/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090825.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 167 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 9th Cir. Denies Rehearing in Norvir Case AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Motorist Insurance Policies CALCOT LTD: Calif. Court Certifes Class in RICO Violations Suit CALIFORNIA: Disabled Seniors Sue to Block State Budget Cuts CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Law Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Cut-Off CITY OF ALEXANDRIA: Faces Ratepayers' Litigation in Louisiana CITY OF ORLANDO: Faces Fla. Suit Over Red Light Camera Program HOTELS.COM: Hearing Set to Settle Discovery Issues in Tax Suit IOVATE HEALTH: Faces W.Va. Suit for Marketing Unsafe Hydroxycut LENNAR CORP: Subsidiaries Faces Nev. Suit Over Chinese Drywall MINNEHAHA COUNTY: Lawyers Seek Approval for Strip-Search Deal NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players File Suit for Use of Identities POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $3.15M Agreement REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline STAPLES INC: Inks $790,000 Settlement in Mass. Overtime Lawsuit SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Atrazine Contamination ULTA SALON: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for $3.75M Securities Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing PROSHARES TRUST: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit PROSHARES TRUST: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing PROSHARES TRUST: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.Y. STIEFEL LABORATORIES: Ruden McClosky Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 9th Cir. Denies Rehearing in Norvir Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal appeals court rejected a bid for an en banc rehearing of its decision in Doe v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 08-80150 (9th Cir.), to limit a settlement to $10 million in a class-action case, alleging that Abbott Laboratories illegally jacked up the prices of its market-dominating HIV drug Norvir, sticking to its finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim in light of recent case law, Law360 reports. On Aug. 19, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, according to Law360. The case in the court below is Doe v. Abbot Baloratories, Case No. 04-cv-01551 (N.D. Calif.). AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Motorist Insurance Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- American International South Insurance Co. faces a purported class-action suit, alleging it issued worthless underinsured motorist insurance policies, Kelly Holleran at The Madison County Record reports. The suit was filed on Aug. 17, 2009, in St. Clair County Circuit Court by Lesley Schaeperkoetter, is docketed as Case No. 09-L-430. The plaintiff claims the company routinely offers underinsured motorist coverage equal to the state statutory minimum of uninsured motorist coverage. The suit states, "Defendant then collects a separate premium for the illusory underinsured motorist coverage. The premium, in fact, provides no coverage in return, because it is entirely duplicative of the mandatory uninsured motorist coverage," reports Ms. Holleran. Ms. Schaeperkoetter claims she purchased both underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage from the company on Feb. 13, 2007, for $15 each. Both the underinsured and uninsured limited coverage provided $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident, according to the complaint. "Defendant had an obligation to inform Plaintiff and the Class of its worthless coverage, yet throughout the class period, Defendant affirmatively concealed its scheme of charging premiums for illusory underinsured motorist coverage," the complaint says. In the two-count suit, Ms. Schaeperkoetter is asking the court to certify the equitable rescission for lack of consideration count and the statutory fraud count. She is also asking the court to certify the putative class and to grant a right of rescission as to the underinsured motorist coverage, according to the Record. Ms. Schaeperkoetter is seeking damages, plus reimbursement of allowable costs, attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems just, Ms. Holleran relates. The plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley M. Lakin, Esq. Robert W. Schmieder, II, Esq. Robert J. Evola, Esq. LakinChapman, LLC 300 Evans Ave. P.O. Box 229 Wood River, IL 62095 Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021 or 618-254-1127 Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com/ CALCOT LTD: Calif. Court Certifes Class in RICO Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal district court in California granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Calcot, Ltd., a cotton marketing cooperative, Steven Mayer at The Bakersfield Californian reports. The recent ruling allows participation in the class-action case to all former members of Calcot, who were active between 1983 and May 2009. The court also denied Calcot's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, reports Mr. Mayer. The lawsuit was originally filed on January 2007 in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, on behalf of several hundred growers from Bakersfield to Merced (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2007). It claims that the Bakersfield-based cotton cooperative bilked its own growers out of millions of dollars to secretly finance a speculative commercial real estate deal in Fresno. It specifically claims that Calcot members unknowingly paid roughly $23 million in interest payments on the cooperative's Palm Bluffs project over the last two decades. Andrews Farms, and Greg Palla Farming Co., filed the suit against Calcot, and its accountants, Eadie & Payne LLP (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2007). On March 23, 2007, the case was removed to federal court where it is captioned Andrews Farms, et al. v. Calcot Ltd., et al., Case No. 07-00464 (E.D. Calif.). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud & deceit based upon fiduciary relationship; accounting fraud & deceit -- intentional misrepresentation of material fact; negligent misrepresentation; violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In its Aug. 5 ruling, the court said Calcot's bylaws "do not authorize the financing of real estate development of Calcot- owned property," according to the Californian. The plaintiffs are represented by: Ralph B. Wegis, Esq. The Law Offices of Ralph B. Wegis, P.C. 1930 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: 661-635-2100 Fax: 661-635-2107 E-mail: rwegis@ralphwegis.com The defendants are represented by: Raymond L. Carlson, Esq. Griswold, LaSalle, Cobb, Dowd & Gin, L.L.P. 111 E. Seventh Street Hanford, CA 93230 Phone: (559) 584-6656 x121 Fax: (559) 582-3106 E-mail: carlson@griswoldlasalle.com - and - Jerry D. Casheros, Esq. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP 5 River Park Place East Fresno, CA 93720 Phone: (559) 433-1300 x2330 Fax: (559) 433-2300 E-mail: jerry.casheros@mccormickbarstow.com CALIFORNIA: Disabled Seniors Sue to Block State Budget Cuts ----------------------------------------------------------- On August 18, 2009, several elderly plaintiffs with disabilities filed a class-action lawsuit, Brantley, et al. v. Maxwell-Jolly, Director of California Department of Health Care Services, to stop devastating cuts in Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) services. ADHC provides daytime health and nursing care, therapies and other services to low-income seniors and people with disabilities. The cuts, if implemented, would place as many as 8,000 recipients at immediate risk of institutionalization, hospitalization, injury or death. Among those affected is Plaintiff Lillie Brantley, who is typical of other people who receive ADHC services. Mrs. Brantley's grand- niece, Chauncey McLorin, says she would have to put her aunt in a nursing home if her ADHC services are cut to only three days a week. "My Aunt Lillie has Alzheimer's disease. She lives with me and cannot be left alone because she is not safe. I work full-time and can't afford to quit my job to care for her. I love her very much but I would be forced to place her in a nursing home if she can't go to ADHC five days a week and that would be devastating for our family." The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California by Disability Rights California, AARP Foundation Litigation, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and federal Medicaid law. "Without adequate ADHC services, many older people with disabilities who could otherwise remain at home or in the community will be forced into nursing homes," says Barbara Jones, attorney with AARP Foundation Litigation. The lawsuit challenges the legality of two aspects of the cuts which are contained in ABx4 5, one of a number of bills enacted in response to California's budget crisis. First, on August 27, the maximum number of days Medi-Cal will fund ADHC services for all participants will be reduced from five to three per week regardless of the seriousness of the participant's health problems. Second, if the State allows the maximum number of days to return to five per week, new restrictive eligibility criteria will be triggered, which will make untold thousands of current participants permanently ineligible for any ADHC services. "Ironically, these cuts will not only cause irreparable harm to the thousands of people and ADHC programs affected by the cuts, but they will also result in increased costs to the State and counties in hospitalization, nursing facility placements, Adult Protective Services, and emergency services," says Elizabeth Zirker, Esq., an attorney with Disability Rights California. Gilda Garcia, a Plaintiff in the case, expressed her fears, "I live alone and even though I can do a lot of things for myself, my diabetes is so unstable that I still end up in the hospital sometimes. The nurses at ADHC check me every day, five days a week. On the weekends, I just pray not to have problems. If I lose ADHC, I know I will end up in the hospital a lot more. Plaintiffs will be seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the cuts from five to three days per week from taking effect on August 27. In addition, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to declare that the new eligibility requirements, although not yet operational, violate the law. Plaintiffs are requesting that all affected participants be individually assessed to determine what, if any, replacement services they may be entitled to through Medi-Cal and that anyone who would be forced into an institution by the cuts retain their full services. "The State cannot shirk its obligation to provide medically necessary services to each and every Medi-Cal participant. If the State chooses to reduce ADHC services across the board, it still must, according to federal law, provide the skilled nursing and therapy services people receive in the centers to the people who need them," says Anna Rich, attorney with National Senior Citizens Law Center. The 36,000 Californians who participate in ADHC average 78 years old and take six or more medications a day, for which nearly 2/3 require supervision or assistance. More than 2/3 also face at least three serious medical challenges including cardiovascular disease (39%), dementia (13%), and diabetes (10%). The overwhelming majority (92%) are entirely dependent on Medi-Cal funding for their care. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?42e1 For more details, contact: Elizabeth Zirker Disability Rights California Phone: (510) 267 - 1200 - and - Barbara Jones AARP Foundation Litigation Phone: (626) 585-2628 - and - Anna Rich National Senior Citizens Law Center Phone: (510) 663-1055 CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Law Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Cut-Off ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. between May 29, 2008, and June 25, 2009, inclusive have only 25 days until the September 15, 2009 deadline to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit. The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Wilkof v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., et al., No. 09-12830 (E.D. Mich.), has been assigned to the Honorable Robert H. Cleland. Caraco is engaged primarily in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and private- label pharmaceuticals to the nation's largest wholesalers, distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores and managed care providers. The Complaint charges Caraco and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, and further alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company failed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements and had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA regulations previously observed and documented by the FDA, which significantly jeopardized the Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new drug applications. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) requires the Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case. Any person or group who purchased Caraco securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss may ask the Court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later than September 15, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com CITY OF ALEXANDRIA: Faces Ratepayers' Litigation in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Alexandria, La., faces a purported class-action lawsuit, claiming that the city has defrauded ratepayers since 1997, Bret H. McCormick at Alexandria Town Talk reports. The suit, Franklin, et al. v. Alexandria, Case No. 07-01011 (W.D. La.), was filed on June 12, 2007, by eight Alexandria citizens -- Armested Franklin, Diane Tatum, Julius C. Sweazie, Estella Deal, Henry D. Ceasor, Linda R. Strong, Curley Holden, and Geraldette Johnson -- according to Mr. McCormick. The plaintiffs are represented by: Larry English, Esq. English & Associate 415 Texas St., Ste. 320 Shreveport, LA 71101 Phone: 318-222-1900 Fax: 318-226-1660 E-mail: englishlaw2008@gmail.com - and - Sam L. Jenkins, Jr., Esq. 2419 Kings Highway Shreveport, LA 71103 Phone: 318-636-4266 Fax: 318-636-4271 E-mail: sljenkin@bellsouth.net - and - W. James Singleton, Esq. Singleton Law Firm 4050 Linwood Ave Shreveport, LA 71108 Phone: 318-631-5200 Fax: 318-636-7759 E-mail: wjsingleton@singletonlaw.com The defendants are represented by: Claude F. Reynaud, Jr., Esq. Breazeale Sachse & Wilson P.O. Box 3197 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Phone: 225-387-4000 Fax: 255-387-5397 E-mail: cfr@bswllp.com CITY OF ORLANDO: Faces Fla. Suit Over Red Light Camera Program -------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Orlando, Fla., faces a purported class-action suit, challenging its STOPS photo enforcement program, WESH.COM reports. Nabeel Ansari, who has run red lights three times, all of those times captured by cameras, filed the suit. He is disputing $500 in fines, saying the city is violating his constitutional rights, according to WESH.COM. The city attorney, Mayanne Downs, Esq., said she has fully researched any challenges to the red-light-running ordinance, and sees no problem defending it in court. According to Ms. Downs, "We're very comfortable that there is no unfairness in the issue of whether or not in fact the car went through the intersection improperly." She adds, "I would say it's that someone smells a pot of money with a class action." The lawsuit not only names the city of Orlando, but also the maker and marketer of the traffic devices, American Traffic Solutions, reports WESH.COM. HOTELS.COM: Hearing Set to Settle Discovery Issues in Tax Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge is set to consider during a hearing this week, an earlier decision to limit the City of Rome's access to the financial records of online travel companies, John Bailey at The Rome News Tribune reports. The lawsuit filed by the City of Rome and several other nearby Georgia cities, alleges that sites such as Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, and Travelocity.com, are keeping back some of the local taxes they collect when they reserve rooms in Rome and several other areas in Georgia. The defendants contend they are liable for tax only on the discounted price they pay local innkeepers, not the full price they charge their online customers, according to the News Tribune. Earlier this month, both parties asked the Honorable Harold L. Murphy to resolve the issues of discovery -- the process in which parties can compel the production of evidence or other documents prior to trial. Currently the discovery is limited