/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090826.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 168 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass. ARIZONA: Ariz. Sup. Ct. Ruling Limits Class Status Appeals BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $150M Settlement with La. Pension Funds BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Sigma Finance Losses Pending BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Madoff Investments Pending BARRICK GOLD: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for "Wagner" Suit Settlement BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in Mass. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Suits Over 2007 IPO Prospectus Pending in N.Y. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Certifies Subscribers' NIS 440M Lawsuit CEPHALON INC: Faces Pa. Antitrust Litigation Over Provigil GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Remain Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Antitrust Lawsuits Over American Export Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement of Delphi ERISA Suit Pending in Mich. GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Faces Consolidated Analog Equipment Suit GOOGLE INC: Tech Companies to Team Up v. $125M Book Settlement INSURANCE COMPANIES: Court Rejects Law on Claims for Armenians LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Faces Appeal to Nixed Ariz. Securities Suit MF GLOBAL: Motion to Amend Consolidated Securities Suit Pending PATRIOT COAL: Unit Still Faces PI Suits Over Exposure to Dioxin SEMGROUP ENERGY: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Lawsuit STATE STREET: Mich. Judge Denies Motion in "Pfiel" Litigation TFS FIN'L: Appeal to Ohio Sup. Ct. in "Greenspan" Suit Pending VALUECLICK INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for $10M "Waldrep" Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases DWS RREEF: Horwitz Horwitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. MGM MIRAGE: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories continues to defend itself in In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456; Master Docket No. 01-CV-12257 (D. Mass.) (Saris, J.), 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. Initially, a number of cases, brought as purported class actions or representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, that allege generally that Abbott and numerous other pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors are pending. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and other state government entities, generally seek monetary damages and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Abbott has filed or intends to file a response in each case denying all substantive allegations. The federal court cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before the Honorable Patti B. Saris in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. MDL No. 1456 includes: -- a purported class action case in which plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B consumers and two Massachusetts classes of third party payors and other consumers (filed in June 2003); -- seven state Attorneys General and two state county suits, including a consolidated New York counties/City of New York suit (filed in June 2005); -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida in May 2006); and -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc., unsealed against Abbott in August 2007 and in which the U.S. declined to intervene. The MDL Court is transferring the case brought by the Montana Attorney General back to the Montana federal court for a ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment. In May 2009, in connection with the MDL 1456 litigation, Abbott settled the case brought by the Arizona State Attorney General. In connection with the cases pending in state courts: (a) in May 2009, Abbott settled the State of Ohio case; and (b) in June 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the Swanston case and dismissed Abbott from the case without prejudice. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marjory P. Albee, Esq. (malbee@magergoldstein.com) Mager & Goldstein LLP 1818 Market Street, Suite 3710 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-640-3280 Fax: 215-640-3281 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101-1090 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 Representing the defendants: Toni-Ann Citera, Esq. (tcitera@jonesday.com) Jones Day 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017-6702 Phone: 212-782-3939 Fax: 212-755-7306 - and - Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbau@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: 212-735-3000 ARIZONA: Ariz. Sup. Ct. Ruling Limits Class Status Appeals ---------------------------------------------------------- The Arizona Supreme Court is making it harder to press class- action lawsuits on behalf of groups of plaintiffs, The Associated Press reports. A unanimous ruling issued by the state high court on Aug. 24, 2009, says plaintiffs cannot routinely appeal trial judge's denial of class-action status for cases. That could make it uneconomical for some plaintiffs to proceed with their cases on an individual basis. The ruling overturns a 1972 decision by the current justices' predecessors and says the new ruling is based partly on a subsequent holding by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the PA. The recent ruling comes in a lawsuit in which a truck driver claimed that Swift Transportation Co. of Phoenix engaged in a pattern of underpaying drivers for miles driven, reports the AP. BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $150M Settlement with La. Pension Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit against the former Merrill Lynch & Co. for $150 million, according to a Reuters report. The Honorable Jed Rakoff approved the settlement on Aug. 21, 2009, and the deal reached with two Louisiana pension funds was made public on Aug. 24, 2009. The case, In re Merrill Lynch & Co Inc Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, No. 07-9633 (S.D.N.Y.), accused Merrill of issuing false and misleading prospectuses and registration statements in connection with securities offerings made between 2006 and 2008. Two Louisiana pension funds, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, were the lead plaintiffs in the case, reports Reuters. About 20 former Merrill executives and directors were named as defendants, including former chief executives Stanley O'Neal and John Thain. Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch & Co. on Jan. 1, creating the largest U.S. bank by assets. A representative of the bank was not immediately available for comment, according to Reuters. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Sigma Finance Losses Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. continues to face class action lawsuits by participants in the securities lending program over losses related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc. A number of participants in the securities lending program, which is associated with the company's asset servicing business, have filed or threatened lawsuits against the company or its affiliates. The participants allege that they have incurred losses, including losses related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc., and seek damages as to those losses. Certain of these cases seek to proceed as class actions, 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. The participants assert contractual, statutory, and common law claims, including claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides services that enable institutions and individuals to manage and service their financial assets in more than 100 markets worldwide. The Company is based in New York. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Madoff Investments Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. is defending putative class action lawsuits over alleged losses related to investments with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The company or its affiliates have been named in several civil lawsuits relating to certain investment funds that invested money with Madoff. Ivy Asset Management LLC, a subsidiary that primarily manages funds-of-hedge-funds, acted as a sub-advisor to the managers of some of those funds. Plaintiffs allege that the funds suffered losses in connection with the Madoff investments. Plaintiffs assert various causes of action against the company or its affiliates, and other parties, including securities and common-law fraud. Certain of the cases seek to proceed as class actions and/or to assert derivative claims on behalf of the funds, 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. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides services that enable institutions and individuals to manage and service their financial assets in more than 100 markets worldwide. The Company is based in New York. BARRICK GOLD: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for "Wagner" Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Richard M. Berman has scheduled a fairness hearing on Nov. 5, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the proposed $24,000,000 settlement in Wagner v. Barrick Gold Corp., et al., Case No. 03-4302 (S.D.N.Y.). In March, Barrick Gold settled for $24,000,000, a class-action lawsuit alleging that the gold miner misled shareholders about the company's performance in 2002. Investors filed the lawsuit in 2003, alleging that the gold producer did not adequately disclose the impact of higher mining costs, lower production, and its forward selling of gold, factors they said led to a sharp fall in the company's shares in late 2002, according to Reuters. Named in the lawsuit were the company, former Barrick chief executive Randall Oliphant, former chief operating officer John Carrington, and current chief financial officer Jamie Sokalsky. The Garden City Group, Inc., has established a Web site at http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/1523to provide information about this litigation, the proposed settlement, and claims processing. The plaintiffs are represented by: David A.P. Brower, Esq. Brower Piven 488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-501-9000 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ - and - Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Web site: http://www.btkmc.com/ BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated antitrust lawsuit is pending against The Blackstone Group L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts over private equity services, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a lawsuit against 16 private equity firms and investment banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit alleges that from mid-2003, the defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The suit seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions. The complaint also includes three purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking damages and restitution and comprised of shareholders of three companies, including one purchased by an investor group that included one of the company's private equity funds. In February 2008, a virtually identical lawsuit was filed in the same court by a purported class of shareholders of the one company referred to in the preceding sentence that was purchased by an investor group that included one of Blackstone's private equity funds. This suit was subsequently consolidated with the previous case. In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added two more purported subclasses of plaintiffs seeking damages and restitution and comprised of shareholders of two additional companies, including one purchased by an investor group that included one of the company's private equity funds. The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a global alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory services. It is an independent alternative asset manager with assets under management of $102.43 billion, as of Dec. 31, 2007. Its alternative asset management businesses include the management of corporate private equity funds, real estate funds, funds of hedge funds, mezzanine funds, senior debt vehicles, hedge funds and closed-end mutual funds. The company also provides various financial advisory services, including corporate and mergers and acquisitions advisory, restructuring and reorganization advisory, and fund placement services. It operates in four business segments, including Corporate Private Equity, Real Estate, Marketable Alternative Asset Management and Financial Advisory. On March 3, 2008, the company acquired GSO Capital Partners LP and certain of its affiliates. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Suits Over 2007 IPO Prospectus Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to face several purported class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In April and May 2008, four substantially identical complaints were brought before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Blackstone; its chairman and chief executive officer, Stephen A. Schwarzman; and its chief financial officer, Michael A. Puglisi. These suits purport to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of Blackstone common units in the company's June 21, 2007, initial public offering and claim that the prospectus for the initial public offering was false and misleading for failing to disclose that certain investments made by Blackstone private equity funds were performing poorly at the time of the initial public offering and were materially impaired. The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a global alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory services. It is an independent alternative asset manager with assets under management of $102.43 billion, as of Dec. 31, 2007. Its alternative asset management businesses include the management of corporate private equity funds, real estate funds, funds of hedge funds, mezzanine funds, senior debt vehicles, hedge funds and closed-end mutual funds. The company also provides various financial advisory services, including corporate and mergers and acquisitions advisory, restructuring and reorganization advisory, and fund placement services. It operates in four business segments, including Corporate Private Equity, Real Estate, Marketable Alternative Asset Management and Financial Advisory. On March 3, 2008, the company acquired GSO Capital Partners LP and certain of its affiliates. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Certifies Subscribers' NIS 440M Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Petah Tikva District Court agreed to certify a NIS 440 million class-action lawsuit against Cellcom Israel, Ltd. (NYSE: CEL; TASE: CEL) for allegedly charging subscribers to provide details of their telephone bills in violation of the subscribers' contracts, Yitzhak Danon at Globes reports. The original lawsuit was filed in March 2008. The petitioners claim that, beginning in 2004, Cellcom began charging them NIS 4.90 per month for pages appended to their telephone bills, a service that the company previously provided free of charge, without obtaining their consent. Cellcom subsequently expanded the charge to business customers, charging them NIS 3 per month for the service. Cellcom stated, that based on legal counsel, it believes the court's decision is mistaken and that it intends to appeal the decision, according to Globes. Judge Esther Stemmer approved the request to file the lawsuit as a class-action lawsuit, after ruling that Cellcom was in breach of its agreements with subscribers because there is no clause in the terms of the agreements or in the company's license allowing it to begin charging for a service previously provided for free. Judge Stemmer said that when determining the amount that Cellcom will have to refund subscribers, the company gave the subscribers the option of discontinuing the service, and that the service was also provided via the company's website, Globes reported. CEPHALON INC: Faces Pa. Antitrust Litigation Over Provigil ---------------------------------------------------------- Cephalon, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of conspiring with other drug makers to delay generic competition for its blockbuster drug Provigil, Jeff Schreiber at Courthouse News Service reports. The suit, Rite Aid Corp., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., Case No. 09-03820 (E.D. Pa.), was filed on Aug. 20, 2009, by Rite Aid Corp., Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., JCG (PJC) USA, LLC, Eckerd Corp., and Maxi Drug, Inc. In addition to Cephalon, others listed as defendants in the case are Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Phamaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Phamaceuticals USA, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The suit claims that Cephalon bought more time for its "wakefulness promoting agent" by paying more than $200 million to generic manufacturers in four patent settlements. The pharmacies say that had not Cephalon taken steps to "destroy the market for generic Provigil and the potential benefits to consumers from generic entry," generic versions of the drug could have been available by January 2006. Sales for Provigil, Cephalon's flagship drug, hit nearly $1 billion in 2008. It is prescribed for sleep apnea and narcolepsy, to help people stay awake. It's become a popular drug on college campuses, where students use it as a high-class form of "speed" to study. The pharmacies demand treble damages and an injunction. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4304 The plaintiffs are represented by: Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. Hangley & Aronchick 30 North Third Street, Suite 700 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1701 Phone: 717-364-1030 Fax: 717-364-1020 Web site: http://www.hangley.com/ GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. continues to face consolidated Canadian export antitrust class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine and the California Superior Court in San Francisco County. Approximately 80 purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United States since Jan. 1, 2001, have been filed in various state and federal courts against General Motors Corporation, GMCL, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited, and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the caption In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, and the more than 30 California cases have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota Corporation, et al. and Bell v. General Motors Corporation. General Motors Corporation's liability in these matters was not transferred to General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale. GMCL was not part of the General Motors Corporation bankruptcy proceeding and potentially remains liable in all matters. In the California state court cases, oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendants' motion in limine will be heard on April 21, 2009. The court ruled that it would certify a class and defendants are preparing a written appeal to the appropriate California court. The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive prices by U.S. consumers. The complaints, as amended, sought injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages under federal antitrust law but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006, certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007 stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003. On Oct. 