/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090831.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 31, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 171 Headlines AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Phoenix Over Auto Insurance Practices AMSHER COLLECTION: Delinquent Debtors Hate Humiliating Mailings ASPARTAME MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Filed in E.D. Pa. AON CORP: Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Pending Approval AON CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal of RICO Claims Dismissal Pending AON CORP: Former Unit Defends Suit Over Unearned Premium Refunds BABY JOGGER: Recalls 41,000 Strollers CLARK HOLDINGS: To Defend vs. Fuel Surcharges Complain in N.J. DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Shareholder Class Action Suit Tossed EXPEDIA: Future Travel Credit Seen as Best Settlement Option FINCORP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action Lawsuit FLORIDA RED-LIGHT CAMERAS: Lawyers Racing to Bring 'Em to a Halt FRIGIDAIRE: Recalling 200,000 Electric Ranges GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Changes to 1998 Heating Vent Pipe Recall IKEA HOME: Recalling 500 IKEA KARLSTAD Sofa-Beds IKEA HOME: Roman Shade Recall LEWIS HYMAN: Roll-Up Blind & Roman Shade Recalls MAYTAG CORP: Expands Recall of Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard MGM MIRAGE: Receives Shareholder Suit & Says It Has No Merit NVIDIA CORP: October 19 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 1 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Suit QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls 500 Girls' Waist-Drawstring Hoodies SUBARU OF AMERICA: Defective Odometer Suit Survives TIME INC: Sports Illustrated Promotion Comes Under Fire TOTAL CALL: Settles "Coppolino" Pre-Paid Calling Card Litigation WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Roman Shade Recall New Securities Fraud Cases BARE ESCENTUALS: Shareholder Suit Filed in San Francisco BEAR ESCENTUALS: Scott+Scott File Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. CARDIONET INC: Bernard Gross Files Shareholder Suit in E.D. Pa. SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Holzer Holzer Files Lawsuit in C.D. Calif. ********* AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Phoenix Over Auto Insurance Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that American Family Mutual Insurance Co. wrongfully denies claims for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, a class action filed in Maricopa County Court in Phoenix, Ariz., claims. A copy of the complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/Insure.pdf AMSHER COLLECTION: Delinquent Debtors Hate Humiliating Mailings --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action claims Amsher Collection Services, based in Birmingham, Ala., humiliates people by sending letters with its business name prominently displayed on the envelopes, according to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and obtained by Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/Collections.pdf ASPARTAME MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Filed in E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- Ajinomoto, Monsanto, Nutrasweet and others conspired to monopolize the market for aspartame, an artificial sweetener, according to an antitrust class action in Philadelphia Federal Court and reviewed by Courthouse News Service reports. A copy of the complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/Aspartame.pdf AON CORP: Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Pending Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of the federal securities class action suit against Aon Corp. is awaiting final court approval. The company is a defendant in several purported class-action suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of either the securities laws or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Beginning in late October 2004, several putative securities class-action suits were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The first securities fraud lawsuit, Wolintz v. Aon Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-cv-06962 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on Oct. 28, 2004. Also beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA class-action suits were filed against Aon. The first ERISA lawsuit, Kahn v. Aon Corporation, et al, Case No. 04-cv-06965 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on Oct. 28, 2004. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action submitted purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged damages of $353 million to $490 million, and plaintiffs in the ERISA class actions submitted revised purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged damages of $74 million to $349 million. Aon submitted expert reports in opposition concluding that plaintiffs' theories of liability and causation are meritless and that, in any event, plaintiffs incurred no damages. In June 2009, Aon reached agreement on a proposed settlement of the federal securities class action under which Aon would pay $30 million to the class. This settlement is subject to a process requiring final approval by the trial court and a possible appeal, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On June 12, 2009, Aon entered into two settlement agreements with XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd. resulting in the receipt of $26 million by Aon. The agreements resolve, among other things, a lawsuit between XL and Aon relating to whether XL's policy covered losses relating to, among other things, these matters. Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting; and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance products. AON CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal of RICO Claims Dismissal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in several purported class-action suits against Aon Corp. that allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act are appealing the dismissal of their claims by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Beginning in June 2004, a number of putative class-action suits were filed against Aon and other companies by purported classes of clients under a variety of legal theories, including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory theories and federal antitrust and RICO theories. The federal actions were consolidated with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a state court collective action was filed in California. In the New Jersey actions, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in August and October 2007. The plaintiffs have appealed these dismissals. The company reported no further development regarding the cases in its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting; and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance products. AON CORP: Former Unit Defends Suit Over Unearned Premium Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aon Corp.'s former Resource Life Insurance Company subsidiary is defending a putative class action captioned Buckner v. Resource Life, in state court in Columbus, Georgia. The complaint alleges that Resource Life, which wrote policies insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and return unearned premium to policyholders whose loans terminated before the end of their scheduled terms. In connection with the sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed to indemnify Resource Life's buyer in certain respects relating to this action. In April 2009, a magistrate appointed by the court recommended that the court issue an order holding, inter alia, that a large number of policyholders should be presumed to be entitled to unearned premium refunds of as-yet-undetermined amounts. The court has not yet determined whether to accept the recommendation or whether to certify a class, 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. Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting; and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance products. BABY JOGGER: Recalls 41,000 Strollers ------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Baby Jogger LLC, of Richmond, Va., initiated a voluntary recall of about 41,000 Baby Jogger City Mini Strollers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The stroller's restraint buckle could break or unlatch allowing the child or infant to fall out. No injuries have been reporter. This recall involves Baby Jogger City Mini single and double strollers. "City Mini" is printed on the stroller. Item numbers and date codes included in this recall are listed at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09334.html The item number is printed on a sticker on the rear wheel crossbar. The manufacturing date code is engraved on the frame behind the rear wheel axle crossbar or on the back of the frame on the upright bar between the right rear wheel and the seat. The strollers were sold at juvenile products stores, mass merchandisers, and department stores nationwide and on various Web sites including www.amazon.com from November 2007 through July 2009 for between $220 and $400. The strollers were manufactured in China. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and contact Baby Jogger to receive a free replacement restraint buckle and installation instructions. For additional information, contact Baby Jogger at 877-506-2213 between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET, e-mail the firm at recall@babyjogger.com, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.babyjogger.com/ CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product at https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx BEAR LAKE: Acknowledges Receipt of Shareholder Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Rick Owen at Northern News reports that Bear Lake Gold Ltd. has been served notice that a class action lawsuit in which Gary Henault alleges that Bear Lake and others made certain misrepresentations in July about the company's Larder Lake project. Bear Lake Gold in response to the allegations intends to vigorously defend itself and its assets. The lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court earlier this month by Scott Selig, Esq., at Siskinds LLP. Siskinds has also indicated that it's particularly interested in speaking to investors who purchased securities of Bear Lake Gold Ltd. in the June 2009 or October 2008 private placements of Bear Lake Gold securities, which were underwritten by PI Financial, Primary Capital and Dundee Securities. Mr. Henault is represented by: Scott Selig, Esq. Siskinds LLP 680 Waterloo Street P.O. Box 2520 London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3V8 Phone: (519) 672-2121 Fax: (519) 672-6065 E-mail: scott.selig@siskinds.com CLARK HOLDINGS: To Defend vs. Fuel Surcharges Complain in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Holdings Inc. intends to defend a putative class action complaint filed by Multi-Media International in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to its Aug. 20, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2009. On July 10, 2009, Multi-Media filed a complaint against The Clark Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Clark Distribution Systems, Inc., Highway Distribution Systems, Inc. and Evergreen Express Lines, Inc., and its international operations through its subsidiary, Clark Worldwide Transportation, Inc. Multi-Media is seeking class action status alleging, among other things: (i) common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and unjust enrichment, (ii) violation of N.J. Stat. Sections 56:8-2 and (iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing, relating to alleged excessive fuel surcharges by Clark subsidiaries. The complaint alleges a class period from June 25, 2002, through June 25, 2009. On behalf of the putative class, plaintiff seeks to recover the alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged improper calculation of fuel charges by defendants and impose punitive damages and attorney's fees. The complaint did not specify an amount of damages; however a prior complaint seeking similar relief on behalf of the same class, which was withdrawn, sought compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million and punitive damages in the amount of $30 million. Clark Holdings Inc. -- http://www.glacteam.com-- formerly Global Logistics Acquisition Corporation, is a transportation management and logistics services company whose core business is the shipment of mass market consumer magazines throughout the U.S. and between the United States and other countries. The company was a blank check company formed primarily to effect a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar business combination with an operating business in the transportation and logistics sector and related industries. It did not engage in any substantive commercial business until it consummated its business combination with The Clark Group, Inc. (CGI) on Feb. 12, 2008. Clark owns Clark Distribution Systems Inc. (CDS) and Highway Distribution Systems Inc., through which the company conducts its domestic operations; and Clark Worldwide Transportation Inc. (CWT), which carries out operations overseas. Holdings is considered to be in the development stage. DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Shareholder Class Action Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ Law.com reports that The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge has dismissed a shareholder class action against the former officers and directors of Downey Financial Corp., a mortgage lender that filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in November. "It's the first instance where a court has