to the issue of class certification, where the court determines if the plaintiffs' grievances meet a number of standards to be considered a class-action lawsuit, Mr. Bailey writes. In cases such as this, the discovery can be split into two phases, one to determine class status and the other to determine the merit and damages of the case. The plaintiffs are requesting that a previous order be modified and discovery not be split, according to court documents. The City entered as an exhibit an order from another federal case in Baltimore in which the same online travel companies agreed to not split the discovery in an almost identical case. The defendants are requesting that the court maintain its current order until it issues a ruling on class certification, according to the motion, Mr. Bailey relates. IOVATE HEALTH: Faces W.Va. Suit for Marketing Unsafe Hydroxycut --------------------------------------------------------------- Iovate Health Sciences, Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Group, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Research, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Formulations, Ltd., Muscletech, Inc.; Muscletech and Muscletech Research and Development, Inc., face a purported class-action suit over the weight loss supplement, Hydroxycut, Lawrence Smith at The West Virginia Record reports. Rhonda M. Hawkins is suing the defendants for marketing an unsafe weight loss supplement. In addition to unspecified damages and interest, she is seeking class-action certification of her lawsuit, Mr. Smith reports. The case was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, and is docked as Case No. 09-C-1455. LENNAR CORP: Subsidiaries Faces Nev. Suit Over Chinese Drywall -------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of Miami-based homebuilder Lennar Corp., and drywall manufacturer Georgia-Pacific Corp. of Atlanta, face a purported class-action suit alleging that imported Chinese drywall is causing health problems for occupants of homes in two Las Vegas neighborhoods, Steve Green at The Las Vegas Sun reports. The homes named in the lawsuit are on Matisse Avenue and Villa de Medici Street, near Jones and Grand Teton; and on Gloucester Gate Street near Hollywood and Desert Inn. The suit was filed in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas by the law firm Fuller Jenkins on behalf of owners of four homes. It is seeking class-action status for all Nevadans suffering health problems because of imported Chinese drywall, according to Mr. Green. The case specifically named as defendants, Georgia-Pacific Gypsum LLC, Georgia-Pacific, LLC, and Lennar subsidiaries, Lennar Nevada, Inc., Greystone Nevada, LLC, and U.S. Home Corp. According to attorneys, the plaintiffs are suffering health problems because of Chinese-made drywall in their homes. They say that the Chinese drywall, also known as sheetrock and wallboard, emits toxic vapors and chemicals that cause corrosion in electrical wiring, heating and air conditioning systems, refrigerators, plumbing components, faucets, lighting fixtures and household appliances such as microwaves. The attorneys also say that the Chinese drywall is dangerous because it was made with fly ash -- waste material from scrubbers on coal-fired power plants. They say the drywall emits sulfur compounds including sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide and the results for humans include allergic reactions, coughing, sinus and throat infections, nose bleeds, eye irritation, respiratory problems and other health issues. The suit states that homeowners face substantial costs to remove and replace the affected drywall and home components allegedly damaged by the alleged drywall fumes, writes Mr. Green. The plaintiffs assert claims of product liability, breach of warranties, and negligence. They are seeking unspecified damages including damages for medical costs and monitoring The suit accuses defendants of failing to supply drywall without defects, failing to inspect their building materials to ensure they were safe, failing to warn homeowners and home occupants of potential dangers, failing to recall dangerous products and of concealing information about the alleged dangers posed by the drywall, Mr. Green relates. The plaintiffs are represented by: Fuller Jenkins 2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Ste. 822 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 450-8710 Web site: http://www.fullerjenkins.com/ MINNEHAHA COUNTY: Lawyers Seek Approval for Strip-Search Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys handling a class-action lawsuit over strip-searches at Minnehaha County's juvenile detention center in Sioux Falls, S.D., have filed a proposed settlement document, The Associated Press reports. They are asking a judge for his approval and a final hearing. According to the document, the county will contribute $450,000 to a settlement fund, and after attorney fees and other costs are deducted, $182,500 will be divided equally among the juveniles. Records suggest that just over 5,000 kids were searched an estimated 8,700 times between 1997 and 2003, according to the AP report. Only those who certify in a claim form that they were searched while fully nude will qualify to receive up to $1,000 per search. Some of the strip-searched juveniles were charged with minor infractions such as liquor violations and truancy, reports the AP. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players File Suit for Use of Identities ------------------------------------------------------------- Several retired players of the National Football League filed a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the NFL used their names and images for profit without their permission, Nomaan Merchant at The Associated Press reports. The lawsuit, Dryer, et al. v. National Football League, Case No. 09-02182 (D. Minn.), was filed on Aug. 20, 2009 by John Frederick Dryer, James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony Pastorini, and Edward Alvin White. The complaint accuses the NFL of exploiting retired players' identities in films, highlight reels and memorabilia to market the league's "glory days" without compensating the players, Mr. Merchant related. How much former players are owed is unclear, Bob Stein, a lawyer for the players said. But the lawsuit suggests the amount exceeds $5 million, according to Mr. Merchant. For more information about the retured football players' lawsuit, visit http://retiredfootballplayerslawsuit.com/ The plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Stein, Esq. Bob Stein LLC 2305 Byrnes Rd. Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: 952-829-1000 Fax: 952-829-1040 E-mail: rastein66@aol.com - and - Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq. Zimmerman Reed, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Phone: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $3.15M Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez will convene a fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to review the proposed $3,150,000 settlement in Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-0065 (C.D. Calif.). Several purported shareholder class-action complaints were filed in January, February and March 2007, against Powerwave, its president and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of the board of directors and its chief financial officer, in: -- Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al., -- Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al., -- Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al., and -- Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et. al. These lawsuits were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaints purport to state claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005, and Oct. 9, 2006. The essence of the allegations is that the defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning the company's projected and actual sales revenues, the integration of certain acquisitions and the sufficiency of the company's internal controls. In June 2007, the four cases were consolidated into one, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. In October 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same causes of action. The plaintiffs are represented by: Sue Lee, Esq. The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/ - and - Mark D. Smilow, Esq. Weiss & Lurie The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York City 10176 Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 Web site: http://weisslurie.com/ REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP reminds current and former shareholders of Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX) who suffered losses from investment in Repros securities during the period between July 1, 2009, and August 3, 2009, inclusive, that Friday, October 6, 2009, is the deadline for Repros investors to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the pending securities class action. In August, the law firm filed a class action complaint, in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Repros Therapeutics, and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Repros common stock between July 1, 2009, and August 3, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2009). The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading press releases regarding the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex. On August 3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending Proellex clinical trials based in a clinically significant increase in liver enzymes among participants. On that day, Repros stock closed at $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53 the trading day before. This was a 73% drop from the close of $4.96 on July 1, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Brooks, Esq. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Fax: (212) 682-1892 Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076 E-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/ STAPLES INC: Inks $790,000 Settlement in Mass. Overtime Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Staples, Inc., settled, for $790,000, a class-action lawsuit filed by a former employee who claimed she was shortchanged on overtime pay, Greg Turner at The Boston Herald reports. The suit, McCandless v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 07-11850 (D. Mass.), was filed on Oct. 1, 2007, by Kirsten McCandless, alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act. The complaint did not specify the amount of money she wanted from Staples (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2007). However, the lawsuit is seeking class action status so "all others similarly situated" may be compensated for overtime wages. Philip Gordon, Esq., a Boston attorney who represents Ms. McCandless told The MetroWest Daily News, "We're seeking unpaid overtime for a group of employees who worked more than 40 hours a week and weren't properly paid." He claims Staples has "misclassified" the workers as being exempt from overtime. "The class period covers a three-year period of time, so it would be anyone who worked in that position over the past