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on the company's consolidated appeal of both class certification orders. On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete record. On remand, plaintiffs again moved to certify a damages class, and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs' economic expert. On July 2, 2009, the court granted one of defendant's summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs are expected to appeal, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009. General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/ Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. GENERAL MOTORS: Antitrust Lawsuits Over American Export Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) and Motors Liquidation Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors Corporation, continue to face antitrust class actions related to American export. On Sept. 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GMCL and MLC on behalf of a purported class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009. General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/ Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement of Delphi ERISA Suit Pending in Mich. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re Delphi ERISA Litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan remains pending, according to General Motors Corp.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009. GMIMCo (General Motors Investment Management Corporation) is one of numerous defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed in March and April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) with respect to the Delphi company stock plans for salaried and hourly employees. The cases have been consolidated under the case caption In re Delphi ERISA Litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated pretrial proceedings with other Delphi stockholder lawsuits in which GMIMCo is not named as a defendant. The complaints essentially allege that GMIMCo, a named fiduciary of the Delphi plans, breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA to plan participants by allowing them to invest in the Delphi Common Stock Fund when it was imprudent to do so, by failing to monitor State Street, the entity appointed by GMIMCo to serve as investment manager for the Delphi Common Stock Fund, and by knowingly participating in, enabling or failing to remedy breaches of fiduciary duty by other defendants. No determination has been made that a class action can be maintained against GMIMCo, and there have been no decisions on the merits of the claims. Delphi has reached a settlement of these cases that, if implemented, would provide for dismissal of all claims against GMIMCo related to this litigation without payment by GMIMCo. That settlement has been approved by both the District Judge in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Bankruptcy Judge in the Southern District of New York presiding over Delphi's bankruptcy proceeding. However, implementation of the settlement remains conditioned upon (1) the resolution of a pending appeal of the district court's approval and (2) the implementation of Delphi's plan of reorganization approved by the Bankruptcy Court. General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/ Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Faces Consolidated Analog Equipment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiary, OnStar Corporation, continues to face a consolidated class action proceeding captioned In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. OnStar is party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware. OnStar was unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular carriers which provide communication service to OnStar terminated analog service beginning in February 2008. In the various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. This proceeding is in the early stages of development and has been stayed while the court considers the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims. Class certification motions have not been filed and the parties have completed minimal document discovery, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009. General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/ Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. GOOGLE INC: Tech Companies to Team Up v. $125M Book Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Three tech companies are expected to team up in a class-action settlement with the Internet Archive and the libraries and nonprofits that make up the Open Book Alliance to oppose Google, Inc.'s plans to digitize millions of books and put them on the Internet, Mitchell Hall at The National Business Review reports. While Microsoft Corp., and Yahoo, Inc., have confirmed they're joining the coalition, Amazon, which as a book retailer arguably has the most lose, is set to make its own announcement in coming weeks. All three companies have a financial stake in how the deal is settled. Google's Book Search service is controversial partly because it allows Google (and no one else) to digitize "orphan works," in which it is not clear who the copyright owner is or if the copyright has lapsed. Critics also say it is anticompetitive, because it gives Google alone the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries once books are digitized, and uploaded to the web, reports Reuters. Google reached a deal in October last year to settle a lawsuit filed by the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers three years earlier when Google began scanning books without permission, but the deal has attracted the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission and a group of US state attorneys general. The $125 million settlement set up a mechanism for Google, along with a book rights registry operated by authors and publishers, to display and sell millions of books online. The settlement is set for a hearing regarding its approval on Oct. 7, 2009, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. INSURANCE COMPANIES: Court Rejects Law on Claims for Armenians -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated a California law that allowed heirs of Armenians killed in the Turkish Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago to seek payment on the life insurance policies of dead relatives, Lisa Leff at ClaimsJournal.com reports. The federal appeals court in San Francisco said the law amounted to unconstitutional meddling in U.S. foreign policy. It based its 2-1 ruling on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down another California law designed to help Holocaust survivors collect on Nazi-era insurance policies. The federal government does not recognize the mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, but the California Legislature did in 2000 when it enacted the disputed law. About half of the people of Armenian descent living in the U.S., currently reside in California. Brian Kabateck, Esq., who represents Armenian-American heirs, plans to appeal. According to Mr. Kabateck, if the ruling is not set aside, it would prevent Armenian heirs from claiming inheritances and prohibit California and other states from marking the anniversary of the onset of the ethnic bloodshed that claimed the lives of up to 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1919 in what is now eastern Turkey. Mr. Kabateck alleges European banks and insurers illegally retained assets valued in 1915 at about $15 million, a sum worth substantially more at today's value. The California Legislature passed a law giving heirs of Armenians who died or fled to avoid persecution until the end of next year to file claims for old bank accounts and life insurance policies. The ruling reversed a lower court judge who refused to dismiss another class-action suit against the German life insurance companies. Turkey long has denied the loss of so many Armenian lives constituted genocide and instead describes the deaths as resulting from civil unrest that accompanied the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The appeals court agreed with the German companies that California's policy improperly conflicted with the federal government's foreign policy aims. Neil Soltman, Esq., the lawyer who represented the German insurance companies that prevailed in the case, said his clients had stood to lose in payouts to Armenian-Americans in California. Mr. Soltman said it was not clear the companies ever sold life insurance policies to victims of the Ottoman Empire violence. The plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Kabateck, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 Fax: 213-217-5010 Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com/ The defendants are represented by: Neil Soltman, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: 213-229-9516 Fax: 213-576-8148 E-mail: nsoltman@mayerbrown.com Web site: http://www.mayerbrown.com/ LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Faces Appeal to Nixed Ariz. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Limelight Networks, Inc., continues to face an appeal from the dismissal of Mustafa v. Limelight Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-02238 (D. Ariz.) (Bolton, J.). In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and current and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in the company's initial public offering were named as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona and the Southern District of New York. The New York cases were transferred to Arizona and all were consolidated into a single action. The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased the company's common stock in its initial public offering and pursuant to its Prospectus. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the seasonality of its business and the loss of revenue related to certain customers. On March 17, 2008, the company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims (Class Action Reporter, April 2, 2008). On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2008). Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15, and on Aug. 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of the company. On Sept. 5, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and February 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 is: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rljacobs@pipeline.com) Paskowitz Law Firm PC 60 E 42nd St., 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-867-1156 Fax: 212-504-8343 Representing the defendants is: Maureen Beyers, Esq. (mbeyers@omlaw.com) Osborn Maledon PA 2929 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Phone: 602-640-9305 Fax: 602-664-2053 MF GLOBAL: Motion to Amend Consolidated Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to file an amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against MF Global, Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the Initial Public Offering is pending. Five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Section 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk management and monitoring practices and procedures. The five purported shareholder class-actions have been consolidated for all purposes into a single action. The company made a motion to dismiss, which has been granted, with plaintiff having a right to replead or appeal the dismissal. Plaintiffs have made a motion to file an amended complaint, which is pending. Because the motion to dismiss was made before discovery, the litigation is in its early stages, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The consolidated suit is Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case No. 08-cv-02233 (S.D.N.Y.) (Marrero, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq. (racocelli@weisslurie.com) Weiss & Lurie The Fred French Building 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176 Phone: 212-682-3025 Fax: 212-682-3010 - and - William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 Fax: 215-963-0838 Representing the defendants are: David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com) Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1000 Fax: 212-403-2000 - and - David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com) Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP 333 Main St. New York, NY 10504 Phone: 212-446-2310 Fax: 212-446-2350 PATRIOT COAL: Unit Still Faces PI Suits Over Exposure to Dioxin --------------------------------------------------------------- Apogee Coal Company, LLC, one of Patriot Coal Corporation's subsidiaries, continues to face putative class action lawsuits alleging personal injury caused by exposure to dioxin. Apogee has been sued, along with eight other defendants, including Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., by certain plaintiffs in state court in Putnam County, West Virginia. The lawsuits were filed in October 2007, but not served on Apogee until February 2008, and each are identical except for the named plaintiff. They each allege personal injury occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by a plant owned and operated by certain of the other defendants during production of a chemical, 2,4,5-T, from 1949-1969. Apogee is alleged to be liable as the successor to the liabilities of a company that owned and/or controlled a dump site