dismissed with prejudice a complaint filed against the former management of a financial institution that's been taken over by the FDIC," said the attorney who defended Downey, referring to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s takeover of financial institutions during the mortgage crisis. The full story is available at http://editorial.incisivemedia.com/c/12cxEDPvetCOFDKgbiat no charge. EXPEDIA: Future Travel Credit Seen as Best Settlement Option ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachelle Reitz at Examiner.com reports that "Expedia made a smart offer to consumers standing to benefit from the class action settlement resulting from its former practice of bundling taxes and fees which made taxes appear to be more." Ms. Reitz relates that the email she received (as one of those consumers) gives her the option of receiving a cash payment, objecting to the settlement, or requesting exclusion. But a fourth option offers her approximately 2.17 times more Expedia credit for future bookings if she chooses that option over cash payment. "This is a savvy move on Expedia's parts as old customers become return customers in an attempt to get the best return," Ms. Reitz says. "Without a clear idea of how much is coming, many of us will probably trade in a few dollars for a small amount of credit and then either decide to use that credit (and why not?) or will forget about it in time. But there's always the chance that Expedia will woo back old clients and solidify relationships with current ones. And save themselves a little bit in the process." FINCORP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ The Australian reports that a class action has been launched against the trustee of failed property group, Fincorp. Law firm Slater & Gordon, launched a statement of claim against Sandhurst Trustees in late August 2009. Fincorp investors claim that the trustee failed in its duty to protect their interests. Fincorp collapsed in March 2007, but investors feel that Sandhurst should have been aware of its financial problems as early as December 2004. FLORIDA RED-LIGHT CAMERAS: Lawyers Racing to Bring 'Em to a Halt ---------------------------------------------------------------- Florida lawyers are racing to put a stop to red-light traffic cameras, a story from The Associated Press appearing in the Sun- Sentinel says. In the past two weeks, the story relates, several hundred drivers from throughout the state have joined class action suits filed against Aventura, Miami Gardens, Juno Beach and Orlando. Jason Weisser, Esq., leading the latest charge, tells the AP he plans to file a lawsuit against Pembroke Pines, North Miami, Homestead and 16 other local governments in the next two weeks. The full story is available at http://is.gd/2BSiI FRIGIDAIRE: Recalling 200,000 Electric Ranges --------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Frigidaire, a division of Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Augusta, Ga., initiated a voluntary recall of about 200,000 Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Smoothtop Electric Ranges. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Depending on the model, the surface heating elements can: 1) turn on spontaneously without being switched on; 2) fail to turn off after being switched off; or, 3) heat to different temperatures than selected. This poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers. Frigidaire has received 126 reports of incidents, including four reports of minor burns and two reports of minor property damage. This recall involves Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, Frigidaire Professional and Kenmore Elite smoothtop electric ranges with rotary knobs and digital displays. The following model and serial numbers are included in the recall: Frigidaire (Serial Number Range VF122xxxxx - VF831xxxxx) and Models Beginning with: FEFBZ90GC FEFLMC55GC FEFLZ87GC GLEF396AB GLEF396AQ GLEF396AS GLEF396CQ GLEF396CS GLEFM397DB GLEFM397DQ GLEFM397DS GLEFM97FPB GLEFM97FPW GLEFM97GPB GLEFM97GPW LEEFM389FE PLEF398AC PLEF398CC PLEF398DC PLEFM399DC PLEFMZ99EC PLEFMZ99GC PLEFZ398EC PLEFZ398GC Kenmore Elite (Serial Number Range VF122xxxxx - VF334xxxxx) and Models Beginning with: 790.99012 790.99013 790.99014 790.99019 The model and serial number can be found by opening the range drawer at the base of the unit. The appliances were sold at Sears and other national chain and independent retailers nationwide from June 2001 through August 2009 for between $1,000 and $2,500, and were manufactured in the United States. Consumers should stop using the recalled ranges immediately and contact Frigidaire or Sears to schedule a free repair. Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Frigidaire at (800) 449-9812 between 8 a.m. and midnight ET Monday through Saturday or visit the firm's recall Web site at http://www.smoothtoprangerecall.com/ Consumers who purchased their products at Sears should call Sears at (800) 449-9810 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday. CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product at https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Changes to 1998 Heating Vent Pipe Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- The CPSC and Goodman Manufacturing Company, of Houston, Tex., are urging consumers who have not yet responded to the previously announced 1998 recall to do so immediately. After October 1, 2009, the remedy consumers receive will change to be identical to modifications recently announced for a related recall. The recall included about 10,000 Plexvent and Ultravent HTPV pipe systems attached to certain Goodman mid-efficiency furnaces manufactured from October 1988 to July 1994 (models GUP, GDP, GUPS, GDPS, GUPI, GDPI, GUPX, GDPX, GMP and GMPV for the following brands manufactured by Goodman: Janitrol, GMC, Hamilton Electric, Franklin, Liberty and Sears/Kenmore). The HTPV pipe used for these vents could be susceptible to corrosion, cracking and joint separation, which could result in the release of carbon monoxide (CO) into living areas, posing a danger to consumers. Goodman did not manufacture the HTPV pipe. Plexvent owners and Ultravent owners who initiated valid claims on or before October 1, 2009, with remediation completed and required documentation submitted by January 1, 2010, will receive (A) a new, professionally-installed venting system free of charge or (B) a new, high-efficiency Goodman furnace and suitable vent for the manufacturer's price (of just the furnace), with no charge for labor, associated materials or dealer markup. Plexvent owners who initiated valid claims after October 1, 2009, will receive a rebate up to $400 toward either an HTPV replacement system, or a new, high-efficiency furnace from Goodman that does not require HTPV. Ultravent owners who initiated valid claims after Octover 1, 2009, will receive a rebate up to $250 toward either an HTPV replacement system, or a