented Unifund and whom the suit said frequently filed debt-collection lawsuits, reports Mr. Larson. The case revolved around alleged practices the collection companies used: suggesting, if not outright threatening, legal action; creating a false impression it was a law firm making the contact; trying to improperly attach fees to the debt; and trying to collect after a time limit set by Nebraska law had passed, according to the World-Herald. Under the settlement, about 2,371 Nebraskans on whom allegedly illegal methods were used in trying to collect bills will get at least some of their debt wiped out. Meanwhile, the lead plaintiffs will each get $2,000 in statutory damages and $3,000 for being the class representatives -- in effect for bringing the lawsuit, Mr. Larson reports. Ms. Williamson, who allegedly owed $697 on a credit card, also will receive $662.50 in actual damages. Mr. Brown, whose debt was listed at $2,472, will receive $500. The settlement also calls for the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of $66,000, the World-Herald reported. The rest of the people who were sued by the collection company for unpaid bills, mostly credit card debt, in Nebraska state courts and thus became members of the class-action suit will get up to $125 each in credits against the debts they owed. The debts for which they were pursued ranged from $500 to $2,000, writes Mr. Larson. The plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. Car & Reinbrecht Law Firm 8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105 Omaha, NE 68124 Phone: (402) 391-8484 Fax: (402) 391-1103 E-mail: carlaw@uswest.net billr205@cox.net UNITED PARCEL: Defends Lawsuit Alleging Price-Fixing in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc., is defending a class action complaint over alleged price-fixing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In January 2008, the complaint was filed in the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in that initial complaint. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are now among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a package delivery company. The company delivers packages each business day for 1.8 million shipping customers to 6.1 million consignees in over 200 countries and territories. Its primary business is the time-definite delivery of packages and documents worldwide. UPS operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package operations, International Package operations, and Supply Chain & Freight operations. UNITED PARCEL: To Defend Calif. Franchisees' Rebranding Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc., intends to defend a class action relating to the rebranding of Mail Boxes Etc. centers to The UPS Store in California state court. UPS and Mail Boxes Etc., Inc., are defendants in various lawsuits brought by franchisees who operate Mail Boxes Etc. centers and The UPS Store locations. These lawsuits relate to the rebranding of Mail Boxes Etc. centers to The UPS Store, The UPS Store business model, the representations made in connection with the rebranding and the sale of The UPS Store franchises, and UPS's sale of services in the franchisees' territories. In one of the actions, which is pending in California state court, the court recently certified a class consisting of all Mail Boxes Etc. branded stores that rebranded to The UPS Store in March 2003. The company has denied any liability with respect to these claims, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a package delivery company. The company delivers packages each business day for 1.8 million shipping customers to 6.1 million consignees in over 200 countries and territories. Its primary business is the time-definite delivery of packages and documents worldwide. UPS operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package operations, International Package operations, and Supply Chain & Freight operations. UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-04908 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware, J.), continues, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed against the company and various officers and directors. The actions were later consolidated. The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004. On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the class period to Oct. 6, 2005. In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank. The plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified amount. On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the second amended complaint. The court, however, granted the plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007. On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third amended complaint. This was granted by the court, but with leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs also did on May 14, 2008. On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008 dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed objections to the form and content of the fourth amended complaint. On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated that the company and the individual defendants would be permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the fourth amended complaint. On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 27, 2009, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted defendants' motion to strike. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 - and - Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Glancy & Binkow, LLP 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 are: Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 - and - Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-461-5600 Fax: 650-461-5700 UTSTARCOM INC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for $9.5M Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- A final approval hearing is scheduled on Sept. 18, 2009, in San Francisco, for the proposed $9,500,000 settlement in Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 07-cv-04578 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.). The purported shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 4, 2007, against UTSTARCOM, Inc. and some of its current and former directors and officers. It alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper accounting practices concerning the company's historical equity award grants. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007. On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as lead plaintiff. On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by the company to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead plaintiff did so. On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended complaint. On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq. (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-398-8700 Fax: 415-398-8704 - and - UTStarcom Securities Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914 Phone: (800) 766-3330 Fax: (516) 931-0810 Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com/ VALERO ENERGY: Discovery in Kan. Fuel Temperature Suits Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1840; Master Docket No. __-_____ (D. Kan.), which names Valero Energy Corp. as a defendant. As of Aug. 1, 2009, the company was named in 21 consumer class- action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature. The complaints, filed before federal courts in several states, allege that because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the volume of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who purchased fuel in various locations. They seek an order compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as well as associated monetary relief. In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding. In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a pleading attempting to name Valero and other petroleum companies as class representatives of defendant classes composed of their respective branded outlets, including retail outlets owned by other parties. The court has scheduled briefing on class certification through 2008 and early 2009, although this schedule may be delayed further into 2009. Discovery has commenced. The court is expected to rule on certain class certification issues in 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen). VALERO ENERGY: Remanded "Rosolowski" Case Ongoing in Trial Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The remanded purported class-action lawsuit captioned Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.), is ongoing, according to Valero Energy, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The purported class-action lawsuit was assumed by the company after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement on Sept. 1, 2005. The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery on Oct. 7, 1994. The release resulted in the temporary evacuation of certain areas near the refinery. The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of which received a sizeable jury verdict. That class consisted of local residents who claimed property damage or loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a period of several years. In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages. However, following the company's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the jury's award and decertified the class. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the $120 million judgment and decertify the class. The plaintiffs' appeal was heard before the state appeals court in February 2008, and in June 2008, the state appeals court reversed the trial court's decision to decertify the class and set aside the judgment. The appeals court preserved the company's rights, and on Aug. 4, 2008, the company appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the case and returned it to the trial court. The company has submitted renewed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial. Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen). VALUECLICK INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the amended consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit captioned Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-05411 (N.D. Calif.) (Pregerson, J.), is still subject to final approval by the court. A purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on Aug. 17, 2007, by Carl Waldrep, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, presuming to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of ValueClick between Nov. 1, 2006, and July 27, 2007. The lawsuit alleges violations of certain federal securities laws and is brought against the company, its executive chairman and its chief administrative officer. A similar purported class-action lawsuit was filed after the Waldrep action. On Nov. 20, 2007, the two lawsuits were consolidated. The court appointed the combined funds of Laborers' International Union of North America National Pension and the LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs. In January 2008, the LIUNA Funds filed a consolidated complaint alleging violations of certain federal securities laws based upon the company's and its officers' alleged misrepresentation of materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's compliance with laws and standards applicable to its lead generation business, among other things. The LIUNA Funds purport to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between June 13, 2005, and July 27, 2007, and seek class certification, damages, costs incurred in bringing suit, and equitable/injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this matter in March 2008 and on Sept. 25, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint by Nov. 24, 2008. The LIUNA Funds filed their First Amended Consolidated Complaint on Nov. 24, 2008. The company has reached a settlement in this matter, which is still subject to final court approval, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com) Barrack Rodos and Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 - and - Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Representing the defendants is: Michael B. Smith, Esq. (mbsmith@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-5300 W.R. GRACE: Suits Over ZAI Damages Pending in U.S. and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits alleging damages from Zonolite Attic Insulation, a former W.R. Grace & Co. attic insulation product, are pending, according to W.R. Grace's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes in Canada. The cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and disposal of all such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per home. On April 2, 2001, Grace and 61 of its United States subsidiaries and affiliates, including Grace-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As a result of the filing, the eight U.S. cases have been stayed. W.R. Grace & Co. -- http://www.grace.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a worldwide basis. WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman, LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- LakinChapman, LLC, filed a class action complaint (Cause No. 09-L-525) in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois, against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging the retailer has failed to live up to the terms of its return policy. The complaint alleges that while Wal-Mart promises to refund to its customers what they paid for merchandise, it fails to do so if the merchandise is returned to a Wal-Mart store location with a lower applicable sales tax rate than where the merchandise was originally purchased. LakinChapman, LLC, Managing Partner Brad Lakin, Esq., in denouncing Wal-Mart's practices, said, "If a consumer buys merchandise at the Collinsville Wal-Mart and returns it to the Glen Carbon Wal-Mart he or she should get back exactly what they paid for the merchandise. What he or she receives should not depend on the sales tax rate of the store where the merchandise is returned. That's the promise Wal-Mart has made to its customers and the one it should keep. We filed this class action to recover what rightfully belongs to