known as the Manila Creek landfill, which allegedly received and incinerated dioxin- contaminated waste from the plant. The lawsuits seek class action certification as well as compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury. Under the terms of the governing lease, Monsanto has assumed the defense of these lawsuits and has agreed to indemnify Apogee for any related damages. The failure of Monsanto to satisfy its indemnification obligations under the lease could have a material adverse effect on the company, according to Patriot Coal's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Patriot Coal Corporation -- http://www.patriotcoal.com/-- is a producer of coal in the eastern United States, with operations and coal reserves in Appalachia and the Illinois Basin. It is also a producer of metallurgical quality coal. The company's operations consist of 16 mining complexes, which include company operated mines, contractor-operated mines and coal preparation facilities. SEMGROUP ENERGY: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., is pursuing the dismissal of a consolidated amended complaint filed as a putative class-action on behalf of all purchasers of the company's units from July 17, 2007 to July 17, 2008. Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class-action complaints were filed: 1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21, 2008). The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on Aug. 26, 2008; 2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma (filed July 22, 2008); 3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed July 25, 2008); 4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8, 2008); 5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 25, 2008); and 6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Sept. 4, 2008). Pursuant to a motion filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Maurer case has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and consolidated with the Carson case. The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma. A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008. At that hearing, the court granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425 (N.D. Okla.). The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated litigation. On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated amended complaint. On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify the stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court granted Plaintiff's motion, and the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009. The lead plaintiff obtained an extension to file its consolidated amended complaint until May 4, 2009; defendants have 60 days from that date to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on May 4, 2009. In that complaint, filed as a putative class action on behalf of all purchasers of the company's units from July 17, 2007 to July 17, 2008 (the "class period"), lead plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws against the company, its general partner, certain of its current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters in its initial and secondary public offerings, and certain entities who were investors in the Private Company and their individual representatives who served on the Private Company's management committee. Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the company's financial condition throughout the class period was dependent upon speculative commodities trading by the Private Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and that Defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose this speculative trading in the company's public filings during the class period. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges claims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to all persons who purchased our units in the initial and secondary offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b- 5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class-action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and rescissory damages for class members, pre-judgment interest, costs of court, and attorneys' fees. On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss 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 March 31, 2009. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.SGLP.com/-- owns and operates a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream energy assets. SemGroup Energy Partners provides crude oil and liquid asphalt cement terminalling and storage services and crude oil gathering and transportation services. STATE STREET: Mich. Judge Denies Motion in "Pfiel" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Denise Page Hood denied Bank & Trust Co.'s request to move Pfeil, et al. v. State Street Bank and Trust Company, Case No. 09-12229 (E.D. Mich.), to the Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds in the same court, Barry B. Burr at Pensions & Investments reports. The lawsuit claims State Street failed to sell General Motors Corp. stock before its price collapsed earlier this year, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars of losses to GM's salaried and hourly employees' 401(k) plans. The suit, filed by several participants in U.S. District Court in Detroit, seeks class-action status. It contends State Street, breached its duty as independent fiduciary for the two plans. It also contends that the company's actions are in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The plaintiffs are represented by: Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq. Scott & Scott 12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12 Cleveland Heights, OH 44106 Phone: 216-229-6088 Fax: 216-229-6092 E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com - and - Elwood S. Simon Elwood S. Simon & Associates, P.C. 21 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 250 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Phone: 248-646-9730 Fax: 248-258-2335 E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com The defendant is represented by: James D. VandeWyngearde Pepper Hamilton (Detroit) 100 Renaissance Center, 36th Floor Detroit, MI 48243-1157 Phone: 313-259-7110 E-mail: vandewyj@pepperlaw.com TFS FIN'L: Appeal to Ohio Sup. Ct. in "Greenspan" Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Ohio has yet to rule on TFS Financial Corp.'s appeal from the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in the putative class-action lawsuit captioned Gary A. Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan. On June 13, 2006, Dr. Gary Greenspan filed a putative class action lawsuit against TFS Financial's Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, captioned Gary A. Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan, Case No. CV 06 593882, in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Ohio residents in connection with mortgage loans that the company provided to the plaintiff and the putative class members. The plaintiff alleges that the company impermissibly charged a "document preparation fee" that included the cost of preparing legal documents in connection with the mortgages. The plaintiff further alleges that the company should disgorge the document preparation fee because the document preparation constituted the practice of law and was performed by company employees who are not licensed to practice law in Ohio. The plaintiff sought to certify a class of individuals who were charged such a fee "anytime after June 13, 2001." The company answered the plaintiff's complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the company's motion and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. On June 25, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint as to claims arising before Sept. 15, 2004, the date that the relevant statute was amended to expressly give the Ohio Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over claims for the unauthorized practice of law. On Aug. 8, 2008, the company appealed the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio which then accepted the appeal on Dec. 3, 2008. The record was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court on Jan. 2, 2009. In addition, on Aug. 8, 2008, the company filed a Complaint in Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court, which then dismissed the mandamus action on Dec. 3, 2008. The company filed its Appellant Brief in February 2009, and the Appellee filed its Brief in April 2009. Oral argument was held on June 2, 2009. As of June 30, 2009, the Court has not yet issued a ruling. On July 23, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and reinstated the trial court's order granting the company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which held that the Plaintiff, Greenspan, has no private right of action. The favorable decision to the company on this matter is final, 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. TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- is a federally chartered stock holding company, conducts its activities through its wholly owned subsidiaries. The line of business of the Company is retail consumer banking, mortgage lending, deposit gathering and other financial services. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC (Third Federal Savings, MHC), and its federally chartered mutual holding company parent owns 71.82% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the company. The company's operating subsidiaries include Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland and Third Capital, Inc. VALUECLICK INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for $10M "Waldrep" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in connection with the proposed $10,000,000 settlement in Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 07-05411 (C.D. Calif.). The 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 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2009). A similar purported class-action lawsuit, Brown v. ValueClick, Case No. CV 07-05921 (C.D. Calif.), 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 on 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. Copies of the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing and a Proof of Claim form, are available from the Claims Administrator: ValueClick, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP P.O. Box 150 Philadelphia, PA 19105 Phone: (888) 665-1127 To participate in the Settlement, claimants must submit a Proof of Claim no later than November 9, 2009. Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the Class will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court. Any objections to the Settlement must be filed by October 9, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. Barrack Rodos and Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com - and - Mary K. Blasy, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: maryb@csgrr.com The defendants are represented by: Michael B. Smith, Esq. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-5300 E-mail: mbsmith@gibsondunn.com New Securities Fraud Cases DWS RREEF: Horwitz Horwitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- On August 24, 2009, Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common shares of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund, Inc., and DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc., from March 8, 2007 through November 17, 2008, who were damaged thereby, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that RREEF America, LLC, Deutsche Asset Management, Inc., DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund, Inc., DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc., Michael G. Clark, the President of the Funds, and Paul H. Schubert, the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Funds violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Funds and the risks in connection with an investment in the Funds common stock. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 23, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Schwartz, Esq. Frank Schirripa, Esq. Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis Phone: 212-986-4500 E-mail: mschwartz@hhplawny.com fschirripa@hhplawny.com Web site: http://www.hhplawny.com/ MGM MIRAGE: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of MGM Mirage stock during the period between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, inclusive for violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning MGM's financial strength, liquidity and the prospects for the development of MGM's CityCenter. This caused MGM's common stock price to be artificially inflated, allowing MGM insiders to sell close to $90 million worth of MGM stock at higher prices than they would otherwise have obtained. As the true facts about MGM's deteriorating financial condition and the Company's inability to fund the CityCenter project leaked into the market, the inflation in the price of MGM stock was removed, causing plaintiff and the members of the Class damages. 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. 12, 2009. 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/ ********* 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 * * *