three years," Mr. Gordon explains. The plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. Gordon Law Group 585 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-536-1800 Fax: 617-536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com - and - Ariel D. Cudkowicz, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw World Trade Center East, Suite 300 Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Phone: 617-946-4884 Fax: 617-946-4801 E-mail: acudkowicz@seyfarth.com SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Atrazine Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Growmark, Inc., face a purported class-action lawsuit filed by water districts throughout Illinois over atrazine contamination in water supplies, Clare Howard at The Peoria Journal Star reports. Stephen Tillery, Esq., filed the class-action suit this month in the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County on behalf of a rural sanitary district near Edwardsville and other water districts throughout the state. Citing recent research, the plaintiffs contend that atrazine in drinking water is unsafe at any level, even measurements well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, writes Ms. Howard. Mr. Tillery said the U.S. EPA conducted more than 40 private meetings with the leading manufacturer of atrazine to devise a testing protocol that manipulatively distorts atrazine levels in water. Illinois American Water Co. reports atrazine levels of 0.5 parts per billion in Peoria tap water, a level recent research has linked with low-birth weights, but a level well below the 3 parts per billion considered safe by the EPA. Atrazine, an herbicide often used on corn fields, is linked with breast and prostate cancers and reproductive and neurological problems, according to Ms. Howard. ULTA SALON: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for $3.75M Securities Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman will convene a fairness hearing on Nov. 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the proposed $3,750,000 settlement in In Re Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-7083 (N.D. Ill.). In December 2007 and January 2008, three putative securities class-action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its current and then-current executive officers. Each suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statement filed pursuant to the company's initial public offering contained materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts. Each suit claims violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and the two later filed suits added claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5. On March 18, 2008, the suits were consolidated and plaintiffs in the action, Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-07083, were appointed lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in May 2008, alleging no new violations of the securities laws not asserted in the prior complaints. It adds no new defendants and drops one of the then-current officers as a defendant. Valley Forge Administrative Services, Inc., has set up a specialized Web site at http://www.ultaclaims.com/to provide claimants with information about the litigation and claims process. The plaintiffs are represented by: Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. Miller Law LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-332-3400 Fax: 312-676-2676 E-mail: LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com - and - Carol V. Gilden, Esq. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-357-0370 Fax: 312-357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cmht.com - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. The Wanamaker Building 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com The defendants are represented by: Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 5800 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 E-mail: sean.berkowitz@lw.com New Securities Fraud Cases ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Align Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALGN), filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Align between January 30, 2007 and October 24, 2007. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaint charges the Company and its chief executive officer with violations of federal securities laws. Align Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the Invisalign system for treating the misalignment of teeth. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose or indicate that the Company had shifted the focus of its sales force to clearing backlog, causing a significant decrease in the number of new case starts. Consequently, defendants' misleading statements and omission of materially adverse information rendered their Class Period statements concerning the Company's business, operations and financial prospects materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 24, 2007, Align held a conference call with analysts to discuss the Company's third quarter 2007 financial results announced that same day. During the conference call, the Company shocked the market when it acknowledged, among other things, that in an effort to clear prior backlog "we did not focus enough effort on filling the pipeline for new case starts," and the Company had to refocus its field and channel marketing teams to generate new case growth. As a result of this news, shares of Align declined more than 33%, or $9.63 per share, to close the next day, October 25, 2007, at $19.07 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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. 13, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: 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/ PROSHARES TRUST: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August 5, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the ProShares UltraShort Real Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS Fund's shares. The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as defendants. ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays. As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down. The SRS Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The SRS Fund seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (- 200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index (DJREI), which measures the performance of the real estate sector of the U.S. equity market. Accordingly, the SRS Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJREI, which fell approximately 39.2 percent from January 2, 2008 through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. real estate market. In other words, the SRS Fund should have appreciated by 78.4 percent during this period. However, the SRS Fund actually fell approximately 48.2 percent during this period -- the antithesis of a directional play. The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act by failing to disclose that the SRS Fund is altogether defective as a directional investment play. Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the Registration Statement: -- inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the DJREI over time would only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and inadvertently if at all; -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular tracking error; -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance; -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's performance; -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge adjustment always going in the same direction as the movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that it is an inverse leveraged ETF; -- the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market; -- the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not attainable through the SRS Fund. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700 E-mail: ssundel@labaton.com Web site: http://www.labaton.com/ PROSHARES TRUST: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort Financials Proshares fund (NYSE: SKF) (PCX: SKF), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in connection with the SKF Fund's shares. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts. According to the complaint, the defendants failed to disclose exceptional risks associated with the SKF Fund. Investors who purchased shares of SKF Fund may have suffered losses that may be compensable under the law. The plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/ PROSHARES TRUST: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the shares of UltraShort Real Estate ProShares fund (NYSE: SRS) an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS Fund's shares against ProShares, trustees and the Treasurer of ProShares, the SRS Fund's investment advisor, and its president, and the SRS Fund's principal underwriter, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o]. The case name is styled, "McBride v. ProShares Trust, et al." ProShares consists of a series of ETFs, including the SRS Fund. ETFs, regulated by the SEC under the Investment Company Act of 1940, are low-cost funds that track a particular stock index and trade like stock. Non-traditional, or so-called "leveraged" and/or "inverse" ETFs, such as the SRS Fund, have exploded in popularity over the last few years, offering investors alternate vehicles to take bullish, bearish, and leveraged positions on popular stock indices. Available in a number of different forms, non-traditional ETFs have attracted increasingly significant investor assets. ProShares is the fifth largest provider of ETFs in the United States, and manages approximately 99 percent of the country's short and leveraged ETFs. ProShares designs each of its ETFs to correspond to the performance of a daily benchmark- such as the price performance, the inverse of the price performance, or a multiple of the inverse of the price performance-of an index or security. The SRS Fund, in particular, seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index (DJREI), which measures the performance of the real estate sector of the U.S. equity market. The SRS Fund is mandated to take positions in securities and/or financial instruments that, in combination, should have similar daily return characteristics as -200% of the daily return of the DJREI. The Complaint alleges that ProShares states that the SRS Fund seeks to replicate double the inverse return of the daily returns of the DJREI, noting that it "does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than one day." Of course, this statement does not warn investors that holding the SRS Fund for more than a day will most certainly lead to enormous losses. In fact, ProShares could not make that statement and remain in business with respect to the SRS Fund. As ProShares knows, investors do not view ETFs as day trading investment vehicles and did not day- trade the SRS Fund. Moreover, it is virtually economically impossible for all SRS Fund purchasers to sell out of their positions at the end of one day. The Complaint also alleges that the SRS Fund is not a simple investment vehicle, did not go up when its benchmark index went down, and investors in the SRS Fund have been shocked to learn that their supposedly safe hedge has caused them substantial losses. This action further alleges that Defendants failed to disclose, among other things, the following risks in the Registration Statement: -- the inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the DJREI over time would only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and inadvertently if at all; -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI - i.e. the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular tracking error; -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance; -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's performance; -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge adjustment always going in the same direction as the movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that it is an inverse leveraged ETF; -- that the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market; and -- that the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not attainable through the SRS Fund. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of the SRS Trust shares. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Russell S. Miness, Esq. Derek Behnke, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: 800-575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com/ STIEFEL LABORATORIES: Ruden McClosky Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., announces that an action styled James A. Bacon, Karl F. Popp, and Marion Burk v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., Charles W. Stiefel, Brent D. Stiefel, Todd Stiefel, Lodewijk de Vink, Committee Member #1, Committee Member #2, Committee Member #3, Matt S. Pattullo, Terence N. Bogush, CPA, and Bogush & Grady, LLP, Case No. 09- 21871 (S.D. Fla.) has been filed on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class is defined as: all vested participants in the Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan who sold their shares or directed that the shares in their account in the Plan be sold to the Company on or before March 31, 2009. The Complaint also includes at least one sub-class of class plaintiffs defined as: all vested participants in the Company's Plan who sold their shares or directed that the shares in their account in the Plan be sold to the Company from November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. The proposed class or sub-class does not include any of the Defendants. The Complaint asserts several claims against some or all of the Defendants, in seven counts. In addition to counts asserting claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Securities Act, and counts asserting state law claims for violation of the Florida Securities Act, for accountant malpractice, and for breach of fiduciary duty, Count IV of the Complaint asserts claims for damages and attorneys' fees against Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., and Charles W. Stiefel, for violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j and 78t of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Sections 19(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5), with regard to shares of Company Stock in the Plan. The Complaint in this action alleges that uniform misrepresentations and omissions were made to all class members, that concealed the actual fair value of the Plan stock held by the Plan as of the time of the misrepresentations and omissions. These misrepresentations and omissions were made to all class members in written correspondence sent by Charles Stiefel and other Company personnel. The claims asserted in this Action, including the federal securities law violation claims, are based upon the Company's undervaluing of the Company Stock by using an unqualified and negligent appraiser for more than 20 years, by means of which the Company has regularly bought its stock from terminated, retired or otherwise separated vested Plan participants for less than fair value. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the sub-class of plaintiffs who sold Company stock from November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 is additionally damaged because the Company failed to disclose, and actively concealed and denied, that it was negotiating for the imminent sale of the Company at a much greater value per share than the price under which the Company was inducing and encouraging vested Plan participants to sell or direct the sale of their stock interest back to the Company, through one or more of the following: termination; the offering of a "first time ever" opportunity to request "diversification" of all or a portion of the Company Stock in an Employee Plan participant's account at the most recent stock price; or through enabling Employee Plan participants to submit a request, on or before certain "key dates," to obtain a distribution and "put" of Company Stock from their account. The Complaint asserts that as a result, Defendants were able to reduce the outstanding number of shares of Company Stock by approximately 4,355 shares, thus increasing the value to the remaining shareholders and entities' stock value by approximately $226 million, and damaging the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The plaintiffs are represented by: Norman Segall, Esq. Beth-Ann Krimsky, Esq. Jennifer Walker, Esq. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-789-2700 or 954-764-6660 Fax: (305) 789-2727 E-mail: norman.segall@ruden.com beth-ann.krimsky@ruden.com jennifer.walker@ruden.com Web site: http://www.ruden.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 * * *