consumers and force Wal Mart to stop this practice. Other retailers keep their promise and return exactly what was paid for merchandise no matter where it's returned. Why shouldn't Wal-Mart?" For more details, contact: LakinChapman, LLC 300 Evans Ave. PO Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095 Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com New Securities Fraud Cases ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.) (NYSE: MDRX) between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Allscripts' business and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Allscripts securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com CONSECO INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) during the period between August 4, 2005 and March 17, 2008, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate revenue figures that did not present the true operating performance of the Company and that the Company's shareholders' equity was materially overstated during the Class Period such that the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements during the class period about the Company, its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings growth. According to the complaint, on March 17, 2008, after the Company revealed disclosed that it did not maintain effective controls over the accounting and disclosure of insurance policy benefits and the liabilities for insurance products and that it would therefore be restating its financial results for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2006, along with affected Selected Consolidated Financial Data for 2003 and 2004, and quarterly financial information for 2006 and the first three quarters of 2007, the value of Conseco's stock declined. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com HURON CONSULTING: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) common stock during the period between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009. The complaint charges Huron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Huron is a provider of financial and legal consulting services. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Specifically, the Company misaccounted for payments made as part of acquisitions. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Huron stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $83.25 per share on December 26, 2007. Then on July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would be restating its financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the first three months of 2009 due to its failure to properly account for earn-out payments made in connection with four of its acquisitions. As a result of the restatement, Huron expected to dramatically reduce its revenue reported for the period by 48% from $120 million on an aggregate basis to $63 million. The Company further announced that the SEC had commenced an inquiry into the Company's allocation of chargeable hours related to its recognition of revenue. The SEC's inquiry was unrelated to the acquisition accounting issue. Huron further withdrew its 2009 earnings guidance, lowered its 2009 revenue guidance and provided preliminary second-quarter revenue below analysts' expectations. Finally, Huron announced that its chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer had all resigned. On this news, Huron's stock collapsed $30.66 per share to close at $13.69 per share on August 3, 2009, a 1-day decline of more than 69%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Huron common stock during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/huron/ HURON CONSULTING: Glancy Binkow Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its former executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Huron provides consulting services in the United States to help clients in diverse industries improve performance, comply with complex regulations, resolve disputes, recover from distress, leverage technology and stimulate growth. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Huron's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges the defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose: -- that shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their acquisition-related payments among themselves and to certain Huron employees; -- that, as a result, the Company understated its non- cash compensation expenses; -- that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 31, 2009, Huron shocked investors when it announced that the Company's financial statements for the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated as a result of the Company's accounting for certain acquisition- related payments received by the sellers in connection with the sale of certain acquired businesses that were subsequently redistributed among themselves and to other select Huron employees, which under accounting rules should have been classified as non-cash compensation expenses. In response to this news, on the next trading day, August 3, 2009, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to close at $13.69 per share, 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 Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com MIND C.T.I.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- On August 13, 2009, Federman & Sherwood filed the first class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against MIND C.T.I., Ltd. (NASDAQ: MNDO). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as more specifically set forth below. The class period is from June 8, 2006 through February 27, 2008. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition, cash management and internal controls caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. MIND engages in the development, manufacture and marketing of billing and customer care software and the sale of related services for various types of communication providers, including traditional cable and wireless, Internet protocol or VOIP and broadband IP network operators. The Complaint alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and concealed from the investing public that: -- most of MIND's reported cash position comprised illiquid Auction Rate Securities ("ARSs"), and -- internal controls over the monitoring, accounting and reporting of the Company's investment in cash equivalents and\or short-term investments were materially deficient. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants misrepresented the Company's liquidity and its ability to attract customers, finance current operations, and pursue strategic acquisitions. In a Form 20-F filed with the SEC, Defendants later admitted that because "the stated maturity of these securities is 2046" and "there is currently a very limited market for these auction rate securities... this situation leaves us with limited cash resources with which to pursue our acquisition strategy." Defendants ultimately restated the Company's financial statements for 2006, and disclosed that almost $23 million of the Company's originally reported $27 million liquid cash position was invested in highly illiquid ARSs. Defendants also admitted that, "In connection with restatement, management determined that a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2006 because at that time we did not have effective controls designed and in place to ensure that our investments were classified in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles." A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 12, 2009. For more details, contact: William B. Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX), between July 1, 2009 and August 3, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Repros focuses on the development of oral small-molecule drugs for the treatment of male and female reproductive disorders. Repros' lead drug, Proellex, is being developed for the treatment of symptoms associated with uterine fibroids and endometriosis and as a pre-surgical treatment for anemia associated with excessive menstrual bleeding related to uterine fibroids. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Repros' business and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose that Proellex elevated liver enzymes to dangerous levels in certain patients participating in the drug's clinical trials, which could result in cancellation of the Proellex clinical trials. On August 3, 2009, Repros announced that it was suspending Proellex clinical trials based in part on "the occurrence of clinically significant increases in liver enzymes." This announcement caused the price of Repros stock to decline approximately 48% from the previous day's closing price of $2.53, to close on August 3, 2009, at $1.31 per share on extremely high trading volume of more than 7.4 million shares traded. 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 Oct. 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com STURM RUGER: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc (NYSE: RGR), between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Sturm Ruger's financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 31, 2009. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com STURM RUGER: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) for securities violations related to public statements made by the company between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007. According to the complaint, filed in the District of Connecticut, Sturm Ruger and certain officers and directors made positive statements about the Company's revenues and earnings that were false and misleading, failing to disclose that reductions in inventory balances by Sturm Ruger in the two quarters of 2007 had reduced the Company's parts and components inventories below efficient levels, preventing their manufacturing units from meeting production and shipment schedules. This resulted in the Company's inability to sustain current or history sales levels. Due to inventory shortages caused the failure to meet production and shipping schedules, Sturm Ruger's "backlog" of unfilled purchase orders was materially inflated. Orders received by the Company's independent distributers were artificially boosted by the mandated change to firm and noncancellable purchase order submissions and did not relict the actual demand for products. Independent distributors were carrying large quantities of unsold products, increasing the risk that these distributors would reduce their future purchases. Based on these facts, Sturm Ruger had no reasonable basis for their positive statements and opinions concerning their current financial performance and condition. On October 24, 2007, the Company announced that its firearm sales for the third quarter of 2007 fell by 25%, resulting in a loss of $0.03 per share. They also indicated that sales had declined due to inventory issues at its distributors. Following this news, the price of Sturm Ruger's common stock fell by 37%, dropping $6.45 per share and closing at $10.65 per share on volume of 4.1 million shares. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 2009. For more details, contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. Kendall Law Group 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728 Fax: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com TEXTRON INC: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT) securities during the period July 17, 2007 through January 29, 2009. The complaint charges Textron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Textron is a manufacturer of aircraft and industrial products. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's condition and profitability by repeatedly publicizing record "backlogs" of unfilled customer orders for its Cessna Aircraft brand products, and by making positive statements about the Company's Finance segment. The complaint alleges that those statements were materially false and misleading because defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that Textron was accepting orders for business jets from a growing number of customers that were mere startup and/or financially distressed fleet operators who neither intended nor possessed the financial resources to pay for or take delivery of aircraft during 2008 - 2009 and beyond, which materially inflated Textron's "backlog" of unfilled orders for the Company's Cessna segment, which, in turn, materially overstated the Company's current financial condition and future prospects; -- that hundreds of orders for future business-jet production reported as "backlog" at Cessna were subject to deferral and cancellation, causing the Company to overstate its projected fiscal 2008 - 2009 business-jet production and to initiate costly production cutbacks and worker reduction programs which eroded Textron's revenues and earnings; -- that the Company's Finance segment had incurred material losses in the fair market value of its finance receivables and other financial assets, and these unrealized market losses were omitted from or misrepresented in the Company's periodic reports of earnings and income; and -- that Textron's credit ratings were deteriorating in light of its Finance segment's losses and the additional debt the Company would incur in connection with its Finance segment's distressed asset base. As alleged in the complaint, the Company's stock price declined after the Company announced at the end of the Class Period that an estimated $30 million in restructuring costs would be incurred by the Company's Cessna segment due to production cutbacks and worker layoffs planned for the first quarter of 2009. Upon this announcement, the price of Textron's common stock fell to $8.83 per share, to close at $9.05 per share, representing a one-day decline of $4.19 per share or 31%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other individual and institutional investors who purchased Textron securities between July 17, 2007 and January 29, 2009. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 12, 2009. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212-490-2022 E-mail: SSBNY@aol.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, 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 * * *