new, high-efficiency furnace from Goodman that does not require HTPV. Consumers who register after October 1, 2009 and who choose to repair their systems will be responsible for up-front payment of parts, labor and permits, and will be responsible for arranging to have the work performed. Consumers should determine whether they have a recalled HTPV pipe system by checking the vent pipes attached to their natural gas furnace. Vent pipes subject to this recall can be identified as follows: -- the vent pipes are plastic; -- the vent pipes are colored gray or black; -- "Plexvent," "Plexvent II" or "Ultravent" is stamped on the vent pipe or printed on stickers placed on pieces used to connect the vent pipes; and -- the vent pipes are located on furnaces and the pipes go through the sidewalls of structures. Other plastic vent pipes, such as white PVC, are not included in the recall. Owners of Goodman furnaces that are vented with HTPV pipe should immediately call Goodman at (800) 394-8084 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Central time, Monday through Friday. CPSC reminds all consumers to have fuel-burning appliances professionally inspected each year to check for cracks or separations in the vents that could allow CO to leak into the home. In addition, CPSC recommends that every home should have at least one CO alarm. CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product at: https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx IKEA HOME: Recalling 500 IKEA KARLSTAD Sofa-Beds ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of approximately 500 IKEA KARLSTAD sofa-beds. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The mattress and seat cushions intended to be used as a mattress fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers. No injuries were reported. The recalled product is the IKEA KARLSTAD sofa-bed frame, article number 801-215-12, supplier number 20789, with date stamps (YYWW) 0845 through 0927 located on a label attached to the underside of the sofa-bed frame. The mattress topper is not affected by this recall. The sofa-beds were sold at IKEA stores nationwide from November 2008 through July 2009 for about $850, and were manufactured in Mexico. Consumers should immediately stop using the mattress and cushions and contact IKEA or visit the Returns and Exchange Department at their local IKEA store to arrange free installation of a replacement mattress and seat cushions. For more information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/ CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product at https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx IKEA HOME: Roman Shade Recall ----------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of approximately 120,000 MELINA Roman Blinds. Strangulations can occur when a child places their neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around their neck. The Roman blind has a continuous looped bead chain that when not attached to the wall or floor, hangs loosely by the blind, posing a strangulation hazard to children. CPSC and IKEA received a report of a two-year-old boy who suffered a near strangulation. His mother found him hanging from the looped bead chain. This recall includes all sizes and colors of MELINA Roman blinds. These blinds have a sewn-in label at the top edge of the blind with the IKEA logotype, article name (MELINA), 5-digit supplier number 19395, four digit date stamp (YYWW) and the words "Made in Taiwan". On the bottom edge of the blind there is a sewn-in orange or white safety warning label. The blinds are made from 100% polyester. The shades were sold at IKEA stores nationwide from August 2006 through June 2008 for between $20 and $40. The shades were manufactured in Taiwan. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Roman blinds and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund. For additional information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/ CPSC reminds consumers to examine all Roman Blinds and shades in their homes. If looped pull cords are present or exposed inner cords are found on the back of blinds or shades and children are in the home or occasionally visit your home, please consider replacing them with blinds or shades that do not have exposed pull cords or inner cords. LEWIS HYMAN: Roll-Up Blind & Roman Shade Recalls ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lewis Hyman, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of 4.2 million roll-up blinds and 600,000 Roman shades after determining that strangulations can occur if the lifting loops slide off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes entangled on the free- standing loop or if a child places their neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material. In November 2007, a one-year-old boy from Norridgewock, Maine, became entangled and strangled in the lift cord loop of a roll-up blind that had fallen into his portable crib. In October 2008, a 13-month-old boy from Conway, Ark., was found with his head between the exposed inner cord and the cloth on the backside of a Roman shade. The cord was not looped around the boy's neck but rather ran from ear to ear and strangled the child. This recall involves roll-up blinds without release clips and all Woolrich Roman shades. The roll-up blinds have plastic oval- shaped slats that measure about 1/4-inch tall. The blinds measure either 72" or 96" long. The bottom rail has a WARNING label advising that "Young children can become entangled and strangle in cord or bead loops" and a label that reads "Lewis Hyman, Inc." and the year of manufacture. Roll-up blinds that have release clips right below the head rail on the backside of the blind are not included in this recall. The Woolrich Roman shades come in twill fabric and micro-suede fabric and measure 72" long. The head rail has two labels that read "Lewis Hyman, Inc., www.lewishymaninc.com" and "LHI, 005301, Made in China" respectively. The Roman shades were sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and on Target.com from March 2006 through December 2008 for between $25 and $43. The roll-up blinds were sold at retail stores nationwide from January 1999 through December 2003 for between $6 and $20. The blinds and shades were manufactured in China. Consumers should immediately check the backside of the roll-up blinds to determine if they have release clips. If the roll-up blind does not have release clips, stop using it immediately and contact Lewis Hyman for a free repair kit. Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and contact Lewis Hyman for a free repair kit. The repair kits for the Roman shades will be available by the end of September. For additional information, contact Lewis Hyman toll-free at (877) 354-5457 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific time, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.lewishymaninc.com/recall LIQUITATION OUTLET: Lead Fears Promps Action Figure Toys Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Liquidation Outlet, Inc., of Lakewood, Wash., initiated a voluntary recall of about 8,400 Force Soldier Playsets, Pirate Expeditions with Parrot, and Pirate Expeditions with Treasure. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The action figure toys have surface paints which contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries were reported. The Force Soldier playsets comes in a plastic bag with SKU number 70134 printed on the header card. The soldiers (two per bag) are 5" in height and come with an airplane, machine guns and a tropical tree. The Pirate Expeditions come in a blister packs in two styles with the SKU number 70136 printed on the header cards. Pirate Expedition figures are 6.5" in height and have assorted accessories including a parrot or a treasure chest. The toys were sold at Dollar Stores in Washington and Oregon States from September 2007 through July 2009 for $1, and were manufactured in China. Consumers should take the recalled products away from young children immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange for another toy. For additional information, contact Liquidation Outlet, Inc. toll-free at (877) 257-5990 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or e-mail info@loidistributing.com or visit one of the Dollar Stores in person. CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product at https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx MAYTAG CORP: Expands Recall of Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Maytag Corp., of Newton, Iowa, announced a voluntary recall of approximately 46,000 more Maytag(R), Magic Chef(R)Performa by Maytag(R) and Crosley(R) brand refrigerators. Approximately 1.6 million units were previously recalled March 2009. An electrical failure in the relay, the component that turns on the refrigerator's compressor, can cause overheating and pose a serious fire hazard. Maytag has received 23 additional reports of refrigerator relay ignition, including 4 reports of property damage ranging from smoke damage to extensive kitchen damage. The recall includes certain Maytag(R), Magic Chef(R),. Performa by Maytag(R) and Crosley(R) brand side-by-side and top freezer refrigerators. The affected refrigerators were manufactured in black, bisque, white and stainless steel. They have model and serial numbers printed on a label located on the top middle or left upper side of the refrigerator liner and have: Serial Numbers Model Numbers ENDING with - and - BEGINNING with --------------- -------------- Side by Side Refrigerators CN, CP, YY, YX MZ Top Freezer Refrigerators CA, CC, CE, CG, CT15G4, CTB152, CTL151, ZB, ZD, ZF, ZH CTM152, CTN151, MTB195, MTB215, MTB245, MTF195, MTF215, PTB155, PTB175, PTB195, PTB215 Refrigerators with freezers on the bottom are not included in this recall. The refrigeration units were sold at department and appliance stores and by homebuilders nationwide from September 2000 through May 2004 for between about $350 and $1,600. The appliances were manufactured in the United States. Consumers should immediately contact Maytag to determine if their refrigerator is included in the recall and if so, to schedule a free in-home repair. Consumers should not return the refrigerator to the retailer where it was purchased. For more information, contact Maytag toll-free at (866) 533-9817 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at: http://www.repair.maytag.com/ CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. Tell the CPSC about it by visiting https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx MGM MIRAGE: Receives Shareholder Suit & Says It Has No Merit ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Lowinger on August 19, 2009, filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Nevada a purported class action against defendants MGM MIRAGE, J. Terrence Lanni, James J. Murren, Daniel J. D'Arrigo and Robert H. Baldwin alleging federal securities laws violations. The complaint includes two counts: (i) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants, and (ii) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the individual defendants. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that, between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the defendants disseminated or approved materially false and misleading statements that misled the investing public regarding the Company's business, operations, management and intrinsic value of its common stock. The Company believes that the allegations set forth in the complaint are without merit. The Company will vigorously defend against the claims but there can be no assurance that the outcome of the proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. About MGM MIRAGE Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, MGM MIRAGE (NYSE: MGM) -- http://www.mgmmirage.com/-- is a hotel and gaming company. It owns and operates 17 properties located in Nevada, Mississippi and Michigan, and has investments in three other properties in Nevada, New Jersey and Illinois. At June 30, 2009, the Company had $22.4 billion in total assets, including $1.07 billion in total current assets; $1.23 billion in total current liabilities, $3.58 billion in deferred income taxes, $12.3 billion in long-term debt, $186.7 million in other long-term obligations; and $5.04 billion in stockholders' equity. NVIDIA CORP: October 19 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 19, 2009, hearing date has been set for an anticipated motion to dismiss the amended consolidated consumer class-action case against NVIDIA Corp. In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class-action lawsuits were filed against the company, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the company's previous generation MCP and GPU products used in notebook systems. Most of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court in the Northern District of California, but three were filed in state court in California, in Federal Court in New York, and in Federal Court in Texas. Those three actions have since been removed or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, where all of the actions now are currently pending. The various lawsuits are titled: -- Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., -- Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp., -- Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard, -- Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard, -- Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., -- Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp., -- National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., and -- West v. NVIDIA Corp. The First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, which no longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc. The various complaints assert claims for, among other things, breach of warranty, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and other consumer protection statutes under the laws of various jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict liability. The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the above cases related under the relevant local rules. On Dec. 11, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class action cases. On Feb. 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the cases, as well as two other cases pending against Hewlett-Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2, 2009. On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On May 14, 2009, the District Court entered a case schedule order, which sets a Sept. 28, 2009 hearing date for an anticipated motion to dismiss, a Dec. 7, 2009 hearing date for anticipated class certification motion, and a July 12, 2010 fact discovery deadline. The District Court subsequently entered an order resetting the hearing date for an anticipated motion to dismiss for Oct. 19, 2009, based on a stipulation of the parties, according to the company's Aug. 20, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 26, 2009. NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is engaged in the provision of programmable graphics processor technologies. The Company's products are designed to generate realistic, interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing devices. It serves the entertainment and consumer market with its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with its Tesla products. It has four product-line segments: the GPU Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer products business (CPB). Its GPU business consists of its GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal computers (PCs), plus memory products. Its PSB consists of its NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla computing products. NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 1 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument is scheduled for Sept. 1, 2009, in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against NVIDIA Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In September 2008, three putative securities class-action suits were filed in the District Court arising out of its announcements on July 2, 2008, that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the company's previous generation media and communications processors or MCPs and graphics processing units or GPUs and that the company was revising financial guidance for its second quarter of fiscal 2009. The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On Oct. 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated into In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260- JW (HRL). Pursuant to the order consolidating the lawsuits, NVIDIA is not obligated to respond to any of the underlying complaints. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were due by Nov. 10, 2008. A hearing on these motions is currently scheduled for Dec. 22, 2008. On Feb. 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On Feb. 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. The Writ is still pending in the Court of Appeals, according to the company's Aug. 20, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 26, 2009. NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the provision of programmable graphics processor technologies. The Company's products are designed to generate realistic, interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing devices. It serves the entertainment and consumer market with its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with its Tesla products. It has four product-line segments: the GPU Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer products business (CPB). Its GPU business consists of its GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal computers (PCs), plus memory products. Its PSB consists of its NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla computing products. PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RTTNews reports that Partner Communications Company Ltd. disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action. The case was filed against Partner, another cellular operator and two content providers and integrators in the District Court of Petach-Tikva. The claim alleges that Partner charged subscribers for certain content services, without their consent. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount of claim against Partner is estimated to be approximately NIS 227.82 million. The company said it is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit. QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls 500 Girls' Waist-Drawstring Hoodies ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Quiksilver, Inc., of Huntington Beach, Calif., is voluntary recalling approximately 500 Roxy Girl "Very Nice" Cotton Hoodies. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The cotton hoodie has a waist drawstring that could pose an entrapment hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines (pdf) to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts. No injuries have been reported. The cotton hoodie, which zips in front and has a drawstring at the waist, came in gray with blue lining and cherry with lavender lining. They were sold in girls' sizes SML-XL. ROXY is printed on the front of the gray hoodie and on the neck label on both colors. The style number, B487857, is printed on the inside care label near the waist. The garments were sold at Nordstrom, Macy's, Quiksilver Stores and various surf, sport, and other retailers nationwide from April 2009 through August 2009 for approximately $40, and were manufactured in China. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hoodies to eliminate the hazard or return it to the place of purchase or to Quiksilver for a full refund. For additional information contact Quiksilver, Inc. toll-free at (877) 246-7257 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.quiksilverinc.com/ The CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product at https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx SUBARU OF AMERICA: Defective Odometer Suit Survives --------------------------------------------------- Law.com reports that Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that a federal judge has refused to dismiss a potential class action brought by customers who claimed Subaru sold or leased them cars with defective odometers. Specifically, the Honorable George Daniels turned aside Subaru's argument that the Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. Secs. 32701-32711, does not apply to the plaintiffs' allegations in Vasilas v. Subaru of America, Case No. 07-CV-2374 (S.D.N.Y.). The full story is available at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433399855 TIME INC: Sports Illustrated Promotion Comes Under Fire ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Time Inc. of deceptive trade: offering a "free" Madden NFL video game for purchase of a $49, six-month subscription to Sports Illustrated, though a regular six-month subscription costs less than half that $49, in Bergen County Court, N.J. A free copy of the complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/27/TimeInc.pdf TOTAL CALL: Settles "Coppolino" Pre-Paid Calling Card Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Call International, Inc., reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a nationwide class action lawsuit related to its sale of prepaid calling cards. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Total Call International distributed or sold prepaid calling cards to consumers without fully disclosing the applicable rates and fees associated with those cards. As part of the settlement, Total Call International denies any wrongdoing or liability. The parties agreed to the settlement to avoid further costs and uncertainties related to litigation. Based upon allegations in class action lawsuits around the country, the prepaid calling card industry has been accused of failing to clearly disclose their rates and fees. Notably, IDT settled such a class action lawsuit in January of 2007 by establishing a $20 million settlement fund; and Locus Telecommunications settled such a class action lawsuit in December of 2008 by establishing a $3.6 million settlement fund. The class action, Coppolino v. Total Call International, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-539 (D. N.J.), remains pending until the settlement agreement is given final approval by the Court. The settlement affects customers who purchased a Total Call International calling card in the United States at any time between January 1, 1999, and July 28, 2009. The settlement will provide refund PINs to those people who either submit a PIN number from an eligible Total Call International calling card or submit a notarized, written statement declaring that they were the purchaser of an eligible Total Call International calling card. Total Call International agreed to provide refund PINs worth up to $1.9 million to eligible consumers of Total Call International calling cards. Eligible consumers are entitled to a refund PIN with a value of $0.50 for domestic calls at $0.10 per minute and international calls to certain countries at $0.25 per minute. If the settlement receives final approval by the Court, members of the settlement class can submit a claim by following instructions at 1-800-546-8305, at Total Call International's Web site at http://www.totalcallusa.com/newsor at the Web site of plaintiffs' counsel at http://www.freedweiss.com/ In order to be subject to the settlement, the Total Call International calling card must have been purchased on or before July 28, 2009. Members of the settlement class requesting a refund PIN will be required to provide their names and addresses, and the name of the calling card associated with the PIN number being submitted. Total Call International will then determine whether the member of the settlement class is eligible for a refund based on confirmation of a legitimate PIN and remaining funds in the pool. If eligible, Total Call International will provide members of the settlement class with a refund PIN. The plaintiffs in Coppolino v. Total Call International, Inc. are represented by Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, James Cecchi, Esq., of Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, and Paul M. Weiss, Esq., of Freed & Weiss LLC and by other class counsel. Class members may contact Class Counsel at Info@FreedWeiss.com or (312) 220-0000. Total Call International is represented by Joseph Boyle, Esq., Danny Adams, Esq., and Geoffrey W. Castello, Esq., of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Roman Shade Recall ----------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pottery Barn Kids/Williams-Sonoma, Inc. of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of 85,000 Roman shades. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Strangulations can occur when a child places their neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around their neck. There have been six reports of children becoming entangled in the exposed inner cord on the back of the shade between March 2006 and July 2008. Four children were found with cords entangled around their necks. Scissors were used to release two of these children. Two children were found with red marks around their necks after having freed themselves. No permanent injuries were sustained. This recall involves all sizes and colors of Pottery Barn Kids roman shades with exposed inner cords on the back. Two sewn-in labels are located at the bottom edge of the shade. The smaller label identifies the manufacturer as "pottery barn kids" while the second larger orange, black and white label warns that "Cords and bead chains can loop around child's neck and STRANGLE." Roman shades with a fabric covering over the cords are not being recalled. The shades were sold in Pottery Barn Kids catalog nationwide and through the firm's Web site at http://www.potterybarnkids.com/ from January 2003 through May 2007 for between $30 and $60. The shades were manufactured in China and Hong Kong. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roman shades and contact Pottery Barn Kids to receive a merchandise card for the purchase value. For additional information, contact Pottery Barn Kids toll-free at (800) 492-1949 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.potterybarnkids.com/ New Securities Fraud Cases BARE ESCENTUALS: Shareholder Suit Filed in San Francisco -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim that Bare Escentuals made false and misleading statements in its registration statement and prospectus. A copy of the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/SCABare.pdf BEAR ESCENTUALS: Scott+Scott File Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- On August 25, 2009, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Bare Escentuals, Inc., and certain current and former directors and executives and its investment bankers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The action for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing Bare Escentuals common stock during the period beginning September 28, 2006, through October 31, 2008, inclusive, including purchases of common stock issued pursuant or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectus filed in connection with the Company's September 28, 2006 initial public offering and March 14, 2007 follow-on-offering. If you purchased Bare Escentuals common stock during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than September 15, 2009. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott at scottlaw@scott-scott.com by e-mail, (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 by telephone, or visit the Scott+Scott Web site at http://www.scott-scott.com/for more information. There is no cost or fee to you. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Bare Escentuals, a developer, marketer and seller of skin care and body care products, made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's sales and financial performance. As a result, the plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as a result of their purchase of Bare Escentuals' common stock during the Class Period, as well as in the initial public offering and March 2007 offering, at artificially inflated prices. The complaint alleges that Bare Escentuals, certain of the Company's officers and directors and its investment bankers disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse facts required to prevent other statements from being materially false or misleading. The scheme: (i) misstated Bare Escentuals' business, operations and the intrinsic value of Bare Escentuals common stock; (ii) allowed Company insiders to collectively sell tens of millions of shares of their personally-held Bare Escentuals common stock at artificially inflated prices, receiving hundreds of millions in proceeds; and (iii) caused Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase Bare Escentuals common stock at artificially inflated prices. The false and misleading statements issued by the Company had the intended effect and caused Bare Escentuals common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period, reaching as high as $42.99 per share on May 30, 2007. By failing to disclose to investors that the Company was experiencing weakness in its infomercial business and related sales and operational defects and difficulties, the picture of Bare Escentuals' business and prospects presented to the investing public was false and misleading. As a direct result of a series of partial disclosures beginning on June 5, 2007, and extending through October 31, 2008, the price of Bare Escentuals common stock declined sharply. As the truth about Bare Escentuals and its financial operations reached the market, including management's October 31, 2008 announcement that it would be forced to slash prices and cut the Company's financial guidance going forward, the price of the Company's common stock plummeted to as low as $4.20 per share in intraday trading, almost 80% below the IPO price and more than 87% below the March 2007 Offering price. CARDIONET INC: Bernard Gross Files Shareholder Suit in E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 09-cv-3894, on behalf of common stock purchasers of CardioNet, Inc. (Nasdaq:BEAT) between April 30, 2009, and June 30, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is pending before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross, Esq., or Susan R. Gross, Esq., at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges CardioNet and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CardioNet is the leading provider of ambulatory, continuous, real-time outpatient management solutions for the monitoring of clinical information on an individual's health. During the Class Period, defendants made positive statements about the Company's revenues and earnings knowingly or recklessly disregarded that it was currently experiencing reductions in its reimbursement rates for its MCOT services and that these reimbursement rates were under review by payors, and a reduction in rates could result in the Company's current independent business model not being economically viable. Defendants' financial outlook for 2009, 2010 and 2011 had no reasonable basis in fact because it was based on the current $1,123.07 rate for the MCOT system, which rate Defendants knew was under review by payors and which was likely to be reduced because of, inter alia, the cost-driven reimbursement environment which was driving down virtually all reimbursement levels set by commercial providers. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of CardioNet, Inc. between April 30, 2009 and June 30, 2009, inclusive. PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August 27, 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 UltraShort Real Estate ProShares fund, 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 shares of the SRS Fund. The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Bernstein Liebhard LLP is also investigating claims concerning other leveraged ETFs sold by ProShares. 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 the following risks in the Registration Statement: (1) if SRS Fund shares were held for a time period longer than one day, the likelihood of catastrophic losses was huge; (2) the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI-i.e., the overwhelming probability, if not certainty, of spectacular divergence; (3) the severe consequences of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance; (4) the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's performance; (5) the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; (6) 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; and (7) the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the SRS Fund. If you purchased or otherwise acquired SRS Fund shares, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in the action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than October 5, 2009. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights as a potential Class member or lead plaintiff, please contact Christian Siebott or Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414. Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities and consumer cases and recovered approximately $2 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last six years. You can view a copy of the complaint online at http://www.bernlieb.com,or obtain it from the court. SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Holzer Holzer Files Lawsuit in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased shares of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., common stock between May 14, 2007, and June 9, 2009, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Skilled Healthcare and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, Skilled Healthcare misrepresented its income and was forced to restate its financial statements. The complaint also seeks damages for what it alleges were similar misrepresentations contained in Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Skilled Healthcares' Initial Public Offering of May 14, 2007. If you purchased shares of Skilled Healthcare common stock during the Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later than September 22, 2009. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you are a Skilled Healthcare investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832. ********* 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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *